Morgue's Toe Tag Blog

Capitalism 101

2012-02-03T14:46:00.000-08:00

Due to widespread abject ignorance within the vast majority or the population, and a concerted effort to use Marxist propaganda to influence the minds of said population, I am writing this humble article with the simple goal to explain what Capitalism is, and what it isn't.

Ask a college-aged urbanite (read Democrat) what Capitalism is, and you're likely get a nonsensical answer with the words "greed" and "unfairness" sprinkled throughout. Keep in mind that even politicians have trouble explaining Capitalism in simple terms, and use things like "free markets" and "opportunity" to define Capitalism. These are a little closer to reality, but are still incorrect.

Let's use that modern invention called the Dictionary to define Capitalism, and it's counterpart: Socialism...

Cap.i.tal.ism (n): \ˈka-pə-tə-ˌliz-əm, ˈkap-tə-, British also kə-ˈpi-tə-\
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market

Although the word free market does appear in the definition, you can have Capitalism without a free market. China is experimenting with free markets in order to boost their economy, while their overall economic system is clearly not Capitalistic. Now let's define Socialism...

So.cial.ism (n): \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property or a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Remember that you can have Socialism AND free markets. As long as the government-controlled industries aren't engaging in price fixing, and other manipulations of the economy, it's essentially a free market. Free Markets work best under Capitalism, but they are not interchangeable terms.

Capitalism (in contrast to Socialism) leaves the control of capital in the hands of those who earned it to do with as they please. This doesn't just apply to business owners, but to employees as well. When an employee leaves one job for a new, higher paying job, they are engaging in Capitalism. They are selling a service (their labor) for the highest bidder. Although Capitalism primarily deals with capital goods (physical wealth), general labor and other intangible services are traded just as much (if not more) than capital goods.

Given that Capitalism is DEFINED by private ownership, it's puzzling that Capitalism is illustrated as control in Socialist propaganda. It's like they're saying: "Don't let business tell you what to do, that's the government's job!". There are two HUGE differences between businesses and government. Obviously there are more than two, but two is more than enough to prove my point.

1) Business lets you "vote" everyday.

Ever notice that after an election, politicians tend to forget about all those promises they made on the campaign trail? Or, do you live in a district or state that's more-or-less controlled by a party that you disagree with. Doesn't it stink that your have no voice, or even if you do have a voice, it only matters one day every couple of years?

Business doesn't work like that, it needs your "vote" everyday. What I mean by "vote", I mean your money. When you shop at Wal-Mart over Target, you are "voting" for Wal-Mart with your money. When you buy Coke instead of Pepsi, you're "voting" for Coke.

Businesses have to constantly appeal to you as a consumer to buy their product or otherwise give them your business. This means that they cannot afford to ignore your demands, or make promises that they have no intention of keeping.

This also means that even if you live in an area where everyone loves Wal-Mart, you can personally make the trip to go to Target. You aren't forced to do business with the company that 51% of the people in your area prefer, you can get exactly what you want every time. Wouldn't it be great if government worked more like that?

Maybe you live in a very rural area with only one general store. However, even in that scenario you have the choice to travel to a nearby town to expand your choices. Compare that to many Socialist countries where they establish one-party rule, and even elections are meaningless because the dictator runs unopposed every election, or all candidates are selected from the same party, and are interchangeable. It also doesn't help that those same countries often build walls to keep their people from leaving like East Germany, or mine-fields like North Korea, or simply rely on shark infested waters like Cuba. At least the guy who owns that one General Store doesn't try to shoot you if you hop in your car to drive to shop elsewhere.

2) Government is Force

Simply put: Business can't FORCE you to buy their product or service ... only the government can. There are instances where the government passes laws that do indeed force you to do business with a company (examples include insurance companies, or licensing boards), but these are usually conditional. For example, if you don't drive a car, you don't need to buy car insurance, and if you don't plan on working in a field that requires a license, you don't need to do business with licensing board, or pay money for specialized training or testing.

When the government taxes you, and then uses that money to subsidize a business, they are (in effect) forcing you to do business with that company (or industry) against your will. This is why subsidies are so perverse, and disrupt markets so much. Companies would LOVE it if they had the ability to tax money from your paycheck against your will, but only the government has that power. However by using lobbying, they can get enough of the tax pie, to make the end result the same.

This brings me to the last part of this article, namely what Capitalism is NOT. Democrats are actively trying to characterize Capitalism as lobbying, subsidies, and bail-outs. However if the government is controlling industry (which they are since they are essentially choosing "winners and losers" in business) they are actually practicing Socialism, namely Corporatism, which places industry leaders are surrogates of government control, but ultimately do the bidding of the government. Corporatism is NOT Capitalism, although there is private ownership, the government calls all the shots and enforces it's edicts through force.

The last two things are Leftists use to define Capitalism are "greed" and "unfairness". However those are loaded terms designed to promote a negative emotional response. Is an employee who gets a job with a higher paying company being greedy? I suppose his former employer might think so, but most of us would see this as an example of the employee getting the best deal for his labor and wouldn't disparage them for it. They also discount the role that investment has on business, and that stockholders are everyday people with 401k plans who just want to make a decent return to keep up with inflation. I could go on and on about the whole "greed" thing.

Imagine a father who goes to work to provide for his family, likely a familiar scenario to most of us. The father may give to his church or other charity, but he primarily earns his money for the use of himself and his family. He may even HATE his job, and he would certainly enjoy spending more time with his family if he didn't have to work, but he goes to work to keep his family in their home and provide for their needs.

What I've just described is how business works. Companies are primarily responsible for their shareholders (not society in general). They may do some charity work or give to the community in other ways, in a similar way as the previously mentioned father, but primarily they are earning money to re-invest in their company (to grow it) or pay the shareholders a return on their investment.

Somehow businesses are expected to operate without a profit (and thus never expand) or they are being greedy. It would be like asking the father to work for the same wage his entire life without a raise, even if he has more children and really needs the extra income. It's absurd, but that's how the Left sees businesses, and that's how they define greed.

What about "unfairness". Well imagine that same father going to work and providing for his family. He has 2 sons, one of which is an all-star athlete, while the other is not. His athletic son goes to college on a scholarship, and gets drafted to the NFL and makes millions of dollars. His other son has to work REALLY hard in school in order to earn an academic scholarship, but eventually gets to college and becomes a doctor.

In the above example, we have 2 sons; one has natural talent, and the other has to work really hard (and probably acquire a lot of student loan debt) in order to make a living even remotely close to his NFL playing brother. In fact, even as a Doctor, the second son is likely making far less than his brother in the NFL. Isn't that unfair?

Let's say there is a third son who is a slacker and gets an unremarkable blue-collar job somewhere. He doesn't make nearly as much as his Doctor brother, let alone his NFL player brother. Isn't that unfair?

When you get down to the root of it all, the cries of "unfairness" are cries against life itself. Some people are born with natural talent, others have a better work ethic than others. Some people succeed, and some people fail. What's interesting is that Socialism doesn't solve this problem, it just replaces advancement through merit with advancement though membership in the government.

In Socialist countries the only way to better your situation is to rise within the government, or through the blessing of government. There is still MASSIVE inequality, but it is between those within the government, and those outside of the government.

In short, the "unfairness" label is just as applicable to Socialism, because unfairness is a part of life. How is taking money by force from those who earned it, and distributing it to those that did not fair?

I hope you found this article helpful, and have a better understanding of Capitalism.

The Brilliance of the Super Committee

2011-11-22T04:41:00.000-08:00

The vast majority of commentators and reporters are saying that the Super Committee (the 12 member Congressional group tasked with cutting over $1T in 10-years or automatic cuts would happen to Medicare and Defense) was a bad idea, and that it's failure represents a failure of the parties to compromise ... blah blah blah.

The truth (in my opinion) is that the Super Committee's "failure" was the whole point on the Super Committee. Some people think that the failure of the Super Committee only benefits the Democrats because it allows Obama to run against a "do-nothing" Congress, but I think the truth is more fundamental.

The problem with our budget is that nobody wants to make any cuts. Democrats won't cut any welfare programs, and Republicans won't cut anything in the Pentagon. However the status-quo is unsustainable, and with an election next year, nothing controversial is going to pass because the other party will use it as a wedge issue next year.

So what's the solution? Set up a committee that's designed to fail, and make the consequence of that failure modest (but unpopular) cuts. This allows both parties to make cuts without being blamed. The Democrats can blame Republicans for not raising taxes, and Republicans can blame Democrats for not cutting entitlements. However, neither party (and this is VERY important) can directly point at the other and blame them for VOTING to cut Medicare or the Defense budget.

Despite the media hysteria, the automatic cuts actually GROW the Defense budget by 16% over the next decade (instead of 23%), and the Medicare budget by 71% (instead of 74%). Remember that when Washington talks about "cuts" they are talking about cutting from the baseline budget which is automatically projected to grow each year. It's not a REAL cut (where we're spending less than before), we're just slowing the RATE of growth. This is how I know that the Super Committee was never serious to begin with. If the automatic cuts were meant to force the members to make compromises, they wouldn't have been so small.

Obama has vowed to veto any bill that attempts to reinstate the spending from the automatic cuts. He gets to run on being a champion for cuts, the Republicans can attempt to pass a bill to restore Defense spending (which will fail) and get credit. The Democrats can do likewise with Medicare is order to get credit with Seniors. Everyone looks better, and spending ONLY goes up by such an amount as opposed to more. It's a win/win for both sides. Sure taxpayers lose, but it's the tax payers who are demanding that spending not be cut to the things that need to be cut the most. The Super Committee is actually a brilliant idea to make small reductions in growth without getting one's hands "dirty" by actually voting for tough cuts themselves.

Politicians as many things, but collectively they understand how to win elections and secure their power.

The Changing Face of the Independent

2011-11-17T06:23:00.000-08:00

I had an epiphany recently, but I wanted to research it and confirm my instincts before I wrote about it. I've noticed that polls have started favoring Obama MORE in the last couple of years, even as things in the country have gotten WORSE. How could that possibly be?

The meme in the media is that the Tea Party has dragged the Republican party so far to the right than Independents have abandoned the GOP and started supporting Democrats. This doesn't make sense because if that was true the 2010 mid-term elections wouldn't have been the biggest landslide for Republicans in half a century. The GOP may only control the House, but they took control of many states and governor seats, and some of the states haven't been controlled by Republicans since the post-Civil War Reconstruction period. Clearly this is not a case of the public turning from the Republican Party, but what is it?

In truth, it actually IS the Tea Party's fault, but not in the way the media is trying to spin it. What's happened is that a lot of formerly registered Independents have joined the Republican Party because of the Tea Party. Likewise a lot of Liberals have become registered Independents. It's a reversal of the Bush years when a lot of Conservatives became Independents to protest the Republican's abjection of Conservative principles. However, when the elections (or polls) came around, they would vote to re-elect Bush than vote for a Democrat.

The same phenomenon is happening now within the Democrat Party. Democrats who see their party extending the Bush Tax Cuts (i.e. the tax rates for the last 10 years), continuing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (in addition to addition pseudo-wars like Libya, Yemen, and Uganda), and the cozy relationships that Democratic politicians have with the very Wall-Street that they vilify in public; their response is the same as Conservatives during the Bush years. They have changed their party affiliation to Independent ... but they are still Liberal Democrats at the end of the day.

What is my proof? When the Tea Party was new is was largely Independent. Now it's composed of 54% registered Republicans, and only 36% registered Independent. What happened to the Independents? Did they quit the Tea Party, or did they change their party affiliation in order to vote in the primaries?

I used to BE one of those Independents. I was a registered Libertarian for years, but have changed my party affiliation to Republican so I can have a voice in the primary process. Also, many states have open primary elections where independents can vote within the Democrat or Republican primaries, which makes official party affiliation even more inconsequential.

Now let's look at the Occupy Wall-Street movement (OWS). The group (and it's various spin-off Occupy groups) overwhelmingly support Obama, Unions, Marxism, et all. These are Democrats through and through, and will NEVER vote for a Republican (not even Ron Paul). What percentage of the OWS movements are made up of registered Independents? 70% are registered Independents, and 29% are registered Democrat. However these are not Independent voters, they are just Democrats who are making a personal statement to the Democrat Party. They are surely going to all vote for Obama in 2012 no matter what. Their independence is strictly "in-house" within the Democrat Party itself.

Now let's look at the polls. Before the 2010 elections, when most the Tea Party were not registered Republicans, Obama and his Liberal policies were polling in the 30s. There would always be this 25-30% of every poll that supported Obama and the Democrats no matter what.

Things have since gotten worse. The Democrats in the Senate refuse to pass anything the Republican House sends them, unemployment hasn't moved, and oil is over $100 a barrel in November! Surely the Democrats should be seen in an even WORSE light now. Surely they would be triangulating in order to get back those lost voters from 2010.

Polls have shown that support for Democrats is UP! Die-hard support for Obama is up from the 25-30% range to the 45-55% range. This would be insane ... if not for how the polls are sampled. In order for a poll to be seen as unbiased, it limits the samples from three groups: Registered Democrats, Registered Republicans, and Registers Independents (or other 3rd Parties). Obviously if a poll was conducted where 60% of those polled were registered Republicans, and showed a favoritism toward a Republican proposal, there would be an obvious perception of bias. However when you limit the sampling of these three groups to 33% each (give or take), and the Independents have moved to the Left ... what is the result? A "bump" in Democratic poll numbers is the obvious result.

So what can we take away from this? Well it simply means that you have to take national polls with a grain of salt. We are still a "center-right" nation, and all the recent elections have proven that. The only big election the Democrats have won since 2010 is to repeal a Union reform bill in Ohio because it included police and firefighters (unlike the one in Wisconsin which was not repealed). However it's very Conservative to support law enforcement. Even when the Democrats "win", it's only through the Conservative vote. I'm confident that if Ohio passed a similar Union reform bill that exempted police and firefighters that it would not be successfully repealed.

This may actually work out to the Tea Party's benefit because the Democrat Party are following the polls, and believe that they have the American people on their side. They think they can push for tax increases and demonize Conservatives and win the elections in 2012 because the polls say so. 2012 may be an even bigger blowout for the Democrats than 2010 was, which would be a very good thing because there is no way to fix all the problems we face if we're forced to "reach across the isle" because the GOP does not control enough of the Congress to pass needed reforms.

Maybe I'm wrong, and the American people really have turned against the Tea Party, and are ready to embrace European Socialism, a lower standard of living, and perpetual 10% unemployment. We'll see in 2012, but I truly believe that the polls have been skewed in recent years because of the changing face (and ideology) of registered Independent voters.

(UPDATED) What Happened to Herman Cain?

2011-11-16T10:50:00.000-08:00

I want to start off by saying that I'm still currently supporting Herman Cain among the Republican field for President, but Mr Cain certainly isn't making it easy to support him.

It was so easy at first, he's a political outsider with fresh and simple solutions to problems that require simple (but hard) solutions. The fact that he was black was frosting on the cake because it would take the "race card" away from the Democrats in the upcoming election. With the #Occupy class-warfare movement becoming recognized as the perverted joke that it always was, racism is all the Democrats have. Herman Cain would have left the Democrats completely unarmed in 2012.

I also don't see anything coming from the alleged sexual harassment complaints. It seems wildly out of character, and it seems odd that all the complaints came from his time as the NRA (National Restaurant Association), but there have been no complaints from ANY of the other jobs that he's held. Nobody at his radio show, Godfather's Pizza, Pillsbury, etc, have complained. Why only the NRA?

Another problem is the inconsistency of the allegations. Three out of four of the vague allegations were explicitly non-sexual, and consisted of words. I've had waitresses at Denny's call me "Sweety". Is that sexual harassment? Not to me, but I can see someone else complaining about it if it was a male calling a female "sweety". However, those words aren't explicitly sexual, and are merely sexist or misogynistic. The 4th "accuser" (and the first to go public) told a tale of what goes far beyond sexual harassment, and qualifies as sexual assault. She also NEVER filed a complaint, and yet her complaint is the most explicit.

It all sounds like a bunch of crap by the MSM and the Democrats to protect the race card from a Black Republican candidate. I have no doubt that nothing will come of these allegations because frankly, if the details were worth reporting, they would have already been reported.

So what is my problem with Herman Cain? It's his complete ignorance of foreign affairs and policy. Now originally I was willing to overlook this because I knew that Herman Cain's background was in the economy, and I assumed that he would learn "on the road" in preparation for debates and such. However his ignorance is by his own design. While defending himself from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel (which brought us the minute-long pause video of Herman Cain not knowing how to respond to a simple question about Libya) said...

“I’m not supposed to know anything about foreign policy. Just thought I’d throw that out,”

Yes you are! You're not supposed to know EVERYTHING about foreign policy (that's what advisers are for), but to say that you're not supposed to know ANYTHING about foreign policy? How are you supposed to make decisions if you know nothing about the subject?

Will he simply delegate foreign policy decision to the Secretary of State? Boy I hope he appoints the right guy because the voters have no input in that. I think we owe it to the people serving in our military to have a Commander in Chief that knows SOMETHING about the wars that they're dying in, or at least indicates a willingness to learn.

Does anyone remember when President Obama appointed a a CEO for GM who knew nothing about cars? Edward Whitacre was the CEO of AT&T, and Obama made him the CEO of GM. He openly admitted that he didn't know anything about cars, but notice something about the following quote:

“I don’t know anything about cars,” Whitacre, 67, said yesterday in an interview after his appointment. “A business is a business, and I think I can learn about cars. I’m not that old, and I think the business principles are the same.”

Compare that quote to Cain's comment that he's not supposed to know anything about foreign policy, and apparently has no desire to learn until his first day on the job as a President of a nation fighting multiple wars.

I'm still supporting Herman Cain for now because I think that among all the candidates, Cain's problems are the most easily fixed. The average person who follows the news knows enough about foreign policy to be better than Obama. All Herman Cain has to do is read a couple books, and have a little intellectual curiosity about how the world works, and what America's role is within in.

So... Mr Cain ... please ... talk to people. As a major candidate for President, I'm sure that a lot of people would be willing to take your call and educate you about Libya, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and every other issue that you will be asked during this election process.

UPDATE: 22 NOV 2011 - Herman Cain has refuted that he said that he shouldn't know anything about foreign policy, but instead has stated that he used the word "everything". Whether or not this is a case of a misunderstanding or misspeaking is still up for debate. Here is Herman Cain's answer to the claim...

"A few days ago, after coming under criticism for my answer to a question about Libya in an interview, I made a lighthearted comment that reflected all this – that I’m not supposed to know everything (most of the media quoted me as saying “anything”) about foreign policy.

Bizarre things happen when you run for president, one of which is that statements like this go viral, with people claiming I had somehow made the case that no knowledge of world affairs is required for the job.

I obviously don’t think that, but I’m also quite willing be honest about my strengths. My background is in the business world, and my greatest strength concerns the economy. My motivation in running for president is to apply my leadership skills to all issues – foreign and domestic. But clearly, as I have met with foreign policy luminaries like John Bolton and Henry Kissinger, I have done a lot more listening than talking – because they know a lot more about it than I do, and it would be absurd for me to claim otherwise."

So maybe there's hope. I'm still a Cain supporter, and this is a promising sign.

Demystifying Anonymous

2011-11-09T04:41:00.000-08:00

The Hacker collective Anonymous has made headlines this morning vowing to attack the Muslim Brotherhood.

In addition, a few weeks ago, they vowed to attack the Mexican Drug Cartels for holding one of their members, and the cartel actually released the person to avoid having sensitive information about local collaborating released to a rival gang.

What's interesting is that aside from leaked information, Anonymous doesn't have the capability to do anything but slow/shut down a website. When Anonymous attacks a website, they aren't hacking into the system to gather personal information, they are simply performing a denial of service attacks. The headlines that they are generating is only due to people's ignorance about what Anonymous is capable of.

A Denial of Service Attack (DoS Attack) is when a computer connects to a server and sends a constant stream of packets (data) to the server in order to slow it down. When enough people do this the server become overloaded and gets shut down completely. However no long-term damage is down, and once the attack stops, business continues as usual.

This is why Anonymous has to coordinate their attacks by assigning an exact date, these sorts of attacks require a large amount of people to attack the website simultaneously to be effective.

The problem is that these attacks are just as easy to defeat as they are to conduct. The Website admins have a couple of options. They can simply outlast the attack, but there are also programs that allow you to "drop" unverified packets altogether.

This is why Anonymous has successfully taken down private websites from anti-gay groups, but haven't been able to take down major websites like Facebook. Any company with a major web presence knows how to defend themselves against these attacks.

Perhaps you remember how Anonymous took down a few websites that trafficked in kiddie porn a few months ago. It got headlines, and began the trend of Anonymous appearing in the news more frequently. According to the news media, they shut down the websites and turned over user information to law enforcement. The world is now a safer place because of Anonymous. The truth is far less exciting...

Anonymous did attack the website ... using a DoS Attack. The website responded by opening up a new server (websites that traffic in illegal material are used to being shut down and stay mobile by being able to change locations as their primary servers are shut down, either by groups like Anonymous or law enforcement). The website was not permanently shut down, so in the end Anonymous accomplished nothing more than slowing down the flow of kiddie porn.

However, they did provide law enforcement with user information right? Couldn't law enforcement use this information to find the perverts behind the website and bring them to justice? Actually no, because the only thing that Anonymous could track were the user's IP address which only tracks as far as the city the user is in, and not anything as specific as someone's address that can be used as evidence in court.

Want to know how easy (and useless) this information is? Just go to this website...

http://whatismyipaddress.com/

You should see the city you're in right now, if it scares you how easily the internet can track you, calm down. Keep in mind that millions of people live in your city alongside you, and even if people WANTED to find you, it would be like looking for a needle in a football stadium full of hay.

So that's all Anonymous is, a bunch of self-absorbed hackers who can't do anything more than slow down a website for a day or two. They can't defeat child pornography, let alone the Muslim Brotherhood or the Mexican Drug Cartels. Some targets (like the Cartel) may simply play it safe and go along with modest demands, but they shouldn't expect these bluffs to work forever. They are enjoying their current media attention, and trying to make themselves sound more powerful than they actually are. The media is simply showing it's own technical ignorance by presenting these hollow threats as news. You'd think they'd ask someone who knows a little about computers about these threats to see if they are even possible.

I suppose Warner Brothers is happy with the increased sales of Guy Fawkes masks, since they own the copyrights for "V for Vendetta".

OWS Vs The Tea Party: Big Business

2011-11-08T08:36:00.000-08:00

I have a good friend that is an avowed socialist (little "s") and a supporter of the Occupy Wall Street movement (OWS). We sometimes have long dialogues about the differences in our ideologies, but we have found a way to remain friends and disagree without being disagreeable. Although we are by no means spokesmen for either the OWS movement or the Tea Party, I will attempt to explain the divergent approaches that both movements take to address the same problem from the perspective of two supporters of each movement respectively.

The greatest irony is that both movements started because of the same thing, the bailouts of banks and cronyism of the government that "saved" the banks. I was curious as to why OWS took years to organize, when the TEA Party organized in almost direct response to the bailouts, but I'm told by my friend that it's because of the Republican takeover of Congress in 2010. Prior to the Republican takeover of the House, the hope was that the Democrats would be able to fix the problem, but since they no longer control the House, OWS was launched since the Republicans are "obviously" pawns of "Big Business".

My goal isn't to refute the above explanation. Whether or not their reasons for forming OWS when they did was based on reality or not is inconsequential. The point is that OWS is indeed a Left-wing version of the Tea Party, and didn't form sooner because they believed that the Democrats were going to fix the problem while they controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House. The reverse can be seen in the Tea Party, which has hosted fewer rallies, and been far less of a presence since the 2010 election when they made massive gains. It seems that the "street activity" that's carried out is inversely proportional to the amount of political influence that the movement enjoys.

So both movements opposed the bailouts of the banks, but for vastly different reasons. The Tea Party believed that the bailouts shouldn't have happened at all, and that the banks should have failed. The OWS movement believes that the homeowners should have been bailed out instead of the banks ... or something. The OWS movement is largely incoherent, but they are defiantly against banks ... I think.

In discussions with my friend, he traces his opposition to multinational corporations, which (according to him) are exploiting workers in foreign countries, costing American jobs, and paying off politicians though campaign contributions in order to maintain their power. Now I agree with him that there is rank political corruption and cronyism between Washington and Wall Street, but I (unlike him) do not find it's genesis with business, but with government.

Both sides recognize that there is a big problem with corporations and government "getting into bed". However the OWS movement is advocating for policies that would only make the problem worse, while the Tea Party is advocating for the only solution to the problem ... small government.

Sarah Palin (arguably the "face" of the Tea Party movement) said that following in an Iowa speech earlier this year...

"No, they don’t feel the same urgency that we do. But why should they? For them business is good; business is very good. Seven of the ten wealthiest counties are suburbs of Washington, D.C. Polls there actually – and usually I say polls, eh, they’re for strippers and cross country skiers – but polls in those parts show that some people there believe that the economy has actually improved. See, there may not be a recession in Georgetown, but there is in the rest of America.

Yeah, the permanent political class – they’re doing just fine. Ever notice how so many of them arrive in Washington, D.C. of modest means and then miraculously throughout the years they end up becoming very, very wealthy? Well, it’s because they derive power and their wealth from their access to our money – to taxpayer dollars. They use it to bail out their friends on Wall Street and their corporate cronies, and to reward campaign contributors, and to buy votes via earmarks. There is so much waste. And there is a name for this: It’s called corporate crony capitalism. This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk. No, this is the capitalism of connections and government bailouts and handouts, of waste and influence peddling and corporate welfare. This is the crony capitalism that destroyed Europe’s economies. It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest – to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners – the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70% of the jobs in America, it’s you who own these small businesses, you’re the economic engine, but you don’t grease the wheels of government power."

The problem is easily recognized and diagnosed by both sides of the political isle, and yet we have two movements which have nothing at all in common with each-other. Both recognize the disease, but have opposite suggestions for the cure. Before I explain the Tea Party solution (i.e. small government) and why it's the only viable solution, let's discuss all the ways the OWS has suggested solving the problem, why they've all already been tried, and why they have (and always will) fail and make the problem worse in the end.

OWS Solution 1: Increase Taxes on large Corporations, and give the money to ______.

The entity on the receiving end of the tax is inconsequential. The point is that the problem is solved by raising taxes on corporations. You see if corporations pay more taxes, they'll have less money to hire lobbyists, and they'll be less involved in government, and they'll be less corruption in government as a result. Got it?

Why is fails: Simply put, when the government is more involved in business, business becomes more involved in government out of basic self-preservation. Business lobbyists will spend millions of dollars to influence law-makers to ensure that new taxes don't affect them, or hurt their competition more than them. They'll lobby for loopholes in the new law, and make sure business can continue as usual.

The easiest test to know who a new regulation will benefit is to look at which companies are lobbying for it. GE is pushing "green energy", not because it gives as crap about the planet, but because it stands to make billions of dollars of government mandated green technology that it owns the patents too.

Raising taxes on businesses only increases disparity and corruption. The largest corporations (the ones with the lobbyists) basically write their own regulations and crowd out their underfunded competition. In the end, these corporations don't pay the taxes anyway, and the customers and left holding the bag. Corruption is worse than before, and the businesses have even more power because there is less competition.

OWS Solution 2: Keep corporations from lobbying or donating to political campaigns.

If corporations couldn't give money to politicians, then they couldn't influence them, and there would be no corruptible relationships between businesses and government.

Why it fails: Aside from being unconstitutional, it's easily circumvented. Even before the Supreme Court struck down McCain-Feingold, businesses were still giving generously to political campaigns. They simply had to launder the money through a PAC (Political Action Committee). PACs sprang up like weeds after McCain-Feingold was passed, and because they weren't corporations they could give all they wanted and sponsor their own ads themselves. The law did absolutely NOTHING to keep corporations from giving to campaigns. It is similar to a teenager getting their older brother to buy alcohol for them because they couldn't legally buy it themselves. In the end the teenager still got the alcohol, and the law created (at best) a speed bump.

Some people may think that this problem can be solved by keeping all organizations from contributing to campaigns, so that only individuals can donate. This would hurt the corporations and the PACs, but it would also hurt the Unions and Leftist organizations that engage in the same practice. In fact, if only individuals could donate, the rich would have the most power because they would be the people with the most income to donate to political campaigns. By attacking corporate donations, you're advocating for the inequitable influence of the rich themselves. Something I don't think would be the goal, but in fact would be the inevitable consequence.

However, as I said at the beginning, all of this is unconstitutional anyway, so it's a non-issue.

OWS Solution 3: More government regulation

Business is corrupt, so we need more government bureaucrats to oversee the business, because they're elected and answerable to the people.

