Thursday, December 29, 2011

We Must Defend Capitalism Morally

                Too often do we Conservatives end up forgetting that many people are not governed solely by Logic and Reason.  Whether it is a sad fact or not isn’t the issue.  Rather, what has harmed many and has left many would-be-Free-Market-defenders declawed is the fact that for the most part, the defense of it has been based only on logic.  While all the facts and theories stand in our favor, they still leave us wanting.

                The fact remains that we are in many ways left open to the attack of Morality.  What are we supposed to do when a socialist responds to our logical claims for the free Market with, “Well what do you think Jesus would want us to do?” or “It is the responsibility for each of us to give to his fellow man,” as justifications for Welfare and the rest of the social safety nets?  In many ways we can’t say much.  With many of us being followers of some religion or another, we can’t help but recognize the fact that our faiths desire us to be charitable. 

                And so this is why there is a need for an ethical foundation for Capitalism.  We cannot hope to gain support merely by battling with Logic – we are not merely analytical, cut and dry creatures.  As humans we possess an inherent need to have some moral guidance in which we can apply to our daily lives.  And so it is necessary for us to show how Capitalism is the only Moral economic system in existence.

                Here we have to look at all the other economic systems.  Communism, Feudalism, Socialism, Welfare statism (which is really just a branch of socialism), and then the Mixed Economy are all immoral in their own way.  In Capitalism, all men are given equal rights.  One man isn’t viewed by the government as more worthy of protection than another.  With this asserted, we have to see how men are treated in this system.  In Capitalism, Individuals trade as that – Individuals.  They aren’t serfs sacrificial to the king are they?  They aren’t the Individuals sacrificial to the Commune are they?  No.  This is why Capitalism is the only Moral System, instead of a sacrificial animal, he is a man, and he is an Individual who can’t be coerced by Force. 

                How can the Left fight this morally?  The Jesus issue isn’t even relevant because Jesus would never have Forced anyone to do anything for the “Greater Good” – that  was their choice.  The responsibility to each other doesn’t mean that we should be forced to do things for others – that would be our choice.  Socialists would say they wouldn’t force Individuals to do such things, but it is a lie.  In Socialism and Communism the only way they achieve their ends is by force and violence.  For proof of such, look at Russia. 

                It is time for us to embrace this approach.  It time for us to fight the Left with an appeal to both logos and ethos.  We will never convince and defeat every collectivist, but we can do better than we are.  It is time for the idea of the Controlled economy to be destroyed and that will only be done by this – proving that Capitalism is the ONLY Morally correct economic system.  Until we embrace this, we will fail. 

Monday, December 26, 2011

Dick Morris - The Great Charlatan

                Since Bill Clinton’s exit in 2000, there has been one man attempting to resuscitate his image, and has done so quite effectively with all considered.  This man is none other than the president’s former consultant, Dick Morris.  If the Republican Party wants to blame any one person for ensuring that they lost the 1996 election, they need not look farther than this pudgy, red faced man.  Were it not for him, it is quite possible that Clinton would have lost.  In fact, according to Dick Morris, it was he that brought Clinton back from “being buried in a landslide.” 

                After Morris resigned from the Clinton administration because of an interesting dealing with a prostitute and a conversation with the president in 1996, he set off then as a man who was a Conservative at heart and had simply helped the Clintons because it was his job.  Or, another explanation he has given, that he became disillusioned with the power couple.  If anything, there is something rather convenient about his change of heart with the end of the decade, especially considering that he had not aided Clinton in simply one election but two. 

                It was with this change in his view, he suddenly became the best friend to a number of conservative commentators, most notably Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.  With this publicity he has gained a voice in Republican politics that should sicken many who are aware of his utterly contradictory past.  A man who fought against the Republicans, now one of them.  A Liberal who ensured the longevity of a president that many disliked, now a Conservative Populist.  If it doesn’t strike you as more than odd that he is still talking at Conservative engagements and events, I ask you to pause and think for a moment. 

                Not only does he now have stock in the Conservative Movement, but he has the audacity to attack those who are more welcomed and worthy of being part of it than he himself.  In an article he wrote nearly a year ago, “Newt’s Right” the closet Liberal attacked Paul Ryan’s plan as “suicidal”.  More recently he recently made a video claiming that Ron Paul is more Liberal than Obama.  While both attacks were ridiculous on their own accord it was only more so when the man couldn’t get his facts straight on either. 

                The time has come for this sad little man to be evicted from the house he has intruded.  Dick Morris is not a Conservative, he is not an intelligent man, and he should not be featured by Conservatives.  The Insiders have got to go if we are going to win this election and Morris is at the least a wannabe-insider.  In short, it’s time to clean house, starting with Dick. 

Why We Need to Stop Antagonizing Russia

                One of the things that has recently come to my attention, or rather I took time to examine it, is the reemergence of Anti-Russian and more precisely, anti-Putin feelings.  Now I know that there are many of us who don’t care for the former KGB officer, however, do we know what the alternative is?  The fact is that Russia isn’t going out of the International theatre any time soon and, is we aware of what group would take over in Russia were Putin not in control?  I don’t think so.  When it comes to understanding the politics of other countries, we rarely care and when we do it’s usually only on the lines of if they are anti-American or not. 

                With the rise of the protests in Russia, it is easy to once again hope (naively) that a conservative, free market, pro-American government will come about if Vlad does not become president again.  However, what many don’t know is that the second most popular party in Russia is the Communist Party.  Behind them is the Liberal Democrat Party which calls for the regaining of Ukraine and Belarus to the country.  And then finally the A Just Russia Party, which calls for a welfare state and Democratic Socialism.  These are the alternatives to Putin and his party.  

                While Vladimir Putin has proven to be contrary, to some people, towards U.S. interests he has done many things that most Conservatives in the U.S. would welcome.  In his country he has implemented a 13% flat income tax, opened up oil and natural resources to extraction, made the country more business friendly and has allowed it to become an energy superpower.  If nothing else, he makes Obama look like the socialist he is. 

                And now, there are riots in the streets of Russia.  Many Media outlets are calling for new elections, saying that the last one was rigged.  Our old friend Gorbachev came out and called for Putin’s resignation.  Even Hilary Clinton came and opened her big mouth.  It seems that everyone is attempting to be the first to call for Putin to be out. 

                However, what do we want instead?  Do we want the Communists back?  Didn’t we beat them already?  Do we really want another Cold war?  What about the Just Russia Party?  They want to socialize the country.  And the Liberal Democrat Party?  They wish to reclaim the lost territory of the Soviet Union, or their “natural borders”.  All these parties would make the Russia of the last 10 years look like a walk in the park. 

