In New Jersey, Need Trumps Ability: Why Christie Matters

With socialism, marxism, and collectivism, need always trump ability. If you do not believe me, look at the standard marxist statement: To eat according to their needs, from each according to their ability. This means that what is given from the government, which acts as a proxy by force, to those that can't or won't do. It also means, that by force, this proxy for bad ideas takes what is earned by those who not only can but want to. It's not a free will gift and it is taken without respect to the people that earned it, but rather as an unwanted obligation and a demand that they should be happy to do it.

The New Jersey legislature passed a tax hike on all those who make more than a million dollars a year. This adds up to 16,000 people out of 3.9 million. Who speaks for them? Obviously to the socialist controlled New Jersey legislature, no one should.

The bill passed along party lines, 46-32 and 23-17 in the assembly and senate respectively. In a moment of honesty, a socialist in the assembly shows their true colors:

“We’ve got a lot of people who can’t afford to pay their taxes” and need the rebates that the measure may restore, Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver said before the vote. “Six- hundred thousand older adults would be better off.”

There are a couple problems here. If people can't afford to pay their taxes, ask why? Why are they being taxed so high? If the answer is to pilfer those that have more money, it's irresponsible and thievery. Socialism is based on coveting and stealing. It never occurs to the dems to cut expenditures because they are bribing people with their own money. The 600,000 that are complaining of cuts to senior citizen programs are a sizable voting block where 16,000 are not. How is that for taxation without representation? Oliver should read her history to understand the consequences of such aberrant thinking.


Why Chris Christie matters is that he says he will veto this bill. The demo-socialists do not have the votes to override the veto. A good thing. Time for some fiscal responsibility and honesty.

“This is a defining moment -- it seems to me to be all about taxes, taxes and taxes,” Assembly Minority Leader Alex DeCroce, a Republican from Parsippany, said during more than an hour of floor debate before the vote. Referring to Democrats, he said, “that’s all you guys do.”

And that is the truth. Socialists like to bribe people with their own money, and they do it as a bribe for votes. This is done to convert those that can to those that need. The more that need, the more votes the arbiters of socialism will get and thereby hold on to power. This is the path to becoming Farm Animals®. If you doubt me, look at another bit of honesty from a socialist that feels sacrifice is duty and who is also the high priest at the altar of sacrifice:

“I don’t have an issue with millionaires, I just have an issue with people not sharing in the sacrifice,” said Senate President Stephen Sweeney, a Democrat from West Deptford. “Those 16,000 people can help 600,000.”
What Sweeney isn't honest about is that the taxes he wants to steal from the 16,000 is to restore programs to bribe the 600,000. Sfacime.

It is a good thing to see a governor stand on proper rational principle and not emotion based straw man arguments and populism. He was elected to govern and govern from a position of responsibility, not of a tyrant that succors the hoi pelloi into a puerile stupor for the purpose of political hegemony. Its time to grow up.

This is why we need Chris Christie.

Thank you for reading this blog.

--
Posted By The Right Guy to The Right Guy at 5/21/2010 12:26:00 PM

Is Credit Indentured Servitude? A look at modern American peonage

Originally published here 09/06/08

I was reading a blog today about the economy and one of the commenters mentioned that americans were over extended with credit. In fact, I found out that they average credit card debt for a household is around $8600. The average mortgage debt is $192,000. That's probably between $800-900 billion in credit card debt and somewhere around $17 trillion in mortgage debt in this country. These numbers may be conservative as there are over 116 million households in the US. Can you say over extended?

Even with an annual foreclosure rate of 1%, that would mean around $178 billion disappears from the economy, mostly from mortgage debt. That's not small. But the real reason for this post is to illustrate how are economy is propped up by personal debt. I don't believe this is an accident. Credit cards were non-existent 25-30 years ago. Most people I knew did not have one. If you wanted to buy something, you'd pay cash for the most part, excluding cars, and homes. Mortgages tended to be 15-20 years, and car loans were 2-3 years. Today, we have mortgages out to 40 years and car loans beyond 6 years. The average car loan debt is now between $12-13,000.

Sometime after the last inflationary bubble at the end of the Carter administration, some economists must have figured that if banks loan more money out to people, and extend the terms of the loans, they could pump money into the economy causing it to grow. A different kind of trickle down economics. On the income side, salaries would be kept at a pace such that an equilibrium is kept between consumers ability to pay and the money lent out. There have been a couple instances where there were hiccups, and then the resultant bailouts, but it has enabled corporations to flourish at the expense of the debt incurred by the average household. Look at the growth of the stock market since 1980. Even with the ups and downs, you'd have to agree that is has grown tremendously, but now we are at another hiccup.