Why it fails: Aside from Congressman, Senators, and the President of the United States, government employees and bureaucrats ARE NOT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, and thus are not answerable to the people. Even if they were, they would only be "answerable" every couple years or so.

Outside of government, corporations must fight for your "vote" every day. Your vote is what business you choose to spend your money at. Compare that to a politicians that only has to pretend that they care on an election year. Which do you think serves the interest of people better?

Also never mind that adding more regulators will do nothing to solve corruption when the corruption is INSIDE THE GOVERNMENT. It's easy to blame the evil corporations for giving the money to the politicians, but the politicians who accept the money and vote according to corrupt practices instead of the will of their voters are far worse. How is adding more government regulation going to do anything to stop the corruption itself? Ever heard of the expression of the fox guarding the hen house?

OWS Solution 4: End Capitalism.

Capitalism is the problem. If the government owned everything and there were no corporations then there would be no corrupt relationships between business and government. Since the government is elected by the people, the government is answerable to the people.

Why it fails: The above argument might be worth considering in the 1900s. However Socialism has been tried ... over ... and over ... and over again. It fails each and every time. It fails because a government that can give anything can take everything. the only modern Communist countries are Cuba and North Korea; and are abject hell-holes. East Germany didn't build a wall to keep the Capitalist refugees OUT of their Communist paradise, they used it to keep their slaves from escaping to freedom. Communism (at best) retards economic growth, and (at worst) leads to universal abject poverty except for those at the very top with all the power and wealth.

Property rights are the keystone of freedom. Marxism simply cannot work on any level, and those who argue in favor of it in the 21st century are wholly ignorant. Even China and Russia have abandoned Marxist economics in order to pull their countries out of 3rd-world status. Simply talk to someone who's lived in a Communist country for 5 minutes. No further discussion is necessary.

Alright I've gone over the OWS solutions, how they've been tried, and why they'll never work. Now here's the Tea Party solution...

Tea Part Solution: Small Government

It's simple! The lobbyists and business interests are in Washington because Washington has the power to pick winners and losers in business. They are FORCED to lobby to protect their businesses from ignorant populist politicians and lobbyists representing their competition. As Washington's power grows, businesses spend more and more money to influence Washington for their benefit.

How to we stop this vicious cycle? By shrinking Washington DC's power and influence over business. If we get rid of the Corporate Tax altogether there is no reason to be in DC lobbying for loopholes in the tax. If we get rid of burdensome regulations then there's no reason for businesses to lobby to influence the writing of regulations.

So if Washington DC isn't influencing businesses, what will? Competition will, and it does it much better than any government can ever dream to. If you notice, all the OWS solutions limit completion. Regulation, speech laws, and taxes benefit the largest companies and put smaller competitive corporations out of business. State control creates a government monopoly, and puts all private corporations out of business.

Competition is the only force that can solve the corruption problem in business and Washington. Government does have a role in all of this, but it's to get out of the way, and let the creative destruction of Capitalism work. Arguing for more government control is counterproductive, and actually empowers the largest corporations at the expense of their competition, thus making the problem worse than it was before.

If you're a Marxist hippy who's part of OWS because you just want to watch the world burn, then this article was not written for you. This article was written for those who actually see a problem with the corruption of big business and government, and actually want to solve the problem. If that sounds like you, I invite you to join the Tea Party and stand for small government against corporate and government corruption.

The Political Umbrella Chart

2011-11-04T10:37:00.000-07:00

I've been a fan of the Nolan Chart, which is a simple diamond-shaped chart to map people's political beliefs between two criteria: economic and social freedom. In fact I link to the Nolan Chart on this blog, and it’s still a great test, but over time I’ve noticed a missing issue: foreign policy.

My resulting chart I have named “The Political Umbrella” because it looks like an umbrella and the umbrella metaphor has been used to describe political movements already so it’s serendipitously appropriate. Allow me to present the Chart and explain the various parts, all but two of which will already be familiar to those who have already taken the Nolan Chart test.

There are two primary divisions in the chart; the upper half represents small government, and the lower half represents large government, while the three sub-divisions within the two halves represent the issues of economic policy, foreign policy, and personal freedom. By explaining the differences (and relationships) between the six separate sections of the umbrella, these terms and labels will become clearer.

Isolationist:

The Isolationist believes primarily in non-engagement with foreign nations.

Isolationist – Libertarian: Libertarians believe in freedom within markets, and in the lives of individuals. Isolationism extends that freedom to the rest of the world (for good or ill). They interpret the term “Department of Defense” literally, and believe that the military should only be used to counter aggression, and should not be involved overseas for anything that doesn’t involve attacks against the United States. Even in cases when America has been attacked, the Isolationist Libertarian will seek non-military approaches to the problem, or use methods such as selling weapons to an oppositional force before supporting the United States to personally go to war itself.

Isolationist Libertarianism is the traditional Libertarian position, and is most notably embodied by Congressman Ron Paul and his supporters.

Isolationist – Conservative: Conservatives believe that although the free market is the engine of national prosperity that the government has a role in outlawing certain private behaviors in the name of a civil society. Conservatives oppose things such as gay marriage and recreational drug use. A Conservative’s belief in isolationism is born from beliefs that foreign influences lead to a breakdown of the civil society that they seek to protect. An Isolationist Conservative supports sealed borders, less immigration, racial segregation, or forced assimilation in order to protect the civil society from foreign influence that they view as (at best) inferior or (at worst) dangerous.

Isolationist Conservatives are often characterized as racists or bigots by their opponents and as pro-American patriots by their supporters. The facts is that they care little (if at all) about the physical characteristics of immigrants, and thus are not racists. They merely oppose the cultures that these immigrants often bring with them, and seek to preserve what they view as the “American culture”.

Isolationist – Liberal: Liberals believe that the government has a role in managing the economy to promote fairness and protect people from exploitative businesses and corporations. They believe that people should otherwise be free to do what they want in their private life however, and believe in personal freedom. Isolationist Liberals are motivated by economic factors and support tariffs and taxes on foreign-made goods in order to protect American jobs. They support punishing companies that outsource jobs overseas or keep their assets in tax shelters in foreign countries. Needless to say, Isolationist Liberals oppose free trade agreements with foreign countries.

Isolationist – Statist: Statists believe that the government should control the average person’s economic and private lives. The Isolationist Statist is also known as the National Socialist, which is also known as the Fascist. Fascism needn’t be Nazism necessarily, but unlike Communism, Fascism believes in national superiority. When engaging in war, a nation of Isolationist Statism will seek to expand its own borders rather than to establish a “union” of confederate nations as the Communists did in order to preserve their national identity culturally and economically.

Interventionist:

Interventionists believe in engaging with foreign countries, both economically and regarding military action.

Interventionist - Libertarian: Libertarians believe in freedom, and Interventionist Libertarians believe in spreading that freedom through promotion of free trade agreements, and in some cases war or foreign aid.

Interventionist – Conservative: Because Conservatives believe that culture can change the direction of a country; they are most likely to support nation building, or military action with the goal of “spreading democracy”. It is their belief that by spreading our culture and ideals that we can create a freer, more peaceful world.

Interventionist – Liberal: Interventionist Liberals are the most likely to identify themselves as multicultural, or “citizens of the world”. They are quick to support wars for humanitarian reasons (i.e. preventing genocide), but slow to support military action for other reasons short of a direct attack or declarations of war.

Interventionist – Statist: Statists believe that the government should control the average person’s economic and private lives. The Interventionist Statist is also known as the International Socialist, which is also known as the Communist. Communists support international agreements and bodies (i.e. EU, UN, etc) but not national expansion. They support wars in order to further these bodies and agreements.

Libertarian:

Libertarians believe in limited government, and that people should be free both economically and in their private lives.

Conservative:

Conservatives believe in free markets, but believe in protecting the civil society by using government to regulate private behavior.

Liberal:

Liberals believe in personal freedom, but also believe that the government should manage the economy.

Statist:

Statists believe in government control of the economy, and in the personal lives of the average citizen.

Winning the South ... of America

2011-08-22T14:17:00.000-07:00

When it comes to the minority vote, the Democrat Party has a pretty large chunk. The Black Community is a lock for the Democrats, and the Hispanic community tilts leftward as well. With demographic trends showing the Hispanic population growing, and overtaking the white population in less than 40 years, it seems that the Democrats are poised for perpetual control within our lifetime.

However Cubans vote Republican … huh? Why do Cubans vote for Republicans while other Hispanic groups vote for Democrats? It’s really easy to comprehend when you think about it.

In 1966 the Cuban Adjustment Act gave any Cubans who escaped the hellhole that is Cuba to the shores of the United States automatic citizenship. Many people point to Cuban’s distain for Communism as the reason that they vote for Republicans but it’s actually much simpler than that, it’s the fact that the fear of deportation isn’t hanging over them as it does among other Hispanic groups.

Hispanics have strong religious and family values, and by all measures SHOULD vote Republican, and yet they vote for Democrats. The reason is simple: There is a perception that the Republicans want to deport them, while the Democrats want them to stay. It’s just that simple.

Let’s say you’re a Hispanic citizen. You’re legal, but your parents aren’t. You have strong social conservative values, and dislike Socialism. However if you vote for Republicans, they might step up enforcement and send your parents back to the Socialist country that they escaped from. If you vote for Democrats, you might eventually turn this country into a Socialist hellhole too, but that’s a long-term concern. Your immediate concern is for your family. If you are Hispanic, or know anyone who’s Hispanic you should know how important family is.

So despite your personal politics and desire to oppose Socialism and stand for Conservative values you vote Democrat every election. That’s the issue the Republican Party faces moving forward, and with the coming demographic shift towards a Hispanic majority, it’s an issue the Republicans had better address. I’m now going the address two main “solutions”, and show why they are wrong and will backfire.

1. Deportation
Strictly from the perspective of the Hispanic vote, this is a horrible idea. Even though illegals shouldn’t affect elections (since they shouldn’t vote) they have legal family members who do vote, and don’t want to see their parents, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc deported back to the country they fled from. They will oppose the party that threatens them above all other issues, which is why the Democrats currently enjoy the majority of the Hispanic vote.

2. Amnesty
Amnesty doesn’t solve the problem. It makes all the illegal aliens who are currently in the country legal, but as we learned in the 1980s, they will only be replaced with NEW illegal aliens, and the cycle begins anew. This scenario will also ensure a wave of fresh new Democrat voters because these new citizens will now be eligible to vote, and will again vote to keep the government from deporting their family members who couldn’t make it into the country in time to be granted amnesty.

So what is the solution? Let’s look back at Cuba, and remember that the majority of Cubans vote according to their values (i.e. for Republicans) instead of out of fear of being deported since they are automatically granted citizenship. The solution is simple, but the implications are hard.

3. Citizenship for All
Simply put, extend citizenship to anyone who wants to be an American citizen. This cannot be a one-time “amnesty” or the problem will just reset with the next wave of immigrants, it must be a permanent policy to welcome those from other countries thirsting for freedom.

Now I know what you’re thinking; that there’s no way we can support the world’s poor. Our entitlement programs are already bankrupt, and we have a record number of people on welfare and food stamps already. We can’t afford to add the entire population of South America and the third-world to our welfare rolls. You’re absolutely right, so before we can welcome all people with open arms we must… ABOLISH THE WELFARE STATE!

Without welfare, without entitlements, without Marxist programs taking from some and giving to others; what harm would immigrants be? If they commit crimes or violence we would punish it, but those who genuinely want to work and be free will be happy for the opportunity that America provides. Without the threat of deportation hanging over them they could work honest jobs and wouldn’t be exploited by drug cartels, smugglers, and con-men.

The truly great Hispanic immigrants represent the same spirit that made the United States what it is: faith, values, hard work, and a love of freedom. They would find a welcome home among Conservatives, and drive the RINOs screaming into the Democrat Party so fast it would make your head spin. However that won’t happen as long as their family members are threatened, and as long as it’s the Democrats offering relief.

The Republicans and Conservatives need to answer the cry from Hispanics. Not by pandering and playing race-politics, but by offering them the freedom they crave; however, we can’t have open borders AND a welfare state. The beauty of this is that the Conservatives movement ALREADY opposes the Welfare State, so why not just link the two together? There will be many who will continue to vote Democrat out of short-term necessity (i.e. they are dependant of welfare, or fear deportation), but we can win the war by reframing the debate where it truly belongs. It worked for the people fleeing Cuba, why wouldn’t it work for the people fleeing the lawlessness and corruption in Mexico and throughout the Latin world?

A Couple of Riddles...

2011-08-16T04:17:00.000-07:00

Here are a couple of brain-teasers for you, make sure you read the riddle and thoughtfully consider it before reading the answer below.

Question: When is a Bailout not a Bailout?

Answer: When it is a Stimulus

The first big Stimulus program was simply a bailout for the states. Despite all the talk about fixing our roads and bridges, the money was used by the states to pay existing debts (mostly pensions), and keep them from firing government employees.
Now, I understand that a saved government job is still a saved job, but it's by-far the least desirable job to save.
The government doesn't produce anything aside from intangibles like "law" and "order". However unless you're a police officer, judge, or in the military, you're not even producing that. These saved government jobs were bureaucrats and regulators who are actually a burden on the economy. They were only saved because they are part of the Democrat Party's voter base.
If (God forbid) there is another Stimulus, it will simply go to the states to bail them out again, while our roads and bridges continue to be ignored.

Question: When does raising taxes lower unemployment and create jobs?

Answer: I have no idea! If you're a Democrat maybe you can explain it to me.

It's always funny (in a sad way) how the mindless foot-soldiers of the Left parrot what they hear in the MSM without considering that it makes no sense whatsoever.
So here's the meme: The Tea Party is hurting the economy because they won't let the Democrats raise taxes on corporations and "the rich". This means that the current "double-dip recession" is the Tea Party's fault.
Now ... how does raising taxes help the economy? Unless it's Opposite Day, that's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
I could post charts from the Great Depression showing that raising taxes made things worse, but when it comes to self-evident truths like this, I find it better to ask people "What would YOU do?”

Let's say you own a business. Aside from yourself (as CEO) you employ 100 people, and you're doing reasonably well. You want to hire more people but you're unsure about the economy (fewer customers), regulations, increased health care costs, etc.
Now let's say the government is raising your Corporate tax rate AND your personal income tax rate. Your company must now pay an additional 10% of your income in taxes, and YOU must pay an additional 10% of your personal income in taxes.

Now there are two likely results of this scenario. You're either going to cut back at your company to save money, or you're going to raise prices on your customers. You don't necessarily have to fire your employees, but you'll have to go to them, tell them about the tax changes, and see if they'll work for less money or accept less benefits so nobody has to be fired. Some companies have taken the latter route because they truly care about their employees, and some CEOS have given up their personal salaries in order to keep their companies out of bankruptcy.

Now, here's the million dollar question: Do you expand your business and hire more workers? If you said "yes" you're a Democrat who can't see past your politics. No sane CEO would hire more workers as their costs go up. It's so self-evident it's absurd to even argue about it.

Maybe you can't relate to the situation of the CEO of a business. How about this scenario: You're a family man, with a wife and 3 kids. Your taxes go up 10% costing you an additional $5,000 annually. You've saved $5,000 to take your family on vacation, but now you either have to use that money to pay your higher taxes, or lower your standard of living throughout the year to be able to go on the vacation and pay your new higher tax bill.

What do you do? Do you cancel your vacation or lower your standard of living? Most people would cancel the vacation. By cancelling the vacation you're essentially "firing" all the people you would have done business with had you taken the vacation. The airline, hotel, restaurants, travel agent, etc are all "fired" as far as your spending is concerned.

Now I've given you two scenarios where raising taxes costs jobs. Please explain how raising taxes creates jobs if you can. Also PLEASE don't say that giving welfare to people creates jobs because when the government takes a dollar from taxpayer A it doesn't give a dollar to welfare recipient B, the government takes a slice off the top, and as I stated above it wastes the money, it spends money not on things that might actually help the economy, but on things that benefit the Politicians politically.

Do you think Washington DC can spend your money better than you can? Do you think Washington can spend a business's money to create jobs better than the business itself?

Again, if you said "yes", you are a Democrat who can't see past their politics. Maybe you'll run a successful business one day and experience the other side of class-warfare.

Stop Adding the Letter "K" to Everything!

2011-08-05T08:35:00.001-07:00

This is going to be a very short and to-the-point post. As I browse news sites and read (and reply to) comments I've noticed both sides adding the letter "K" to words in an attempt to be clever.

The Left does this to make comparisons to the KKK (example: "RepubliKKKans"), while Conservatives use it to compare Leftist organizations (or states) to the USSR (example: "Kalifornia").

Spelling words wrong doesn't make you look clever or witty; it makes it look like you can't spell.

HOW YOU SEE YOURSELF ...

HOW EVERYONE ELSE SEES YOU ...

Political Phrase Guide 2011: Debt Edition

2011-08-04T05:03:00.000-07:00

We live in an ADD culture where people get their news from Comedy Central, and can passionately hold views on issues that they know nothing about.

With the election already in full swing over a year early, it's time to cut through the focus-grouped buzz words and talk about what these politicians really mean when they say oft-repeated phrases.
The Left not only uses “the Big Lie” to tell actual lies, but they also use it to redefine words to mean their exact opposite. Although this isn’t restricted to the Democrats, as Republicans are just as guilty as using words to say the exact opposite of what that same word would mean outside of Washington DC.

This sort of redefining is not new, it's a hallmark of the Left. In fact the word "Liberal" was redefined by the Left, and used to mean someone who believes in liberty, and is closest to modern Libertarianism. It's amusing to think of a Liberal as anything other than someone who support authoritarian rule and government control, but that's the power of controlling the language.

It even goes as far back as the founding of our country. Originally the two factions were the Federalists (who supported State's rights), and the Nationalists (who wanted a stronger National government, and less State's rights). The Nationalists realized that their platform wasn't winning, so they changed their name ... to Federalists.

What did the ACTUAL Federalists do? They were forced to change their name to "Anti-Federalists", and this simple name change allowed the new Federalists to defeat and replace the original Federalists. Although these Federalists were far from the modern Democrat Party, it taught the left the power of controlling language.

The only antidote to these sorts of shenanigans is to educate people. When people hear a speech, and the person speaking is saying words, but means their opposite, the only way to keep people from being fooled is if they understand the double-meaning. Ideally the media should be doing their job and asking tough questions of politicians so they can't use these double-meaning phrases to fool people, but that will only happen when a Conservative is in office.

We have deathly serious problems in our country, and we can't have an honest discussion about these issues if we aren't speaking the same language.

A Tale of Two Evolutions

2011-06-30T04:47:00.000-07:00

As the 2012 political season fast approaches, the Left is going to try and paint Conservative candidates as crazy extremists with questions regarding Evolution. There is an obvious double-standard at play, but we should be used to it by now. More importantly, the Bible tells us to have answer to those who ask us questions regarding our faith (Peter 3:15), this applies even to "gotcha" questions.

So how should politically active, Conservative candidates respond to questions about Evolution. The most common response is to get defensive and avoid the question, but this only helps the Left. There is a legitimate answer out there, that will turn the Left's gotcha question around on itself. You simply need to point out that there are two contradictory processes of Evolution, one is scientific and one is not.

The biological definition of Evolution is thus: "Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species." Also "the historical development of a related group of organisms; phylogeny."

The above type of Evolution, as defined by Biology (i.e. Science) is perfectly factual, observable, irrefutable, and in no way contradictory to the Bible or Christian theology. However, there is a second non-scientific definition of Evolution which states: "A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form."

Remember that the Left are masters of using confusing language, and words with double-meanings to control the argument. That's the essence of the Evolution "gotcha" question. The Left will criticize you for disagreeing with proven science on one hand, or being a hypocrite on the other. However in truth, no such contradiction exists if to separate the scientific definition of Evolution from the unscientific and contradictory definition of Evolution.

How are they contradictory? They each rely on opposite biological phenomena. One has been observed, and one has never been observed, and in fact contradicts all observable data. This will require a bit of explanation, but it's really not that complicated or difficult to grasp.

Let's begin with biological (and scientific) Evolution. There are many proven examples of biological evolution, the most well-known is the Equine, the ancestral precursor of the horse, donkey, zebra, etc. Biological evolution states that as the off-spring of the Equine spread out across the world, the off-spring which was better suited to its environment would survive over time, and those not suited to its environment would die out or move elsewhere. Over time this isolation gave rise to separate species as they became different enough biologically that they could no longer produce fertile offspring with each other. For example a "mule" is the infertile offspring of a donkey and a horse. The reason why horses and donkyes are different species, while breeds of dogs are not considered different species is because breeds of dogs can produce fertile offspring.

Another famous example of biological evolution is DDT-resistance in mosquitoes (or bacteria that grow resistant to antibiotics). Both of these phenomena function identically to the rise of the various equine sub-species. As the equines, mosquitoes or bacteria are exposed to an unfavorable environment, the individuals who are susceptible to the unfavorable environment die out, while those that are not (due to variations within the existing species) do not. Perhaps originally 1% of the mosquitoes were naturally resistant to DDT because they lacked a particular gene. However as DDT annihilated the population, and the DDT resistance was passed through generations, the DDT-resistant mosquitoes began to outnumber the DDT-susceptible ones.

This is exactly what Charles Darwin himself observed on the Galapagos Islands. He observed finches (small birds) with different sized beaks, and he noticed that finches with longer beaks were able to get more food than the finches which had shorter beaks.

The key thing to remember is that Biological Evolution REQUIRES a net-LOSS in genetic information. The DDT (or antibiotic) susceptible gene dies out over successive generations, and eventually genetic differences become vast enough that the species can no longer inter-breed to produce fertile offspring, and thus become separate species (as in the case of the Equine). Keep in mind that ALL observable cases of scientific evolution involve a LOSS of genetic information. This means that the Equine had more genetic variation than the horse, donkey, zebra, etc. As species specialize, there is LESS genetic diversity, and LESS genetic information. Keep that in mind as we move on to discuss the unscientific form of Evolution.

The unscientific, unobserved, and anti-religious form of Evolution (often called the "Theory of Evolution") states that all humans evolved from apes and monkeys. All mammals evolved from birds, all birds evolved from reptiles, all reptiles evolved from amphibians, all amphibians evolved from fish, all fish evolved from mollusks (sedentary shelled sea animals), all mollusks evolved from single-celled organisms, and all single-celled organisms evolved from non-living chemicals (known as the "primordial soup"). The problem with this form of Evolution is that it not only doesn't meet the threshold of science, it flatly CONTRADICTS that we know from observable evolution.

For something to be science, it must employ what is known as the "Scientific Method", which you probably learned about in Elementary School.

For something to be scientific is must be OBSERVABLE, TESTABLE, and REPEATABLE. This is where the "Theory of Evolution" fails in every way possible. Unlike biological evolution, this form of evolution (with animals transforming into other animals) has never been observed, has failed whenever it's been tested, and has never been repeated.

Let's talk about the notable example of the duck-billed platypus. If the Theory of Evolution was true, and the platypus way truly a bird/mammal hybrid you would think that their offspring would include different variations of bird and mammal characteristics. Perhaps if only 1% of the off-spring of the platypus were fully mammalian, then the theory of evolution might have some merit. However, that's not what we see at all. In fact, rather than the platypus giving birth to wide varieties of birds and mammals with different levels of hybridization; what we actually see is platypi giving birth to ... baby platypi. We never see the platypus "becoming" something more advanced (like a mammal), it is what it is.

This brings me to the contradictory aspect of the Theory of Evolution. The fundamental problem with the theory is that it relies on life forms becoming MORE complex over time, which is something that contradicts all the observable data. For the theory of evolution to be true, animals would have to become MORE complex over time, but biological evolution involves animals LOSING genetic information as they become more specialized. Biological Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are mutually exclusive, if one is true, then the other is false.

This is why having the Left question Christian figures about "Evolution" is so maddening. The Left doesn't define what form of evolution they are talking about, and most people don't know enough about genetics to understand the difference. They end up in an awkward position of trying to dodge the question lest they be branded as a "religious nutjob". The Left often compares Christians who don't believe in the Theory of Evolution to someone who denies the Laws of Gravity. However, if you don't allow the Left to play word games, you can destroy this line of questioning altogether...

Leftist Reporter: "Do you believe Evolution should be taught in school?"

Christian: "Biological Evolution should be taught in school. I absolutely oppose the teaching of unscientific theories that contradict everything we know from science being used as propaganda on our children to turn them towards a false worldview."

The Reporter will probably be shocked, and maybe even think that you're taking an anti-Biblical stand, and believe in the Theory of Evolution. If they don't continue with the line of question so be it, but if they ask about the Bible or Creationism, go with it.

Leftist Reporter: "So you're against Creationism being taught in school?"

Christian: "No, I'm for Creationism being taught in school. The Theory of Evolution contradicts observable science, and scientific laws. The theory of Evolution requires animals to become more complex over time, but biological evolution (also known as specialization) contradicts the theory of evolution because it only occurs when animals become more specialized and become LESS complex."

The Reporter will now be understandably confused. They will probably question your education, or ask where you got this information from. You don't need a fancy degree to understand the different between biological evolution and the "theory of evolution". You were taught the difference in public elementary school.

Above is a common example of an Evolutionary Tree chart. You can see different varieties on vastly different organisms connected by lines of ... what? The lines represent the "missing links", the fossils that nobody has found, the evidence that nobody has observed. In short... PROOF.

There are many other problems with the theory of evolution, but it's unscientific (and contradictory) foundation is the more damning. No other evidence is necessary, but when you are dealing with the Left, you should be used to them ignoring facts and arguing towards an agenda.

The Evolution (and Devolution) of Economies

2011-05-20T06:49:00.000-07:00

This article is not going to be about current events, it’s more of a basic economics lesson that relates to a lot of events in the news, namely lost jobs, outsourcing, etc. I hope that after reading this article, you’ll have a better understanding about how economies evolve (or devolve), and understand the problems (and solutions) more clearly.

All economies are the same; it’s simply a matter of scale. A nation’s economy is fundamentally no different than a household economy, except that the nation is composed of many millions of households. However, the rules are the same on every level, so understanding a national economy requires only that you understand a household economy and multiply accordingly.

Economies have five stages of evolution, and they can move up and down these stages as the economy expands or contracts, as jobs are lost or created, and so on. I’ll introduce the stages now.

- Hunting/Gathering
- Subsistence Agriculture
- Agricultural Economy
- Manufacturing Economy
- Service Economy

HUNTING/GATHERING

This is a non-economy stage, which is present in places where there is no law or knowledge of industry or agriculture. When a nation collapses, and it’s economy tanks; people who have no knowledge of manufacturing and agriculture will usually descend into this stage very quickly (characterized by rioting, looting, etc). There is no economic activity in this stage except for some basic trade between individuals.

SUBSISTENCE AGRICULTURE

This is the stage where what would be called “civilization” appears. People grow and harvest food and livestock for their own use, or for the use of their local community.

AGRICULTURAL ECONOMY

This stage will quickly follow the previous stage as long as there is system of law and order. If there is law, people will feel safe to leave their homes and work in the field, quarries, etc. If they do not feel safe, they will stay close to their homes in order to protect their property and the lives of family members. Ancient empires flourished based solely on an agricultural economy.

MANUFACTURING ECONOMY

If an Agricultural economy is defined as harvesting natural resources, a manufacturing economy is defined as producing goods from those natural resources. A nation needs to have a solid agricultural economy in place before they can have an “Industrial Revolution” and evolve into a manufacturing economy. At its most basic, it’s simply the movement of workers from the fields to the factories. It’s taking the resources of an agricultural economy, and turning them into other goods and products. Steel, glass and gasoline are simple manufactured products created from natural resources (iron, sand and oil respectively). More complicated manufactured goods include cars, computers and military equipment. There are many sub-stages within a manufacturing economy obviously as nations go from producing simple products to more advanced products.

SERVICE ECONOMY

This is highest form of an economy. It is the natural evolution of a manufacturing economy. If an agricultural economy is harvesting natural resources, and a manufacturing economy is turning those natural resources into products, than a service economy is using those products to create intangible services. In the same way that a manufacturing economy is defined by an “Industrial Revolution”, a service economy is defined by an “Information Age”.

The basic “services” that compose a service economy are education, medicine, finance and entertainment. There is also resale of manufactured goods produced elsewhere. That doesn’t mean that these things doing exist in other economies, it’s simply that a service economy is based on these things, and does them far better than the services produces in less advanced economies. A service economy is the most individual-centric because an individual can make or break a service. For example two workers who produce cars can make identical cars (although a more skilled worker might produce more cars in less time than his peers). However a consumer purchasing a car won’t know the difference between a car made by a highly skilled worker, and a slower and less skilled worker because the products are identical. However the differences of results between different services are vast. The difference between a skilled or poor doctor is a matter of life and death, and an unskilled entertainer will find little success outside of embarrassing YouTube videos.