                It’s time we realize that the politics of foreign countries aren’t as simple as they are here in America.  The idea that they are under systems like ours isn’t so.  Do I believe that we should be the greatest friends with Russia and Vladimir Putin? No.  However, I don’t believe in antagonizing the person who stands between the West and the reemergence of Communism.  Democracy should reign, and elections should be fair.  But the difference is that in the West, they aren’t crying against false elections, they’re calling for Putin’s head. 

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Something I found, though it's a little late

This evening, as Santa Claus soars over America delivering presents, let's examine how many US federal laws he's breaking. 1.) Flying without permission of the FAA 2.) Carrying private mail in violation of the Post Office's Private Express Statutes 3.) Failure to pay tariffs 4.) Failure to register all incoming goods with US customs 5.) Capturing and owning an endangered species i.e. reindeer 6.) Failure to get a federal interstate commercial transportation license 7.) Animal cruelty (he's got a whip for the reindeer). 8.) Import of an unauthorized vehicle

HO HO HO! Merry Christmas to all! Rudolph, is that a drone?

Friday, December 23, 2011

Why Ayn Rand Scares the Left

                If there is any intellectual of the last 100 years who scares the Left, it is Ayn Rand.  One needs only to search her name on the internet and they will find that she is perhaps more abused and insulted than Milton Friedman and Reagan.  Often the charges that most attack her with can be boiled down to “She believes that people should be self-centered bastards and not give a damn about anyone else.” 

                While anyone who has taken the time to read her fiction and nonfiction works knows that the above claim isn’t accurate, the fact that Rand is the target of so many wannabe-commentators reveals the amount of anger that the woman brings out in the Left.  The question honestly begs to be asked – why?  Why does this Russian immigrant, who died in 1982, bring Liberals to the use of such vitriol and character assassination? 

                The answer is actually quite simple – she makes sense.  She is to Socialism what David was to Goliath and the Left simply doesn’t know how to respond to her except to demagogue and paint her as a puppet to the elitists.  Unlike some of the more pacifistic fighters for the Right and Libertarianism Rand doesn’t hold back, if anything she removes the veil that the Progressive and Socialist movement has used for decades – the veil of “the Greater Good”.  It had been this fa├žade that left far too many Conservatives stammering during the New Deal, with the passing of Social Security, and the growth of Welfare.  However she tore it off with her philosophy of the Individual and showed the true face of the Left with her novels. 

                Rand explained that Capitalism is the only Moral Economic System because unlike Socialism, Feudalism, Communism, Welfare Statism, and the Mixed Economy, Capitalism treats people as Individuals and not the sacrificial animals that all the other systems did.  She preached that instead of appeasing everyone else, that one should live for his own happiness.  That Innovation is created by Free Individuals and not Government coercion. 

                This is what infuriates the Left.  Ayn makes clear how the “Good Intentions” of government regulation often lead to worldly Hell.  Her novella “Anthem” shows how government constraint goes against progress.  And her magna opus “Atlas Shrugged” paints the end result of a society that doesn’t give Individuals their freedom.  In short, she kills the Left’s Utopian ideals with logic. 

                It was nearly fifty years ago that Whitaker Chambers savaged “Atlas Shrugged” in the National Review and separated the Conservative Movement from Rand.  Now we are beginning to see the reemergence of Randian ideas with the Tea Party and members of the Republican Party who are influenced by her like Paul Ryan and Rand Paul.  It is time for the Right to admit it and embrace it – Rand is right. 

Sunday, December 18, 2011

In Defense of the Free Market

Having read enough books at this point to understand Free Market economics quite well, I think it's time to dismiss many of the criticisms that run about "Capitalism" and how it is necessary for government to intervene in them though this has been done by many, far greater people than I. At the end I'll give a couple links for anyone who wants some extra info about the ideas expressed. However, before going on I have to make one thing clear, when I speak of Capitalism and the Free Market, I'm not talking about our current system. Our current system is a mixed economy that becomes more and more totalitarian with each year, and closer to collapse with it. It'll be easier to just address separate topics than to ramble on and on about a ton of misconceptions in one giant paragraph so I'm going to list out the fallacy first then address why it's wrong.
1. Without government saying what a business can do you would have a ton of Monopolies.
I hear this one a LOT and usually they site the oil companies back in the 1800's who were the reason we have Antitrust laws now. To kill this one, we have to identify that there are two types of Monopolies; Coercive monopolies and simple (for lack of a better term) monopolies. Simple monopolies are like the Food Lion in Seven Lakes. The fact is that Food Lion keeps its prices low enough and the population there is so small that there would be no use for another business, like a Winn-Dixie to come in. Now say Food Lion tripled its prices tomorrow. Then a business man may look at that and say, "I could make a good amount of money if I went in there and had my prices as low as they did yesterday." And with that you would destroy the monopoly. These monopolies are often only held because of the smart decisions of the business owners.
A Coercive Monopoly is a monopoly where a business raises its prices above the market value arbitrarily and is not challenged. This is only, ONLY possible if entrance into a certain market is RESTRICTED. And this can only be done by, wait for it......... Government. Only with the banner of the "Greater Good" can these monopolies be created and that is carried by money hungry beuracrats.
Often you will hear someone say, "But the trusts in the 1800's were immune to competition." That would have once been understandable given the scares of that time, however we have come far in the last 100 years in economic thought and it is now ridiculous. They often site Rockefeller's Standard Oil Trust and such as proof of Coercive monopolies in the Free Market. They would be wrong. What is never mentioned is that the Petroleum Industry at that time was less than 1% of the Gross National Product at the time. It was barely one-third the side of the national Shoe Industry! The fact is there wasn't as much a need for oil. It was much like the Food Lion in Seven Lakes, simply not enough money to be made. The companies that joined the trust did so because they would have been fighting for very little profit and would have all suffered greatly.
The simple fact is that Monopolies are the boogey men in the closet, something feared but not really there. They are only an issue when the government gets involved and decides who wins and who loses.
2. Without Government Regulations companies would go crazy and millions of people would die!
If you watch enough t.v., you know that this one is wrong. How many times have you seen lawyer ads asking if you have been a victim of a bad drug or been hurt using a certain product? With the above argument, this shouldn't happen. The FDA would supposibly be able to stop this from happening. And even if they admitted that it wasn't always efficient, they claim it would be better than not having such an agency. How so? The fact is that a bad drug may go through the line and the FDA doesn't take it out of production. A hundred people have heart attacks and what happens? "Oh, it happens. The Company should have done more tests." No one is fired, except maybe in the company, but everyone in the FDA is safe. There is no incentive to be absolutely precise! There is no profit to be won or loss in this situation. They have nothing to lose.
The same goes for the TSA. When the underwear bomber got through security, no one got fired! Now we have tons of groping agents working for the government who can't be fired whether they catch a terrorist or not. The fact is the airlines have no choice in what they want to do for security. Even if the agents don't do a good job, it won't be the TSA that is blamed, it will be the the airlines.
Why not let the company that has something to lose take control of these issues? Who is more likely to do better at security? The Government agent who can't be fired, or the company payed employee who will lose his job and benefits if he screws up? The same goes for the drug companies to a point. Why not allow private companies to test drugs and give labels to certain drugs that they find as safe? The fact is that these companies would only last as long as they did a good job! Also the drug companies would need these private companies approval or people would feel less inclined to buy their product, therefore the drug industry would also have to get better.
Some would say, "Well the drug companies could pay off the other company!". Why would a company that makes a living off of approving only good products risk its own profit for a possibly lethal drug? They have no need to do it! It would steal away their credibility and their profits.
3. The Industrial Revolution was the Golden Age of the Free Market and it was horrible.
If I had a nickel everytime. First off, the Industrial Revolution, primarily in England wasn't a Free Market. A Free Market can not exist in an Aristocracy where Kings, Princes, Dukes, Duchesses, Lords and such get an annual income for their blood line. Though it was extremely close to a Free Market, it wasn't one. Secondly, life wasn't that horrible. Yes, many worked long hours for very little pay however that was what their labor was worth to a large degree. The people back then had very little education and the work was relatively simple.
Child labor is often abhorred as a great evil. The fact is that because of the Capitalist system, thousands of children were living longer. In England from 1730-49, 74.5 % of children born in London died before age 5. In 1810-29, the number had dropped to 31.8%. The fact is that many of the families were growing vastly bigger and there was a need for more income. If the children didn't work, their siblings might starve. Also the work the children were often given were simple and usually they recieved food while doing the work. Is it picturesque? No, quite far from it. However this was far better a life than those given to the children who were born into the world of the serfs, or those who didn't work in the factory. What is never mentioned is that the worse off children were those who were under the clergy run (governmentbody) orphanages who were virtually sold into slavery by the authorities.
Many would say that the reason the children left the factories was because the government stepped in. This is another fallacy. The fact is when the labor of the adults became more valuable, the need for child labor disappeared. Most of the first acts in England against Child Labor were against chimney sweeps, somethin obscenely unclean and not related to the factories, and then the government run orphanages. When they went after the newer factories (which were cleaner and far safer), the fact is the business men who had just invested a good supply of capital in a new factory would rather pay adults then go through the regulation process of the children. The inspectors of the factories however were known for going to the new ones more often than the older buildings which were far more hazardous and out of the way. This led the owners of more downtrodden factories to hire children and more children being susceptible to injury. Those who didn't get jobs were more likely to starve and couldn't contribute to the family anymore.
These are all the ones I can address right now, but if I think of anymore I will get them down or add them. Just so everyone knows, most of these arguments are based on those presented in Ayn Rand's Capitalism: The unknown Ideal. It's a great read and I suggest it to everyone, it's the most beaten up book in my possession right now.
Here are some great links to for more info:

Saturday, December 17, 2011

My Economic Plan

Slash and Burn Plan

15% Flat Income Tax (Will be reduced by 5% after the first year to 10%, then by another 5% by the second year, then again after the third year, and by the fourth year the income tax will be at 0%)
3% Sales Tax (Will remain at 3%, no change over time)
7% corporate tax (Will remain at 7%, no change over time)
Elimination of the current tax code will remove all tax-cuts, tax breaks, and subsidies, effectively ending legal tax evasion.

First Year:
1. Closing of the following departments:
  • Environmental Protection Agency
  • Department of Energy
  • Department of Education
  • Department of Commerce
  • IRS (Upon the Income Tax becoming 0%)
2. Repealing of all regulations passed by Congress and enforced by the EPA since 1990
3. Opening of all federally held land to oil drilling (Land will be purchasable at market rates, effectively denying inept companies from obtaining special privileges)
4. A Balanced Budget Amendment will be passed within congress then sent to the states for Ratification.
5. Defense Spending Cuts –
  • Reduction of Defense budget to 2002 levels – 422.18 billion dollars
  • Closing of 50% of U.S. held foreign bases – Open to purchase by country the base is present in.
  • Removal of all troops from Iraq and Afghanistan
  • All Military actions publicly known and unknown will be ceased in foreign countries

6. A Federal Move to Remove ALL Illegal Immigrants
  • ICE will investigate all places of business
  • States will be empowered to deport any illegal brought into custody
  • If States refuse to act, Federal Government will step in
  • Total Elimination of “Sanctuary Cities”
  • Those who are aiding Illegal Immigrants will be imprisoned for a minimum of 1 year (no chance for parole or reduced sentence)
7. Reduction of Minimum Wage to 1997 level - $5.15
8. Removal of taxes on Tips
9. Unemployment-
  • Will be limited to 4 months
  • Money received will be equal to an 8 hour work day at minimum wage
  • Cannot be extended past 4 months
10. Medicaid-
  • Totally transferred to the States
  • Removal of ALL Federal regulation
11. Medicare-
  • All new recipients will be given the chance to direct money toward former Insurer
12. Social Security-
  • All currently at, or above, age 55 will receive promised benefits
  • Those at, or above age 45 will receive a maximum of 75% of the benefits promised at age 68.
  • Those at, or above age 35 will choose to either receive a maximum of 50% of the benefits promised at age 70, to pay into Personal Federal Social Security accounts or can participate in a State, County, or Town created system.
  • Those at, or above age 18 can participate in Federal personal account systems, State, County, or Town created system, or can opt out of systems totally
  • State, County, or Town safety net systems will be allowed. Upon entering said system, the citizen will be exempted from paying into the Federal Social Security collection.
13. Document of Exemption
  • Document that allows the signer to exempt themselves from paying into Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Welfare in exchange for signing away rights to said programs will be available.
14. Legalization of Marijuana
15. Removal of ALL subsidies, tax-cuts, and tax-breaks in ALL economic sectors
16. Further Federal Cuts
  • All Federally granted Education money
  • Recreation and Sporting Services
  • Protection of Biodiversity
  • Community Development
  • General Public Services
  • Transportation
  • All Foreign Aid
    (Total savings from ending these = $359 Billion)
17. Repeal of Anti-Trust Laws (Effectively nullifying all influence created by the courts)
18. Welfare
  • Increased focus in Fraud investigation
  • Congress shall set incentive for the finding of Welfare fraud
19. Federal Employee Salaries
  • All those making above $100,000, will be reduced to a salary of $100,000
  • Total Freeze in salary after prior point, no increases in any circumstance