The problem is that we are having difficulty maintaining an equilibrium between this debt, income and economic growth. In the last several years, banks have really gone too far in extending credit, particularly with mortgages. This in turn pushed housing prices higher and people borrowed even more. It's not enough that people buy what they want, but also be able to buy things beyond their dreams. Call it greed. Now that the housing market is collapsing, people that over extended themselves are looking for relief as are some of the lending institutions. Personally, I say let them rot, it's the only way they will learn.

At this point I'd like to consider the political economy if you will of this situation. Jefferson was afraid of situations like this, particularly with the government borrowing money. He feared corruption through financiers and industrialists. In many ways Jefferson may have been clairvoyant. Much of the shell game economics we see started with Alexander Hamilton, who believed in assuming debt and pushing out the time in which to pay it, where as Jefferson was more agrarian in his approach, pay as you go. On one hand, Jefferson wanted America to be unique in that we did not have a society divided by political, social or economic classes. In Hamilton's approach, I believe he sought to find a solution to problems of paying debt after the Revolutionary War without causing a depression or succession of states. I also think his risk tolerance was quite a bit higher than Jefferson's. My point here is that there is a historical philosophical approach in our democracy regarding economics and this argument is nothing new. What is different in the present is that the common man is given access to capital so easily without earning it as he receives it. Capital obtained in such fashion presents itself for abuse.

The end result here is that we have a society that in effect is in indentured servitude except that there is no debtors prison for those that refuse to pay. There are social and economic penalties for individuals, but insofar as lending institutions, they seem to get off scott free. This still leaves the vast majority of people that pay their debts on time in a condition of peonage, as they will be paying off their credit card and mortgage debt for many years to come, and in some cases, after they are gone. Unfortunately, this fiscal philosophy has found it's way to the government, which is even in worse shape. I guess you can sum it up as the free lunch mentality. The problem is that there is an end to this as the system has limits. The only way out of this, at least I think that some believe this, is to add more debtors to the system. The only way to increase this is through immigration, legal, or illegal.

The problem with this is that illegal immigration has brought new problems that exacerbate the situation. The social costs of having people her illegally is staggering. Healthcare, schools, and crime take their toll. The answer to this part of the this new problem created is amnesty, in an effort to get them on board tax-wise. Banks have not lost step as they already offer credit to illegal aliens. The problem is, if they skip, how do you catch them? It's a total loss. The side effect of all of this is that there is now a political demographic that is more open to socialism and it is changing the expectations of our society. Of course politicians will give them what they want and are already anticipating the political clout of this newly created demographic. So much for the traditional melting pot.

Again, this leaves us at a turning point at the 2008 presidential election. Where are we going from here? Do we adhere to Jeffersonian principles, do we continue on the same path we currently are on or do we pursue a different, yet equally dangerous approach with socialism? Our current path is to take on more and more illegal immigrants. Insofar as credit is concerned, I see no changes in approach with continuing down the same path. Today, the government announced it is going to bailout Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Detroit car makers are already squealing that they want preferential loans to bail them out. I see this path as a steady decline fiscally, morally, and socially. With Obama's approach, government will be used to curtail wealth through taxation, with the additional burden of government mandated and managed entitlements. In our zero sum game, it's really redistribution of wealth. With the added taxation and continuation of debt among the average citizen, in essence, we will be in a peonage system, or indentured servitude that we will never get out of. Both the government and financial institutions with cooperation from industrial businesses will basically have the population by the balls. Over time, we will loose our self-sufficiency and perspective on responsibility; we will have traded our freedom for that which neither enriches us nor makes us any safer or better off individually.

A classical liberal or Jeffersonian approach would entail fiscal responsibility. You shouldn't spend more that you earn, and you should not receive what you have not earned. What are considered entitlements should never be rights. Part of the solution would be to curtail outrageous interest rates. The government could do this. What the government should not do is bail banks out, or other corporate entities. They will never learn their lesson in greed and/or poor judgement if they are bailed out time and time again. Corporate and industrial subsidies should end. Yes, lower the tax rate for corporations to 10%, but no more subsidies. Both individuals and corporations will be responsible if it is demanded of them. The federal government should have fewer responsibilities than it currently has. I wont get into it, as you can read it in my Bona Fides, but it is not impossible to cut back the federal government 25-33% and as I have said, I would settle for the abolition of the IRS.

Between the government and financial institutions, we have fastened a chain around our neck that has a 300 Lb steel ball at the end of the chain. We cannot blame this situation on anyone else than ourselves. We elect the corrupt individuals that indenture us to the government and we take it upon ourselves to live fiscally irresponsible. The only way out of this is through individual responsibility, self-sufficiency and a philosophy of personal liberty. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your point of view, these things can not be legislated, but are learned through education and experience, and are fomented through political, social and spiritual leadership. This is where America falls short. No matter what happens this November, even if the Obamessiah wins, people like myself will have our time again. It's the nature of revolution to come back again.

Thank you for reading this blog.