The United States of America is largely a service economy, but there are pockets of manufacturing and agriculture sprinkled across the country. Large urban areas and suburbs tend to specialize in services or manufacturing, while rural areas are based around agriculture.

ECONOMIC DEVOLUTION AND “LOST JOBS”

As an economy moves within the next stage of evolution, many jobs are moved to less developed areas where labor is cheaper or natural resources are more abundant. This is natural is not driven by greed in any way (despite what politicians say). Each stage of economic evolution is accompanied by a large increase in the standard of living of people living in those areas. Compare the wealth of Doctors to Farmers, and affluent urban areas to rural areas. There is a divide, but it’s not a matter of the “haves” and the “have-nots”, it’s simply a matter of economic evolution.

When an economy evolves jobs are often lost or moved. As urban centers expand, farmland is lost and agriculture moves. Old factories are closed down to be replaces by malls, and so on. The reverse is also true when an economy contracts (or devolves), such as when a town loses a manufacturing plant, and they devolve into a Agricultural economy; manufacturing workers must either move up into services (like retail) or down to agriculture and work in the fields or quarries. For all the hay made about “jobs moving overseas”, this is rarer than we are led to believe. Much more often manufacturing moves between states from more urbanized states to more rural states. This is a good thing as a whole, although individual workers may be hurt when their individual jobs are lost. In truth, a service economy creates more jobs and creates a higher standard of living than the other economies. This is why parents always dream about their kids becoming doctors and lawyers instead of working in a factory their whole life. Kids grow up wanting to be movie stars and entertainers, not to work on an assembly line.

GHOST TOWNS

Before the era of “Big Government”, we had a phenomenon called “Ghost Towns”. These were common during the Gold Rush, when entire towns would spring up around a gold mine, only to be quickly abandoned when the gold mine was exhausted. Nowadays, when a town is in trouble because manufacturing has moved away and the land isn’t suitable for agriculture (i.e. Detroit) we simply don’t allow the city to become a Ghost Town naturally, and we fight it through a series of wasted bailouts designed to fight against economic laws and common sense.

Detroit is a unique example, driven more by politics and social engineering by politicians than economic factors. If many laws were removed, and Detroit became more business friendly, manufacturing would quickly return. However, a better example of protectionism being counter-productive is the US Steel Industry. Steel is a simple product that a large number of countries can produce cheaper than the United States, but because of political factors, we subsidize domestic steel production in order to “keep jobs in America”. Let’s look at who is hurt by these steel subsidies…

- Taxpayers who are “buying” steel with their tax dollars without their knowledge or consent
- Other Manufacturers who must pay a higher price for steel than they otherwise would
- Consumers who buy steel products for more money than they would otherwise pay

So who benefits from the steel subsidies? Only the steel workers themselves who are spared the horrible fate of looking for a new job or *gasp* moving somewhere else. However even the workers are paying more in taxes and as consumers, meaning that the net-advantage they gain from the subsides is lessened, even for them.

What should we do? We should allow these jobs to be “lost”. In reality, the manufacturing jobs will either be replaced by service jobs, or the economy will contract and de-evolve to an agricultural economy; but so what? There’s nothing wrong with an area going back to an agricultural economy, or evolving from producing steel to producing something more advanced (like cars). “Keeping jobs in America” makes a good bumper sticker, but what it really means is “Artificially raising Taxes and Prices on Consumers”, but I don’t think that bumper sticker would sell very well.

Someone on minimum wage (where many low-level service jobs start out at) is about $15,000 a year. Obviously you can’t raise a family on minimum wage, but think about how easy the job is related to factory work or agricultural work. Most managers at retail stores make about $18 an hour, which translates to about $35,000 a year. $35,000 is good money, especially in a dual income household, and we’re talking about basic retail and service businesses that exist in every town in America. When people complain that they can’t find work, they usually mean that they can’t find work that pays them what they want, or uses their skills. Sometimes someone who’s spent their whole life in manufacturing will have to retrain if his job is lost, or he’ll have to move somewhere where there is work that fits his skills and desired income.

So am I advocating allowing towns and cities to “die” and become Ghost Towns? Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying. Why are modern towns so sacred anyway? So you lived there your whole life, well now you’re moving, deal with it. Before the government began bailing out failure, workers moved all the time. Life wasn’t easy, but it’s not like we move the way we used to, we’re not packing up Ox-carts, and heading down the Oregon Trail anymore. Just hire Mayflower to move your stuff for you, and maybe you’ll create a service job for a few people in the process.

The reality is that most jobs are lost because of government mandates (minimum wage, bans, unions, etc), and these laws could be changed, and jobs can be brought back very easily. However, even if we had a very business-friendly government (which we don’t), jobs would still eventually be lost as economies evolve, but this evolution is natural and desirable. People complain about how little some service pay. Obviously if you’re a cashier at Wal-Mart, you’re not making the same money as a Doctor even though you’re both providing services. However, ask that cashier if they’d rather work in a factory or out on a farm.

Entitlements: Answering the Critics Part 2

2011-05-12T04:30:00.000-07:00

In my last article, I tackled several arguments that are commonly used to defend entitlements, or at least change the subject away from entitlement reform. I showed that defense spending, illegal aliens, and "the rich" are red-herring distractions that would make no difference in our looming debt crisis. There is still one last nugget that I commonly hear that needs to be addressed, and on its face it makes sense, which is why it's so attractive, but like other arguments it simply shifts the subject. Unlike the subjects in my last article, more of my arguments are going to be based on philosophy and history and less on charts and numbers, but they are no less valid.

A common suggestion made in the debate on entitlement reform is to "grandfather" those who are already in retirement, or near the age of retirement. Those seniors (or near-seniors) will receive full benefits, while younger workers will pay their FICA taxes, but receive fewer benefits. After several decades, the programs will be phased out as retirees pass away, and then the FICA tax can be eliminated. It sounds like it could work in theory, but there are several obvious flaws in this plan that I believe will ensure it will fail.

THE “ROLLING” STANDARD

Historically, whenever entitlement reforms have been proposed it is the current recipients who fight the reform, and the current workers who are paying for the benefits who are fighting FOR the reform. However as the decades roll by, the workers who fought for reform change their position as they begin receiving benefits, and fight for the status quo, beginning the process anew.
So let’s say that we “grandfather” in people 56 and older into the current system, while asking people 55 and younger to pay their FICA taxes but receive less benefits. What will happen in 10 years when those 55 year old turns 65? They paid into the system “their whole working lives” and now the government is taking away their earned benefits. They’ll use the exact same arguments in 10 years that current seniors are using now, and they will be just a politically active as current seniors. If we’re unwilling to hold current seniors accountable, why would anything change in 10 years? You’re just “punting the ball down the field” for another 10 years, but the debate will simply pick up again then. Seniors will still accuse you of hating them, trying to kill them, etc.

Seniors are the largest active voting bloc, and when these “new” seniors turn 65, you can bet the law will be changed, and they’ll be able to get their full benefits too. They’ll come up with some excuse like maybe saying that 10 years is simply not enough time to save for your own retirement, and they’ll kick the can down the road again by allowing another group to keep their benefits while throwing a younger group under the bus; repeat ad infinitum.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARD

The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This clause is currently being used to argue in favor of gay marriage rights, and you can bet that it will be used to argue for equal entitlements in the future is one group is receiving more benefits than another. It’s inherently unfair and arbitrary to say that this group will get benefits, but that group won’t get benefits when both groups have paid equal FICA taxes for their benefits. In fact, some are arguing that that FICA taxes need to be raised, which means that younger workers will pay MORE TAXES and receive LESS BENEFITS. If you think that they won’t challenge that in court or that the government won’t side with this new batch of seniors out of political expediency, you’re sadly mistaken.

THE DEBT STANDARD

Ronald Reagan warned America in 1964 that Social Security was a Welfare program and that the FICA taxes that were collected were for the “general use of the government” and that there was so fund. That was almost 50 years ago, and the “fund” is now broke and hemorrhaging money. So what will be different in 10 years? Nothing will be different except we’ll have more debt, and the funds will be even more broke. However, you can’t argue that the needs of future seniors have to be ignored because of our debt crisis, but the needs of CURRENT seniors can’t be ignored because these entitlement programs are a “sacred trust” as many politicians are calling it. WE ARE BROKE RIGHT NOW! In fact, technically we went broke in 2010 when the fund first went bankrupt, so if debt is the standard, the programs need to be reformed for everyone. You can’t say that needs outweigh debt for one group, but not for another group.

Reforming these programs, but “grandfathering” current seniors (and near seniors) makes the reform unfair, and will ensure that the reforms will be repealed at a later date. If we reform these programs for everyone (including current beneficiaries) many seniors will suffer negative consequences, but in 10 years, other seniors will suffer negative consequences instead. You’re simply trading the suffering of one group for another, and you’re ensuring that we have 10 more years of hemorrhaging entitlement programs before we even BEGIN to attempt to address the problem. I believe that we can’t afford to wait 10 years to address the problem, and we needed reform 50 years ago, but since we don’t have a Time Machine, NOW will have to be good enough.

Haven’t we learned yet that politicians always push off important decisions to “the next guy”? The GOP wants to push off reforms for 10 years, when none of them will be in office, and someone else will have to make the hard decisions. We need real leadership, and that requires tough decisions to be made now, not in 10 years when we’re already borrowing Trillions a year, with skyrocketing gas prices and double-digit unemployment.

Things are going to be hard for seniors, but things are going to be hard for everybody, that’s what “living within your means” is all about. For generations we’ve been told how irresponsible this or that generation was being, and that “our children and grandchildren” are going to be paying for it. I’m here to tell you that WE ARE THE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN that are going to have to pay the collective bill from the 1930s to today. We can no longer put off the hard decisions because the “funds” are broke. It happened 20 years earlier than expected, but the result is that we can no longer pay lip service to entitlement reform, we must reform entitlements, and we must reform them for everyone.

Entitlements: Answering the Critics Part 1

2011-05-10T05:23:00.000-07:00

I'm on a roll with my "Entitlement Reform" series. I've upset a lot of moles within the Tea Party, but I want to take this opportunity to refute some arguments that these seniors give. You see, they don't want entitlement reform at all, so they try to say that the problem is military spending, illegal aliens, tax cuts for the rich, etc. Basically, their goal is the shift the subject away from entitlement reform entirely. Now, before I address these arguments one at a time, I want to say that I'm 100% for cutting defense spending. We shouldn't be the world's police, but as you'll see that won't fix the problem. I'm 110% for cutting benefits for illegal aliens, that's common sense. However, it's a drop in the bucket compared to entitlements; as for "tax cuts for the rich", that argument will likely require its own article, but I'll include a primer on the subject below.

The Left (and moles within the Tea Party) can't argue based on facts, figures or evidence. They can only use sob stories and emotional arguments. I like Herman Cain's theory on Leftist tactics, as they only have three tactics; and they conveniently spell the word "SIN"...

- Shift the Subject. When people can't argue facts, they try to change the subject. This is why discussions on entitlement reform are rebutted with non-sequiturs about military spending or illegal aliens.

- Ignore the Facts. My last article had charts, video and quotes. Rather than respond to any of the evidence I presented, those who disagreed with me simply ignored everything and proceeded to attack me, which brings me to the last tactic.

- Name call. When you can't win an argument, simply attack the person you're arguing with. This is why any discussion about entitlement reform is met with "You hate old people and want them to die" responses.

So now that we've identified the tactics of the Left, and the moles within the Tea Party, let's carefully dissect these arguments and show that they hold absolutely no water.

DEFENSE SPENDING

This is the standard Leftist punching bag department. Cut spending you say? Cut the military! Nevermind that fact that the military is Constitutional, and departments like the Department of Energy, Education, HUD, et all are NOT Constitutional. Let's follow the rabbit hole, and say that we cut the ENTIRE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE. This argument is so easy to refute, and requires only a single graphic.

As you can see, the amount we spend on Defense (not just the wars, but also Homeland Security, the CIA, and many other Defense related agencies and Departments) is LESS than what we spend on either Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid INDIVIDUALLY.

FICA taxes are supposed to pay for Entitlements, and we took in $865B in 2010 FICA receipts while spending $1.4T on Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. Now, we could cover these two programs if we cut the entire Defense budget combined with FICA taxes for the short term, but that won't solve the long-term problem because the trend of entitlement spending is going up every year. Cutting Defense will only buy us a couple of years, maybe long enough for a few seniors to die of natural causes, but not enough to save the programs, and only at the cost of our national defense.

Maybe you're not completely brain-dead, and you're not talking about cutting the ENITRE Defense budget, but just the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. Unfortunately, that will cut our savings significantly. Instead of saving $694B annually, we'd only save a paltry $200B or so (give or take depending on emergency appropriations), that's simply not enough to even BALANCE THE BUDGET IN THE SHORT TERM in regards to entitlement spending.

ILLEGAL ALIENS

Again, this is easy to refute. Even the most bombastic estimates as to how much money illegal aliens cost this country is only around $100B annually. Don't get me wrong, $100B isn't an insignificant amount of money, but we're talking about TRILLIONS of dollars in entitlement shortfalls. Even if we solved the illegal immigrant problem we would still go bankrupt. However the best way to eliminate the illegal alien problem is to END THE NANNY STATE AND CUT ENTITLEMENTS. If illegal aliens couldn't get free stuff, they would only come here to make an honest living, and wouldn't cost anyone anything. We could re-open Ellis Island, and welcome everyone who wanted to become an American citizen. However, you can't have open borders AND a Nanny State.

Just to show how much of a non-starter blaming illegal aliens is, we would have to subtract the cost of ENFORCEMENT from any savings we get. We currently spent about $20B a year on enforcement, while illegal aliens cost us $100B, which means we're actually losing $120B a year. How much would full enforcement cost? Well over the $100B that we would recover in savings, meaning that it would do absolutely NOTHING to solve our debt and spending crisis. It's just a red-herring.

TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH

I could go on and on about the logical fallacies in the "Eat the Rich" argument. People who make this argument simply prove they don't understand Capitalism, Economics, or basic math. Rather than write a small book about the subject (which I may end up doing at a later date because it's fun), I'm going to let Bill Whittle of PJTV and Firewall fame explain why this argument is nonsense.

How do we solve our spending and debt crisis? Entitlement reform is the ONLY answer. It's not what seniors want to hear, but it's the honest and undeniable truth. The answers are simple, not easy, but simple.

Why the Tea Party and America are Screwed

2011-05-09T04:11:00.000-07:00

I've recently debated a small but active group of seniors in the Tea Party/9-12 Group that I contribute to as a blogger and commentator. In the Tea Party rallies that I've attended, I've noticed a large percentage of participants are seniors. It was heartening to see seniors standing up against big government, and fighting for lower taxes. The 2010 midterm elections were a huge win for the Tea Party, and it seemed that maybe ... just maybe, things might turn out okay.

But I noticed a group of seniors that I originally labeled as "the confused". They held up signs attacking Obamacare while defending Medicare. I assumed that these seniors were simply ignorant of the facts about these programs, but through discussion could be educated. Unfortunately, I've found that it's not ignorance at all, but that their interest in "limited government" extends only as far as it benefits them personally.

It's very interesting to talk to these seniors because they appear to be principled patriots within the Tea Party movement, but the moment you attack their beloved Socialist programs, they instantly adopt the language of both the Left and Radical Islam. I've actually been compared to Satan by a senior Tea Party member for suggesting Entitlement reform. Paul Ryan has been similarly attacked, even though he's exempting people 55 and older. He wrongly assumed (as I did) that the seniors within the Tea Party actually believed in cutting spending and saving our country.

The truth that I've found (and that Paul Ryan is discovering) is that many seniors within the Tea Party are not actually principled and that they are only concerned with spending and taxes because it's affecting their fixed income. They are concerned (rightly) that new entitlements like Obamacare will be paid for by cutting old entitlements. They are worried about higher taxes and unemployment only so much as it affects them, or threatens them personally. They complain about inflation and high gas prices, but are quick to change the subject when entitlement reform is brought up; seemingly ignorant of the fact that entitlements are driving government spending, and thus debt and inflation.

Even within the Tea Party, and the supposed "far right" you hear the exact same arguments against entitlement reform that you hear on the left. I'm going to tackle the most common attacks from these misguided seniors...

- You hate seniors/want seniors to die: This sort of ad hominem straw man attack is something you expect from the Left, but you'd be surprised how quickly seniors within the Tea Party default to the same tactics when they feel threatened by change. These tactics are far from new, and have been staple arguments since the New Deal. They were lies and scare-tactics then, and they are still lies and scare-tactics now.

- Seniors are the true Victims. It's the Politicians fault for raiding the Trust Fund. This argument has a kernel of truth as the government has been lying to seniors for decades while calling entitlements "insurance", and assuring seniors that their FICA taxes were being invested for them, and that benefits were assured. However, it’s 2011; if you still believe in and trust what politicians tell you, where have you been? I really doubt that these seniors are that naive, and it's more likely that they were simply irresponsible, and simply saved nothing for their own retirement. Even today, when the secret out that these entitlement programs are bankrupt, most Americans don't save their money, its human nature. However, being short-sighted and irresponsible doesn't make you a victim.

- What do you expect seniors to do? I'm poor and I can barely get by. Most seniors live on fixed income, and the loss of entitlement programs (especially Medicare) would destroy their livelihoods ... so what? I know it sucks to hear, but nobody has a right to other people's money just because you want or even need it. If you can't afford your home or lifestyle ... it's time to downgrade, move into a group home, move in with your kids, etc. This is how other countries do business, and it's how we USED to do business before we became a Nanny State. When you're too old to work, your children are supposed to support you by opening up their home to you. If you can't afford to live on your own nobody owes you their money. Retirement isn't a right, it's a privilege for those who save their money, and can afford it.

The other side of senior dependency is the rising costs of medical care. Seniors know that without programs like Medicare paying their bills, they would go broke very quickly because medical care is so expensive. However, it's actually programs like Medicare that are CAUSING medical costs to skyrocket. There would be an initial pinch, but costs would stabilize and go down in the absence of medical entitlement programs. It might surprise people to know that before government entitlement programs, most hospitals had "charity wings" where doctors would work for free to help those who were too poor to pay for medical care. We found a way to take care of each other before the Nanny State, and we'll have to find a way to do it again because we can no longer support the Nanny State.

Everything that I've said, and that Paul Ryan is proposing, has been talked about before. Despite the sob stories of seniors in 2011, they've had decades to prepare and save for their own retirement. In fact, Ronald Reagan warned America is his famous 1964 speech about "A Time for Choosing". The fact that Ronald Reagan was a beloved President, and this is one of his most FAMOUS speeches, makes the argument that seniors didn't know any better a very weak argument indeed.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so.

Now—we're for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we've accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we're against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They've called it "insurance" to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they're doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary—his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he's 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they're due—that the cupboard isn't bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we're for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we're against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road." - Ronald Reagan in 1964

Now comes the bitter truth; everything I've said doesn't matter. The fact is that the senior voting bloc is powerful, and the GOP is already abandoning entitlement reform for the 2012 budget and throwing Ryan under the bus. They've learned that hard way (as I have) that the seniors within the Tea Party are double-agents and aren't interested in cutting spending if it affects entitlements, which are the main cause of the problem. The truth is that nothing is going to change until it's far too late, so in the same spirit of Ronald Reagan in 1964, let me warn you of what's to come.

Prepare for hyperinflation. With Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds broke, and costing general revenue (rather than contributing to the Treasury), there will be ever-increasing deficits every year. This will continue until people simply stop buying bonds, which is already happening. When nobody is buying bonds, the governments’ only choice will be to cut spending or print money. The people have already spoken, and even the seniors in the Tea Party will not accept cuts to entitlements. Leaving no choice other than to print money. The government may also raise taxes, which will lead to higher unemployment and lower revenues, which will only make the problem worse.

Seniors may think that they will somehow be saved because entitlement benefits are tied to the rate of inflation, but those rates are only adjusted ANNUALLY, and once we are printing money for everything, it's going to be an awfully long year. Their fixed income will be destroyed, and all the sacrifices that people have suggested that seniors could have made to save our country will have to be made anyway. However, they'll have the satisfaction of taking the entire country down the same road, and although that schadenfreude might comfort them, I suspect that there will be many groups of angry young people looking for a group to blame ... I wonder who the politicians will offer up as a scapegoat?

Entitlements will end. It's not a matter of politics; it's a matter of economics. Seniors have shown in poll after poll that they have no interest in entitlement reform, so we're going to hit the wall within the next decade. Unless you're in your 90s, prepare for a short retirement. It's irony is that the "The Greatest Generation", the people who defeated the Nazis, are only one generation removed from the generation that will destroy the United States of America ... the Baby Boomers.

Then:

Now:

How Entitlements Should Work

2011-05-05T08:15:00.000-07:00

In my article yesterday I laid out the case that Entitlement programs are immoral and need to be abolished. However, I’m not heartless, and I understand that some people want the government to take care of them. I’m all about choices, so I say that they should have the option of having a government program that they can rely on if they choose. So I’m going to lay out some guidelines that would save change the face of entitlements as we know them.

Automatic Age Adjustment

When the Social Security Act was signed into law by FDR in the 1930s, the retirement age was 65, while the average life expectancy was … 65. That wasn’t a mistake by the way; the idea of spending the last third of your life in retirement and living off of entitlements was not in the legislation. Paul Ryan is talking about rising the age to 70, but our life expectancy is already in the 80s.

The whole concept behind insurance is that it’s a risk pool. Everyone pays into a pool that they hope never to use, but if you NEED to use it, you draw from the pool. This is the idea behind “Catastrophic Health Insurance”, it doesn’t pay for routine office visits, but it covers you if you’re in a horrible accident. The premium for catastrophic insurance is MUCH lower than traditional health insurance exactly because it’s not used as much. However with the average life expectancy over 80, everyone who’s not tragically killed is going to receive entitlement benefits when they turn 65. It’s not hard to figure out why it’s broke. It’s also not a secret that seniors draw far more than they pay in, about four times more on average. With EVERYONE drawing four times more than they pay in … where is the money coming from? That brings me to my next point.

Defined Benefits

When you buy life insurance, you buy a fixed amount policy; let’s say you buy a policy for $1,000,000; when you die your family gets …. $1,000,000. How do the entitlement programs work? You get money until you die, it could be $1,000,000; but it could be more, or it could be less. If you live to be 100 years old, you could receive hundreds of times more in benefits than you paid in to the system. This is not even taking into account the escalating costs of healthcare that are not taken into account. When you have unlimited benefits, people don’t care what things cost because as long as they’re alive, they’ll get benefits. It doesn’t feel like “their” money because no matter what they do, and no matter how responsible (or irresponsible) they are with the money, they aren’t rewarded or penalized.

Instead of an open-ended benefit program, what if it worked like life insurance? You get a lump sum, and that’s it. If you are wise with it, you live a comfortable life, and maybe even have some left over to give to you family after you die. If you’re irresponsible and blow it in a year … that’s your problem.

Personal Accounts

The biggest problem with Entitlement programs in that people have bought the propaganda that the money that the government took from them in FICA taxes belong to them, and that the government owes them the program’s benefits. However, FICA taxes are just taxes, and you don’t have a stake in how it’s spent (or wasted). People believe that this money is somehow saved or invested on their behalf, but it’s not. FDR created the FICA tax and the Trust Fund to be a second stream of income tax revenue for the Federal Government. The Feds have been raiding the fund since the 1930s, and it’s only now (since 2010) that the fund has gone bankrupt, and can no longer be raided. This was exactly how it was designed to work, and those of you who believe that government should “honor it’s promise” in the case of entitlement programs, what about all the millions of other ways that government wastes our money and politicians lie to us? Why are entitlement programs “sacred trusts”? Okay, you paid your FICA taxes, good for you. We all pay our taxes, and Washington DC screws us over and lies to us, welcome to the club.

Why not have personal accounts? You pay into it, it makes a bit of interest, and all the money is yours. It doesn’t disappear if you die back into the “pot”, but the flip-side is that once you’re out of money, you’re out of money. This is why seniors attacked George W. Bush when he tried to do this. Seniors don’t want a finite amount of money; they want a unlimited obligation, even if we can’t afford it. The problem is that political effectiveness can’t prevail against the laws of economics.

Maybe you’re in favor of private accounts. Most Americans have 401Ks and IRAs in addition to government entitlements because even though they are wildly expensive to taxpayers, they are really crappy programs, and make their beneficiaries crappy returns. US Bonds (which is what the SS Trust Fund “invested” in until 2010 with the excess money taken from FICA taxes) pays between 1%-4%. Let me repeat that. Your FICA taxes are only making 1%-4% annually. Inflation is about 4% a year, so you’re losing money.

If you put your money in a BANK, or a money market account you could make more than the Social Security Trust Fund. If you invested in a Mutual Fund you could make 10X the amount of the Social Security Trust Fund. Why would you NOT want to make 10X the amount of money? The reason is that the Trust Fund is “guaranteed”. You see the government has promised to tax people when the Trust Fund goes bankrupt or just print money.

Notice how high gas prices are? We’re printing and borrowing money at a frantic pace because the Trust Fund is bankrupt, and entitlement spending and interest is now HIGHER than tax receipts. However seniors can complain about gas prices, and demand that the government preserve the entitlement programs that are causing the need to print all the money that’s causing gas prices to go so high. Ironic isn’t it?

Opt-Out

This is simply giving people the option of saying “no thanks” to the government worrying about their retirement. You give up what you’ve already paid in FICA taxes, and in return you stop paying FICA taxes from that point on. You also give up any future benefits. Why would seniors oppose this? Because they know that these programs are ponzi schemes, and that because there are no personal accounts, their benefits are tied to more future workers paying FICA taxes to pay for their current benefits. If people actually controlled their money, and invested it themselves, they could do very well, or lose everything; that’s how life works. If people’s don’t want the government taking care of them, why should they be forced to support a failed program that’s now bankrupt simply because seniors who didn’t save for their own retirement will lose money? It’s not like the whole “Social Security is going bankrupt” thing hasn’t been said before, in fact we’ve been warned for decades. Why didn’t you take any actions to invest in your own retirement?

Those are my suggestions. Basically reform these programs to work like actual private insurance programs instead of like government welfare programs. These have all been suggested before, but it’s only now (the year after the Social Security Trust Fund has gone bankrupt, and entitlement spending and interest are outpacing revenues) that politicians are FINALLY talking about even modest reform.

The question is: Why?

Oh!

Entitlements are Immoral

2011-05-04T10:44:00.000-07:00

Our country is broke, and entitlements need to be immediately reformed, and eventually phased out if we’re going to have a future that isn’t marked by the collapse of the American citizen’s standard of living and a punctuated loss of freedom.

All of the above being said, even the mildest reforms are going to be hard to achieve because seniors are the most active and monolithic voting bloc in America. When an American voter reaches the age of 65, they undergo a metamorphosis, and when they emerge from their transformation they are ardent defenders of Social Security and Medicare regardless of the political views that they’ve held their entire lives. Even seniors involved in the Tea Party Movement do not want their entitlements touched, even as they hold signs warning about the Socialist policies of the Obama Administration.

It’s understandable that seniors would support and defend these programs because they are the ones who are benefitting from them. The tragedy is that they are (quite literally) holding the entire country hostage. There are a few common responses that many seniors give to defend entitlement programs which I will get into in a moment, but I want to preface these arguments by dispelling the myth that these seniors who defend these programs are in ANY position of moral superiority.

Almost all arguments from otherwise conservative seniors that entitlements should be honored and maintained fall somewhere along the lines of the fact that most seniors paid into these programs over the course of their working lifetime, and have earned these benefits. According to these misinformed seniors, these programs are different than things like welfare because the money isn’t coming from other people, its money they had taken out of their paychecks for future use.

If the above were true, and Social Security and Medicare were some kind of investment program with personalized accounts and defined benefits based on contributions and earnings (like a 401K or IRA), then I would be right there with them and defend these programs. However if that were true, they wouldn’t be broke. In fact, if that were true, there would be problem with the program going bankrupt in the first place. Obviously the above isn’t true, so how do these entitlements work?

Social Security and Medicare costs are partially paid for through FICA taxes, which are separate from the Income Tax, but still based on income, so it’s essentially a second income tax. It’s interesting to note than although almost half of Americans don’t pay any income tax, EVERYONE who works pays FICA taxes.

So what happens to the FICA taxes? Well they go out to pay for those who are retired and receiving benefits, and what’s left over is “invested” in US bonds. For those who don’t understand the quotation marks I’ve put around the word “invested”, let me explain with a line of questioning…

When you take out a corporate bond with a company, you’re giving them a little money, and they’re promising to pay you back with interest. Where does the company get the money to pay you back? They are raised from profits generated by the products and services that they offer.