Friday, December 16, 2011

Christopher Hitchens: An Obituary

                The philosopher Voltaire once said, “He was a great patriot, a humanitarian, a loyal friend; provided, of course, he really is dead.” 
                There is perhaps no better way to express the opinion one might have of the famous (or infamous) polemicist.  In his life as the world renowned essayist, author, speaker, and commentator the man was someone who was loathed by many and those who called him friend were probably quite hesitant in their announcement of it.
                As someone who called himself a Marxist, he said that he believed that Capitalism had its beauty.  As the anti-war Baby Boomer, he later called for intervention into Iraq and against Islamic Fascism.  A fan of the same Thomas Jefferson who obtained the Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, he showed little tolerance for anyone who believed in a deity.
                 With this mongrel of ideology, the very verbal Hitchens assailed those on the Right and the Left.  To him neither Reagan nor Mother Teresa were above his assaults.  When asked in one interview what he thought of the death of Reverend Jerry Falwell he answered, “It’s a pity there isn't a hell for him to go to.”
                 Perhaps an act of cosmic irony, Hitchens developed cancer of the esophagus a year ago.  Now, he is dead.  Reverence is not something that I believe him deserving; he didn’t grant that even to the families of the dead he attacked. 
                 As Gore Vidal’s “heir”, he made the clown Vidal desirable.  As an author, he made illiteracy respectable.  And as a human being, he made the animals seem civilized.  If there is any emotion that we should shed for the man, it should be pity.  For it is a pity that he ever spoke at all. 

Sunday, November 6, 2011

My Experience With the Occupiers in D.C.

    Recently I was in D.C. for the Defending The American Dream conference run by Americans for Prosperity.  It was really a great conference.  I met many very interesting people, discussed the issues, and got to hear speeches by some great speakers.  It was brilliant being able to meet the hundreds of other activists across this country who want to get rid the current "Change".  However, while the conference was going on, the rats of D.C. (no, not the politicians) decided they'd like to make a statement.

     Occupiers of the Occupy D.C. group actually crowded against the doors of the convention center on the night of Nov. 5th.  Unfortunately we Tea Partiers forgot our Guy Fawkes masks and thus these illiterates from the Occupy D.C. crowd thought we should be imprisoned in the Convention Center.  They locked arms and attempted to bar us from leaving.  I'd decided I'd watch Atlas Shrugged Part 1, which was being showed in the Center, and not waste my time trying to push through the unwashed masses (the smell lingered for while).

     Can anyone find the irony in the fact that these roaches are saying their rights are being taken?  I mean, does being forcibly imprisoned inside a convention center sound like something the Founding Fathers would have thought right?  But wait, I forgot, the 2000 people there are the 1% (though most are middle class).  They are the evil people, I included, who want to give corporations more power to destroy the rights of the poor.  Then it's okay to steal their rights. 

     While I watched the movie, these Occupiers turned violent.  They surrounded an elderly couple and wouldn't let them out.  When the couple attempted to move, they were pushed down by the protesters.  These two were later taken to the hospital by an ambulance.  Peaceful my ass.

     Later on during the night, the morons decided to stand in the middle of the street.  Funnily enough, a driver was given the greenlight (literally, there was a traffic light on one end), and instead of letting the protesters get into his car like they tried to do, he ran through them.  Yes, he hit 3 of the occupiers with his car and kept going, still doing the proper speed limit.  None of them suffered any major injuries.  Lucky for them I wasn't the driver.

     What is the point of this?  Quite simple.  I have discovered that I can't write these people off so easily.  They are now controlled by the radical left irrevocably.  They are violent.  They are the Mob.  They are a group of self-entitled social leeches.  I am now counting down the days that snow hits D.C..  My new Christmas wish is that frostbite finds each of these people.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

Wallstock isn't so Grassroots

     Alas, it is sad but true (not all that sad though) that our little protesters who we all thought were self-organized, self-controlled, and grassroots citizens are not so much any of those.  In fact, like many have been saying, they are funded and directed by organizations that should NOT suprise us.  As the Yuma Sun reported, they have recieved over $500,000 (a lot of money for those guys who just walked out of their parents' basement) from supporters, but for some reason they don't trust themselves with the money.  Go figure.  So they have turned to the Alliance for Global Justice, one of those good ol' Mom and Pap organizations who just so happens to have been a supporter of the Sandinista Communist movement. 

     When it comes to who they use to get their butts out of jail, who better than the National Lawyers Guild?  Of course we all know that lawyers are known for their stand-up-patriotism so these protesters must be in the right, right?  And on the matter of guilds, who do you suppose has been helping to organize all of these protests?  We've been told that it's all grass roots, but also according to the Yuma Sun, nope!  Our friends at the Unions are once again handing out their labor for the just causes of the little guy. 

     It is a fact that these loons aren't in their right minds.  Therefore they'd have to have help from other Left wing organizations. is a known contributor, and I think we can all say unison who's the guy funding them.  George Soros. 

     This isn't a new movement, it isn't even a new game.  The players have simply busted out new pawns. 

Saturday, October 29, 2011

Herman Cain "Knows His Place

     (Sorry for the time away, been very busy)

     Whenever a strong man, or woman of a different ethnicity decides they are Conservative or Libertarian, you know there is going to be trouble.  Why?  Quite simply because the Democrats have claimed themselves to be the "protectors of the little guy".  They thrive off the idea that they are somehow the only ones who care for minorities.  The idea that a black man or woman  is a Republican or wants a free market is so shocking to them, they are simply stunned, until he or she doesn't retract their statements.  Then, they go on the offensive. 
     This is what's happened here.  No longer are they stunned, they are either seeking damage control or trying to explain it to themselves why someone who is part of a minority would be a conservative.  This is where the racism of the Elites comes out.  They think that because Cain is acting outside the generality of most blacks in America it gives them the clear to make him out to be the white man's puppet.  Instead of giving him any intellectual credit to speak of, they cast him as someone who is simply doing what the "White" people want him to.  Tell me again who the racists are?
     But then let's be honest with ourselves.  Does it surprise us in the least bit that such ilk is coming from our media?  

Friday, October 14, 2011

Rep. Jesse Jackson's Patriotic Jobs Plan

     Oh how I love the Democrats in Congress.  They show how most of us Americans are incredibly normal. 