The Iron Lady Got It Right

From Margaret Thatcher's last House of Commons Speech on November 22, 1990, where she addresses income inequality and a single currency.

H/T Taxing Tennessee and the ever prescient Carpe Diem. I have to say you have to love the brits grit. At least they used to have it.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Tin Cup America

Previously posted November 8, 2008.

I think some may have entirely missed the point of this election. The reasons for Obama's win, other than the repudiation of the Bush administration, what could have changed? I will speculate that enough of the young people in this country that have come of age since 2004 have been enculturated in the tin cup co-dependent socialist democracy and they now represent a larger constituency on the left. As much as young people are hip, internet and tech savvy, they are also pretty ignorant of history, philosophy, and lack the moral compass of generations before them.

In the big picture, look at it like this: In my parents generation, if you weren't out of the house by the time you were 18, and married, you were looked at as somewhat defective. People got on with their lives early, were responsible, and expected that of themselves and others. Their education, while basic by today's standards, was thorough, and they could read, write, and do arithmetic when they graduated high school. Todays youth, whether they need to or not, got to college to somehow get the education they did not get in high school and delay the onset of responsibility.

Is it so odd anymore to see people living at with their parents even until 30? The result of this is that there is a delay in becoming an adult and when this immaturity is coupled with a poor and/or lopsided education, you have a recipe that produces people that believe they are entitled to a lifestyle that is inconsistent with being a responsible adult. In the old days they would call this codling by an over protective mother. The end result is a society that believes the world owes them something.

Vince Cohen, an expert on social issues, say that all of this is the result of the feminization of society. When people are over-nurtured, it delays the onset of responsibility. When you consider socialism, the very idea of Nanny-Statism, at least to me, is puerile in nature. Who as an adult wants to be treated as child? Children are taken care of by Nannies, or Parents. Adults are not.

For some reason, that infantile mentality that the government should take care of every need and even some wants has drifted over from Europe to the United States. The trade off is that when you agree to be "taken care of", the locus of control shifts, you have abdicated your responsibilities and now there are strings attached. You have traded independence for security and made yourself a slave to the wishes, desires and demands of others. When you were a child, right or wrong, irrespective of the consequences, could you do and go as you please? No, of course not, you lived under your parent's roof and you had to obey their rules.

Part of the American experience is that at one time, we were the embodiment of the rugged individual. Forged by personal responsibility and the freedom that is its reward, respect for the rights of others, and the learning from our mistakes. Somewhere, sometime, in the last 40 years, we have become enculturated and educated in such a way that we are not the same people anymore, not as a whole. It seems that with every election, the rugged individuals are pushed back, smaller in numbers, in defeat. In the current election cycle, Obama has shown that he is the conduit for the socialist programming started by the 60's radicals, and it is their last chance to poison the punch. The consequences of this are that socialism will overtake capitalism as the form of government in this country and probably everywhere else, eventually.

You may say, what is so bad with that? I can tell you that philosophically, socialism exists as a way to bring the very lowest in society up at the expense of those further up the economic chain. It's always been about the guaranteed outcomes for the lowest common denominator. You aim low and you hit low. True free market capitalism is about a playing field were everyone gets to play, but outcomes are not guaranteed. There will be a pile of bodies sometimes, but overall, everyone not only gets to play, but most get better at it and the rewards are very high. While not always fair, you are not penalized for being responsible, successful and daring. The reward is that at the end of the day, there are no regrets, as you can call your shots. Are you up for the game? It seems many people today are not. It is a road less traveled anymore.

Thank You for reading this blog.

Pelosi Is The Anti-Christ

By Jim Hoft, Gateway Pundit

This is turning into some horrid science fiction movie, only were suffering through this in real life.
Pelosi says the Dem-socialists are one pillar away from destroying America.
The radicals are going to ram through cap-n-tax next to save life on earth from non-existent global warming climate change.
Holy crap.
The Hill reported:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) said the Democrats are one bill away from completing President Barack Obama’s “blueprint for American prosperity.”

“We have passed two of the three pillars in the historic healthcare and education reform and are working towards a clean energy and climate agenda in Congress,” Pelosi said in her remarks to the California Democratic Party state convention in Los Angeles on Saturday. “And essential to prosperity for middle-income Americans is reining in Wall Street.”

“The House has passed Wall Street reform, and working with our colleagues in the Senate, we will ensure that never again will those who are reckless on Wall Street make people jobless on Main Street,” she said.

During her speech, Pelosi singled out several members of the California delegation who were in attendance. “We must reelect and retain the extraordinary leadership of my colleagues in Congress who are here today,” she said.


Thank you for reading this blog.