When you “invest” in government bonds, you’re giving them money (which they immediately spend every year to help balance their budgets), and they are promising to pay you a whopping 1%-4% interest at a later date. Where does the government get the money to pay you back? Well since the government doesn’t produce anything or attract customers, it raises money through taxes.

This is an important point to remember: The bonds in the Social Security Trust Fund are paid through TAXES.

Another characteristic of government entitlements is that the money you pay into the system isn’t attached to you, and it’s not kept in a personal account where only you can access it when you retire. All the money the FICA taxes take in is all put into a single fund, which is used to pay beneficiaries, with the remainder “invested” in bonds, and immediately spent elsewhere.

In theory, if you only take out if you’ve put in; the fund shouldn’t be in financial trouble. Why is it bankrupt at all? Well the problem is that the government has treated the Trust Fund like “the goose that laid the golden egg” since it’s inception, and have over promised and lowered standards for benefits in order to buy votes. You can qualify for benefits even if you’ve only worked for a few years, and most people collect far more money than they’ve paid into the system because of longer life expectancy. However, the retirement age cannot be raised because of political realities (i.e. senior votes).

In the end, these entitlement programs are simply middle-class welfare. You turn 65, and you get other people’s money. It doesn’t matter if you’ve paid your FICA taxes; it was never anything more than a second income tax to begin with. You money was never “saved” or “invested”. It was just spent, and it’s always been that way. You don’t have the moral authority to demand that the government “honor its promises”, but that is the language in Washington because seniors are such an influential voting bloc.

When the victims of Bernie Madoff lost their investments, they could not vote and demand that the government force other to “invest” in Madoff’s imaginary funds so that they could recover their loss. If they had tried to pursue that course, I would hope that they would be denounced as greedy and predatory; perhaps worse than Bernie Madoff for attempting to use government force.

This is the situation we face. Seniors feel lied to by their government, but will use their voting power to ensure that new victims replace them in the cycle. The best analogy is a Vampire. As previous generations have fed off of them, they now must feed off of others. However, there is a crucial difference between then and now. Prior to 2010, the Social Security Trust Fund always MADE money for the government (since the bonds debts are kept on separate books, the debts owed are not considered part of the National Debt). However, as of 2010 and beyond, these entitlements now must be SUBSIDIZED from general revenues rather than the other way around. This is one reason (among others) that deficits have exploded recently. There is no more money to take from the Trust Fund. The golden goose is dead.

Since the New Deal, every generation has always talked about “children and grandchildren” paying for all these bills and entitlement programs. It seems so far off, like an “I’ll do it later” promise. However WE ARE THE CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN! The bills are due, and we’re broke.

So as another election cycle approaches and politicians are (finally) talking seriously about entitlement reform (which should tell you all you need to know about the seriousness of the situation), where will seniors fall? Make no mistake that these programs will go away, the laws of economics can only be held off so long by a powerful voting bloc. However when we are experiencing hyper-inflation and our country collapses, who do you think the politicians will use a scapegoat? Which group could they blame for the countries’ collapse that they might view as disposable?

Are Muslims Retarded?

2011-04-04T04:02:00.000-07:00

The above title of this article is probably one of the most un-politically correct titles ever. Before I have a fatwa issued on me, or Google closes my blog for being "Islamophobic" (anyone notice the irony of calling someone Islamophobic because you're afraid of violent Muslims?) let me explain the title and begin my article.

On March 22nd 2011, an obscure pastor in Florida burned a Koran, and subsequently a mob of Muslims in Afghanistan stormed the UN building and murdered 20 people (some by beheading). The media, the military, and the government are condemning the pastor for inciting violence, and are holding him at least partially responsible for the murders.

Now before I continue, I don't agree with burning a Koran, but for different reasons than you might expect. First of all, in order to burn a Koran I would have to buy a Koran, and thus support those who print it with my limited dollars. This would simply lead to MORE Korans being printed due to demand, thus defeating my intentions. I disagree wholeheartedly with the book Mein Kamph, authored by Adolf Hitler. However, I'm not about to go out and buy such a loathsome book simply to be able to burn it.

A better alternative is to have a "Read a Koran Day", not a "Burn a Koran Day". The vast majority of Americans have no idea how violent and intolerant Islam is. They swallow the "Religion of Peace" line like good little sheep. Actually getting into the book and discussing its violent orthodoxy would do so much more than starting a bonfire.

Okay, now that we've gotten all that out of the way, I've noticed that the way that our media/military/government expects us to act in regards to Muslims is exactly the same way we're expected to act around people who are mentally deficient (also known as "exceptional people", previously known as mentally retarded or simply "retards"). Now I don't mean to poke fun at people with mental issues, in fact many years ago, when I was an assistant in a medical office, I worked with children who were mentally retarded, and I've previously volunteered at the Special Olympics. I have nothing but love and compassion for people who (through no fault of their own) struggle with basic human functions, and are perpetually stuck in a child-like state. However, I hate the Marxist rooted concept of political correctness, so if I use terms that offend you, I suggest you cry a river, build a bridge, and get over it.

Now, let's get back to my basic point. For those of you who haven't worked with people suffering from mental retardation, they are very child-like, and can respond in extreme ways if provoked. We've all seen children throwing violent tantrums, and when that child is a fully-grown adult, those tantrums can be deadly. When working with people like this it's important to project an overly positive image. Phrases like "Hi Buddy!" and "Great job!" are thrown around regularly, and accompanied by enthusiastic smiles, hugs, pats on the back, etc.

Sometimes however, someone says something or does something that may be (or simply interpreted as) upsetting, and no matter how the mentally retarded person acts, it is NEVER EVER their fault. How could it be? They don't understand things like civility, restraint, tolerance, and so on. Even if they lash out violently, it's not their fault because we understand that they are essentially big children who don't appreciate what they are doing or the consequences of their actions.

Doesn't that sound suspiciously close to how we're expected to act in regards to Islam? Just like the term "retard" is offensive, being critical of Islam is also a social taboo (although it didn't seem to be a problem prior to 9/11, which is odd when you think about it). You have to be careful about what you say and do because when Muslims act violently and MURDER people, they aren't responsible for their actions; it's the people who offended them that are responsible.

The only conclusion I can draw is that our media, our military leaders, and our government officials believe that Muslims are retarded. That should offend Muslims much more than what some random guy in Florida did to his private property.

The Final Shoe to Drop

2011-03-23T05:25:00.000-07:00

There are three events, which can be clearly identified, tracked, and measured; which will mark the insolvency of our country, and the end of life and freedom as we know it.

- When Non-Emergency Government Spending overtakes Tax Receipts
- When Entitlement and Interest Spending overtakes Tax Receipts
- When Interest on the Debt overtakes Tax Receipts

The first event: When overall Government spending which has nothing to do with war, or a sort of emergency overtakes tax receipts happened during the mid 1970s.

It's important to note that emergency or war time spending can be reined in once the emergency or war has passed. However, when the government spends more than it makes as an everyday practice, with no foreseeable end date, goal or plan to repay the debt or lower spending, it is much harder to cut spending down the road when people get used to the programs that are funded. It's no coincidence that Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest items in the Federal budget were created at this time. It's also shameful and tragic that nobody in our government has any plans to address these programs.

The second event: When entitlement and interest spending overtakes tax receipts happened THIS YEAR. For the first time in the history of our country, "Mandatory" spending is costing more than ALL the taxes that the government collects.

The above chart was recently revised by The Weekly Standard, and between the Recession (which negatively affects receipts), and new entitlement programs (such as Obamacare and endless Unemployment payments), the time bomb of entitlements has exploded more than a generation early.

So now we only have one final line to defend, one final place to make a stand before the United States is completely and forever lost. This is the moment when the INTEREST overtakes tax receipts.

According to current projections, the interest on the debt will take up 100% of the budget around 2080. These calculations are only based on CURRENT interest rates, and don't take into account any new spending or new entitlement programs that will surely be created to buy votes as they have always been.

The problem with these projections is that there is no way that interest rates are going to stay at the same low rate as they currently are (around 4%). The world is getting sick of our government printing money and devaluing their bonds. When China, and others stop buying our government bonds, we WILL be forced to raise interest rates on those bonds in order to attract investors.

Notice how government bond rates rise during wartime? These "spikes" were temporary, and were deemed necessary. The government needed immediate money, and raised interest rates in order to get people to buy bonds so that they could raise the money. However, this in a world where oil is traded in American dollars, and the US Dollar in the reserve currency of the world, there was constant demand for US dollars. That is no longer the case, OPEC is moving to discontinue to practice of selling oil in US dollars, and the IMF and other nations (including China) are having serious talks about dropping the dollar as a reserve currency.

Social Security wasn't supposed to be bankrupt for another 15 years, but it happened in 2010. Entitlements weren't supposed to overtake receipts for another 50 years, and it happened THIS YEAR.

If you think that we have until 2080 before our INTEREST takes over the budget you're a fool. What will it mean when that happens? It means that the government could SHUT DOWN; no military, courts, social security, Medicare, or anything. EVERYTHING gets shut down, it's anarchy. There is no visible government, and we would STILL have to pay taxes to a government providing absolutely NO SERVICES simply to service the interest on the debt.

At that point there are only two possible choices we can make. We can go to war with the nations we owe money to, and initiate a nuclear world war, not for freedom or independence, but to absolve ourselves of our own greed and irresponsibility. Or we will be slaves to our creditor nations, in every sense of the word.

The New Parties

2011-01-26T06:19:00.000-08:00

Many have noticed that the policies of Barack Obama are not very different from those of George W. Bush, despite the seemingly vast gulf between the two parties and ideologies. The truth is that the two parties have simply been two sides of the same party coin for decades. This one-party has been called many things such as the “Political Class”, but it is more accurate to call them the Socialist Party.

“Wait a minute” you might be saying. “Aren’t the Democrats the party of Socialism?”; sadly the answer is no, socialism has been fully embraced by both parties since The New Deal created the “third rail of politics” that introduced middle-class welfare.

If the Republicans were truly the party of limited government and lower taxes, you would see an easily noticeable trend in both taxes and government spending when Republicans or Democrats were in power. Instead you see a steady tick upwards of the size and scope of government, and when Republicans aren’t outspending their Democratic counter-parts, they’re attacking our liberties and freedoms under the guise of national security.

This is not a new concept, and this is exactly how Europe has functioned since democratic elections replaced the Monarchies. Europe has always been Socialist, which is why THEIR “Right and Left” are different from the Right and Left in the United States. In Europe, the Left-wing is Communism, also known as “International Socialism”, which emphasizes material equality, and punishes exceptionalism. Their Right-wing is Fascism, also known as “National Socialism” (also called “State Capitalism” in China), which emphasizes national exceptionalism and superiority.

Communism and Fascism seem like two vastly different systems, but they are both Socialist meaning that in both systems, there is little or no individual freedom, private property, or natural rights. What the state giveth, the state taketh away. Yes, Stalin’s Russia fought against Hitler’s Germany in WWII, but that isn’t proof that the two systems had different goals. Think of the vile hatred the Left has of George W. Bush to this day, even though both he and the supposed “Messiah” Obama are alike in almost every way. It’s much like two people rooting for different sports teams. Sure they “hate” each other because of their team label, but they are joined in the common cause of celebration for their chosen sport. In this case, the “sport” is an all powerful national government, and the elimination of the individual rights and freedoms of the peasants.

Something happened on the road to the glorious Socialist Utopia in 2009. Something called the Tea Party Movement was born. It got engaged, and in 2010 (after defeating many “Establishment” sponsored Republicans in the Primaries) engineered the largest political defeat to a political party (in this case the Democrats) in 70 years. After being dismissed as a fringe group of “birthers”, racists, and gay innuendo, the Tea Party has proven that it’s for real, and that it won’t be silenced or intimidated.

So now we are watching the inevitable blow back from the Republican Party. Unfortunately modern political devices like Gerrymandering, and Election finance laws make forming a third party a waste of resources and time. The Tea Party took the logical course, and targeted the Republican Party, forcing it to go back to its founding principles. Many Republicans (especially those in the Senate who were not up for re-election in 2010) are hoping that the Tea Party is a passing fad, or a temporary movement. However I suspect something larger at play.

The Tea Party is the first real Opposition Party to the Socialists in at least two decades. The Tea Party must continue to make inroads into the Republican Party, while encouraging Social Liberals in the Democrat Party to stand up for their individual rights and freedoms. The Democrats are almost wholly controlled by Globalists, Communists, and avowed Socialists of all stripes, so hoping for a Tea Party-like revolution within the Democratic Party may be a bridge too far at this point. So for the time being, the Republican Party (the party of limited government) is the logical place to mature this party-within-a-party.

Forget the Donkey or the Elephant. The real choice in between the government and you, or if you insist on symbols and imagery: The Rattlesnake and the Hammer and Sickle.

Corporations Never Pay Taxes

2010-08-05T11:09:00.000-07:00

In America, corporations pay taxes on their revenues in the same way individuals pay taxes on their incomes. The United States has a top-tier corporate tax rate of 39%, which is the fourth highest in the world. With all the taxes being paid by corporations, you may be shocked to learn that corporations never pay taxes … ever. It doesn’t matter if the corporate tax-rate was 100%, the corporation would not pay a single dime of that tax. Why is that? It is because corporations CAN’T pay taxes, only INDIVIDUALS PAY TAXES. You can’t tax legal constructs or buildings, you can only tax people. When you tax corporations, who ACTUALLY pay the tax?

Let’s back and take a closer look at those “evil” profits that “greedy” corporations make. Profits are simply revenues minus expenses (including taxes). The money left over once the business pays its expenses and pays its employees are defined as profits. What do corporations do with all those “windfall” profits? Well they do one of four things generally …

- Re-invest directly into the business. The corporation expands operations. Perhaps building an additional plant, upgrading equipment, or increasing employee pay or benefits. An expanded business requires additional labor, meaning that when the corporation re-invests their profits, they create jobs.
- Invest the profits as capital into another business. Sometimes, rather than investing profits into its own operations, a corporation invests their profits into a separate company. The results are the same: investment means expansion, which means more jobs created.
- Pay dividends to shareholders. Sometimes rather than invest into the business directly, the corporation pays shareholders dividends to encourage investors to invest in their company. The shareholder investments have the same effect as re-invested profits. Investment means expansion, which means more jobs created.
- Lower prices. If the corporation is making profits, they may choose to undercut their competition and lower the prices of their goods and services. This makes their products cheaper to consumers, which means consumers have additional money to spend elsewhere and create more jobs.

Do you notice the theme? The common thread is that profits aren’t buried in some CEO’s mattress, they’re invested, and however those profits are invested, the result is that more jobs are created.

So what happens when the government taxes corporations? All taxes are simply additional expenses on the back of the corporation. It’s just another “bill” from Uncle Sam to be paid alongside their lease and their electrical bill. In reality, every dollar the government takes from a corporation is actually taxed indirectly from the workers who aren’t hired because the business didn’t expand. It’s taxed indirectly from the shareholders who receive a smaller dividend, who may then think about pulling their investment from the corporation, which will cost current and potential jobs in that company. It is taxed indirectly by all the customers of that company who are paying higher prices than they otherwise could be paying, as well as all the other businesses that lose customers because consumers have less money to spend.

The fallacy is that corporate taxes are fundamentally different than individual income taxes, but the truth is that corporations are simply a collection of individuals. All expenses (including taxes) of a business are paid for by the individuals who make up the employees and customers of that business. It’s that simple, and the only reason government can get away with it is because it’s an indirect tax, and so the constituencies of that government blame the business for raising their prices, or laying them off rather than the government who is behind it all.

There’s also another insidious element of corporate taxes: it not only discourages investment, but it also drives that investment into alternative areas. It’s not hard to understand; if you were investing in a company, and your investment shrunk, you’d move your money to a better performing vehicle. When it comes to international investment, our high corporate taxes, drives investment into competing nations with lower tax rates. The result is that we lose jobs, and companies expand overseas rather than here in the United States. It’s not that the corporations evil or greedy, they’re doing what’s right and sensible for them and their company. The worst thing we can do is “punish” companies by using government to fine businesses that move overseas in order to “keep jobs in America”. Sure, that might keep a plant or two from moving to Mexico, but international investors will avoid that company like the plague, and there’s no way it would be able to compete internationally without a government subsidy on its exports. That means NOT ONLY are you paying more for the product yourself, but your tax money is being used to subsidize the EXPORT of the product to OTHER COUNTRIES AT A LOSS, in order to make the company competitive. Everyone loses in that scenario, but because it’s politically popular, it’s what we end up doing the majority of the time.

We can solve our unemployment problem RIGHT NOW, by completely eliminating ALL corporate and capital gains (investment) taxes. Remember when Greece was rioting? European investors needed somewhere safe to move their investments, and the United States economy had a brief run. It didn’t last because of the policies of our government (Obamacare, and Financial “Reform”), as well as upcoming tax hikes on (say it with me) “greedy” corporations, and “evil” capital gains. So all that investment, all those jobs that were knocking on our door are now going elsewhere, and we’re heading for a double-dip recession rather than a recovery.

All of this happens because we demand that government takes care of us, but we don’t want to pay for it. We want free healthcare, but we don’t want our taxes raised. The government then must create indirect taxes like the corporate tax, or use inflation by printing money in order to give us our goodies along with the illusion that it’s free, and that someone else is paying for it. The truth is that we’re paying for everything. We’re paying for social services by causing the conditions that require social services in the first place.

The answer is so simple that it’s mind-numbing to see such an overwhelming percentage of Americans miss it. If the government truly wants to fix the economy, all they need to do is get their boot off of its neck. However, the government won’t do that until it’s politically feasible, and it won’t be politically feasible until we stop demanding that the government give us benefits without paying for it. We need to be upfront about the costs of programs instead of lying to ourselves that the “other guy” is going to pay for it. THERE IS NO “OTHER GUY”; WE ARE ALL COLLECTIVELY THE “OTHER GUY”.

It’s such an old saying, but it’s true: There’s no such thing as a free lunch.

Myths of Free Trade and Exports

2010-08-04T10:10:00.000-07:00

There is a huge myth in Conservative circles, perpetrated by Protectionists and Anti-Free Trade groups. Even otherwise libertarian figures like Glenn Beck deride that America “doesn’t produce anything anymore”. It’s true that America largely no longer produces steel and other simple manufactured goods. Those jobs have indeed moved overseas, where those goods can be produced cheaper and sold to America for less than the cost of producing it ourselves.

Before I dispel the myth, I want to briefly defend Free Trade as a positive thing in almost all instances. In the case of the steel industry, we should celebrate the fact that other countries can sell us steel cheaper than we can produce it ourselves, because they means the goods that USE steel cost less. Some workers lose their jobs, but the consumers who are paying less for steel products have more money to spend at other businesses and CREATE MORE JOBS … OH SNAP!

At this point I’d like to point out that steel workers HAVEN’T been driven to extinction in America because the government subsidizes the steel industry to “keep jobs in America” (as they do with corn, sugar, and host of other industries). Both parties have done this because the steel workers unions can be powerful and influential. Not only are tax payers paying more for steel, but they’re also subsidizing the income of steel workers in an industry that refuses to modernize. Don’t you feel better knowing you’re “keeping jobs in America”?

The truth is that when people have more money, more jobs WILL be created, but the beautiful thing is that these naturally created jobs will react to the ACTUAL needs and wants of the consumers, rather than imposed on the consumer by the government in order to protect a favored group. It’s great for the steel worker, but it’s not great for the millions of other workers who have fewer customers because consumers must pay more for steel products and higher taxes in order to “save” the steel worker’s income.

Now let’s move on to the myth that America doesn’t produce anything anymore. Not only does America produce something that is exported all over the world, but it’s a product that’s so cheap to replicate that after the initial investment, the product can pay for itself a million times over. I’m talking about the ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.

Where are all the movies, television shows, videogames, music, etc made? I’m not talking about where the DVDs are manufactured. I’m talking about where they are MADE. The vast majority are made in the United States. That doesn’t mean that we have a monopoly, but foreign companies can rarely produce products of the quality of the United States, and specializing in industries that you do better than anyone else is the hallmark of Free Trade.

Doesn’t the Industry only help places like Hollywood and Silicon Valley (both in California)? Not at all! California gets its energy from Arizona, its cars from Michigan, its orange juice from Florida, and it’s countless other products from the other states and everywhere in-between. All of the workers in all these industries need houses, restaurants, healthcare, etc. Because all of these industries specialize, it lowers the cost for everyone. For example, someone in Michigan can plant an orange grove to make their own orange juice, but it would be more expensive for them to do so rather than to simply buy the juice from Florida. The farmer in Florida benefits from the consumer in Michigan, and the consumer in Michigan has juice at a cheaper price, and has more money to spend elsewhere. Free Trade benefits everyone.

Aside from the Entertainment Industry which is so multi-faceted, it’s very misleading to characterize it as a single industry. There are more exports that America specializes in because of our climate. The United States is the largest exporter of many organic chemicals, soy beans, while we also specialize in quality tobacco. Even though we have long-since moved away from an agriculture-based economy, there are still many crops that grow especially well in America (like Florida oranges), and still carry enough of a demand to grow and export.

Worries of “jobs going overseas” are misguided. Manufacturing jobs are crappy jobs anyway. Kids don’t tell their parents how they want to grow up and work in a ball-bearing factory or out in the field. Farmers need migrant workers (often illegal aliens) to work in agricultural because often Americans don’t want to bust their back in the sun all day picking fruit. As for manufacturing jobs, have you wondered why the union contracts are so generous? It is because manufacturing jobs suck too. Who wants to work at a noisy assembly line for 8 hours a day, constantly on their feet, possibly handing dangerous industrial chemicals for anything LESS than lavish pay and benefits.

We should be happy that we can largely push some of these crappy jobs off to developing countries that can do them cheaper and sell them back to us, giving us more money to buy more of the things we want. That doesn’t mean people aren’t hurt in the process. Some workers and towns will be hurt as industries move away, even as new industries grow in other areas. As a whole though, the country is better off, and the government is supposed to promote the “general” welfare, not the welfare of specific industries and worker groups.

Lastly, I want to look at the fallacy of a trade deficit. Let’s say that the United States buys trillions of dollars worth of products from China, while exporting few goods to China. That creates a “trade deficit” since we’re importing more than we’re exporting. When you go beyond products, and include finance, you’ll find that there’s no such thing as a trade deficit at all. ALL TRADE IS ALWAYS EQUAL OR ELSE TRADE DOES NOT OCCUR. Consider someone buying a cup of coffee for $1. The trade APPEARS to be one-way because a good was traded for money rather than a good for a good, but both parties traded. The customer traded their dollar for the business’ cup of coffee.

When America buys goods from China (crappy as they are), we pay China in our dollars. China must do something with those dollars. They could eat them, or sew them into a blanket I suppose, but for the most part, if they aren’t interesting it using them to buy our products; they have to exchange those dollars into Yen, Euros, or other currencies.

When people exchange money, they’re in essence selling the currency. Selling a dollar’s worth of Yen is no different than selling a dollar’s worth of coffee. Eventually though those dollars WILL be traded for goods and/or services, and the circle is complete. Trade deficits only exist when you don’t consider financial transactions as trade.

So in conclusion …
- Free Trade benefits consumers and creates jobs
- “America doesn’t produce anything anymore” is a myth
- There’s no such thing as a trade deficit if you simply include financial transactions as trade

The Left and Islamic Fascism

2010-08-04T05:32:00.000-07:00

Why is the Left so cozy with Islamic Fascism? Why are those who supposedly stand for the rights of minorities, women, and gays allied with those who routinely commit genocide, rape and abuse women, and stone gays in the street? On the surface, it doesn’t make any sense, unless you consider that both the Left and the Islamic Fascists have one common enemy, an enemy so powerful they cannot defeat it on their own, and thus (temporarily) use each other as allies of convenience. This enemy is known by different names to each faction of this alliance. The Islamic Fascists call it “the West” or sometimes “Western civilization”. The Left however, besides calling is Western civilization, has a much more concise name for it: Capitalism.

After World War 1, when a global Marxism revolution was thought to be brought about by class consciousness through war, Marxist theorists asked the question “what had gone wrong”. It was determined that the prosperity of the western European countries kept the middle-class soldiers from throwing out their national identity, and embracing their social identity. Georg Lukác, one of the founders of the Marxist institute known as “The Frankfurt School” asked rhetorically “Who will save us from Western civilization?” They realized that it was the prosperity provided by freedom and Capitalism that prevented their revolution.

In order bring down Western civilization and Capitalism, these Marxists realized that using the working class as the vanguard of the revolution was not going to work. They switched gears, and attacked Western civilization by attacking its society rather than its economics. This approach was known as “Critical Theory”, which itself is actually a play on words. The “theory” of “Critical Theory” is simply to criticize Western Civilization from all and every angle. From this sprang up all the various “studies” curricula in college campuses: African Studies, Women Studies, Hispanic Studies, etc. The sole purpose of these programs is to blame Western civilization for the plight of those named in the program, while offering absolutely no alternative.

Truth isn’t the objective, far from it. Any fact that runs against the narrative of criticizing Western civilization is never discussed. This is why in African Studies programs focus exclusively on white oppression in Europe and the United States, but neglect to point out how African slaves were sold to white traders by OTHER African tribes, or the genocide that Arab Muslims perform against Black Muslims in Sudan to this day; or the outright bigotry black people experience EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE WORLD outside of the Africa, the United States and western Europe. How many black people do you think there are in China? In Russia? In India? You can’t even ask those questions in African studies, because the focus of scorn, the SOLE object of criticism, is Western civilization.

Another Marxist Willi Munzenberg summed up the mission to destroy Western civilization thusly: “organize the intellectuals and use them to make Western civilization stink. Only then, after they have cor-rupted all its values and made life impossible, can we impose the dictatorship of the proletariat”.

Now let’s switch gears and look at Islamic Fascism characterized by Sharia Law. Sharia Law also seeks to overthrow Western civilization. Unlike Marxism, Islamic Fascism has no economic argument, and was never couched as an economic theory. While Marxism redefined itself in societal terms only after World War 1, Islamic Fascism has ALWAYS been opposed to Western civilization from societal terms.

Islamic Fascism and Societal Marxism (called hereafter Neo-Marxism) have other common threads. In both systems, the rights of the individual are subservient. Islam literally means “submission”. Submission means that you, as an individual have no free will. You are to submit to Allah, the Clerics, and any other appropriate Islamic governing unit. If you are a woman, you must ALWAYS submit to your husband or your father (if you are unmarried). Marital rape isn’t even a crime in Islamic culture, which tells you all you need to know about the extent of the “submission” that is required under Sharia Law.

Aside from the religious angle, Neo-Marxism and Islamic Fascism are nearly identical. They both seek to destroy Western civilization, characterized by Capitalism and individual freedom. The Neo-Marxists are just subtler than their Islamic counterparts. Whereas the Islamic Fascists use terrorism, murder, and warfare to spread their ideology, the Neo-Marxists subvert the culture they are trying to undermine from within, turning its own citizens against the system that gives them freedom until they beg for oppression.

The Neo-Marxists are very clever in that way attack the prosperity that Capitalism provides by injecting Marxism in small doses into the system, blaming Capitalism when the consequences become apparent, and “fix” the problem by injecting more Marxism. There are already calls today that the financial collapse “proves” that Capitalism has failed. They said the exact same thing during every financial crisis since World War 1 (especially during the New Deal), and their solution has always been more Marxist government control.

In the end, the Islamic Fascists and the Neo-Marxists have nothing holding them into a lasting alliance; If Western civilization is ever destroyed once and for all, the Islamic Fascists and the Neo-Marxists will immediately turn on each other to determine who would rule over the ashen heap. It is similar to our nation’s alliance with Stalin’s Russia during World War 2. We had little in common with Communist Russia, but because both we and the Russians had a common enemy in Hitler’s Germany, we formed an alliance. Once the war was over, The Cold War began, as the United States and the Soviet Union fought each other.

Since the 20th century, we have continuously pitted one Socialist faction against the other. We allied with the Communists to defeat the Fascists in World War 2. We allied with the Fascists (Taliban) to defeat the Communists during the Cold War. We’re currently trying to forge alliances with Russia and China to reign in Iran, and the Islamic Fascists now. However, the game has changed. The Socialists aren’t fighting each other anymore. They’ve (temporarily) put their differences behind them and united against their common enemy.

For more information, check out another article I wrote almost a year ago (on August 25th 2009): The Frankfurt School and the Modern Left.