     So apparently Jesse's gotten the great idea of hiring ALL the unemployed in America.  Sounds great right?  And get this, for $40,000 a year.  Why stay on unemployement?  You can be so much more in our buddy's plan here.
“We put people to work cleaning up communities. We put people to work through a civilian conservation corps, through a Works Progress Administration because the hour demands it,”
     Makes sense, no?  I mean employing around 15 million people for nearly twice as much as minimum wage has got to get the economy going.  It's only going to take a measly $6,000,000,000 (billion) dollars, from the Federal Government of course.  Ohhhh, but it just gets better!
“It could be a five-year program,” he said. “For another $104 billion, we bail out all of the states. For another $100 billion, we bail out all of the cities.”
     God, that almost, almost sounds Utopian no?  Everyone has decent jobs, indefinite Job security, all the states are in no fear of default as well as the cities.  I wonder, if perhaps this guy has a few philosophers in mind who make him feel all warm and funny about this plan???? 

     Of course this is just speculation.  I could be totally wrong.  I mean the guy could really be a big fan of Stalin, or Trotsky, maybe even Lenin.  He could simply be a follower of all those Valiant men.  What isn't there to admire in these guys?

Monday, October 10, 2011

Al-Qaeda is Upset that Anwar's Rights weren't Protected

     So, apparently Al-Qaeda, the notorious Civil Rights Watch-dog group of the Middle East feels that our pal here Al had his rights violated.  They believe it is criminal for the U.S. not to recognize the rights of a self-professed radical cleric who taught many young muslims to kill thousands with his message of Jihad.  The audacity of the U.S. right? 
Where is the freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms that they rant about?"
     I know right?  I mean, why don't we just change our message to Al-Qaeda's?  Cause I mean, their message to kill all the infidels, all the people who left Islam, all the woman who don't know their place, all the Jews, blow up Israel, and stone the adulterers just sounds like something America should go for. 

     Is it just me or does it seem more and more ridiculous?  I'm glad the sucker's dead.  I wish he'd been pushing up daisies a couple years ago honestly. He was an enemy of the state, he virtually forfeited his citizenship by being abroad for so long (and can you imagine the taxes he built up?  No wonder he didn't come back.). The right of these drones was correct in my opinion, except it should not have been something dealt with by the president alone. 

     I hate to sound paranoid but here it goes.  Do we really want the President (especially the Clown in Chief) to have the right to simply go out and kill someone who he sees as an enemy to the government?  Let's face it, he played jury, judge, and executioner.  Do we want the guy to have absolute authority like that?  He never even met this guy before, imagine what he wishes he could do to some of the Tea Partiers. 

     I don't contend that this shouldn't have been done.  Honestly I don't know if I would have wanted the guy to be brought back to America for Trial.  However, Do we really want to give the Executive Branch that much power?  I'm far from saying we should worry about them turning on us, but let us not forget how slippery a hill it is when Government is given more power.  It is merely something to be considered by those who realize that Government power is rarely, if ever, a good thing.

     But thank God the guy is dead.  The ACLU can't bring anyone to testify against us now.

Welcome to Wallstock

**IF you haven't read my earlier posts about "Occupy Wall Street"  I suggest you do just so you can catch up on the points I've been trying to make.** 

     I can just imagine Janis Joplin staring down (or up) at Wall Street now.  She must be so proud.  To know that 40 years after the epitome of human waste had it's famous gathering, another generation has decided to try and capture the moment must warm her from inside out (unless she's looking up, then she was already there).  If you don't know what I'm talking about, I'm referring to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement and Wood Stock.
     With reports of mass drug use, lack of bathing, begging for food, and promiscious sex in the public, I can find no better historical occurence to compare these people to other than WoodStock.  The sad fact is that at least Wood Stock had some redeeming qualities, i.e. the music.  Though, I could be wrong. The "Occupiers" in some cities have been chanting and performing rituals which one can only guess is to bring back Jimi from the grave. 
     But let's be serious.  This is this generation's Wood Stock.  Wood Stock was a mass of people who were many times, losers.  They were your highschool-college kids who were against the world and the status quo.  They were hedonistic and egotistical twerps who were just trying to fight against the rules of their parents and the "Man".  Most were still living with their parents.  They were proned to Mob violence and destructive of property.  They were the bane of the police.  Please stop me when I say something that doesn't relate to the Occupiers.

     Now I can imagine that I will get someone saying, "But look!  There are old people there too!"  Does that surprise you?  Ever heard of Reliving your Youth?  Please, if there were anything different from these people and the people of Wood Stock it's that now they communicate via Facebook and Twitter rather than dial phones.  When it comes to the Mob issues, this is the more dangerous part. 

     I have a simple solution though.  Let them ride it out on their own.  If the culture of the 60's proved nothing to us, it's that hedonistic, anti-idological, egotistical teenagers and their gramps don't last long in a disease infested stink-hole.  These aren't martyrs, their kids who have just recently crept from their basements and decided they wanted to stir up trouble.  The fact is the greatest issue this crowd is truly concerened with is when the next sucker sends them food, or when the dealer comes back around with some fresh joints. 

     If anything can be said in how the technology is influencing them, the point can be made that it has made them more pathetic than the people at Wood Stock.  These Occupiers are only doing as their social media is telling them, they are completely reliant on technology to a point that the Wood Stock folks weren't.  Many had been Anti-technology. 

     So in conclusion, Welcome to Wall Stock.  The place where nerdy-wannabe-martyrs come to boast that they're fighting the "1%".  Congratulations.  When you find some decent music I might actually stop by.

Saturday, October 8, 2011

Atlas Needs To Shrug

     During times like these, I can't help but imagine what Ayn Rand would be telling her readers and followers.  If I could guess, it'd probably be along the lines of, "The CEO's, Inventors, and Owners need to just leave," with a thick Russian accent.  It may seem harsh, but could you blame her?

     There was a picture floating around the internet showing a crowd of "Occupiers" and all the Namebrand products they were wearing.  The point didn't seem to stick with any of them though.  These people believe the Companies owe them something.  The psyche of this Herd is that a business owner should suffer the loss of profit so the Masses are taken care of.  The "99%" deserves their money according to the "Occupiers".

     However, in light of Steve Jobs death, I'd have thought some one would have realized what they are asking for.  Perhaps some of them realized that if they steal money from the Producers,  why would they want to produce?  But then when you ask them that question they will say, "We're not going to take ALL their money."  As if that is some sort of comfort.  The fact is these people STILL won't decide on how much out of every dollar a "1%" person should pay.

     But then this isn't a battle of numbers.  This is a fight over Ideology and Philosophy.  The Protesters are Lacking both of them, but their leaders (Van Jones, Sunstein, Piven) have theirs safely hidden until the time they are ready to let their real motives become known.  Those of us who stand against these "Occupiers" are settled with a very definite Ideology and Philosophy.  We are for Individual Rights as set forth by the Constitution.  We are for the Rights of EVERY Individual, not just the "99%".  We believe in the Right to Pursue your Own Happiness, and that your Happiness shouldn't be taken to give to another who is lacking in it.  Because as I said before, it is the Pursuit, not the Guarantee of Happiness. 