Global Warming Is Alive And Well: Cap and Tax Next

US Senate climate bill to be unveiled April 26

* Backers hope for Senate vote in June or July
* Measure could affect states' climate control activities

From Reuters:
A long-awaited compromise bill to reduce U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming will be unveiled by a group of senators on April 26, sources said on Thursday.
The legislative language to be sketched out in 11 days, according to government and environmental sources, is being drafted by Democratic Senator John Kerry, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and independent Senator Joseph Lieberman.


President Barack Obama has made climate change one of his top priorities and took steps recently to show Republicans he was serious, including expanding federal aid for building nuclear power facilities and allowing more domestic offshore oil drilling -- initiatives to be included in the Senate compromise.
The White House is also eager to show the rest of the world the United States is ready to take a leadership role on global warming, including to help kick-start stalled international efforts to tackle the problem.
Despite vocal climate change skeptics in the United States, leading scientific groups have been hoping the United States, the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases after China, would take action.


While Obama is compromising by moving to the center on this by okaying offshore drilling and building more nuclear reactors, in the end, there is little comprise at all. Here's why: Nuclear reactors and drilling take years to implement, and while the blanket statement offshore drilling is used, will it be in areas that will be most productive? Furthermore, there is no retrenchment or reproachment from Obama on his position, in spite of the fact at the very least there are serious doubts to the validity to the theory of global warming, if not outright admission that it is a hoax. In the end, if this bill passes, Obama gets what he wants and we get a promise yet to be fulfilled. It's total bullshit and doesn't adress the heart of the problem with is redistribution of wealth by the mechanism of a hoax perpetrated on us by people whose sole goal in the end is world-wide socialism.

No matter what gifts Grahamnesty comes forth with (or McLame for that matter), don't fall for it. This fight is as important as the one for Obamacare, and remember, we lost that one. While November is coming, it isn't here yet. So, we must either forestall this bill until the next session where it might be dead, or kill it now. Anything less is capitulation.

Thank you for reading this blog.

PS, I wonder if the global warming hoaxists will want to penalize Iceland for their volcano spewing so much dust? In the end they should be quite happy: The dust will lower temperatures and keep a lot of aircraft on the ground. Of course this also means they can't jet set in their G5s. Oh well. I am sure they will blame the eruption on man. Anthropogenic Volcanic Eruptions. May be Rush Limbaugh, but Iceland?

The Real Cost of Obamacare

As Obamacare has passed, now companies will have to pay big time. AT&T has already said it has to book 1 billion of 1st quarter costs because of the bill, and Caterpillar has to pay 150 million. In my own state of Iowa, John Deere has a similar cost of 150 million. Bloomberg estimate that 14 billion will get "shaved" from corporate profits this quarter. This will surely delay any recovery that people were hoping for. I would ask ObaMao, how did his bill create jobs? How does it keep people free and not dependent? Surely these companies will not be hiring many if any people, especially in terms of new positions. THey certainly won't have the money to invest back into the company too. Of course we are getting a first hand look at the effects of socialism and what it will do to the economy. I also have pondered something else too, and I wonder what my readers think: Since medical insurance is normally considered a benefit, how will companies factor in that benefit when they cut back on healthcare plans (which they will in order to avoid thee penalties they are paying) when trying to attract talent? Will we get a $10K raise for the lack of benefits? This also plays into the socialist's hands. Companies will have to cut back on benefits and at some point it will become politically necessary to create a one payer system. This is what MaObaMao wants. At that point, companies will have absolved themselves of any medical insurance costs, and the employee will in essence be stuck paying for it through increased taxes of all kinds. So not only will we not get the difference, but it will come out of our pay check and our pockets. Look at Denmark, where people work more than 6 months out of the year for the government. Farm Animals, every one of them.


The real cost of Obamacare is economic slavery and dependence on the federal government. They want to create a society of Farm Animals where by they tend the flock. It's not about let's all get along: Remember, peace is the absence of opposition, and most of the time that is achieved by some sort of force. Farm Animals are at peace, but they are also kept in pens to produce for the farmer, and exercise no free will, if it could be possible. Think about it. Socialism is a system that extends the Farm System to human society as a whole in a effort to produce a society of subservient and sinecure producers for the benefit of the few. In some ways it makes the slavery system under the old south more palatable, as there was some place to escape to for freedom. These entropic fools want to make it the same everywhere so there is no where to go. This is about enslaving and controlling mankind, not for some system that affords basic needs and wants for it's citizens for some altruistic purpose. Any sacrifice made necessary and promulgated by those in power should be looked at with suspicion and derision. And to paraphrase someone else, look to where that altar of sacrifice is and who benefits. These bastards are nihilistic materialists that look no more upon you than a farmer does with a chicken on the chopping block. You are literally just another brick in his wall. Until people really understand this, that we are just Farm Animals to these people, slaves, then it will always be this tug of war or pendulastic exercise every 10 years between between freedom (right) and slavery (left). These people are not only scum of the earth, but fools.