Transparency and Warfare

2010-08-03T07:00:00.000-07:00

During the government health-insurance takeover debate, Democrats crafted thousands of pages of legislation behind closed doors, used threats, intimidation, and legal loopholes in order to get their the bill passed into law before the midterm elections. The Federal Reserve is a non-governmental organization led by private bankers tasked with regulating the nation’s money supply, but is in practice used to offset government spending by causing inflation rather than forcing the government to raise taxes to pay for their spending. With so much deception, the voters demand accountability from the government that they fund with their taxes. This view is universally justified in areas of domestic policy, but is suicidal in cases of foreign policy.

Sun Tzu wrote “The Art of War” in the 6th century BC. In it, Sun Tzu writes that “All warfare is based on deception”, and “what enables the wise sovereign and the good general to strike and conquer, and achieve things beyond the reach of ordinary men, is foreknowledge”. It’s common sense that during warfare, or in any area of foreign policy, intelligence is critical. Why is transparency desirable in domestic policy, but undesirable in foreign policy? Since the government is answer to “We the people”, doesn’t that also include our defense and intelligence services?

The differences between domestic and foreign policy, and how they relate to the desirability of transparency can be clearly seen when one considers the parties involved:

In our democratic society, issues that affect American citizens must be articulated to those American citizens. The reason why the recent government health-insurance takeover debate was so abhorrent to most Americans is because the issues at stake directly affected multiple facets of our lives, and we were effectively shut out of the process. The issue is often between special interests who receive benefits and the tax-payers who foot the bill. Without transparency in domestic policy, we have taxation without representation.

In foreign policy the parties involved are not parties of citizens within a democratic society, but countries (specifically governments) competing directly with each other for advantage. It may not be an adversarial relationship, such as during war. However, even our allies often compete with us for economic advantage. In this relationship, the foreign country (should) have no say in how our citizen’s taxes should be spent. Any expenditure by our government should serve American interests, or the mutual interests of America and its allies.

Why is transparency undesirable in these instances? It is simply because anything that’s shared with the American people in the name of transparency IS simultaneously shared with the rest of the world. Some things should be transparent such as general wartime objectives, and funding concerns. However, it would be foolish and suicidal for generals or intelligence services to hold public debates in order to get approval for operations because the enemy would immediately learn of the operation and adjust accordingly, even if the process worked efficiently (which it doesn’t), the operation would be a guaranteed failure.

All of the above said, the American people should have a say in whether or not they want their tax dollars funding a war, and they should demand answers when allegations of misconduct arise. These are legitimate areas of transparency, and parties involved should be willing and able to make the case to the American people if they expect to continue to spend their money. Obviously, if the American people don’t agree with the goals of the war, and they don’t want their tax money going to fund it, the war should end.

A split in opinion comes when people demand transparency in “means” as well as “ends”. It’s fairly easy for officials to articulate the desired “ends” (or goals) of the war or intelligence operation. This transparency is desirable. However, transparency of “means” (or operational details) compromises the security of the operation itself. Having a public debate about the funding of additional vehicle armor is desirable, having a public debate about whether or not the CIA should conduct operations in this or that region is undesirable.

The rule of thumb is that if transparency compromises operations, it is undesirable. It is fine to debate the merits of a war, debate its continued funding, or demand inquiries when allegations of misconduct arise. It’s quite another issue to seek transparency that jeopardizes the war itself. There’s a reason we classify things, and it’s to keep it out of the enemy’s hands. Sun Tzu understood this over 8,000 years ago.

“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

Keynesian Economics Doesn't Exist

2010-08-02T08:23:00.000-07:00

The Federal Government spends far too much money and accumulates too much debt. Conservative and Libertarian commentators and academics often describe the government's gluttonous spending as an example of Keynesian economics, or the economic theory developed by John Maynard Keynes. The basic premise of Keynesian economics is that government should spend money to "prime the pump" of a sluggish economy, and stimulate commerce. If tax receipts are down (as is almost universally the case during a bad economy) the government should be encouraged to borrow the money (i.e. deficit spending).

Given the above description, it's easy to make the mistake to believe that Keynesian economics is responsible for our current state of economic affairs. However, the fact is that Keynesian economics simply has never been followed, and is simply cited as intellectual justification by Statist politicians to justify their continuous spending. It should shock nobody that politicians enjoy spending money, and Keynesian economics provides them a convenient justification to do so, but if the politicians truly believed in Keynesian economics they would adjust government spending based on the economic situation. During a sluggish economy, the government would increase spending to make up the difference. However, in a robust economy, the government would DECREASE spending in order to make up the difference. The end result would (in theory) be a stable economy that was balanced by deficits during bad times, with greater receipts to PAY those deficits during good times.

What is the truth? What have these supposed proponents of Keynesian economics ACTUALLY done? Well, let's look at the economy since 1900 until more-or-less the present.

If the government was actually following Keynesian economics, they would decrease spending during "booms" and increase spending during "busts". The result would look like a reverse image of the overall economy. What is the reality?

Those two spikes were World War 1 and 2 by the way. Keynesian economics has nothing to do with wartime spending as it's a theory addressing issues of using government to stimulate a sluggish economy, not address war. To look at whether the government has followed Keynesian economics or not, you have to look at the overall trend of government spending. Does it mirror the overall economy? Does government spending increase when the economy is down, and decrease when the economy is up? Far from it! It is a steady climb up regardless of the condition of the market. Keynesian economics is merely the intellectual justification that politicians use, but they obviously don't really believe in it.

Why doesn't the government cut spending during good economic times in order to pay off the deficit accumulated during bad economic times? In other words: Why doesn't Keynesian economics work? It doesn't work because it relies on the government taking in tax revenue and not spending it, or at least spending it on paying down the national debt accumulated from the deficit spending from the previous recessionary period. There is always some "need" out there from some special interest group or another, for more government spending, and when government has the money, they spend it. Meanwhile, the national debt doesn't have a viable interest group to lobby for it. Our children and grandchildren that will be the ones stuck with the bill do not vote, and are less than an afterthought to the politicians who are constantly bombarded with calls for greater funding for things like education, defense, healthcare, etc. Can you really BLAME the politicians for appeasing these interest groups rather than paying down the debt? They have elections to think about, and while those who will be hurt by the deficit spending and the lack of repayments are real, they are largely intangible to the politician who must appease their constituencies now.

So what is the solution? Since Keynesian economics (while sound in theory) has been proven impossible to implement in practice, the theory must be abandoned. We must "take our medicine" as they say, and deal with the consequences of recessionary periods as they arise instead of using debt to push the consequences onto future generations with broken promises of paying off the debts once the economy recovers. Is this politically achievable? Perhaps not now, even with the Tea Party movement. We've become too babied by government to accept a world where we are responsible for our own actions, and we likely won't "wake up" as a society until the consequences catch up with us and fall upon the unfortunate generation that will have to pay the collective bill with compounded interest in the form of their freedom. That unfortunate generation may be us.

Some may cringe at the thought of this burden falling upon us, but look into the eyes of your young children or grandchildren, and ask yourself if you would rather it fall upon them.

Tea-Party Fringe Identification Guide

2010-07-31T15:44:00.000-07:00

No movement is without its share of nuts. Here are some Tea Party members you should be on the look out for. They may not realize they are wrong, but that doesn't mean we should allow them to make our entire movement look bad.

Example 1: The Confused

These Tea-Party members know the government has grown too large too fast, but lack a principled dedication to limited government. They fear NEW Big Government, but are comfortable with the Big Government they've grown up with. These folks can often be educated, and we should make it a point to make sure that these people understand things such as the socialist roots of programs like Social Security and Medicare, and how the Progressives have used those programs to grow government and attack freedom.

Example 2: The Mildly Racist

Contrary to the media coverage, the Tea Party isn't shouting the "N"-word at black Democrats. However, some of the signs can be interpreted as insensitive towards African Americans, and can be offensive to minorities in general. We on the Right can't burn Presidents in effigy and call them Hitler for 8 years and get a pass in the media the way the Left does. Please remember to keep it about POLICIES, and avoid personal attacks that the media will use to bludgeon our movement. If you see someone with a sign that could reasonably be offensive, remember that if a news camera sees them, that's the only sign they'll show during their "coverage" (likely in a continuous loop). Don't be afraid to talk to them, and share your concern with the potential harm they could do to the movement, and offer them an alternative sign or a Gadsden flag instead.

Example 3: The Tea-Party Crasher (aka Democrat Plant)

These "useful idiots" are Democrat activists who, in an effort to "prove" that the Tea-Party is racist ... are trying to PLANT evidence that the Tea-Party is racist. Don't try to think that one out, logic is as foreign to these tool bags as a shower. For the most part they can be easily identified by their soft hands (having never worked a day in their life) and Che Guevara-like sense of fashion. When you see a Tea-Party Crasher, confront them, but understand that they will WANT to instigate a physical confrontation in order to post it on YouTube to "prove" how violent the Tea Party is. However, like any bully, when a large group confronts them, they'll fold like their G.E.D. certificate and drive away in their Prius to blog about it from their parent's basement.

The Gay Marriage Article

2010-07-29T07:10:00.000-07:00

Gay marriage isn’t exactly the topic du jour at the moment, but it finds its way into the news occasionally, and “don’t ask, don’t tell” will likely be repealed in the near future, so here are my thoughts. I understand that this is a controversial issue, and I will probably upset people on both sides of the political aisle. You may also find the reason for the stance different from the mainstream rationale of state’s rights.

To get things out of the way, I’m against gay marriage. However, before you call me a bigot or a homophobe (although you probably already did as a reflex), I’m in favor of civil unions, and extending all the legal recognition that the government extends to married couples to gay couples who have a civil union contract. Now, I’m a Libertarian, and I diverge from most Libertarians on this issue because the standard Libertarian view is that marriage is private, and thus the government shouldn’t have anything to do with it. I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but I come to the opposite conclusion. I’ll now explain how:

Marriage is fundamentally RELIGIOUS. The institution of marriage has been religious for the vast majority of human history. This country recognizes (and regulates) marriage despite the supposed “separation of church and state”, as an acknowledgement to human history and tradition. Although the standard Libertarian response to gay marriage is to support it, the actual response should be to get the government out of the marriage business altogether. Why is the government regulating religious institutions anyway? Where’s the ACLU?

So what’s the big deal if marriage is a religious institution? Well, the issue is that homosexuality is a sin in all but the most “new age” religions. As a Christian, I know that we’re all sinners, but part of the whole “salvation” process is that you’re supposed to TURN from your sin, not seek validation for it. Having the government institute homosexual marriage is like the government instituting “civil baptisms” for people who want a bath but don’t want to actually repent of their sins.

Civil Unions solve all the supposed discriminatory problems. If the government recognizes Civil Unions, gay couples can file taxes jointly; share insurance coverage, and all the hundreds of other things that commonly apply to traditional married couples in society. Problem solved right? No, because the gay community wants the WORD “marriage”. In a debate with John McCain in 2008, lesbian talk show host Ellen DeGeneres likened the allowance of civil unions, but not gay marriage, to racial segregation. It makes sense to a degree, but think about the comparison to civil rights: Homosexual couples cannot claim any form of civil rights violation simply because the word “marriage” is denied them. Although symbolic, it doesn’t constitute a violation of rights any more than a step father not being called “Daddy” by his step-children violate his civil rights. However, if the government endorses gay marriage, it violates the religious rights of all the major religions in the country.

Ellen Degeneres Vs. John McCain: Gay Marriage
Uploaded by ltfgf. - Check out other Film & TV videos.

Some cite that during the times of slavery, otherwise religious people used scriptures such as God’s curse on Cain, or Noah’s curse on his son Ham to justify slavery. However, these were clear and repudiated distortions of scripture. Homosexuality in contrast, rather than fleeting (and ambiguous) references in the Book of Genesis, is explicitly listed numerous times as a sin by Moses and Paul, and by Jesus Christ who endorses them both. One cannot arrive at the conclusion that homosexuality isn’t a sin without condemning the most foundational figures of western religion.

In Europe, where the homosexual revolution has been successful, and religion has been all but extinguished, preachers are arrested for hate crimes if they teach that homosexuality is a sin, or even mention the verses in the Bible that condemn homosexuality. Religious institutions cannot “discriminate” against homosexuals either, or they also are committing a hate crime, even if it violates their religious liberty. In essence, Christians and Jews are demonized, and their freedom is taken away out of an ironic notion of “tolerance”.

As a Libertarian, I define private behavior as anything that doesn’t infringe on the rights of anyone else. The government shouldn’t meddle with people if they are leaving people alone, and from an individual standpoint, a gay couple getting married doesn’t violate any of my rights, which is why I understand why most other Libertarians support gay marriage. However, take a step back, and look at the broader institutional violations of rights. Although individual marriage IS private, institutional marriage is NOT private.

The best path to take as a society is to eliminate institutional marriage. The government shouldn’t tax you differently or give you any additional rights based on whether you’re married, single, gay, or straight. Each individual should be treated simply as an individual, and not as a “household” or other such legal construct. If you’re truly for a separation of church and state, this is the only consistent path to follow.

As an alternative, I support Civil Unions for gay couples, but the word “marriage” is religious, and thus should not be extended to couples that are in a relationship that is fundamentally anti-religious. In our continuous journey for equality, we need to keep the rights of others in mind. On the road of civil rights, infringing on religious rights in order to further gay rights is at best a step sideways, if not a large step backwards.

Sweden: Is Sweden Socialist?

2010-07-20T07:10:00.000-07:00

The following is a blog from a Socialist website, written by a Swedish Socialist.

We've all heard in our conversations with our Democratic-voting friends about how Socialism is good in places like Sweden. When we bring up the horrors of the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, etc; we're told of the wonders of Socialism in Sweden and the other Norwegian countries in Europe.

The following is not "right-wing" propaganda, it's written by a socialist in order to educate his own side about the absurdity of these claims. Even the far left agrees that the "Swedish Model" was a failure, and this has been known for over a decade. The fact that many in the United States continue to promote the lie of the "Swedish Model" is only a testament to our collective ignorance driven mostly by our biased media and abysmal educational system.

- Morgue

PS: When reading, keep in mind that "liberal" doesn't mean the same thing in Europe that it does here. When Europeans refer to liberals, they are talking about what we would call Libertarians (i.e. limited government, free markets, etc). American liberals and European liberals are in reality, polar opposites of one another.

_____________________________________________________________

Is Sweden Socialist?
www.socialistworld.net, 26/10/2009
website of the committee for a workers' international, CWI

The Rise and Fall of the ‘Swedish Model’

Per Olsson, Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna (CWI in Sweden)

Within the left internationally, the question often arises about the politics and economy of the Nordic states, particularly Sweden, and whether these societies represent a form of ‘socialism’ or an alternative to neo-liberal capitalism. Per Olsson of Rättvisepartiet Socialisterna (CWI in Sweden) dissects the ‘Swedish model’, or what is left of it.

Is Sweden Socialist?
"Sweden has always been a solid market economy", states the present right-wing government on its website. And that is certainly true. Sweden has never been a socialist society - based on public ownership of production, workers’ control and management, social equality and a democratic plan of production. Neither has Sweden been a ‘mixed economy’ or provided a ‘third way’ - an alternative to both capitalism and socialism, if such a thing were possible.

However, in the 1960s and in the early 1970s, thanks to the worldwide capitalist boom and a working class movement at home, a welfare system was created that became a model for the rest of the world. Universal welfare financed by public means (through taxation) provided a highly developed education system, world class healthcare, pensions, a childcare system second to none, and numerous other social benefits and insurance cover. The ‘welfare state’ and the social harmony that existed in those days became known as the "Swedish model", although that term already entered circulation in the 1930s.

But this Swedish model ceased to exist long time ago. "It is a long way from the halcyon days of the 1970s, when the ‘Swedish model’ of cradle-to-grave welfare for all was held up to the world as an example of modernity and progress", reported CNN almost triumphally in 2003.

Nowadays, most capitalist commentators point to a ‘new Swedish model’ of privatization, deregulation and other market orientated "reforms". They also point to the way Sweden supposedly managed its banking crisis in the beginning of the 1990s. In short, the present Swedish model reads as a capitalist success story to show that neo-liberalism ‘works’.

"To speak of Sweden as socialist today is pretty far off the mark. Neo-liberal reforms have gone much further here in some sectors than in the US. Sweden has become a sort of laboratory for privatization", commented Brian Palmer, a professor of anthropology at Sweden’s Uppsala University. Olle Wästberg, a liberal and the former Consul-General to New York, boasted that: "In many fields, we [Sweden] have more private ownership compared to other European countries, and to America. About 80 percent of all new schools are privately run, as are the railroads and the subway system."

The end of the post-war boom in the mid 1970s marked the end of the old Swedish model, but even some years before that the economy entered a phase of stagnation. However, Swedish capitalism benefited enormously from the fact that the country’s productive forces were intact at the end of the World War II - Sweden was not occupied during the war and claimed to be neutral. The capitalists made huge wartime profits, fraternizing from the start with Nazi Germany. For many years Germany was the country’s main export market - iron ore and roller bearings made in Sweden were essential for Hitler’s war machine. But when it became obvious the Nazis were going to be defeated, Swedish capitalism turned towards the Allied countries to sell goods, and for protection against the rapidly advancing Stalinist Russia.

When the war ended there was an enormous worldwide demand for goods - such as steel, iron ore, timber and so on - that Swedish companies could sell at a good profit. At the beginning of the 1950s, Sweden was by far the richest country in Europe.

During this ‘golden age’ of capitalism 1950-75, when world production and markets were growing at an unparalleled rate, the Swedish economy developed at a rate of 4 percent annually. However, long before the world upswing exhausted itself, Swedish capitalism began to stagnate, while other capitalist countries were catching up or outstripping it. Sweden’s share of the world market began to decrease after 1965.

The 1970s were a decade of relatively slow growth compared to Sweden’s main capitalist competitors, and a chain of industrial crises. The Swedish shipyard industry, the second largest in the world in 1975, collapsed in the following years, as did the textile industry. Throughout the 1970s, Sweden experienced for the first time in decades a lower annual growth rate than the rest of Western Europe.

Despite this, the ‘welfare state’ continued to expand in the 1970s. There were many reasons for this: the re-awakening of workers’ struggle, the weight of the labor movement within society, and the process of political radicalization that set in after France 1968. A big influx of women workers into the workforce vitalized and strengthened the labor movement. In fact the ‘welfare state’ reached its peak in those years. The capitalists were forced to accept reforms in the workplace that gave more rights to the trade unions, for example the Law on Cooperative Decision Making (MBL in Swedish) and Working Environment Law, a new Employment Protection Law, etc. Furthermore, a public childcare system was built up and a progressive Parental Leave Act was implemented.

Even at this time, however, there were many signs that the capitalist class thought they had given too many concessions and that the clock had to be turned back. The era of social peace was over; there was no longer a material - economic - basis for classical reformism and class collaboration, although the labor leaders still clung to this illusion and the dream of ‘capitalism with a human face’. In 1980, the ruling class tried to draw the line, organizing a massive lockout which was followed by strikes by the workers, but this capitalist offensive failed. After being defeated on the industrial arena, the ruling class turned to the political arena. The capitalists and the organizations of the petit bourgeoisie, with the support of the traditional right-wing parties, launched a vicious campaign against the so-called Wage Earners’ Fund. This, in reality harmless idea, had been proposed by the trade union federation, LO, already in 1976 as an attempt to get influence in the running of companies through buying shares. The original proposal of the LO was watered down several times, but the Swedish capitalists campaigned not against the Wage Earners’ Fund as such, but against the general idea of socialism. The counter-offensive by ruling class paid off - the social democrats and the LO leadership gave in, again showing that their intention has never been to really challenge capitalism and its private ownership over the means of production and distribution.

Likewise, what is sometimes called the ‘mixed economy’ in Sweden was never a mix of public and privately owned companies. In fact, Sweden’s state sector was smaller than in many other countries and the role this state sector played was to provide cheap energy, infrastructure, and research and development (R&D) to the big monopolies that dominate the economy, while the welfare system and social democratic governments would guarantee the necessary political and social stability for capitalist expansion.

The concentration and centralization of capital probably went further in Sweden than in most other advanced capitalist countries. "It’s a family business that dominates its country’s business sector with some of Europe’s biggest in its stable...", wrote the Financial Times (July 12, 2004) in an article about the Wallenberg family and its empire. According to he same article: "No other family dominates the business sector of a developed country in the way that the Wallenberg hold sway in Sweden." And "Wallenberg dominance of corporate Sweden has been helped by successive social democratic governments." At one stage, the Wallenberg family controlled almost 40 percent of the shares traded on the Stockholm (Sweden) stock exchange.

Even Peter Stein, an extreme neo-liberal Swedish economist, admits that "Although nationalization was a point of principle in the social democrat’s program it was never implemented. Until 1970 government controlled manufacturing accounted for 5 percent of the total. State ownership and management where they existed were guided by professional ethics and not hampered by political considerations". (Peter Stein: Sweden: From capitalist Success to Welfare - State Sclerosis, September 10, 1991).

Nationalization was never "a principle". Social democracy ruled the country for almost 40 years concurrently - from the 1930s to 1976 - and during this time hardly nationalized any industry. And the few state-owned companies that do exist are mirror images of privately owned companies, and that is how social democracy and the trade union leaders want things to stay.

The trade union representatives on the boards of companies act as the defenders of shareholders, not the workers. Being in the boardroom has been a doorway to an extra income for the trade union leaders, and without any democratic control from below, or alternative to capitalism, the trade union representatives have almost always sided with the bosses. Recent examples illustrates this. Olle Ludvigsson, from the Metalworkers’ union, who has been the employees’ representative on the board of Volvo since 1998, even voted for a big increase in dividends in 2009 at the same time as the company sacked thousands of workers. The LO chairperson Wanja Lundby-Wedin voted yes to a generous retirement package for the head of the "pensions company" AMF. The very same AMF lowered its pension payouts to existing pensioners as a result of huge losses in its equity holdings. When this became public knowledge in Spring of 2009, a poll showed that 90 percent wanted Lundby-Wedin to step down as LO chief. Sitting on several company boards gave her an extra half million krona each year.

In terms of membership, influence and weight in society, the Swedish labor movement was one of the world’s strongest, if not the strongest. At one stage more than 85 percent of the total labor force was organized. The peak year was 1986, with 86 percent. Since then the rate of unionization has fallen, particularly after 2006. It now stands at 71 percent and is heading towards 61 percent by 2025, if the present trend is not reversed.

During the ‘golden age’ of capitalism the trade unions could deliver steadily increasing wages and there were jobs for all. In that period, class collaboration became the norm; the employers, the LO leadership and the social democratic government worked almost in tandem to advance growth. Collective bargaining was the cornerstone that, "developed into a system of centrally coordinate wage bargaining procedures. From the 1950s to the 1980s wage bargaining in Sweden was a question for LO and its counterpart at the time, SAF (the Swedish Employers’ Confederation). It was up to the national unions to adapt the generally set wage framework to their respective sectors of the labor market", as the LO wrote in a short pamphlet.

Since then, wage formation as it called in Sweden, has changed. Today, each national union negotiates directly with their counterparts on the employers’ side, and the agreement they sign only guarantees, at best, a minimum wage increase for the workers concerned - the final increase being decided at workplace level or in individual ‘negotiations’. By dissipating collective power, this de-centralization and individualization of wages has naturally not benefited workers.

However, the wage agreement thus accepted is binding upon all workers. Since 1928 it is a criminal act to strike once an agreement - often for a period of two or three years duration - is signed. This in turn, means that the trade unions must pay huge fines (the sum has increased over the years), including their local organizations, if they go on strike or even give verbal support to a strike within the time frame of an existing agreement. Workers involved in a so called ‘wild cat’ strike not only run the risk of fines but also of being sacked. In short, while an agreement is in force there is a ban on strikes.

Sweden’s labor laws have become more and more repressive over the last 20 years: higher fines, longer warnings in advance of strike action, compulsory meditation by a state body (the National Mediation Office) that has the legal power to postpone industrial action, and so on. All these measures were supported or introduced by the social democrats.

Against the back drop of the Cold War, with its witch hunt against Communists and other left-wingers, almost all elements of workers’ democracy within the unions were erased in the period following the end of the World War II. The left was marginalized and silenced. The unions became extremely bureaucratized and centralized, ruled by well-paid full time officials (all card-carrying member of the social democratic party), without any channels for members to influence decisions and policies. Already in the 1950s the members lost the right to vote over national wage agreements, to elect trade union officials, while the period between congresses became longer and longer.

For a long time, the Swedish social democrats, next to their Austrian sister party, was the European party with the highest ratio of members to votes in general elections. The party boasted 1.2 million members in the mid 1980s. This, in a country of just 8.3 million inhabitants (in 1985). Most of the members came from the local trade unions through the process of collective affiliation. However, once collective affiliation was abandoned in 1990, when the social democratic leadership began to refer to the trade unions as "one of several pressure groups", the membership figure dropped dramatically. It was down to 260,000 already in 1991, and since then the party has lost nearly 10,000 members each year. If present trends continue there will be no members left in 15 years time!

It was the social democratic government of the late 1980s that started what is known in Sweden as the "the system change" - the rolling back of public welfare combined with deregulation and privatization. This right-wing turn was made possible due to several international och internal factors: 1) There was no left-wing or oppositional trend within the party that could challenge the new course after the expulsion of the Marxists (CWI members) in the early 1980s. After the expulsions, as we warned at the time, the rest of the left inside social democracy just caved in or moved to the right in search of "new ideas", at the same time as the number of left-wing activists within the trade unions declined. 2) The stagnation of Swedish capitalism left no room for an expansion of welfare, instead capitalism demanded cuts in public spending and workers’ share of the economic cake. 3) The acceleration of globalization and increased competition from abroad resulting in a new neo-liberal regime globally, after the failure of Keynesianism in the 1970s. 4) The collapse of the Stalinist states in 1989-1991 gave a further impetus to these trends, including the right-wing turn of social democracy, not only in Sweden. Welfare in Western Europe had also been implemented as a means of gaining social support for capitalism in its race against Stalinism in Russia and Eastern Europe. When Stalinism collapsed the capitalists became even more convinced that welfare was an unnecessary and costly "luxury" and that turning public services into private ones would open new profitable markets.

In Sweden, the social democrats began the "system change" with deregulation of capital markets and the financial sector. The deregulation of the 1980s created an internal money market as well as an excessively rapid credit boom that fuelled speculation and bubbles (most of the money borrowed was used to buy property). The property bubble created was then followed by large capital outflows, loan losses and insolvent banks. Many banks collapsed and the state had to step in.

Also in the 1980s less and less was spent for example on the health sector and its share of the GDP fell. "Another sequel is that during the 1980s the percentage of GNP spent on medical care in Sweden actually declined. Sweden was the only nation in the world where that had happened as of 1996", wrote Andrew C Twaddle in his book "Health care reforms in Sweden 1980-1994". The old meaning of the term reform was no more - from now on ‘reforms’ became counter-reforms. This was exemplified by the major tax reform, officially named the "tax reform of the century", implemented in 1991. This so-called reform, jointly worked out by the social democrats in government and the bourgeois liberal People’s Party (Folkpartiet), ended what was left of progressive taxation. The "tax reform" lowered income taxes, particularly for the better off, while increasing sales tax to 23 percent and also rents. "The tax change was controversial because it was seen as a retreat from the ideal many Swedes cherish of creating an egalitarian society", commented the New York Times (20 February 1990). This was a modest way to describe the scale of opposition and how ordinary people regarded this "reform".

This right-wing policy of the social democracy paved the way for a crushing election defeat in September 1991. This coincided with the most severe crisis for Swedish capitalism since the 1920-30s. All the main crisis measures adopted by the conservative government of 1991-1994 were supported by the social democratic party, including the beginning of selling out state-owned companies. However, the crisis got worse, and in November 1992 not even a hike in the central bank’s benchmark interest rates to 500 percent could stop the flight of speculative capital from the country. The government was forced to abandon the fixed exchange rate and carry out a devaluation. This was the dictatorship of the market. "The bank crisis was upon us. To prevent the system from collapsing, the central government was forced to rapidly intervene with a general, overall blanket guarantee that promised that all of the Swedish banks would meet all of their obligations, existing and future, towards all lenders." (A speech delivered by the central bank deputy governor, Lars Nyberg , March 2006). Several banks were nationalized or compelled to ask for public money to stay afloat.

The government spent four percent of gross domestic product, or at least 65-70 billion krona - 20 billion in today’s U.S. dollars according to the New York Times - to save the banks. A budget surplus in 1990-91 was turned into a budget deficit of 10 percent of GDP in 1993-94 and gross public debt jumped from 43 percent of GDP in 1990 to 78 percent in 1994. However, when the social democrats returned to power in 1994, the debts and fiscal deficits became an excuse for a savage program of spending cuts, tax increases and market orientated reforms. This program was in main supported by the Left Party (the former Communist Party).