    And that Leads us to this point.  If nothing changes.  If these Protesters stay for another 3 weeks.  If their numbers grow.  If their demands are heard.  Then it is declaration against the Constitution and Individual Rights.  Those Individuals who have been working all their lives, who have pushed us farther into the future than Man could have ever dreamed, need to leave.  They need to Lock up their Factories.  Board up their Shops.  Withdraw all their money.  And Leave. 

     I can't think of any stronger solution.  We are facing times that resemble too much the climate of Atlas Shrugged.  Those who have kept us afloat are now the Criminals.  Those who have fought for their rights and the rights of other Individuals are now Traitors.  The fastest and most efficient way to show who is necessary and who isn't would be for this to happen.  Atlas Should Shrug. 

I believe it's time we began asking, "Who is John Galt?"

Islamists Storm Tunisian University

     I know.  It's Shocking right?  I mean to think that a country in the Middle East has these things happening is just so out character.  But seriously, does this surprise anyone?  They had the same issues in Afghanistan after they got rid of the Russians.  The Mob mentality doesn't all of a sudden dissipate because the "Authoritarians" are gone.  In Afghanistan, it never did. 

     However, this should be a surprise.  The Arab Spring was not born out of a simple love for Democracy.  As I wrote in an older essay, which I'll post in the DINO records soon, we aren't talking about Revolutions in the line of the American Revolution.  Take Egypt for example.  Their entire fight was of the Mob, there were no Individual figure heads of the protests.  There was a simple ideology that we need to get rid of this government.  Now, their two biggest political parties are the Socialists and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Lovely, no?

     Now we have violent Islamists (as if there are any other kind) going after Universities.  A school has the right to give a dress code and if people aren't going to adhere to it, then they DON'T go.  College Education isn't a right.  Wearing a Full-Face veil, which symbolizes submition of woman, should not be allowed in a School.  It's an attack against education.  It is a slap in the face to those woman who have fought for their sex to be represented as equal to men academically.  The Niqab might as well have written on it "the male beside me is better". 

     However, the worse part is the reaction of these people.  Weren't they supposed to be peaceful?  Weren't they the Valiant warriors for Democracy who fought against the Tyranny of a Leader who'd become Dictator?  But of course not.  They aren't peaceful.  They aren't valiant.  They are extremists.  They are biggots.  And they are anti-republican, anti-democratic, anti-freedom, and most likely anti-West.  We need to realize this.  We need to recognize the difference between those who follow the Rights of the Individual, and those who simply want to empower the Mob.  And Islam has far too often shown itself to be a follower of the latter.

Dream Act is Passed in California

     First of all, this should surprise NONE of us.  I mean, we are talking about the Land of Fruits and Nuts right?  But I figured that this is actually good for us. 
“Going to college is a dream that promises intellectual excitement and creative thinking,” Brown, a Democrat, said in a statement. “The Dream Act benefits us all by giving top students a chance to improve their lives and the lives of all of us.”
It also allows students without citizenship papers to get institutional grants while attending the University of California and California State University systems, and to get fee waivers in the California community college system. To qualify under the law, students must have arrived in the country before the age of 16 and graduated from a California high school after having attended school in-state for at least three years. They also must show financial need and meet academic standards.
     Now I know this sounds bad, but think about it.  If illegals want their children to go to college, where will they go now?  That's right, Good ol' Cali.  Now it might be my utter dislike for the state and a majority of its residents and politicians, but if more hispanics keep going there they might as well start a New Country!  Most of their Cities have Spanish names anyway! 
     I mean that is the State that many of us WANT to Sucede.  Or better yet, just load all the Illegals in the Country up and dump them there.  That's where everyone wants Amnesty right?  If they are their own country they can do it.  Then all the Californians can pay for their Healthcare, Social Security, Welfare and what not.  I think it'd be a Great experiment.  But we WILL need a fence.  God knows after we get rid of the Crazies we won't want them back.  I think it'd be safe to say ALL of Mexico would be more preferred.

Friday, October 7, 2011

UPDATE: "Occupy Wall Street" The Left's Tea Party?

   Having spoken to some of the "Occupiers" they told me I was wrong.  Apparently, they have a declaration that was approved.  Here it is:

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
Does anyone see anythings that say what they are FOR?  Maybe the next part is different.  I mean they have to be FOR something right?
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.
They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.
Still nada.  I mean, don't you have to be FOR something to be AGAINST something?  No.  Like I said, they are Anti-.  They are exactly like the Student Rebellions of the 1960's and are being influenced by the leaders of the Rebellions then.  They are the "Useful Idiots" and that should make everyone nervous.

Here is a Video that wouldn't show up on the Page, makes my Point EXACTLY:

Why Liberals Can't Fix the Economy

     Well, Today I decided I'd write an article on this Whacko and why's she's wrong on the economy (more than just "She's a Liberal").

     Elizabeth Warren's message is quite simple.  We are but lucky people who are should worship the government because it has enabled us to achieve amazing goals and that NO ONE is Self-Made. 
"There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own."
     First off, I dare to differ Liz.  With the passing of Steve Jobs I don't know if there is any contention that a man can't get rich on his own.  In that, I mean that we are all sellers of our own labor.  Yes, human cooperation has become necessary to achieve our goals, but that doesn't mean that a Man didn't do it on his own.  There are many Men who have worked their hearts out to create a strong business with little help. We LIVE in society, therefore to get things done here, we have to work with others.  That doensn't mean that we aren't Self-Reliant, Self-Assured, or Self-Made.  It merely means that we did it PASSED all the crap and fools you have to deal with to be Successful.  
You built a factory out there, good for you.  But I want to be clear, you moved your goods to market on the roads the Rest of us paid for.  You hired workers the Rest of us paid to educate.
     Somebody apparently did too much crack in the 60's.  Since when was there a choice to use Public or Private roads?  How is it the fault of the Companies that the Government has a monopoly over the infrastructure of this country?  They pay taxes just like everyone else.  When there is a CHOICE between using Public or Private roads, then you can address the issue of using state roads.  Also, how do you know the workers didn't go to Private school?  What if they came from England, Germany, or China?  Then "the Rest of us" didn't pay for them.  But even besides that, do parents pay taxes for nothing?  The education that is recieved in the Public school arena is mediocre to a large degree.  If we were to follow this kind of logic I think I should get reinburst from the Taxpayers for the Crappy education that was forced on me. 
You were safe in your factory, because of the police forces and fire forces that the Rest of us paid for.  You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory and hire someone to protect against this because of the work the Rest of us did.
    *Facepalm*  I'm seriously considering bringing back the drinking game.
Once again, they don't have a choice.  May I remind everyone however, how GREAT the police did when it came to the Mafia?  I mean they were never crooked and corrupt or anything.  It's not like they would sell out informants and squealers for a price.  Yeah, that never happened.  But like I've said, you can't hold something that the Businessmen didn't have a CHOICE in over their heads. 
     I would say that this rant simply isn't logical, but then we are talking about a Liberal, it's implied.  Alice in Wonderland makes more sense than these people do.