The real cost of Obamacare and whatever else he tries to shove done our throat is our lives, liberties and our pursuit of true happiness. It is at the destruction of our country, our constitution and our way of life, substituting it with something that is anathema to human dignity, freedom, and self-responsibilty. It's to destroy the human spirit, not to let it fly. What will we do?

Thank you for reading this blog.

What is Socialized Medicine Like?

With all the talk of Obamacare, many on the right are rallying around and shouting from the rooftops how Obamacare is socialized medicine, or at least the beginnings of it. On the left, we have people that believe that we need this as someone paying your medical bills is a natural right.

Left look at what socialized medicine can be like. From England:

Patients were routinely neglected or left “sobbing and humiliated” by staff at an NHS trust where at least 400 deaths have been linked to appalling care...Staff shortages at Stafford Hospital meant that patients went unwashed for weeks, were left without food or drink and were even unable to get to the lavatory. Some lay in soiled sheets that relatives had to take home to wash, others developed infections or had falls, occasionally fatal. Many staff did their best but the attitude of some nurses “left a lot to be desired”.

Up to 1,200 people lost their lives needlessly because Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust put government targets and cost-cutting ahead of patient care.

But none of the doctors, nurses and managers who failed them has suffered any formal sanction

The inquiry found that: 

• Patients were left unwashed in their own filth for up to a month as nurses ignored their requests to use the toilet or change their sheets

• Four members of one family. including a new-born baby girl. died within 18 months after of blunders at the hospital

• Medics discharged patients hastily out of fear they risked being sacked for delaying


• Wards were left filthy with blood, discarded needles and used dressings while bullying managers made whistleblowers too frightened to come forward.


Look to the great white north, and we see that the premier of Newfoundland/Labrador, Danny Williams, went to the United States for a heart procedure. It seems the US does a minimally invasive procedure that he couldn't get in Canada, which would have required major surgery and possibly a delay in getting care. Mr. Williams paid for the procedure out of his pocket. He was one of the lucky ones. Many Canadians would have waited for weeks or months to have a procedure that is cutting edge, if they made it that far.

Obama wants these types of systems. He looks to Europe as an example of what is right in the world, what is just, a fabian socialists view that looks at the general public no different that a farmer looks at livestock on his farm. We are no more than farm animals to Mr. Obama, and the farm should be run by the government. In his own mind, he knows best. Who do you trust?

Thank you for reading this blog.

Socialism is anti-judeo-christian

Today's post is very, very simple. Normally, I attack socialism in all its forms from a philosophical point of view. Today I will make a statement that puts it in a judeo-christian perspective.

Socialism in all it's forms is a violation of the 10th and 7th commandments:

 You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.

and 

You shall not steal.

Because socialists and others that support government entitlements covet what they have not earned and do not own, they enlist the government, through the general will, to steal from those that they covet. They are dishonest criminals, not willing to steal honestly by taking the responsibility of their act on themselves.

So ends today's lesson.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Want to know how Obama's socialist ideas workout? Go to Detroit

H/T to William "Wild Bill" Donovan.




Thank you for reading this blog.

What Worries Me Part 2

As a continuation of a previous article, What Worries Me, I want to describe the flipside to Obama succeeding in a Fabian socialist agenda, which is Obama losing in 2012 as opposed to winning and succeeding in his agenda. What if the right drives over a cliff and we election another candidate that relies on the cult of personality? Below a definition of cult of personality from Wikipedia:

A cult of personality arises when a country's leader uses mass media to create an idealized and heroic public image, often through unquestioning flattery and praise. Cults of personality are often found in dictatorships and Stalinist governments.

A cult of personality is similar to general hero worship, except that it is created specifically for political leaders. However, the term may be applied by analogy to refer to adulation of religious or non-political leaders.

I would say that this definition fits nicely with Obama, at least initially. Obama tries to be a modern day FDR, except even more Fabian in nature. This is evidenced not only but the absolute incredulous and irrational adulation of his supporters but the control he has so far been successful with over the mainstream media. He has done so not with fear, but of agreement in principle. This had helped create an image of Obama that got him elected. What he and his magical handlers did count on and what FDR did not have to deal with, is the nature of media today. It’s available to more people today and much, much more quickly. The opposition media in the country has served as a balance to what I like to call the “government run media”. In reality they are the government-controlled media through manipulation through likeness in alleged beliefs. The end result of this is that Obama, as of this date, has an approval rating of 44%, which is a record in terms of the speed of decline for a new president.

So, what worries me? What worries me is that the opposition in this case might use the same tools, the same methods to promote and elect a leader in response to Obama. The difference would be that instead of an alliance between the mainstream media and the democrat candidate, the alliance would be between the opposition candidate and a grassroots mob if you will that circumvents the mainstream media’s efforts. In this case, you could say I am talking about Sarah Palin, although it could be someone else that pops up between now and 2011, when candidates get serious about running.