For working class people the crisis certainly was not over. Economic growth after 1994 was not followed by improving living conditions or job security, and did not even offer a pause in the neo-liberal attacks. Quite the opposite.

"The 1990s can be described as a decade of mass unemployment in Sweden. A considerable part of the population was affected by unemployment at some point in the course of the decade. As many as 1.8 million people - almost 40 percent of everyone aged between 18 and 60 in 1990 - was registered as a jobseeker at some time", stated the Welfare Commission.

The number of workers on permanent contracts decreased during the 1990s from 3.6 million to just over 3 million, while the number of temporary workers went up from 400,000 to 520,000 (15 percent of the employed). Despite years of economic growth unemployment stood at 5.6 percent in 1999, compared to 1.7 percent in 1990. Sweden found itself miles away from the social democrats’ old aim of "Jobs for all". In fact that slogan was dropped at that time. The social democratic government elected in 1994 went even further than its predecessor made up of the traditional bourgeois parties.

It made cuts in child allowances - for the first time ever the real value of this benefit was cut. Unemployment benefits were cut to 75 percent of income in 1996, down from 90 percent before 1993. However, because of the ceiling that exists in unemployment insurance - the maximum sum payable - fewer and fewer workers got 75 percent. Due to these changes, in 1992-97 the average unemployment benefit level fell from 81.3 to 70.5 percent of wages. (After the present governments’ cuts in unemployment benefit in 2006, average benefit level is down to 51 percent).

Moreover, sick pay was cut; it became more difficult to receive housing allowances, and so on. Every aspect of the social security system was affected. These attacks provoked the biggest movement of protest for decades. The movement started with strikes and demonstrations by the school students. The struggle of the school students was initiated by the Elevkampanjen, a socialist youth movement set up by young CWI members in 1989-90. 45,000 school students in total, took part in the demonstrations and day of protest organized by Elevkampanjen in Spring 1995. The school students’ struggles were then followed by workers, unemployed, the sick, disabled and other groups hit by the government.

"Sweden in revolt", read a headline in one of the biggest newspapers (Expressen) in 1996. At the end of that year, Sweden came close witnessing to a political strike against the government. Before, many workers thought that maybe the social democrats had just lost their way; now they realized that the party had entered upon a completely new capitalist road of dismantling welfare and previous social gains.

The social democratic Prime Minister even boasted that Sweden was setting a world record in spending cuts. The social democrats and their policy were praised by the IMF for example, which in 1999 wrote: "Fiscal adjustment has been dramatic since the implementation of the consolidation program in 1994. A combination of spending cuts and tax increases, augmented by reduced interest costs, produced a structural improvement amounting to 10 percent of GDP and led to a fiscal surplus of 2.2 percent in 1998.... Looking ahead, expenditure control is being reinforced by a comprehensive reform of the old-age pension system and supplemented by a nascent program of restructuring and privatizing public-sector enterprises.." (IMF on Sweden, September 2, 1999).

The proportion of private sector employees involved in - privatized or subcontracted - municipal services more than doubled during the 1990s and has kept rising since. The state sector too experienced the same development. The number of state employees halved - from 400,000 in 1997 to 200,000 20 years later. State assets worth 116 billion krona (16.4 billion U.S. dollars) were sold by the social democratic governments that ruled from 1994 to 2006. In many aspects social democrat-ruled Sweden took the lead in implementing the "market reforms" and neo-liberal agenda of the European Union (EU).

Public services ‘produced’ by a non-public actor became increasingly common in childcare, education, child and youth social services, and care of the elderly. In 1996, Sweden deregulated its electricity sector, allowing private competition in distribution. Telecommunications, postal services and public transport were also deregulated. And state companies, including banks nationalized during the 1992-93 crisis were sold off, after their losses had been passed over to the public sector.

Another area in which Sweden has led the way is in pension reforms... With the implementation of the premium-reserve pension reform of 1998, a system was created that indeed is not guaranteed to result in high pensions for pension savers." (Sweden in Europe, speech deliver by the deputy central bank governor Lars Nyberg in 2003). This so called pension reform - privatization of pension savings and lower pensions - caused revolt in the rest of Europe when those governments were trying to copy it.

Nor did the social democrats reverse the so-called the school choice system introduced by their rivals in 1992, which has paved the way for an upsurge in private schools. In 1991, the share of secondary pupils in privately run schools was 1.5 percent - today’s figure is 17 percent. In the 1990s, the health sector too was opened to private alternatives. The taxes paid in Sweden should entitle citizens to social security, healthcare and so on. But that is only on Paper. In addition to taxes you must also pay fees when visiting a doctor, for being hospitalized, and so on - fees that have increased over the years. It now costs 140 krona (20 U.S. dollars) to visit a doctor in Stockholm, and 300 krona (more than 40 U.S. dollars) to see a specialist. A visit to the dentist costs a fortune, usually more than 600 krona (85 U.S. dollars) for a check up, while a simple filling costs more. 850,000 Swedes can no longer afford to see a dentist, according to a recent study.

Thanks to the ‘lesser evil’ factor, the social democrats were able to stay in power after the elections of 1998 and 2002. Workers voted against the traditional right-wing parties, rather than in favor of social democracy. The party does not enjoy the same firm support as before, and its share of votes has been in sharp decline since 1994. In the last election, in 2006, the party scored its worse result since 1921, the year the right to vote was introduced for both men and women. It was an electoral disaster forcing the leader, Persson, to resign.

The party changed leadership, but the policy stayed the same. In some respects the social democrats have moved further to the right since their defeat in 2006, with the new leaders emphasizing the need to win middle-class votes in the big cities.

The present right-wing government, elected in 2006, began its term of office with drastic cuts in unemployment benefit and social insurance with the aim of creating a low-paid labor market. This in turn made the situation even worse when the global capitalist crisis set in. Never in modern history has Sweden entered a crisis with such gaping holes in its social safety net.

This government also wants to sell out almost all the remaining state-owned companies and open all public sector activity to "competition" and potential takeovers by private companies. Because Swedish workers are less protected than before - more people than ever lack for example unemployment insurance - the present economic crisis is rapidly turning into a social crisis. Over the last twelve months unemployment has soared from 5.9 percent to 8.3 percent and is set to reach 12 percent in 2011.

It is easy in Sweden to dismiss permanent workers. The bosses just have to claim lack of work to revoke job contracts. This explains why unemployment is rising faster in Sweden than in many other countries while youth unemployment, close to 30 percent, is amongst the highest in Europe.

The social democrats, Left Party, and the Greens recently formed an alliance called the Red-Greens, but this alliance is neither red nor green. The social democrats and the trade union movement in Sweden are facing a historic crisis. They have lost roots, influence and support, with no prospect of regaining their old ground as their policy and methods mean further attacks on what is left of the general welfare system. The social democratic party has become an empty shell. The new party leader, Mona Sahlin, once said that "Sometimes I fell I’m the youngest member, and I’m 53".

The task facing genuine socialists in Sweden and other countries as well, is to rebuild the workers’ movement on socialist lines - to build a new mass socialist workers’ party and transform the trade unions into democratic and fighting organizations. The key lesson that has to be drawn from experiences in Sweden is that no social gain will last unless capitalism is overthrown. This is even more so in a period of crisis, when a revolutionary struggle is needed to win even the smallest concessions from the capitalist class and to save jobs. Therefore, with the basis for social reforms within capitalism having been eroded, the only way forward is a struggle for socialism and a democratically planned economy.

Government Spending = Taxation

2010-07-16T08:19:00.000-07:00

Every single dollar the government spends MUST always be paid for with a corresponding dollar taken through taxation. Nothing in life is free, and that also applies to government spending. Some may say that deficit spending or printing money isn’t paid for by taxation, but actually both are.

Printing money increases the amount of currency, which causes inflation. Inflation means that goods cost more than they did before. That printed money is in fact, paid for by indirect taxation, since the people who are buying the goods at the higher price at are doing so to enable to government to increase its own money supply.

Deficit spending is the most immoral form of taxation. Because not only are you thrusting the taxes on future generations for present services, but also the incurring interest payments. This means that not only are your children and grandchildren going to pay for the services you’re using through their own taxation, but they’re also paying additional taxes to cover the interest payments on that debt. It feels like “free money” because you’re not currently paying for it, but it’s no different than running up a credit card. You eventually have to pay your balance, or they come and take your stuff away. Imagine if your parents were able to force YOU to pay their credit card balance, and if you didn’t pay it, they would take YOUR stuff. We’re seeing some of that today because of the “New Deals” of previous generations. Over 60% of the government budget is for Social Security, Medicare, and other government health entitlements. That means that if these programs were never created, our taxes could easily be over 60% lower than they are now. As we push these debts onto subsequent generations, the “snow ball” of debt only grows, until the lives of the unfortunate generation that will be forced to finally pay this massive bill will resemble an existence similar to slavery or serfdom.

Once we understand that all government spending must be paid for with taxation, turning to the government for “free” money doesn’t sound as attractive. Someone has to pay for it, and even when you “soak the rich”, it still affects and hurts you through indirect taxation.

Let’s say you’re poor, and the government decides to tax businesses and “the rich” in order to give you welfare. Those rich people surely don’t need all that money right? Well, yes, those “evil rich people” don’t need all that money to live on, so if the government takes their money they're not going to starve or anything. However, those rich people rarely hoard their money in their mattresses, they invest it. What investment does is it makes capital available for businesses to start up and expand. Without investment, all corporations would have to go to the banks and to the government for capital. Private investment allows investors to give money to businesses that they believe in, and hope to benefit from if they are successful. Investment is the hallmark of a growing economy, while falling investment (characterized by a falling stock market) is the characteristic or a bad economy.

Without investment, businesses don’t expand, don’t hire, and lay people off. Now we have massive unemployment, and goods and services begin to disappear because the businesses that provided them have gone bankrupt. Those goods and services that are left have less competition, and due to supply and demand, must raise their prices accordingly.

So let’s look at your life. You have your “free” check from the government, but meanwhile you can’t get a job and the price of everything is going up. That “free” money doesn’t buy as much as it used to, and in the end you’re worse off, especially if you were actually able to work in the first place (as opposed to disabled or suffering from a condition that prevents you from working).

It’s said that capitalism is like a store with goods on the shelf that people can’t afford, while socialism is like a store with no goods on the shelves at all. Socialism offers free money, but without the ability to exchange that money for goods and services, it’s just paper.

Why all drugs should be legalized

2010-07-03T07:04:00.000-07:00

The War of Drugs is a dividing line between Conservatives and Libertarians. As a Libertarian, I do not support the War of Drugs, but the average Conservative does support it, as they feel that the government has a role in protecting the civil society, and may infringe on some private behavior to do so. Since this is a dividing issue, I know I will ruffle the feathers of some who I normally can find common ground with on issues of economics and limited government. I simply ask that you consider my stance with an open mind.

For the record, I don’t do any sort of drugs aside from the occasional over-the-counter stuff for colds and allergies. I’ve never even smoked a cigarette in my entire life, so rest assured that I am not some pothead trying to legalize drugs so that I can get high.

The following video is an interview with Milton Friedman, who’s widely revered as recent history’s strongest advocate of capitalism and freedom. He served as an economic adviser to President Reagan, and was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics. Below the video, I’ve combined several bullet points that the video discusses regarding the Prohibition of drugs.

- Prohibition does NOT eliminate supply
- Prohibition creates gang violence
- Prohibition distorts normal free markets
- Prohibition drives people from mild drugs to strong drugs
- Prohibition CREATES drugs like crack
- Prohibition is responsible for tens of thousands of murders every year
- Prohibition destroys inner-cities,
- Prohibition turns citizens into criminals
- Prohibition PROTECTS large drug cartels
- Prohibition criminalizes those who aren’t hurting anyone (the majority of drug arrests are for simple possession).
- Prohibition creates a precedent for the government to regulate private behavior simply because they believe it is undesirable. If fact, Prohibition HAS done just that, leading to smoking bans, seat-belt and helmet laws, gambling bans, trans fat bans, gun bans, etc. Eventually leading to today when the government is regulating the thermostats in our homes and what light bulbs we can use. Once you give the government permission to criminalize private behavior, the government simply will never stop.

Although ending Prohibition would lead to more people becoming drug addicts, those people are NOT victims, as they have chosen to take the drugs themselves. The child who’s murdered in a drive-by shooting between drug gangs IS a victim. Since the Prohibition of drugs leads directly to tens of thousands of additional murders every year, you’re simply trading tragedies. I have far less pity for the addict who chose to take drugs than for the innocent bystanders caught in inner-city crossfire between the gang wars that Prohibition enables.

Do I think that heroin should be able to be purchased at Wal-Mart in the candy aisle? Absolutely not! We can decriminalize drugs, while still regulating the sale of said drugs, just as we do with cigarettes, alcohol, and prescription drugs.

What about the addicts? Well, what about the alcoholics? What about those who are addicted to coffee? What about people who are addicted to World of Warcraft? The Prohibition of drugs doesn’t eliminate addiction, and in fact, doesn’t even eliminate the supply of drugs in the first place. Even WITH the Prohibition, we still have to deal with drug addicts already, and as already stated, Prohibition drives users to harder drugs, which are far more addicting in the first place.

Prohibition of alcohol was repealed for good reasons. Unfortunately, that was a time when the government required the consent of the governed, and actually had to amend the Constitution to ban things. Nowadays, the government can just ban, regulate, and outlaw anything it wants to without having to worry about going through the process of amending the Constitution. Why have the Republicans (who are supposed to be the party of limited Constitutional government) conceded on the issue of requiring a Constitutional amendment for the government to ban things? Because it was Richard Nixon (a Republican) who started the War of Drugs in the first place.

If we want to end things like Obamacare, Cap-and-Trade, and other government overreaches into our private lives, we have to be consistent, and stand for the Constitution, even in cases where we disagree with the behavior. If we’re willing to ignore the Constitution in cases where we agree with the motives of the government, we’re screwed. If we think its okay for the government to regulate private behavior in the form of drugs, how can we argue that it’s unconstitutional for the government to force us to buy health care, to be a certain weight, or to take away our salt?

Celebrating Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan

2010-06-29T10:28:00.000-07:00

As the war in Afghanistan crosses the 10-year mark, and the war in Iraq reached the venerable age of 7 years, many believe that the American people are “war-weary”. However, we haven’t been at war for 7-10 years, in fact both wars ended the same years they started (in fact Iraq ended within the same week).

Impossible you say? Not at all, in fact consider how much the definition of war has changed since the “good ol’ days” of World War 2. If you Google the timeline of World War 2, the war was over in 1945 when the Germans and Japanese surrendered to allied forces. Specifically, World War 2 ended in Europe June 5th, 1945; and ended in the Pacific theatre September 2nd 1945.

What happened after the war was over? The plan for rebuilding Europe was called the Marshall Plan, and went from 1947-1951. The reason I’m even bringing all of this history up is that way back in the 1950s we never joined the war and the post-war reconstruction into a single operation.

Were there still Nazi holdouts after Germany surrendered? Sure there were, and even the Nuremberg Trials (where prominent Nazi leaders were tried for their crimes against humanity) were not considered part of World War 2, and in fact wasn’t chartered until after the London Charter (giving the Allies sovereign power over Germany) was signed in August of 1945. Again, my point is that this post-war period of rebuilding, while bringing the “bad guys” to justice was not considered part of World War 2, but part of the post-war period.

So, when did the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan actually end; and when did the post-war reconstruction and rebuilding begin? First let’s look at the war in Iraq because it’s the most clear-cut. Here’s a basic timeline of the beginning of the war to the ending of the war:

2003 17 March - UK's ambassador to the UN says the diplomatic process on Iraq has ended; arms inspectors evacuate; US President George W Bush gives Saddam Hussein and his sons 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war.

2003 20 March - US-led invasion topples Saddam Hussein's government.

There you go. The war lasted a single day; three days if you tack on the 48 hours President Bush gave Saddam Hussein and his sons to leave Iraq. During the entire invasion, only 139 American servicemen were killed, along with 57 other coalition troops, for a grand total of 196 deaths over the entirety of the war.

The war in Afghanistan is a little harder to pin down because there wasn’t much of a central government in Afghanistan to begin with. However, since the main targets of the war were the Taliban and Al Qaeda, we’ll consider the point where they lost control of the country the end of the war.

2001 07 October: The United States, supported by Britain, begins its attack on Afghanistan

2001 21 December: The interim Afghan government is sworn in.

The war in Afghanistan took a little over two months to win, which isn’t as impressive as the war in Iraq, but is still pretty good. However, the casualties of the Coalition over this time period were only 12, as in only 12 troops died on our side over the entire course of the war.

Now, I’m not saying that after the wars were over we should have just brought everyone home and let Iran annex these countries. Post-war reconstruction and stabilization is important, and differentiates countries like America who give of our own substance to help rebuilt a fallen enemy, and the empires of history that pillage the resources of their defeated foe, or annex their land in the name of their expanded empire.

My point is that the “war” has been over for many years, and that it has been a deliberate effort to re-characterize war that makes it nearly impossible for us to win a war at all. We still have troops in Frankfurt Germany, and Yokosuka Japan. However, only an idiot would say that the presence of these troops marks a continuation of a war that ended 65 years ago. Likewise, simply because we still have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan engaging in reconstruction and stabilization doesn’t mean the war is still ongoing.

This doesn’t mean the period of reconstruction is going well, or that our troops aren’t suffering tragic casualties. I don’t mean to demean the sacrifice of our troops, or the causes that they are fighting for. The Taliban must be brought to justice, and it is up to America to do so. However, my feeling is that by combining the war with the post-war reconstruction, we are cheapening the impressive accomplishments of our military, and setting them up for failure. For example, if we “give up” in Afghanistan, and decide that we can no longer afford to reconstruct the country, did we “lose the war”? Absolutely not, but if you combine the war and the post-war reconstruction, then yes, we did.

Why the changing standards in war? I can only speculate that it began with Vietnam, and the anti-American attitudes of the 1960s movements and the media that wanted America to fail. This desire to sabotage the morale of our military hasn’t abated since that time, and even now, the media (and the grown-up hippies in Washington) want to handicap our military, even when it comes to the very definition of war, and the terms of success or failure.

This 4th of July weekend, remember our men and women who serve in our armed forces, and let them know that even if our current President pulls every troop out of Iraq and Afghanistan, the military didn’t lose the war. The war had in fact, been over for years, and ending our financial support to rebuild the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan speaks more to President Obama’s tragic handling on the US economy than any failing on the part of our brave military.

The Road to Serfdom

2010-06-11T09:39:00.000-07:00

The Road to Serfdom was written by Friedrich von Hayek (recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974). The Road to Serfdom is among the most influential and popular expositions of classical liberalism (libertarianism). Ronald Reagan at his time listed Hayek as among the 2 or 3 people who most influenced his philosophy, and welcomed Hayek to the White House as a special guest.

The Reader's Digest Condensed version is available here (http://www.iea.org.uk/files/upld-publication43pdf?.pdf). It's a short read, and at the end of the book a series of cartoon panels detail the steps outlined in the full book, which can be purchased at Amazon for under $10.

The cartoons are rather dated, which isn't surprising since the book was published in the 1940s. In this article, I'm going to re-create the cartoon panels using modern imagery, and update the commentary with examples and my own thoughts.

THE ROAD TO SERFDOM

1. War forces "National Planning"

In the face of an enemy, a crisis, or a national tragedy; we are compelled to trade our freedom for security. In times of war, the government must mobilize the nation's economy to fuel the war machine, and this is permitted by consent because of the threat of the enemy. In lesser cases, where there is not the threat of wholesale destruction, the government may restrict civil liberties or economic freedom under the threat of war or terrorism; as Rahm Emanuel said "Never let a good crisis go to waste".

2. Many want "Planning" to stay

Government planners and bureaucrats who want to hold onto power once the immediate danger has passed or been addressed need a never-ending parade of villains in order to justify taking more power and control for themselves. The “Progressive Movement” is born.

3. The "Planners" promise Utopias

Politicians use their acquired power and influence to make promises to whomever they must to gain more power and influence. Everyone is promised free money and special deals, and all are promised that everyone else (other than them) is going to pay for it all. People stand in long lines for "Obama money", while demanding that the government "bailout" their pensions, and lavish and wasteful lifestyles.

4. The "Planners" can't agree on ONE Utopia

Elected politicians have constituencies with opposing interests. Without the unity of a national crisis or war, each group reverts to their own individual interests. Nobody is willing to compromise or budge, and those that do are considered enemies of democracy and of “the people” they represent.

5. The citizens can’t agree either

The people aren’t satisfied with either flavor of “Socialist lite” from both sides. Compromise only breeds more discontent. The people are sharply divided as government power grows because the power of government becomes ever more present in their lives. Those who benefit from large government (especially social welfare programs) demand more government, while those who struggle under taxation and oppressive regulation demand less government.

6. “Planners” oppose forcing agreement, instead try to “sell” a plan to all

Most ideologues are well-meaning, and oppose (for now) using force to win the argument. They instead turn to attempts to influence public opinion using a giant propaganda machine. The coming dictator will find this propaganda machine very useful.

7. The Gullible find Agreement

Growing national confusion leads to those least educated and who are thrilled and convinced by passionate speeches to start or support a party.

8. Confidence in “Planners” fades

The “Planners” do more harm than good every step of the way. The more they try to “fix” things, the worse they get. People begin to (rightly) believe that the Planners can’t get anything done at all.

9. The “Strong Man” is given Power

In desperation, the new party leader is authorized to hammer out a new plan and force its obedience. Later the party will dispense with the leader once the situation is stabilized (or so they think).

10. The Party takes over the Country

By now, confusion and discontent is so great that obedience to the new leader must be obtained at all cost as a matter of national stability. You might even join the party yourself in order to show your support for your country. Obedience to the new leader and loyalty to the nation are considered one and the same.

11. A Negative Aim ensures Party Unity

An early step for all Dictators is to unify the majority against a scapegoat minority. It’s easier to unify people against a common enemy than a common ideal.

12. Nobody opposes the Leader’s plan

It is suicidal to oppose the government. Secret police are ruthless, and obedience to the state is the top priority in the “planned state”. All freedom is gone.

13. Your profession, wages, thinking, recreation, and discipline are all planned by the State

The State dictates your profession, where you will work, and how much you will make. Government controlled propaganda news all echo the same lies until you know nothing else. Every aspect of your life is controlled by the State, and millions perish in the “Revolutionary Holocaust”.

A Tea-Partier's Defense of Rand Paul

2010-05-21T05:02:00.000-07:00

Rand Paul (who just won his Kentucky primary, and defeated the Republican establishment in the name of Libertarianism and the Tea Party movement) has just had a crash course in the media’s sound-byte format. If you weigh in on a complex issue and your views can’t be properly summarized in about four words, then be prepared to be misinterpreted and demonized. In a vital election year, and with Democrats scrambling to find ANY example of racism, Rand Paul has been a gift sent from heaven, and so far, rather than defend his views using the Constitution he’s trying to distance himself from them, and in the process, make himself look just as slimy and two-faced as the Republican establishment he just defeated.

The differences between Conservatives and Libertarians (like Paul) are limited, but one of the major areas of disagreement is in areas where the government tries to affect personal behavior for the public good. I’m NOT talking about rape and murder; I’m talking about free speech and private behavior. Conservatives believe that some things aren’t protected by the Constitution because it disrupts the civil society. This is why Conservative groups (many whom are Christian) oppose things like prostitution, drugs, porn, etc. A Libertarian believes that private behavior is … well private. As long as you’re not infringing on the rights of others, the government has no business telling you how to live your life.

As a Libertarian myself, I agree with Rand Paul. The problem is that our sound-byte media won’t give him the venue he needs to properly articulate his views and as a result, he’ll be maligned as a racist, and the Democrats will use this mischaracterization to malign Republicans, the Tea Party, and anything else in their path.

Let’s talk about the Civil Rights Act. You might not be aware, but there have been EIGHT Civil Rights Acts between 1866 and 1991. The one in 1964 was the most significant, but before we talk about the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I want to talk about the Civil Rights Act of 1875.

In 1875, two REPUBLICANS sponsored the Act which was signed by REPUBLICAN President Grant. The Act guaranteed that everyone, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, was entitled to the same treatment in "public accommodations" (i.e. inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1875

What happened to the 1875 law? It was ruled UNCONSTITUTIONAL! Why? Because Congress had no power to regulate the conduct of individuals; The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits discrimination by the state, not by individuals. Almost 100 years later (in 1964) pretty much the same law was passed, but thanks to the Progressive movement, and the Supreme Court studying case-law rather than the founding documents, it was no longer deemed unconstitutional.

Am I in favor of racism? Absolutely not, and in fact I have been the target of racism myself. However, does the government (especially the FEDERAL government) have the power to regulate free speech? Nope; as long as people aren’t physically assaulted (as I HAVE been), the government can’t arrest you simply for being a racist and for speaking your mind.

In the recent “Citizens Unites VS Federal Election Commission”, the Supreme Court struck down the Campaign-Finance Reform law (McCain-Feingold), and stated that corporations have the same free-speech rights as an individual, and thus can contribute money and create political ads unmolested, just as an individual could.

If a corporation has the same free speech rights as an individual, and if an individual cannot be arrested or fined for being racist, how can a company or a corporation be fined or shut down for being racist? There isn’t a “hate speech” clause in the first amendment, and I want to show the danger in this thinking, and how it plays right into the hands of the Progressives.

Remember that whole Obamacare bill that everyone wants repealed? Yeah, remember WHY people are saying it’s unconstitutional? It’s because it puts an individual mandate of people to buy health insurance and the government doesn’t have the power to force individuals to buy a product.

The 1875 the Civil Rights Act was struck down for reasons similar to why people are hoping Obamacare will be struck down: because it regulates individuals. However by defending the Act of 1964 (which is basically the same as the 1875 Act); they are conceding that the Federal government CAN in-fact regulate individuals.

You know that old saying “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight for your right to say it”. That’s why Rand Paul and other Libertarians stand for the Constitution, and thus stand for free speech, even when they personally disagree with it. Many of these Conservatives who are attacking Paul are supporting the Federal Government and saying that they DO have the power to regulate free speech.

Ever wonder why there doesn’t seem to be much difference between the two parties? It’s because there ISN'T much difference between the two parties. Both Democrats and Republicans believe that it’s permissible to use the power of the Federal Government unconstitutionally in order to make America “better”. The only difference is how each defines what “better” is, but in the end, if you’re a Tea Party member, or if you simply believe in the Constitution, you MUST stand with Rand Paul.

Paul isn’t a racist, and there’s nothing racist about questioning the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Conservatives say they’re tired of being called racists, and for “white guilt” and so forth, but then buckle when someone questions the Civil Rights Act? Come on guys! Are you with the Constitution or for Big Government? If you’re willing to trample the Constitution and side with Big Government when it’s an issue you believe in, how are you any better than Barack Obama?

Capitalism is Old, Marxism is New?

2010-05-12T09:52:00.000-07:00

Marxists in entertainment, academia, and government are always trying to brand Marxism as new and fresh. The US Constitution and the Founding Fathers who wrote it are outdated, but Marxism is relevant, and its adherents are up with the times.

A simple look at history shows the absurdity of these sentiments, not that I expect Marxists to have even a basic understanding of history though. I am writing this article merely to give a brief history of the roots of Marxism.

The US Constitution was adopted in 1787. Admittingly the 18th century DOES seem like a long time ago, and at this point you might believe that systems adopted in the 18th century couldn’t possibly be relevant in the 21st century. However, where did Marxism come from?

At the beginning of the French Revolution (1789-1799) the French based their “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” on the US Constitution. However, the assembly that was formed became a pure democracy (not a republic), as those who argued for a form of representative government were rejected. The resulting democratic assembly collapsed, and ended in a dictatorship within a year.

The long-term contributions of the French Revolution and the “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” were two-fold, primarily was institutionalized class-warfare (and the first progressive income tax). The Declaration reads in part “A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means.”

The second contribution was institutionalized elitism. Even though the Declaration sought to empower “Man” and “the Citizen”, the fact that the democratic assembly failed within a year, necessitating the need for a Dictator proved that an elitist mentality is needed to protect the people from themselves.

Karl Marx was born in 1818 and died in 1883. Marxism was not a new idea, but was merely compiled much the same way that the US Founding Fathers compiled the ideas of John Locke, Adam Smith, and English common law when writing the US Constitution. I find it amusing when Hollywood bubbleheads and college students talk about Marxism as if it’s brand new, when the guy who invented it died in 1883.