Iranian Christian Pastor Maybe Put to Death for Leaving Islam

    I'm really surprised.  I mean, we ALL know how religiously tolerant Iran is.  I mean, it's not like their president has come out calling for a Holocaust or anything.  We all know how much they LOVE Israel.  I mean, this is just SO unlike them you can color me Shocked.

"Crony Capitalism" at its Finest

     You have to wonder sometimes how Democrats get away with the whole "Anti-Big Corporations" facade.  Because that's all it is. 
     This is what happens when you give out Government money to Companies!  You get a bunch of Loser businesses who couldn't make it on their own, i.e. why they had to get the Government money.  Capitalism is about Profit and Loss caused by a Businessman's ability to create and sell the best product with the lowest price.  Bailing out Companies DOESN'T work.  It STOPS incentives. 
      If, for some reason, I can suddenly jump off a cliff and NOT die, there's no reason for me to avoid the cliff.  There is then no reason for me to be precautious, to stay far away from the cliff, to have life insurance!

     Unfortunately, logic and economics are two things devoid with our President and his Staff.

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Americans For Prosperity Release a cutting block for the Super Committee

     I think these are great cuts to start off with.  This committee though isn't getting enough attention.  

"Occupy Wall Street" The Left's Tea Party?

     Recently I was surfing the net and found that "Occupy Wall Street" is being compared to the Tea Party Movement.  I couldn't help but find it funny but then realized that there are many people who are beginning to believe this.  First of all, Stop.  They are nothing alike.  If they hold any resemblance to anything in history, look to the 1960's. 

     During the 1960's the Youth had become upset with the Vietnam War (understandibly) and the authority of the College Administrations.  However what many don't know about these movements is that contrary to the Liberal flavor they were given, these Groups had NO exact ideology.  As Ayn Rand points out in her essay, "The Cashing-in: The Student "Rebellion"", the leaders of these movements were calling for "Changes".  One article from The New York Times was headed with the following, "The New Student Left: Movement Represents Serious Activists in Drive for Changes".  Never did these people say what the "Changes" were.
     Yes there were your Communists, Socialists, Trotskyists.  One student from Berkeley (go figure) was quoted as saying, "At present the Socialist world, even with all its problems, is moving closer than any other countries toward the sort of society I think should exist.  In the Soviet Union, it has almost been achieved."  (yeah, the whole Soviet thing worked out GREAT, that's why their still our #1 competitors)
     However, that wasn't the True feeling of all the Students.  Most of them were simply Anti-.  A young man was spoken to by The New York Times about the Communists section of the movement, "You might say we're A-communist, just as you might say we're A-moral and A-almost everything else."  This was the majority of the ideology, or rather Anti-ideology. 

     This is why I say "Occupy Wall Street" is like the 1960's Student Rebellion.   Many of the protesters when asked how much the top % of income earners should be taxed have replied, "I'm not the one who should decide that."  When asked what they want in Government, they simply respond that they want a "New" form of government.  They don't HAVE an ideology, the are A-ideological.  They lack a set of goals and desires to the point that they're having the agenda being voted on the INTERNET.  Yes, they stand against Wall Street, but NOT against any certain company, no certain person, no idea except "They have too much money."

     But then these are the Result of the 1960's "Rebellion".  Who do you suppose has been in College classrooms since then?  Who do you think took the opportunity to spread their ideas to the Future Generations by taking control of the Universities of this country?  It's the former Leaders of the "Rebellion" in the 1960's.  Francis Fox Piven, Bill Ayers, and Cass Sunstein.

     Now to why the Tea Party is Different.  Well, first of all, they actually have IDEALS.  They have their beliefs written out, to see it just type "U.S. Constitution" into your google search bar.  They have again and again stated what they want;
1.  Smaller and more Constrained government.  2.  Free markets with no subsidies, tax breaks, tax cuts or Bail outs.  3.  Legal Immigration.  4.  Equality rights for EVERYONE and no 1 race recieving more benefits than others.  

Unlike the "Occupy Wall Street", the Tea Party has a Goal.  They have an end Result.  They want the American Dream Back, they want their Liberties back, and they want their Constitution to be adhered to.  That is the Difference.  Like I said, "Occupy Wall Street" is nothing but the resurgence of the Student "Rebellions" of the 1960's.  Need I remind you how those worked out?

Steve Jobs's Passing

One of the most innovative and unapologetic men of our Century.  May he Rest in Peace.

Wednesday, October 5, 2011

This Is What A Mob Looks Like - By: Ann Coulter

Really a great read.  She gets the Mob mentality perfectly.

More Delusions on the "Occupying Wall Street"

Whenever I find a column that really makes me laugh I have to post a Review of it.  If you find one please email it to me and I will check it out!