Why worry about Palin you ask? I will tell you this much: I like Palin, but not for clearly rational reasons. I am intellectually honest enough to say so, whereas some of my colleagues on the right are not so honest, and winning is more important than results afterwards, that we have to live with. Sound familiar? Palin is attractive, communicates well, and connects with people in a way we haven’t seen since Clinton or Reagan. Obama is more of a media creation, and connects with TotUS better than people. Anyway, if I take a step back and analyze what I know about Palin, the picture is not as rosy as her supporters would seem.

Palin is a former governor of Alaska. Sounds good, but not even one full term. Before that she was a mayor of Wasilla Alaska. Before that…? Compared to Obama, she has much more experience as an executive (Obama has none), but she doesn’t have a lot of experience when you compare her to Reagan, Clinton or even W. I am not sure we need another candidate that sweet-talks the camera and appeals on an emotional level. I think this is dangerous and we have seen the results of such choices. I think considering our current problems we need someone that can hit the ground running, not someone that will need on the job training. We have that now. My treatise here isn’t to bash Palin, nor is it about finding the perfect candidate, just the observation that one, we can do better, and two, we need to be careful about who we pick, because it really counts this time, and we have one shot to get it right. I think if she does her homework and does the right things, in 10 years she could be a viable candidate.

So what to do? I would like to see the Tea Party and 912er people get a little more politically involved and spread the liberty theme around, making it mainstream. The GOP has to be made to understand that it is not going to be business as usual: Placate an internal constituency before the election and forget about them afterwards. Republicans are famous for this. If this happens in 2010, the GOP should go the way of the Whigs. The only two things that have been on their side in the last year are an incompetent president and a democrat congress that has been bent on turning our country into a socialist nation. What the GOP should not glean from this is some sort of mandate that allows them to take power like a fat kid gloms fresh baked cookies from his grandma’s kitchen table. Obama made a similar mistake in thinking he got elected because of a socialist mandate. Wrong. In this scenario, Palin would do well as she would say “bugger off, I am doing it my way”. It seems that the GOP is like an ADD kid that needs to be reminded of his responsibilities on a regular basis. After a while, you have to ask, do we really need this?

So, I do worry how this will play out. I am heartened at times, particularly today upon hearing that two large banks, Wells Fargo and Citi, are going to pay off the government loans and get the government out of their business. Bravo and long live capitalism. I am a patient sort, willing to wait and see, are you? What do you think?

Thank you for reading this blog. 

Barbara Boxer Continues Senatorial Ignorance

If it wasn't ignorant enough that Harry Reid tried paint the republicans as modern variants of proslavery democrats because they don't support Obamacare, now we have Barbara Boxer, the liberal sfacime senator from California making the assertion that denying the funding of abortion is the same as denying paying for a man's prescription for viagra.

Obviously Boxer doesn't have the facilities to recognize the differences in both the purpose of each and the consequences. Abortion is killing a human being, most often because it's an inconvenience. In fact, over 97%.

Viagra is for the purpose of making an impotent man have an erection. Generally erections are for the purpose of creating human beings. Most men that use viagra are probably over 40, if not 50. Generally speaking, viagra enhances a man's self-esteem, not to mention his partner's appreciation. Just ask Enzyte Bob. :)

On the other hand, the consequences of abortion are not so rosey. Many women who get abortions suffer depression, loss, and grieve. They have killed their own and no matter why they got it done, the effects are life long. Many women that get abortions have problems conceiving because of the physical effects of having the abortion because of damage to the uterus.

Neither abortion or viagra have a place in the healthcare debate. One, abortion isn't healthcare, it is death.  The american people shouldn't have to subsidize death. I also think that if a man want to get a woody, even if he cannot not without pharmaceutical help, he should pay for it himself. Americans don't need to be responsible for what happens with that either.

This is just another case of cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy thinking that the democrats are using because they are desparate. Their backs are to the wall because the american people do not want Obamacare, they don't want a socialized government of healthcare and in spite of this, the dems are intent on shoving this don our throats, even at the peril of their jobs. The lesson that is lost on them is that emotional appeals are the last refuge of morons.

So, did Boxer act alone, or did she get marching orders from Barack or MoBama? I suppose we'll never know, but in this case, she was following Hairy Dweeb's lead and did this one from the heart. Still, she's wrong, as usual, and again, the dems keep digging for lower lows.

The only conclusion I can make from all of this is that  the dems must be real true believers in socialism and marxism. There's no other way to explain why they would pull these stunts when they have such opposition from the american people. They would rather believe they are right, rather than listening to their constituencies or re-examining their values. Either way, they probably will be done next November. While this may seem to bode well for the GOP, I wouldn't put all my hope with them either. Not just yet. They have a very bad habit of forgetting where they came from and become stranger lovers as well. If it's any indication, Palin has hinted at a third party run (she's within 1% of Obama she's not even running). While it may devide the GOP for a dem win in 2012, it may also herald a new party such as when Lincoln won in 1860 with the new Republican party. Personally, I think it is time for a new party. Michael Steele & Co. have served us poorly.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Farm Animals:Why Socialism and Marxism Sucks

As a continuation of why we suck, I want to explain my frequent use of the term "Farm Animals".