Marx’s ideas took off in Europe, where they appealed to Europeans who suffered under class-based economic systems. In America, where there was no class-based economic system, the ideas were rejected as European, and thus un-American.

All of that changed in the late 1800s, when American academics traveled to Germany to acquire their Doctorates (American universities did not issue Doctorates at that time). Those Academics came back indoctrinated by European Marxism, and began to try to implement those ideas in America, and thus “The Progressive Movement” was born.

In 1883, one such intellectual wrote "Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics", and received a Ph.D. in history and political science, but had to learn German to do so. His name was Woodrow Wilson, the 28th President of the United States.

From Woodrow Wilson and FDR to Obama, the Progressives are characterized by institutionalized class-warfare (now aided by racial politics), and elitism demonstrated by an ever-growing Federal government, and ever-shrinking individual rights and freedom.

Now, the purpose of this brief history isn’t meant to do anything but demonstrate that Marxism is hardly as “fresh and new” as Leftists attempt to portray it.

The Constitution was adopted in 1787, and the roots of Marxism were founded in 1789. If the Founding Fathers are irrelevant because they lived hundreds of years ago, how is Marxism anymore relevant when it’s “Founding Fathers” also lived hundred of years ago, AND THEY WEREN’T EVEN AMERICAN, they were European. Sure Marx is from the 19th century rather than the 18th century, but SO WHAT? It’s the 21st century, what’s the difference?

Rather than look at the timing, let’s look at the results. Compare the United States to the paragon of Marxist government... the Soviet Union. One side won the Cold War, and the other murdered over 100 million of its own citizens.

The American Flag is Racist???

2010-05-10T04:56:00.000-07:00

On Cinco de Mayo this year, five students were sent home because they *gasp* wore American flag T-shirts. The School Administrator (who's Hispanic) believed that the American flag was disrespectful to Mexican-Americans because it was Cinco de Mayo, and a student was interviewed saying that "We wouldn't do that on the 4th of July".

NOTE: The picture above is from a Cinco de Mayo parade in 2005.

Now, this all happened in California, which explains a lot, but there are a lot of disturbing undertones in this story that nobody is really talking about. The most disturbing is this belief that the flag of the Unites States is racist. How is that possible? If you're an American citizen that is YOUR FLAG, but maybe that's the problem isn't it, especially with the Hispanic community?

Consider that Saint Patrick’s Day is an Irish holiday, and Irish flags are proudly displayed outside of pubs and such on that day, but I've never heard of anyone being offended by an American flag because Irish-Americans are AMERICANS.

Mexican-Americans are offended by the American flag? I can only conclude that it's because they are not Americans at all, but simply Mexicans. I'm not saying that they are all illegal aliens (although I'm sure many are, simply as a matter of statistics), but even if they are legal citizens, they are not Americans in any meaningful sense. How can you be offended by America and live here?

I want to post the pledge that children used to take in all public schools, although that's probably not the case anymore, which is probably part of the problem...

Compare THAT to Mexico where the government corruption and drug cartel wars have turned that country over into anarchy. How the heck can you flee your sinkhole country to America and have anything but gratitude?

I can only conclude that those who despise our flag aren't FROM Mexico at all, they are probably second-generation immigrants who've never been outside the country, and aren't Mexican anymore than I am British. However, they've been indoctrinated by Leftist groups and the Democrat Party in order to divide, and conquer the country.

It's not just Mexicans though, but the usual suspects on the Left. However, ironically when you criticize them or question their patriotism, they get all defensive and play the victim card and say something along of the lines of "How DARE you question my patriotism".

Let's be blunt: If you think the flag of United States is racist, then YOU ARE MORE THAN UNPATRIOTIC. I'm not only questioning your patriotism, I'm calling you out. If you're loyalty is to Mexico, it's not like we have a fence or anything keeping you here, GET OUT! If you're trying to have a "reconquista" (re-conquering) of the south-western United States because to think that it belongs to Mexico, that makes you an INSURGENT, and you're committing SEDITION against the Unites States. In a bygone age, you'd be arrested and tried for a capital offense, but in today's "progressive" America ... they make you a school administrator.

Smearing Christians

2010-03-31T04:42:00.000-07:00

The Left is always trying to change the language in order to mask their agenda or smear their opponents. This is nothing new, but over the weekend, this practice sunk to a new low when the media (including Fox News) labeled a religious cult called the Hutaree a "Christian Militia".

During the final days before the passage of Obamacare, the Left tried desperately to instigate conservative activists like the Tea Party into doing something violent or offensive. Members of Congress walked through the crowds of shouting Tea Party members with cell phone cameras on and recording; all in an effort to capture a sound byte that could be used to discredit the entire movement. When no such sound byte materialized, they moved forward anyway, and simply lied; telling the media that some unidentified person shouted the "N" word. Although several videos were taken of the encounter in question from multiple sources, there is no trace of the "N" word being shouted at anyone, but the story was run nationwide anyway.

Over the days following the passage of Obamacare, Democrats complained about death threats and threats of violence. Of course there were no death threats, and the best evidence they could come up with were a few voicemails with "F-bombs" in them, and one calling for Bart Stupak (the "pro-life" Democrat to was a deciding vote for Obamacare) to jump off a pier. Despite the complete lack of evidence of violent conservatives, and the rampant history of Leftist violence (including bullets fired at Republican Eric Cantor's office, and ACTUAL threats to his family), the story was run nationwide anyway. At best, a sense of "both sides are wrong" was preached from more balanced outlets like Fox, while on Leftist networks, the right was portrayed as the sole villain, while the Left as the innocent victim of hate and violence.

That latest slap-in-the-face from a media intent on smearing conservatism came when the media (including Fox News, whom I expect better from) reported the Hutaree religious cult as a "Christian Militia". That label plays right into the Leftist's script that conservatives and Christians are violent and dangerous. At best, creating a false sense of moral equivalence, and at worst, smearing the conservative movement, and giving the Obama administration and their media allies the ammunition they need to discredit the Tea Parties.

The Hutaree borrow elements of Christianity, and their website quotes several Bible verses. However, David Koresh's Branch Davidians cult also appeared outwardly Christian, as have several other cults such as that of Jim Jones. Look up the headlines from the Branch Davidian Cult (or previous religious cults), and you would see that David Koresh as his cult were labeled as a "sect" or (rightly) a "cult", but not as a "Christian" Militia". Why? Because everyone understood that the actions of that religious cult shouldn't be used to paint other Christians are dangerous or violent.

Fast forward to today. The Democrats are campaigning against the American people. They are using the smear tactics typically reserved for attacking their Republican opponents, and turning them on typical Americans who are speaking out against their agenda. Religious cults are nothing new, but for respected media outlets like Fox News to play right into the hands of the Left, and smear Christians by portraying this cult as indicative of some kind of new breed of right-wing extremism is unconscionable.

Why Obamacare WILL be Repealed

2010-03-22T18:14:00.000-07:00

I'm not generally an optimist; in fact most people take my commonly expressionless demeanor as a sign of anger. So, if would probably surprise many of those who know me for me to predict that Obamacare WILL be repealed. The Statist politicians and the MSM have compared Obamacare to Social Security and Medicare, and pointed out that those programs (which were rightly controversial in their day and still are in most circles) have been impossible to repeal due to their popularity, and they feel that Obamacare will join them and never be repealed as well.

The Statists and their MSM allies are missing a vital difference between Social Security/Medicare and Obamacare. Obamacare isn't like those other two programs, its welfare. Social Security and Medicare are known as "earned benefits". You work, you pay into the system, and when you retire you receive benefits based on the amount paid into that system (or so it was supposed to work). It's not a great investment (in fact, it's pretty crappy), but everyone pays (in theory), and benefits are tied to investment. The reason WHY Social Security and Medicare reform meets such stiff opposition is due to the people's sense of ownership of the benefits that THEY PERSONALLY PAID FOR.

Compare that to Obamacare. There is no "earned benefit", the "rich" pay higher taxes, while the "poor" receive government subsidized (i.e. free) health insurance. Taxes paid never equate to benefits received, in fact it's exactly the opposite. There's no sense of ownership on the part of the individual, it's simply a welfare program (and an immensely expensive one at that).

So rather than looking to the examples of Social Security and Medicare, look to the examples of unpopular, job-killing welfare programs. Welfare reform laws have been passed every couple of years since the 1950s and 1960s, most notably in 1996 as part of the agenda of the newly elected Republican congress.

After the election in November, when the Republican congress of 2011 shows up to work, they won't meet any of the opposition to Obamacare that they would meet if trying to abolish Social Security and/or Medicare. Without an "earned benefit", nobody except the "poor" receive any tangible benefit, and will be the only ones sad to see it repealed.

At best, those who would benefit from Obamacare make up less than 20% of the population. Also keep in mind the Obamacare is OPPOSED overwhelmingly by seniors, which are a core interest group that support Social Security and Medicare. Without the support of seniors, they are relying solely on the support of the poor. However, this is a horrible political mistake because in most cases the poor aren't in their economic situation because they are victims of some kind of chicanery, but because of their own poor decisions and laziness. These aren't the kinds of people you want to put all of your faith in, and aren't the most sympathetic group either.

Obamacare will be repealed, it's just welfare, and welfare programs get repealed quite often because they aren't popular when they get too expensive. It's hard to convince people to continue to pay for the health insurance of someone else when they themselves are struggling to make ends meet because of the crushing taxes.

The Democrat Party and Obamacare wrote the prescription for their own destruction. They were so dead-set on Marxist redistribution-of-wealth that they forgot to make Obamacare an “earned benefit”, and have thus doomed it to be repealed.

Maybe I'm wrong, and we'll be a European Socialist country soon, I don't know. Maybe everyone will fall in love with perpetual unemployment at 10%, and higher taxes, and skyrocketing gas and energy costs. However, judging by the polls, the Tea Parties, and common sense ... I'm optimistic.

Satan and Social Justice

2010-03-12T06:07:00.000-08:00

This is a companion to an earlier article I wrote last year called "Did Jesus teach Socialism", which can be found here.

In that earlier article, I explained that although Christ taught his disciples to not trust in material wealth, and to care for the poor that his teachings are a far cry from Marxist Redistribution of Wealth. The main reason for this is due to the fact that religious compassion is VOLUNTARY, while Marxist redistribution is forced.

Now I want to examine Lucifer. He was expelled from the presence of God because he sought to overthrow God and his plan for humanity. As an LDS Christian (aka Mormon), some of the sources that I will quote are outside of the Bible, and if you are a "Bible alone" Christian, I respect that, and feel free to take those sources with a grain of salt.

The Bible Dictionary in the King James version used by the LDS church defines the War in Heaven thusly:

[The War in Heaven] arises out of Revelation 12:7 and refers to the conflict that took place in the premortal existence among the spirit children of God. The war was primarily over how and in what manner the plan of salvation would be administered to the forthcoming human family upon the earth. The issues involved such things as [free choice], how to gain salvation, and who should be the Redeemer. The war broke out because one-third of the spirits refused to accept the appointment of Jesus Christ as the Savior. Such a refusal was a rebellion against the Father’s plan of redemption. It was evident that if given agency, some persons would fall short of complete salvation; Lucifer and his followers wanted salvation to come automatically to all who passed through mortality, without regard to individual preference, [choices], or voluntary dedication (see Isaiah 14:12-20; Luke 10:18; Revelation 12:4-13; D&C 29:36-38; Moses 4:1-4). The spirits who thus rebelled and persisted were thrust out of heaven and cast down to the earth without mortal bodies, “and thus came the devil and his angels” (D&C 29:37; see also Revelation 12:9; Abraham 3:24-28).

[This] warfare is continued in mortality in the conflict between right and wrong; between the Gospel and false principles, etc. The same contestants and the same issues are doing battle, and the same salvation is at stake.

Although one-third of the spirits became devils, the remaining two-thirds were not all equally valiant, there being every degree of devotion to Christ and the Father among them. The most diligent were chosen to be rulers in the kingdom (Abraham 3:22-23). The nature of the conflict, however, is such that there could be no neutrals, then or now (Matthew 12:30; 1 Nephi 14:10; Alma 5:38-40).

Now I'd like to draw the striking parallels between Satan's plan for humanity, and Marxism and the Progressive Left.

In Satan's plan, there would be no choices. In order to make sure everyone made it back to Heaven, Satan would eliminate personal choices. How would Satan accomplish this? Well there really is only one way: FORCE. Satan would force each person to obey and do the right thing. This is the ultimate Nanny State scenario, backed up not only by physical force, but also by divine power. Satan's plan is identical to the Progressive Marxist Utopia that Leftists try to bring about through government agencies, regulations on everything you can imagine, and prohibitive laws on anything and everything that the Left feels is "bad" for you.

In Satan's plan, all would have equal outcomes (salvation would come automatically), and everyone would return to Heaven; in other words, Satan was for "Social Justice", in the EXACT same way that Leftists are for Social Justice. They look at economic or social disparity as a symptom of an unjust system, and not personal decisions. They want to take from one group, and give to another for no other reason than one group has more, and one group has less. In the Declaration of Independence, the Founders of America proclaimed that all men are CREATED equal, but that depending on how they lived their life, they would achieve different outcomes. Some would acquire wealth, and some wouldn't. The government wasn't in the business of providing equal outcomes, but providing equal OPPORTUNITY; if someone chooses not to take advantage of the opportunities given to them, that's their choice.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is offered to ALL (equal opportunity). However, you must repent of your sins, put your faith in Christ, and keep his commandments. The opportunity is to all, but the outcome of salvation is dependant on individual choices. Leftist churches who preach "salvation to all", or a kind of universalism, wherein people who are Atheist, Buddhist, Muslim, et all, are saved by Christ because Christ has "unconditional love" to humanity are frankly following Satan and his gospel, and not the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

In Satan's plan, he would be credited as being the Redeemer of mankind, and all glory would be given to him. God the Father's plan involved Jesus Christ being the Redeemer of mankind, and all would be to the glory of the Father. The parallel to the Leftist Marxists is that they are constantly trying to replace God with "The State". The Founding Fathers of the United States believed that our rights came from God, while the Left believes that all rights come from government. The Left hates God, and is at the forefront of the non-existent "separation of church and state" argument (except in the case of liberal churches). They promote Earth worship as a substitute for God, but their real goal is to replacement the all-powerful God of the universe with an all-powerful government of the elites (i.e. them).

Just as Satan wanted to replace God with himself, the Left wants to replace God with an oligarchy run by them, where they have total power; however, unlike the perfectly holy, just, and merciful God of the universe. The Left envisions a world run by the most evil, corrupt, and merciless Tyrants that the mind of mankind can imagine.

Satan is real, but he's spirit, and not a person. However, if Satan WERE a person, he would be a Leftist.

Global Warming and Evolution

2010-03-01T15:47:00.001-08:00

The hoax that is global warming continues despite record cold temperatures, exposed fraud, and the disintegration of any supposed "scientific consensus". However, some continue to trudge on, denying objective reality in order to further an agenda of anti-capitalism.

For example, accord to NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) January 2010 was the hottest January on record. This "hot" January was demonstrated by weekly snowstorms, record-breaking cold temperatures, and record snowfall; not exactly the kind of activity that comes to mind when one thinks of events that should happen during a "hot" January. This sort of stoic denial of observable evidence in support of an agenda is not new to the scientific community. They've been at it for over a century. However, what IS new is the fact that the "scientific evidence" is so utterly refuted by evidence that it's laughable. Now imagine a scenario where the "science" wasn’t susceptible to observable evidence, and was simply a matter of ideological beliefs, and not based of science whatsoever. How can one disprove what cannot be proved in the first place. You can't, and that's the point. Ladies and gentleman, I give you ... Evolution.

Before I talk about evolution, we need to define science in the first place; you see, for something to be "science" is has to employ what Scientists call the "Scientific Method", which simply means that you start with a hypothesis (a theory), and you test it. If the test proves you're theory, you've got a good start, but you’re not done. Someone else can come down behind you, and disprove you later on, which is why rigid documentation of data and processes is so important is ACTUAL science (not so much in ideological agendas though).

For a theory to employ the scientific method (and thus be science), it MUST be three things.
- Observable
- Testable
- Repeatable

If you can't observe it, test it, and repeat it; you can't employ the scientific method, and thus, it's not science. One can speculate in the absence of any evidence, but you can't claim that those speculations are scientific. The reason for the Climategate scandal is due to the fact that the hoax of global warming has been demonstrably disproven on all three of these counts.

Observable: Record snow and cold temperatures do not equal hottest January on record. Case closed.

Testable: The "scientists" involved in Climategate admit they tampered with the data, keeping only that which proved their predetermined outcome, and even rigged the models to give them the result they wanted. It would be like someone walking into a Casino, playing Craps, and simply re-rolling the dice over and over again, and only accepting the 7s they rolled.

Repeatable: The Climategate "scientists" also purposefully deleted the original data used to come with the whole Global Warming hoax, even going so far as to violate freedom of information laws. Clearly, they did not want their work repeated by objective scientists, and for obvious reasons.

Now I want to move the discussion towards evolution. Evolutionary science (like global warming) is touted as fact, and those who reject it are branded as idiots or worse. However, does evolution employ the scientific method?

Observable: Evolution has NEVER been observed, even on the smallest of scales. Any adaptations (DDT resistance mosquitoes for example) are a result of a LOSS of genetic information, not an increase of genetic information. For a single-celled organism to evolve into a human being, clearly additional genetic information had to come from somewhere, and yet all we see is a loss of genetic information across the board.

For example, consider the difference horse-like animals (donkey, horse, zebra, etc), which are all descended from the ancient Equine, a now-extinct horse-like animal that all horse-like animals came from. As these different "breeds" of Equine became more specialized through adaptation, they could no longer reproduce fertile offspring across breed lines, and became separate species. This loss of genetic information does not constitute evolution, in fact it's moving in the opposite direction. Amazingly (but not surprisingly) Evolutionary scientists use adaptations which result in a LOSS of genetic information as proof of Evolution. That's sort of like claiming a January with record-breaking snowfall and cold temperatures was the hottest on record.

Testable: Since Evolution has never been observed, it cannot be tested. However, experiments have been performed to "re-create" evolution in controlled environments. These experiments have all failed, and those that claimed to succeed have been proven to be hoaxes (sound familiar). Sadly many of these proven hoaxes continue to be included in school biology books as fact even though they've been discredited for decades.

Repeatable: Since evolution cannot be observed or tested, we cannot repeat it. In fact, even Evolutionary Scientists have no explanation for where life or matter came from. To avoid a divine creation, they insert theories like the "Big Bang", but that's not an answer, it's simply a rephrasing of the question.

"Where did all the materials in the universe come from?"
"The Big Bang."
"Okay, where did all the materials in the Big Bang come from?"

You see? Crediting an explosion rather than God with the creation of the universe doesn't answer the question of where did it come from in the first place. It's simply a dodge.

Going briefly back to Global Warming, we know what the agenda of the Global Warming movement is: Anti-Capitalism, or more succinctly, Marxism. There answer to "man-made CO2" is to tax and redistribute wealth, impose massive government control, and stifle economic advancement.

Like Global Warming, the Evolutionary scientists are also driven by an agenda rather than observable evidence. That agenda is anti-God, pure and simple; it really doesn't go any deeper than that. However, you don't have to take my word for it, read some of the quotes from leading evolutionary scholars, both past and present...

When asked why do they embrace Evolution ...

"… Not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible," wrote the late D.M.S. Watson, chair of evolution at the University of London.

"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable," wrote the late Sir Arthur Keith, physical anthropologist and head of the Anatomy Department at London Hospital. "… Materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door," wrote Richard Lewontin, former professor of genetics at Harvard University.

Yet none puts it more plainly than Dr. George Wald, Nobel Prize winner and professor emeritus of biology at Harvard University.

"I do not want to believe in God," Wald admitted to Scientific American magazine. "Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

Sir Julian Huxley, the late president of UNESCO and grandson of Darwin's colleague Thomas Huxley, put an even finer point on the argument:

"I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores," he wrote.

"We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom," concurred his brother, the late author Aldous Huxley.

Look, I'm not saying that just because scientists with an anti-God agenda pushed evolution that it proves there is a God. However, if you're trusting your eternal soul to the same group that's trying to tell you that record snow and cold equates to the hottest January on record, then when you die, you're going to be somewhere REALLY hot (or really cold depending on your point of view).

Hitler & Hawkins

2010-01-30T14:09:00.000-08:00

Here are a few funny videos that I found on YouTube. Enjoy!

Hitler Finds Out Scott Brown Won Massachusetts Senate Seat

Tim Hawkin's "The Government Can"

Political Flash Quiz

2010-01-29T04:21:00.000-08:00

I came up with a short, three-question, political quiz. Simply fill in the blanks below, and you'll know instantly where on the political spectrum you fall. It's even multiple choice!

How would you answer the following...

The vast majority of the problems in our country and throughout society can be attributed to the fact that (1)__ have too much power. The only solution is to empower (2)__ , and institute (3)___ .

1.
A) the rich, corporations, and businesses
B) lobbyists and special interest groups
C) the Federal government and its agencies

2.
A) the Federal government and its agencies
B) government aid programs
C) "We the people"

3.
A) social and economic justice
B) stricter regulations on Washington and the private sector
C) a much more limited role of government

And now the results...

If the majority of your answers were "A"...

You’re a COMMUNIST (aka Socialist, Marxist, Progressive, Liberal, Statist)

You believe that individuals are ultimately greedy and selfish, and must be controlled by an all-powerful State at the expense of liberty. Your philosophy was responsible for over 100 million deaths in the 20th century alone. Congratulations!
______________________________________________________________

If the majority of your answers were "B"...

You’re a CENTRIST

You believe in "big government", but in big government that "works". Your answer to government inefficiency is MORE government. Whether they call you a RINO, or a Blue-Dog, you're a political animal.
_______________________________________________________________

If the majority of your answers were "C"...

You’re a CONSERVATIVE

You believe in the Constitution, limited government, and individual freedom (you bigoted hatemonger).

Obsession - Radical Islam's War Against The West

2010-01-28T09:29:00.000-08:00

Using images from Arab TV, rarely seen in the West, Obsession reveals an ‘insider's view' of the hatred the Radicals are teaching, their incitement of global jihad, and their goal of world domination. With the help of experts, including first-hand accounts from a former PLO terrorist, a Nazi youth commander, and the daughter of a martyred guerilla leader, the film shows, clearly, that the threat is real. A peaceful religion is being hijacked by a dangerous foe, who seeks to destroy the shared values we stand for. The world should be very concerned.

Glenn Beck's "The Revolutionary Holocaust"

2010-01-22T17:46:00.000-08:00

The following was broadcast on Fox News today at 5PM Eastern. Enjoy!

Part 1 of 5:

Revolutionary Holocaust: Live Free or Die from John Brush on Vimeo.

Part 2 of 5:

Revolutionary Holocaust: Live Free or Die Part 2 from John Brush on Vimeo.

Part 3 of 5:

Part 4 of 5:

Part 5 of 5:

Socialist Calvinball

2010-01-20T05:45:00.000-08:00

Progressives (i.e. Socialists) are always talking about "leveling the playingfield" when they seek to control and regulate Fox News, the internet, and talk radio. However, they don't seem overly concerned with the severe leftist bias everywhere else, including (but not limited to) all cable news excluding Fox News, all network news, the educational system, and the vast majority of the entertainment industry. In reality, the Progressives only want to "level the playing field" when they are losing. When the unbalance favors them, there never seems to any cries for balance or fairness.

Yesterday Scott Brown won the Senate seat in Massachusetts that's been held exclusively by Democrats for two generations. The GOP now has a 41st vote, and could block the Socialist takeover of Healthcare that's been the centerpiece agenda item for the entire Democrat Party since Obama's inauguration last January. How do the Progressives react? They want to change the rules of course.

If your not familiar with the comic-strip Calvin and Hobbes, it's about a boy and his stuffed animal tiger. One of the things they do is play "Calvinball", a fictional ballgame, where the players make and change the rules constantly in order to try to win.

The problem with Calvinball is that it only works in a Dictatorship or an Oligarchy, where the "elite" can rewrite the rules to suite their own whim. In a Republic, all the people (including the politicians) are supposed to be held to the same standards of law, which is essential for not only law and order, but also go to the heart of American equality and freedom. If the laws can simply be ignored or altered at the whims of a powerful few, then we truly have no freedoms at all.

There's a reason why investors don't put their money into countries run by dictators. You can't predict what the rules are going be from day-to-day, and that risk vastly outweighs any potential returns. When FDR constantly changed the financial rules during the Great Depression, it dissuaded investment in the American economy and prolonged the depression. Currently many businesses who wish to hire during our recession, are sitting on their money because they don't know what's going to happen to them between Obamacare, Cap-and-Trade, Card Check, and every other major piece of legislation on the Progressive agenda.

It's now officially 2010; as an election year, and with the majority of Americans solidly opposed to everything going on in Washington DC, you can count on more attempts by the Progressives to play Socialist Calvinball.

Santa Claus is REAL!

2009-12-24T05:53:00.000-08:00

SANTA CLAUS IS REAL! However, he’s not a toy-maker who lives in the North Pole with a small army of elves. Instead, he was a Christian Bishop in the city of Myrna (in modern day Turkey) during the third century AD. He lived from 270-346 AD, and his body can be found in Bali, part of southwestern Italy.

In our modern post-modern, anti-religious society we’ve not only taken Christ out of Christmas, we’ve also taken the real Santa Claus out of Christmas, and replaced him with a politically correct fantasy. We not only support this distortion, but we lie to our children about it, and tell them that the PC Santa is “real”, rather than teach them not only the true meaning of Christmas, but the true story of Santa Claus.

If you value truth, and want to teach your children about the REAL Santa Claus, please visit the Saint Nicholas Center. http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?pageID=38

In popular culture, Santa Claus and Christ appear to be rivals vying for the title of the symbol of Christmas, but in reality, Santa Claus himself was a devout Christian and a Bishop no less.

Every year another wave of Christmas movies come out; many of which include the main characters meeting Santa and his flying reindeer. I would like to see a movie in my lifetime involving the Bishop of Myrna, in third century Greece, teaching people, not about the “spirit of Christmas”, but the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

"Hard Work" VS Value & Scarcity

2009-12-20T08:02:00.000-08:00

Communism and Social Justice are based on the idea that the rich exploit the poor to line their own pockets. When you compare someone performing back-breaking manual labor, to someone working in a cozy climate-controlled office, and their radical differences in income, a strong case can be made that the person working harder and making less money is being treated unfairly, and that the person with the relatively easy job with the higher income is somehow the beneficiary of some kind of prejudice or unfair system. Thus, Communism (aka Social Justice) swoops in to the rescue.

However, that entire scenario and argument is based on the false premise that a workers value (that is how much the work being done is worth and thus compensated) is or should be based on the physical labor involved. Although that kind of argument appeals to those who perform manual labor, and wish to be better compensated, the real worth or value of a worker is based on two factors: The value of the final product, and the scarcity of the worker's skills.

First, let's discuss the value of the final product, and how that affects workers compensation. When I was in High School, I worked at McDonalds and flipped burgers (although by today's PC standards, I would be called a "sandwich artist") I worked fairly hard, in a relatively hot kitchen, often smelling of french fries and greasy beef. Although the work was difficult and stressful, it paid very little. Why? Because no matter how immaculate my burgers were, they only sold for about $1 a piece. The final product had relatively little value, and thus my services as a worker producing that product merited little compensation; if, rather than manufacturing Big Macs and McNuggets, I manufactured computer parts or automobiles, my compensation would have been substantially higher. Why? Because the final product had more value.

Next, consider the scarcity of a worker's skills. When I worked at McDonalds, I knew that I could be replaced very easily. Although I was an above-average "sandwich artist", I could be easily replaced by the next teenager to walk through the door. Similarly, it doesn't take a lot of training to dig a ditch, pick produce, or clean a hotel room. These jobs aren't easy, but the skill to do them is not scarce.

Compare those jobs above to that of Rush Limbaugh, the iconic radio talk show host. Although, I'm sure that a lot of work goes on behind-the-scenes of his show, I doubt his day consists of what most people would consider "hard work". However, his iconic status, decades of experience, and unique charisma makes him irreplaceable on his show. Were Rush's bosses decide to fire him or replace him with another host who'll cost them less money, the radio show would collapse overnight, and the revenue brought in by the show's sponsors would instantly dry up. The scarcity of the worker’s skills merits the higher compensation.

There's nothing "unfair" or "unjust" about someone working hard at a low-skill job and making little money, and someone performing relatively light work at a high-skill, high-paying job. Now let's talk practicalities here, if the value and compensation of a worker is defined, not by the value they produce, but by how "hard" they work, then there would be no incentive for advancement.