Now, according to Emma Ruby-Sachs (yes that's her real name) "Occupy Wall Street" is just the American spinoff of the Arab Spring.  She claims that the Rich have control of the governments of the World and that the protesters are just sweet, pro-democracy protesters.  First off, I want to start a drinking game, every time you see the words "Rich" and "Powerful" take a shot.  Let's start:
Almost a year ago, a revolution began in Tunisia and sparked a domino of uprisings across the Middle East. Their call was simple: end the dictatorship, usher in accountable government. Through occupation and all out war, countries in the Middle East attempted to topple leaders who clung to power despite representing the interests of the richest and most powerful to the detriment of the public good.
I got one.  Now she's wrong first because the Middle East was toppling Leaders who virtually didn't HAVE elections.  Also these leaders were cruel and vicious to their own people, they were recieving monstrous checks from foreign governments and either gave it to themselves or their military.  They weren't representing the richest.  There were many Rich people AGAINST them! 
Months later, Europe exploded. Sit-ins in Spain and ongoing rallies in Greece protested economic policies that rewarded the richest 1% while punishing the other 99%. Then London and the surrounding areas erupted into riots: an expression of outrage at rising housing and food costs. Israelis established a massive tent city in Jerusalem protesting the same rise in the cost of living, and the government's stubborn refusal to pass laws that promote the common good and support the survival of the other 99%. Now, the United States and Canada have joined the fray.
Really?  These countries were notorious for welfare spending!  Most of their people weren't PAYING taxes.  How can you honestly expect economic growth or societal advancement when many of your people are living on Government assistance?  England's Riots were nothing more than Thuggery physically manifested.  Those people were uneducated, welfare baby, gangsters with NO ideology except "What's yours is mine, and what's mine is mine,"  with the barrel of a gun pointed at everyone.  As for the drinking game, we were safe this time, maybe there's something redeemable in here....
Each and every demand in the occupy Wall St. protests and their kin relate to accountability. It is the latest in a global realization that our governments are held hostage by the rich and powerful, our laws and safeguards protect those rich and powerful rather than protecting the rest of us, and our leaders have no motivation to change the status quo.
Can Somebody call a cab??? 
Democracy is a word we throw around a lot, but it's not one that is very well understood. It's not enough to cast a ballot every four years. Democracy is a system of accountable governance -- a pledge that leaders will represent the interests of those they govern, will protect the weakest in society, and will steward collective resources (like our water and air) to ensure a sustainable future for all of us. It relies on a free press to help inform citizens of governmental action. It relies on freedom of assembly and movement to allow citizens to communicate directly with their representatives.
Does the woman not know we're a Republic?  There is a REASON why we aren't a Democracy.  A Democracy has always descended into The Mob Rules.  Citizens can't always be informed and can't always be smart voters.  A Republic, with the proper Constitution, ensures that Individuals don't have their rights stolen by the Majority.  Freedom is about letting people do as they WANT as long as they don't harm anyone else in doing so.  A Democracy crushes that for the "Greater Good".  Yes, free press and freedom of Assembly are parts of the Republic, however, those wouldn't exist if we had a Democracy.  People are smarter than most of the politicians, but the Mob Mentality has changed the strongest of men to dogs of the Mob.

And seriously, is the cab here yet?

"Occupy Wall Street" = A Wannabe Arab Spring

It's hilarious!  They blame the banks, though to a degree it was their fault, but now the Government!  The Government was the one who told the banks they needed to give Loans to people who couldn't pay it back.  While the banks could have been more prudent, those who weren't would have gone under.  But guess what?  The Government Bailed them out.  You can't get the Economy back in track without letting moronic companies and businesses to go under.  That isn't Capitalism.  That is Corporatism and Elitist Economics.

Also, these people aren't fighting the Government (did I leave that out?) so they AREN'T like the Arab Spring.  These people are going after Businesses.  Unless they start standing outside the FEDERAL RESERVE, they aren't NOTHING like the Arab Spring.  They are more like the Student Riots of the 60's. 

SHOCKER: Unions will take place Next to 'Occupy Wallstreet'

We all saw this coming right?
"These young people are speaking for the vast majority of Americans who are frustrated by the bankers and brokers who have profited on the backs of hard-working people," Hanley added in a statement. "While we battle it out day after day, month after month, the millionaires and billionaires on Wall Street sit by -- untouched -- and lecture us on the level of our sacrifice."
"Their goals are our goals," Gannon said. "They brought a spotlight on issues that we've believed in for quite some time now ... Wall Street caused the implosion in the first place and is getting away Scot-free while workers, transit workers, everybody, is forced to pay for their excesses.
"These young folks have brought a pretty bright spotlight," Gannon added. "It's kind of a natural alliance."
President Michael Mulgrew of the United Federation of Teachers, the sole bargaining agent for most nonsupervisory New York City public teachers with 200,000 members, said he was "proud" to support the Occupy demonstrators, who have been camping out in New York and elsewhere across the nation.

Russia-China veto UN resolution against Syria

It's strange isn't it?  But then both of these nations are anti-democratic at their core as well.  If anything I wouldn't be surprised if we see this kind of partnership more often especially with our congress currently considering passing a law that would put more tariffs on Chinese imports. 

Tuesday, October 4, 2011

The "New" Liberal is nothing but the same old Liberal

It's always funny to see the new ideas these people come up with.  In the article Jeffrey Sachs repudiates political idols John Maynard Keynes (something I could do all day) and Adam Smith as basically too old.  He believes we need a NEW path to economic success and to quit the Left and Right economic ideologies.  Education, he makes clear in his article, is the most important part of our economy and for American Jobs:

"Americans with a college degree are generally okay. Their unemployment rate is 4.3% and average incomes are above $60,000 per year. There are many help-wanted signs for talented computer programmers, engineers, and other high-skilled workers. Americans with a high-school diploma or less are falling into poverty, with unemployment of 10% and incomes averaging less than $30,000 per year. For these workers, the only help-wanted signs are for dead-end jobs that lead to poverty."
Need I say it?  The more education you have, the more your labor is worth.  But then what does that have to do with the economy?  Let's see....

"With America at the brink of financial collapse and class war, it is time for all sides to follow a new direction: a long-term effort to invest in skills and twenty-first-century infrastructure, paid for by increased taxes paid by cash-rich multinational companies, high net-worth individuals, and polluting industries. Rather than creating low-skilled and temporary jobs for our kids, we should be helping kids to stay in school until they have the skills to compete effectively in the new global economy."
See it now?  The ONLY way we can get out of this economic downturn is to tax rich companies, high income individuals, and polluting industries!  Gee, that kinda sounds familiar.  It maybe just me, but that sounds like the usual Left ideology.  I mean for a guy who nearly denounces Keynes, he sounds a lot like him.  Well, he sounds a little like, well I don't know..... Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Barbara Boxer, the entire Democrat party.  But, No!  He's different.  Look:
"The money to pay for this expanded effort can come largely from the top of the income distribution. The top 1% of households took home 10% of household income in 1980 but now take home roughly 23%. Along with this remarkable surge in income after 1980 came tax cuts and increasingly easy access of the rich to offshore tax havens."
Oops.  I was wrong.  It's the EXACT same policy we've been hearing from the Left.  If you can find anything different Please, tell me.  I beg you.

Just to end a few of the fallacies (though they NEVER end) in there by the way:

  • American Public schools get TONS of money.  The fact is we have a bureaucratic system that instead of finding ways to help kids, finds ways to make more and more worthless education jobs.  In a recent John Stossel special, he showed that many Charter Schools do BETTER and have higher graduating rates than public schools even when charter schools work with LESS funding. 
  • IF you are planning on taxing companies more (we already have a 35% Corp income tax) don't plan on them sticking around!  They can leave when they want and then there will be Less jobs.  Don't expect them to start making jobs when they have Obamacare hanging over their heads and the EPA cruscading against them.
  • As to the High income individuals, they can leave like the corporations can, and they will go to somewhere Nice and Tropical.  Do you really think it'd hurt them that much to move their businesses to the Caribbean or China?  Okay, you got me.  China's not that tropical.   
  • The Recession was GOVERNMENT caused.  Government spending has gotten us into this, it is a paradox to think it will get us out.