Farm animals are used for one thing: To Produce. In the case of the picture to the left, the cows here are used to produce milk. Notice the clean, austere, functional, efficient and productive environment. As long as the cows produce, they will be well taken care of.

They get antibiotics, hormones, visits from the vet, kept clean and are well cared for. As long as they produce, they are ok and if and when they are not, they are sent to McDonald's or the rendering house. It's just the way it is. Cows don't have any notion of freedom, and they can't make the rational choice whether or not to be where they are. Still, some would argue that they are better off being milk cows for the dairy.

Humans on the other hand have the power of reason, or so we are led to believe, and because of this, we are supposed to be able to make informed and rational decisions. Yet, despite this, like the fool that keeps playing three card monte, we make choices that make no sense, at least not good sense. With the rise of MaObama, it seems many people are sold on the idea of a socialist/marxist America, where as in Europe, they want the government to take care of them cradle to grave.

What makes such European countries successful is that in order for the system to work, there must exist enough people that produce for the system. You say, "what is the difference between that and capitalism? In capitalism, the workers produce for the "corporations' and companies The differences are that one, that people in a capitalist democracy, and I mean truly both, they have the right and free will to participate to the extent that they wish and whatever they earn (in a perfect world) belongs to them. Hopefully they make rational choices for their lives and can do so without fear. With the former, without producers that give to the system, the system cannot sustain itself. The more the people want from the government, the more will be taken from them by the government.

So, just as the cows are taken care of for the purpose of producing milk, so are citizens of a socialist country for the purpose of supporting the government and its dependents. Their care depends on their contribution. This is observed in every socialist democracy, like Canada, the UK and Australia to name but a few.

The argument can be made that they make these decisions out of free will. This is true under some circumstances, but like most governments, it is harder to take it back after it happens. Another observation is that people become enculturated or you could say that they are domesticated into this lifestyle. Still, the truth is inescapable: Citizens of these countries are like farm animals, producing for a system without rational thought as to why, the consequences, and what other possibilities might be. I would also liken this to the puerile nature of infants. Feed a baby, change it's diapers and give it attention and it will be happy. At what point do people want to be treated as adult human beings, responsible for their own destiny, and make their own way?

Our country was founded by people who were such people who made their own way. It seems to me that we are taking a huge step backwards. I could write volumes on this, but for now, this is it. So, the question is, do want to be free, adult, and responsible, or do you want to be treated as a farm animal, like a puerile child, an infant? What road should America take? Will we suck? :)

Thank you for reading this blog.

Oh Canada: Even your head doctor says your healthcare system sucks

The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association had this to say: "Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care..." This is an understatement. Still, the progressives in this country want a system just like Canada. May be all the progressives and their minions can move to Canada. It's not that far and I am sure they will help Canadians fix their healthcare system. Sounds like a plan to me.

Thank you for reading this blog.

What's Next?

What's next? What will Obama do since according to John Batchelor, he's lost the political narrative? While John believes this is about who controls the fairy tale, I like to deal in reality. I do agree that Obama has lost the information battle at this point as people have responded the opposite of what he expected. How did this happen?

One, Obama mistaken believes that because he is the first black man elected president and that the democrats won a clear majority in both houses that somehow this was a mandate to implement his progressivist socialist-fascist agenda. He was wrong.

It was a rebuke of 8 years of Bush, the war on terror and tiring of the same old shit. Bush failed to lead the country, particularly after the 2004 elections. It was a series of blunders, some of which were rolled up in the Iraq War, some were with his domestic policies that reeked of constituency pandering and showed his true nature as not being a conservative or libertarian and his overall inability to sell sell cheap water to an arab in the desert. I think some of this blame goes to Karl Rove as the win at any cost in 2004 led us down the wrong road and ultimately, created a power and leadership vacuum that allowed Obama to waltz in the white house.

Running up to the election, we ran into a fiscal crisis where it was decided that some companies were too big to fail. Enter the age of Atlas Shrugged. Citizens watched as the TARP bill was passed, and later after the elections, the ARRA was passed, both with majority opposition from the populace. Politicians ignored the cries of the citizenry against these bills, but to no avail. His Arrogance, King Barack "George III" Obama, believed that not only did he control the narrative, the the help of the 4th branch of government, but that his mandate to institute socialism in this country was fait accompli. What he didn't count on was that the people had had enough.