If people could make the same money picking strawberries as being an engineer, nobody would suffer through the years of school to become an engineer. If we punish businesses with taxes and employer mandates (like mandated health care) then who is going to take the personal risk, and put in the work needed to start a business?

Communism and Socialism have been tried, and have been proven to fail each and every time. The reasons are clear to anyone who understands incentives, human nature, and common sense. Like so many of the arguments against Capitalism, the class-warfare argument is emotional rather than logical, which is the reason that rather than debate intellectually, Communists simply call their opponents names, and hide behind their support of the "poor" or the "workers" to be portrayed as the good guy, and those who advocate freedom and progress as the villains.

Why the Government Never Saves Money

2009-11-19T07:19:00.000-08:00

Whenever the government tries to nationalize an industry, or take over something, they usually justify it by pointing out the waste, fraud, and profit that exists in the private industry.

For example, proponents of Socialized Medicine believe that since private health insurance requires 10% of it's customer's premiums for administrative costs, and the government only requires 3%, that the government can be more efficient.

However, history has proven that this has never been the case. At every single solitary instance, whenever a government program is enacted, it loses money, goes over budget, and achieves outcomes that are inferior to the private industry that it replaced.

The question is: Why? Why can't the government save money? Well, it's common sense, and very easy to explain. Its human nature to be more careful with money that's yours, and less careful when it's someone else’s money; there are essentially four behaviors to spending money, summarized by the legendary Milton Friedman...

“There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get. And that’s government.”

To make this concept even easier and simpler, here's a simple chart:

Spend your own money on yourself (Value) = High quality, Low prices
Spend your own money on someone else (Bargain) = Low quality, Low prices
Spend someone else’s money on yourself (Luxury) = High quality, High prices
Spend someone else’s money on someone else (Convenience) = Low quality, High prices

Simple right? Common sense right? Now the next time someone tells you how the government can do things better than the private sector, you don't JUST have history on your side, you now have a very simple counterargument that even the most jaded Communist will agree to.

Now, they may claim that government spending isn't someone else's money, because the people are paying for their own benefits with their tax-dollars, essentially spending their own money through the government, but this is not true. In fact government spending is all but explicitly designed to give money to those who don't pay into the system, and take most from those who receive the least benefits. In the end, government spending falls into two categories: Politicians spending other people's money on themselves (high prices, high quality), or Politicians spending other people's money on other people (low quality, high prices). The people the government soaks to fund their programs (the evil rich), receive no government benefits except those that benefit absolutely everyone (military, roads, police, etc).

The above chart isn't even accurate. The bottom 50% don't EVEN pay the 3% they paid in 2004, and now receive a check from the government instead (in what used to be called Welfare, but has now been redefined as a "tax cut", which used to mean lowering the tax rate.

The answer is (and will always be) personal responsibility. Our country is in deep trouble. We cannot afford to pay for all the entitlement programs, and we're about to pass the Holy Grail of entitlement programs, government-run healthcare. We are 12 Trillion dollars in debt, and are already projected to be almost 15 Trillion in debt next year even WITHOUT Socialized medicine, massive inflation, or a collapse of the dollar ... all of which have a very real threat of occurring.

I'll close with the immortal words of our last great President, Ronald Reagan...

"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden."

Nostalgia for Communism?

2009-11-10T10:31:00.000-08:00

I just saw an article from the Christian Science Monitor about former countries in Eastern Europe feeling nostalgia for the good ol' days, before the end of the Cold War. It's so pitiful, that I had to comment on it.

The article begins by introducing the ‘Institute for the Study of Totalitarian Regimes’ which digitally makes available millions of Communist-era files. The institute's spokesperson, Jiri Reichl quotes his grandparents who personally long for the return of Communism in their country. "My grandmother says the Communists were great, while my grandfather says we're stupid to open the archives, because people don't have jobs, which is more important than ... history." You got that? These elderly Communist are insulting the intelligence of those who seek to study history.

The article then states "[e]ach positive development of "democracy" ushered in negative consequences: Free-market competition brought soaring prices and joblessness; free elections brought extremist parties; free press brought incitement; free movement brought cross-border crime and westward "brain drain."
This nostalgia is born of deep disillusionment with the present, says Libuse Valentova, a Czech professor."

Excuse me? The free market didn't "bring" anything that Communism hadn't held back in the first place. Communist countries had retarded economies that were held back throughout the history of the USSR, but were shielded from natural competition. Once the iron-curtain fell, and these retarded economies had to compete against the rest of the world, the market within these countries had to correct itself, which brought prices to realistic levels, and required competitive productivity, which would mean natural joblessness as a matter of course.

Free elections brought "extremist" parties eh? Things sounds suspiciously like how the Democratic Party is labeling the Teaparty movement as extremist. To a Communist, anyone who believes in individual rights and limited government must surely sound like a lunatic. However, I will only mention that Communism has killed over 100 million of its own people in slave camps and outright murder. I'll leave it to your judgment to determine if free elections and the "extremist" parties they brought are preferable to the murderous tyranny of Communism. Remember though, that if you study history, you're stupid.

Free movement brought cross-border crime and westward brain drain? Indeed, God forbid that people be allowed to LEAVE the country. Criminals might commit crimes somewhere else, and people with the desire to live a free life might flee for truly greener pastures. If these people want their talented citizens to stay in their country, maybe they should try to improve the country's standard of living instead of sealing their borders, and building a wall.

The article continues; "People here admired the freedom and prosperity of the Western world," says Ms. Valentova, who tears up when recalling her time in the streets during the 1968 anti-Soviet revolt. "Now what they see is materialism, corruption, inflation, lawlessness – and they can't find spiritual or material prosperity."

Oh sure, there was NO CORRUPTION in the Communist Party. Excuse me while I double-over in hysterical laughter. There's an old and true saying: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The Communist Party that ran the USSR had absolute power, and was thoroughly and utterly corrupt to the very core. I will only concede that the average person in the USSR probably didn't have the opportunity to be corrupt or materialistic ... because they didn't have anything. It's hard to be materialistic without material or corrupt without any power.

Later in the article, they quote a Communist who grew up working in a government-owned shoe factory. "If you worked hard, you made enough money; even enough to save some." You hear that? If you worked hard, you made enough money, and MAYBE, just maybe you could even save some. Wow, where do I sign up?

Further down in the article, there's the story of a former Communist village that has become run-down due to the fall of the USSR. "In the old days, too, the party ordered … residents to regularly clean up their village. They resented it, but the village stayed tidy. Today, no one is required to pick up litter or tend to vegetation – and residents decry the slovenliness."

The village is dirty, and they are longing for the days of FORCED LABOR! If it's so important to everyone, they can pitch in a little money and hire people to clean the village. That might help some of the unemployment they lament so much, but instead they appear to long for slavery. Are you kidding me?

Look, I understand that there is a certain "ease" to living a life in slavery. You always know what to expect, there's a sense of consistency and security. I served in the military for eight years, and I admit that although I gave up some of my personal freedom, the structure and security of the military life was a good thing ... for a while. I wouldn't do things differently if I had the opportunity, but I'm glad to be out of the military. Those that wish to maintain that structure are free to stay in, and there are many people who love the lifestyle and the structure, and stay in the military as long as possible.

However, for every "lifer" I met in the military, there were scores more than were just in for the retirement or benefits, and resenting the lack of freedom and privacy. Also, a minority equal roughly to that of the "lifers" hated the military, resented ever joining it, and couldn't wait for their contract to expire so that they could get out.

These elderly Communists are free to be "lifers", and long for the structure of their former Communist utopia, but God forbid, that they achieve their desires, and waste another 100 million lives under the horrors of Communist slavery, or deter people from studying the lessons of history with their insults.

RINO Rampage!

2009-11-09T07:45:00.000-08:00

In Marvel comic books, Spiderman battles an enemy called “Rhino”, who is protected by a nigh-invulnerable suit of armor that gives him super strength and durability. In the comics, Rhino is a small-time thug, often doing the bidding of his mastermind overlords. He’s a minor character as far as the Spiderman comics go, and his character is rather one-dimensional compared to other characters such as Venom.

In the real world, we have our own enemy, and unlike the comic book thug, this villain threatens the future of freedom for ourselves and our family. This villain serves to maintain the status-quo of Statist politics, and turns people away from getting involved in the political process.

This villain is known as the RINO (Republican in name only), more often referred to in the media as “Moderate Republicans”. Like the comic book villain, they clothe themselves in a nigh-invulnerable suit of political armor. The adopt the nomenclature of the Republican Party, and the Conservative movement (often calling themselves “Fiscal Conservatives” or “Social Conservatives”, claiming to support conservatism while advancing a clearly Statist agenda.

Like the comic book villain, the RINO has powerful allies, and does the bidding of their mastermind overlords. The leadership within the Republican Party plays short-term politics, trying to pick up seats in liberal districts by running Statist RINOs. The Democratic Party also engages in this practice, but the term for these “moderates” on the Left is “Blue Dog” Democrats. There is a stark difference between the RINOs and the Blue Dogs though. The Blue Dogs aren’t really conservative, and reveal themselves for the Statists they are as soon as elected. Take this recent example of recently elected Democrat Bill Owens…

“Owens indicated in a press release released shortly afterwards that he was now in favor of the "Affordable Healthcare for America Act" bill in direct contrast to his earlier position during the election campaign.
According to Politico.com, Mr. Owens assured voters that he felt the public option had no place in the health care reform bill. Contrary to that position, Mr. Owens now indicates that he intends to vote in favor of the bill even though it now contains a public option.”

In marked contrast, RINOs are NOT playing Statist is order to win an election. They ARE Statists, and vote along with the Democrats, providing convenient “bipartisan" cover to Democratic bills to steal our liberty and grow government tyranny. When push comes to shove, their true allegiance becomes apparent. Arlen Specter joined the Democratic Party, and Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava in New York’s 23 District, actively campaigned for the Democrat, against the Conservative.

It’s time for the GOP to stop thinking in short-term politics, and see that these “moderates” are just Democratic saboteurs. Conservativism doesn’t need to be repackaged or re-branded; it needs to be defended. The GOP is allowing itself to be manipulated. Notice that there isn’t a push on the Left to “widen their tent”, or “move towards the center”. The Democrat Party has gone from the party of “ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country” to the party of Socialism, entitlements, and welfare.

Spiderman isn’t coming. It’s up to us to defeat the RINOs, and take back the GOP and our country. The Statists in Washington aren’t listening to us, but your local GOP party office might. Let them know that you demand Conservative candidates in 2010, and if they don’t listen to you, you WILL vote third party, and if you give the election to the Democrats, so be it.

The local GOP office will have a choice: They can put forward Conservatives, and win the support of Conservative voters, and movements like the “Tea Parties” and the “9-12 movement”, who are willing to campaign and donate money to ensure a victory in 2010. Or, they can put forward another RINO, and hand the election over to the Democrats, as in New York’s 23rd District.

Free Trade VS Protectionism

2009-11-04T10:25:00.000-08:00

During the current economic recession, with unemployment hovering around 10% and climbing, new voices have been added to the cacophony of voices advocating protectionist trade policies in order to “bring jobs back to America”. Unfortunately, they are playing into the hands of Statist Progressives. Although we have high unemployment, the blame should be laid at the feet of the government, and not free trade.

The government taxes businesses and individuals in order to fund their “solutions”, which take money out of the economy. Government regulations increase the costs of doing businesses as well. Should Obamacare and Cap-and-Trade be passed, unemployment will only get far worse.

The phenomenon of “outsourcing”, wherein manufacturing or call-center jobs are outsourced overseas is blamed for at least part of the current unemployment, but a closer examination reveals that free trade truly benefits everyone, and the poorest of the poor most of all.

Lost in the debate about outsourcing is that the government can attract those businesses back to the U.S., not by penalizing them, but by lowering Corporate taxes, and lowering (or eliminating) employer mandates, which would make it cheaper to higher Americans.

Another argument that protectionists make is the supposed exploitation of the poor workers in these overseas factories. Occasional stories of alleged physical abuse surface from time to time, but the primary argument is the extremely low pay that these workers receive, which are often labeled as at or near “slave wages”.

When someone hears tales of young workers working long hours for $0.10 an hour, it pulls on our heartstrings as Americans, but these wages require perspective because we in America enjoy a vastly higher standard-of-living than those living in these areas. As of 2009, the poverty line (the amount whereat the U.S. classifies you as poor) is $10,830; which means that a single adult making $10,830 or less in a year is considered in poverty in the United States. Our minimum wage is currently $7.25 as of this writing. Okay got it? That’s in the United States.

The International poverty level is $1.08 a day ($394.20 a year). There is no International minimum wage, but if we apply a comparable minimum wage to $394.20 according to the ratio of the United States, a comparable International minimum wage would be $0.26 an hour.

Now there are many working in these factories that don’t make this minimum wage of $0.26 an hour, but there are many in America making less than the minimum wage, consisting principally of illegal alien workers. There have been numerous studies showing that minimum wage laws hurt employees, and there are no international minimum wage laws for good reason. However, I hope that with the proper perspective in place, a wage of $0.26 an hour is hardly “slave wages” in the vast majority of the world.

Aside from the wages, these factories are built in the poorest of the poor areas, giving opportunity to those who would otherwise have nowhere to turn except crime or the sex-trade. I personally cannot understand the supposed “humanitarianism” of those who decry the “slave wages” of the workers in these factories, and offer no alternative except to relegate them back to their mud huts and feces-heated dinners. These factories give people an actual income, an honest income that doesn’t involve selling their women and children into prostitution.

However, although these companies indeed help the inhabitants of these corners of the developing world, we in the United States are truly helped as well. The lower production costs of these goods means lower retail costs. The lower costs allow us to keep more of our money to buy additional goods, invest the difference, or whatever. The end result is that our standard of living is improved, as are the workers in the developing world. It’s a win/win situation.

The only “losers” in this equation are the manufacturing workers who lost their job, but to pass laws to protect their specific manufacturing job hurts everyone, and only benefits them. To demonstrate this, imagine if a law mandated that only toys made in the USA were legal. The price of toys would skyrocket; the workers in the developing world who made their income making toys would be unemployed. The only ones would benefit would be the manufactures of the toys themselves.

Free trade is one of the few things in life that benefit everyone. The minority of workers who must find new employment can easily do so (this is America after all). It may be an inconvenience to those who must find new employment, but as the costs of goods decrease, and people’s standard-of-living increase, people have more income, which means there are more business opportunities available for everyone.

Video Rebuttals For the Win!

2009-10-31T14:18:00.000-07:00

If videos won't open, and you are viewing this page using Internet Explorer, try opening up this page in Firefox.

I found these videos on YouTube from "HowTheWorldWorks". They are rebuttal videos produced to refute the claims of pro-government videos such as those produced by proponents of socialized healthcare, and the Tides Foundation produced, anti-capitalism propaganda film "The Story of Stuff". I hope you enjoy them as much as I did.

"Why we don't need economic illiterates trivializing the dangers of socialized medicine and spouting abject nonsense on YouTube". A rebuttal to "Why We Need Government-Run Universal Socialized Health Insurance".

"The Story of Stuff, the Critique". Broken up into four parts. Watch this with your children who have likely been forced to watch this video at school.

Why are YOU paying for Healthcare?

2009-10-23T03:14:00.000-07:00

"In 1986, Congress enacted the Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA) to ensure public access to emergency services regardless of ability to pay. Section 1867 of the Social Security Act imposes specific obligations on Medicare-participating hospitals that offer emergency services to provide a medical screening examination (MSE) when a request is made for examination or treatment for an emergency medical condition (EMC), including active labor, regardless of an individual's ability to pay. Hospitals are then required to provide stabilizing treatment for patients with EMCs. If a hospital is unable to stabilize a patient within its capability or if the patient requests, an appropriate transfer should be implemented." - U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (http://www.cms.hhs.gov/emtala/)

According to Dr. Madeleine Cosman, a medical lawyer located in California, and author of "Who Owns Your Body?: Doctors and Patients Behind Bars"; EMTALA requires each Emergency Room to treat anyone who enters with an “emergency” associated with cough, headache, hangnail, cardiac arrest, herniated lumbar disc, drug addiction, alcohol overdose, gunshot injury, automobile trauma, HIV-positive infection, mental problem, or personality disorder. [The] definition of emergency is flexible and vague enough to include almost any condition as requiring mandatory care. Any patient coming to a hospital emergency room requesting emergency care must be screened and treated until stabilized for discharge or stabilized for transfer whether or not insured, whether or not “documented,” and whether or not able to pay.

Illegal aliens use this law to obtain free healthcare from ERs across the country. Because they have no insurance or valid ID, they cannot be billed, and due to EMTALA, they cannot be refused care, even if their inability to pay is obvious. The cost is absorbed by taxpayers, or billed to patients who come in WITH insurance.

My question to you in simple: Why are YOU paying for healthcare? Why are you paying your health insurance premiums, and co-pays for ER treatment twice? You're already paying for it with your taxes, which are used to subsidize the care of illegal aliens, why are you paying twice? In fact, when you pay for ER care with insurance, your insurance company is billed astronomical amounts (i.e. $400 for a nurse to check your blood-pressure) in order to make up for the money being lost due to the hospital being forced to offer free care to illegal aliens, or those without insurance.

Why not simply refuse to fill out the insurance paperwork that the nurse hands you when you show up to the ER. Don't give them your name or address, while leaving your insurance information safely in your wallet. If the nurse gives you an attitude tell her that according to EMTALA, you must be seen and treated. The nurse may be surprised to find that a non-alien knows about EMTALA, but that's beside the point. The fact is that they can't refuse you care, and you can spare yourself the cost of paying a co-pay to your insurance company, because as long as you don't give them your personal or insurance information, they can't bill you.

Now perhaps you object to this sort of civil disobedience on moral grounds, because you'd in fact be contributing to the problem within our hospitals, but if non-aliens begin invoking EMTALA, then I believe there would be a strong push to do away with the law altogether. Currently, because the vast majority of those who take advantage of EMTALA are minorities, the law's opponents are attacked as racists. Should white, middle-class Americans begin to seek the free ER care that they are already paying for with their tax dollars, the "racist" defense of EMTALA dissolves, and the absurdity of the law itself can finally be discussed.

In the meantime, give yourself your own "bailout", and think about using the money you're saving to support Conservative candidates in 2010.

Paul Shanklin Parodies

2009-10-10T17:30:00.000-07:00

I thought I'd lighten the mood today, so here's some parody songs from Paul Shanklin, which are regularly featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show.

If videos won't open, and you are viewing this page using Internet Explorer, try opening up this page in Firefox.

Barney Frank sings "Banking Queen" (parody of ABBA's "Dancing Queen")

Barack Obama sings "Old, Fat People Song" (parody of Randy Newman's "Short People")

John McCain and Barack Obama sing "Saracuda" (parody of Heart's "Barracuda")

The Government's Job

2009-10-09T06:28:00.000-07:00

“It’s the government’s job is to watch out for us, to take care of us. That’s their job” – Annie Leonard

The above quote is from the Tides Foundation funded video “The Story of Stuff”, which has been shown to schoolchildren without parental knowledge or consent. The video condemns consumerism, and capitalism; however, I want to focus on what the video claims is the job of government.

Is it the government’s job to watch out for us, and to take care of us? Well, it depends on what you mean. Like so many other Liberal bumper-sticker phrases, it largely depends on the context of what the government is watching out for, and taking care of. For example, the primary function of government (all government), is to protect the people, primarily, to protect the rights of the people. It’s the government’s job to protect our nation from foreign invasion (via the military), and from those who would violate our personal rights (via the law-enforcement system).

However, when Liberals claim that it’s the government’s job to “take care of us”, they aren’t talking about the government’s mandate to defend our rights, in fact, quite the opposite. When they talk about being taken care of, it is not in the way that our military or police forces take care of us, and more akin to the way parents take care of their young children.

Liberals believe that the government’s mandate to defend us includes defending us from our own bad decisions, and personal behavior. If I’m poor (regardless of the reason), it’s the job of the government to give me free money (taken from others, against their will). If the bank won’t give me a loan for a house I can’t afford, it’s the government’s job to strong-arm banks into lowering their standards, and when the inevitable financial fallout occurs, to move that liability onto the backs of taxpayers. If I don’t want to pay for my own healthcare (even if I can afford it), it’s the government’s job to provide it to me at the expense of others.

Essentially, when Liberals talk about the government taking care of you, they’re really talking about the government facilitating you helping yourself to other people’s property. This of course sounds good as long as you’re the one getting the “free” stuff, but as the old saying goes: “There’s no such thing as a free lunch”. When the government takes money from the “evil greedy” rich people through higher personal income and corporate taxes, they suck money directly out of the market that would have been used to create jobs, innovation, and an environment wherein the standard of living of all (including the poor) would have been improved.

For example, you probably know someone who either lives under the poverty line, or simply considers themselves “poor”. Many of these people do indeed live “paycheck to paycheck”, and sometimes there is “too much month at the end of the money”, but when compared to the lifestyles of those living in other developed countries, their standard-of-living would be something to be envied.

The funny thing about rights is that rights can NOT infringe on the rights of others. We all have the right to life, freedom, and self-defense. However, if we have a right to goods and services (such as houses, healthcare, etc) the government is then infringing on the rights of those who produce those goods and services. If I had a right to a commodity, then I have no incentive to pay for it, since I cannot be denied that commodity, nor can that commodity be confiscated without violating my rights. Someone has to pay for it in the end obviously, but nobody has to pay for it personally unless the rights to those commodities aren’t universal, and wherein certain classes have more or less rights than others.

There are governmental systems wherein the people are broken up into classes, each with a different set of rights, and wherein the law applies differently. They are universally oppressive oligarchies, wherein there is NO freedom for those at the bottom, and TOTAL power for those at the top. Why would the American people (whose nation was founded on the principles of individual rights and equality) adopt such a system?

Marxism By Any Other Name ...

2009-10-07T08:08:00.000-07:00

As our country burns down around us, one might hear several phrases being repeated by the Obama Administration, groups like ACORN, and other Leftist groups. The phrases “social justice”, “economic justice”, “equality”, and “fairness” get tossed around, and are used as goals for, among other things, Obama appointing Sonya Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

What do all those phrases and terms actually mean? The Left is notorious for redefining words, and using euphemisms to make their radical agenda seem more innocuous.

Let’s define these terms, and specifically what the Left means by them…

Social Justice: the distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society
library.thinkquest.org/05aug/00158/glossary15.html

Economic Justice: a conviction that economic policies must result in benefits that are distributed equally across income and racial lines.
colours.mahost.org/faq/definitions.html

Equality: a measure of how similar people are to one another. It can be measured quantitatively with such measures as wealth concentration.
oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth370/gloss.html

Fairness: fairness concerns the equality of opportunity for members of different (eg ethnic) groups during personnel selection.
www.personalpsychologie.com/glossary.html

Do you see the common thread? The fact is that these four phrases and terms are actually simply the same concept dressed up differently.

What is that concept? It’s simply “Wealth Redistribution”, or in other words: taking from one party to give to another, which is just a fancy way of committing thievery through government. How is taking money from those that earned it, and giving it to those who did not earn it “fair”, or “just”? Only in the minds of the covetous who feel entitled to the property of others.

If this concept sounds familiar, it’s because it’s not a new concept…

“from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” -Karl Marx

The Conservative Divide

2009-09-25T04:58:00.000-07:00

I’m a big fan of Glenn Beck, but he’s not popular among many Conservative personalities; I’m not talking about just Republicans, but actual bonafide Conservatives, who feel that Beck’s contempt for both parties will push people into voting third party, and give Obama a re-election victory in 2012.

Their worries are legitimate, but their blame is misplaced. If the Republican Party puts forward another Progressive candidate in the vein of a John McCain in 2012, what are we Conservatives to do? The Republican Party needs some serious reform, as there are way too many Liberals in that party in many prominent positions. It’s gotten so bad that many don’t even see a difference between the two parties anymore.

As a Conservative, I desperately want our government to move back towards its original Constitutional principles. However, that WILL NEVER HAPPEN as long as we think in 4-year election cycle terms. If the Republican Party elects a Progressive to represent them, I will not vote for them. Am I giving the election to the Democrat? Maybe, but you know what else I’m doing? I’m giving the Republicans the signal that my vote cannot be taken for granted. If they want the votes of Conservatives like myself, they had better produce a candidate who’s … I don’t know … CONSERVATIVE! As long as the GOP thinks that Conservatives will always vote for their candidate due to their candidate being the “lesser of two evils”, they will continue to slide to the left. As long as we Conservatives allow the GOP to slide to the left, we give the Democrats free-license to wear their Marxism on their sleeve, and push massive Socialist legislation.

The line MUST be drawn in the sand, and it must be drawn by Conservatives. With the Tea Parties and 9-12 movements, there’s no reason why an actual Conservative candidate can’t easily win the GOP primaries. However, if the GOP elects another Progressive candidate and Obama gets re-elected in 2012 because actual Conservatives voted third party. Don’t blame us. Conservatives wouldn’t have failed the GOP; the GOP would have failed Conservatives.

Rewriting History: Democrats and Racism

2009-09-08T13:01:00.000-07:00

Even the most jaded Democrat will admit that it was Republicans that freed the slaves (under President Abraham Lincoln, who was the first Republican President); and might even admit that Republicans passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments to the Constitution, which gave equal rights to black Americans. Democrats don’t concern themselves with such “ancient history”, because since the civil rights era, they’ve enjoyed nearly unanimous support from the black community.

Republicans are accused or favoring the desires of the “rich” (i.e. white people), while Democrats are lauded for serving the needs of the “poor” (i.e. minorities). This has been a hugely successful marketing strategy, and the Democratic Party has become the de-facto party of anyone who wants to avoid being accused of racism, but it’s overwhelmingly contradicted by history, facts, and logic.

Let’s look past the “ancient history” of the civil war era, and start at the civil rights era (1960s), and let’s look at the most prominent figure during that period … Dr Martin Luther King Jr.

Martin Luther King was ….*drum roll* … a REPUBLICAN! Oh yes, you won’t have THAT taught to you during Black History Month, but it’s 100% true and verifiable, as a simply “Google” search will attest.

James Earl Ray was the man who assassinated Dr Martin Luther King Jr. Ray was a career felon, who escaped from a Missouri prison, and was also … *drum roll*… a DEMOCRAT!

David Barton, in his book “Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White”, the Klu Klux Klan was started by the Democratic Party to attack the GOP (both black and white), and threaten them with lynching. In his book, Barton reveals that the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, and that no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves. These aren’t conspiracy theories, or partisan slander; they’re objective historical facts.

So what happened? How did the Democrats pull this hat-trick off: to not ONLY absolve themselves of their racist history, but blame it on the Republicans, and get away with it?

Juliette Ochieng of Pajamas Media gives us one perspective:

President Lyndon Baines Johnson — a Democrat whose pre-Kennedy legislative career had been that of a typical Dixiecrat — put forth a set of programs and policies infamously known as the Great Society, actually giving a part of the public funding to those who qualified to receive it. The bottom line? Many of the programs amounted to life subsidy — “reward” for indolence, whoredom, and irresponsibility. At the bottom, liberals, leftists, and Democrats inserted themselves wholesale into the educational processes of the black poor. That education put forth a portrait of America as a full-scale villain, which made her history unneeded — except the parts necessary to understand the crimes perpetrated on her perennial victims. With that in mind, why would liberals, leftists, and Democrats teach their captive audience about the historical role that their political opponents played in setting and keeping them free? Between the manipulation of education and the government handouts by Democrats, the Left could even convince black Americans that it was the Republicans who had actually been black America’s oppressors — and that idea, that lie, would become far more useful to the Democrats than any Great Society program, as LBJ allegedly foresaw.

Darryl Fears of The Washington Posts gives a different perspective:

In 1960, King was arrested for trespassing during a sit-in and held in Georgia's Reidsville prison. Fearing for his son's life, Martin Luther King Sr. appealed to presidential candidate John F. Kennedy to secure his release.
When King was freed, his father vowed to deliver 10 million votes to the Democrat, even though Kennedy was only a reluctant supporter of civil rights. That began four decades of black people voting for liberals.

Was the wholesale conversion of the black community from Republican to Democrat the result of a calculated programs by President Johnson, a simple political payback, or a little of both?

On a logical level, it doesn’t make sense for the Democratic Party to stand for individual rights in general. The Democratic Party stands for State control, which is anathema to individual rights. Although they often mask their totalitarian goals as “equality”, “justice”, or “fairness”; their actions speaks much louder than their words. Their decades-long programs to “eliminate poverty” have increased poverty, and left the poor wholly dependant on government aid, which is exactly what the Statists in the Democratic Party want.

If you’re a proud black American, I’m not telling you to join the Republican Party; I’m not even a member of the Republican Party. I just can’t understand how you can be a Democrat.