Like FDR before him, Obama wants to transform American into some sort of quasi-socialist democracy by cultivating and promulgating constituencies that will be beholding to his power to create programs that benefit them. In the end, it's all about him. Like FDR, he craves the power, limelight and adoration and will do anything to keep power. What he didn't count on was that people are more anti-socialist than he bargained for because we've had 60-70 years to see the failures of FDR and also LBJ, not to mention all of Europe. We don't want that.

So what now? It is my assertion that Obama and his minions will try to create or create a situation that will both marginalize the liberty movement and rally people around him. It may be a manufactured Pearl Harbor, or Oklahoma City bombing, or may be something else, but whatever it is, he will try to use it to assert his agenda, control the narrative as it were, and carry out his transformation of this country into a socialist country. While Obama is a coward that does not like to confront his adversaries, he likes to be right, even if the evidence proves otherwise. It's a matter of ego for him, and he won't take this laying down, as in his mind he has a mandate.

My prediction is that in the next 12 months, he will try something, as if he and the dems continue to lose the narrative, they are out in 2010 and probably in 2012. That just won't do, at least for him. And if he does do something, it could backfire like the Boston Massacre and cause the people to rally in opposition to the throne. Where were you?

Inspiration from Michael Savage.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Cash For Clunkers: Just another example of Obama's materialism

The picture at left is a shot a volvo going through its convulsions after having sodium silicate added to its oil. This is the process that dealers use when they take in cars for cash. The sodium silicate causes the engine to seize. They have to destroy the engine before it is crushed, so nothing will be useful from it.

This should stand as a microcosm of Obama's policies. Take cars out of service, that may have nothing wrong with them other than they have an owner that can be bribed into buying a car they may not be otherwise able to afford, and in the process get more into debt, which caused our current situation to begin with. Even cars today can be rebuilt, and the cost to do so would be far less than buying any new car.

Of course, the sole purpose of this exercise was one, to get cars off the road that don't get the gas mileage The One would like, two, get people to spend money, even if it is not their own or if they can afford to, and three, to push a green agenda that has no basis in economics. People will buys cars when they can and they will buy cars they want to buy. Using our money as a market force, which in the end will do us no good, is feckless and misguided. It also gives the false impression that something positive is being done.

My point here is that to the Dems and The One, the ends justify the means, even if the ends are ineffective at best. Such thinking extends to the administration's current policy on healthcare and cap and tax. If he is willing to destroy perfectly good cars and cars that can be remediated for less than the cost of a new one, how will he, and the government manage a healthcare system, especially when costs become onerous? Your life will be worth no more than the car they put in the sodium silicate. Obama et al only know the stick when it comes to enforcing their policies and their arrogance at knowing what is best for the rest of us is not only unlimited, but only applies to us. Do you think Obama will trade his gas guzzling limo for something more fuel efficient? No more than he or his demosocialist friends will take the same government healthcare that the rest of us will be forced to take. It's just another example of progressive socialist arrogance, and utter insouciance to what people want, which is liberty, at least in this country.

Thank you for reading this blog.

More Great News From Socialized Medicine

A grieving father opened the coffin of his premature baby, who had been pronounced dead just hours before, for a last good bye. What he found was that the baby wasn't quite dead, and in fact was breathing. So much for socialized medicine.

Thank you for reading this blog.

Swedish Meatballs

The Swedes are totally fucking nuts, even if you ignore them giving Al Gore the Nobel Prize. Lets start out with Item 1: Swedes are afraid of a commercial. You know, how has such a country produced such a giant like Magnus Samuelson, yet are such wusses. Item 2: Refugees died after HIV misdiagnosis. So much for socialized medicine. Item 3: Woman, 32, found guilty of raping woman. I wonder if the gay rights crowd will champion this. Item 4: Woman affirmed right to smoke in own garden. Isn't nice that someone can actually have some personal sovereignty on their own property? I am shocked that such a progressive and socialist country like Sweden would affirm such a right. Imagine doing as you like on your own property. Then again, I am surprised anyone is allowed to own property there.

I will admit that Item three is a little superfluous, but I find humor in it in the fact that some lesbian NOW agendists think that consensual sex between a man and a woman is rape, and here we have rape among their own. Sucks to be just human like the rest of us? This is not to disregard the horror of that act at all, and the seriousness that it should be dealt with, but I couldn't resist the hypocrisy of those people and them being proven wrong on some level. Unfortunately, all the woman got was to be put in a psychiatric facility. May be the rest of sweden should follow her there.

Bottom line, Socialism is nuts or makes you nuts. :)

Thank you for reading this blog.

Obama Admitted He Wants Socialist Government Run Healthcare System

Where is CNN, PMSNBC, NBC, CBS or ABC about this? What about Republicans (Running over their own cliff as Birthers)? It's like most MSM is like, yes, so what? The Socialist Joker In Chief is truly the master magician if he gets this by under such protest as it is. The guy is a runaway train and he's going to unhitch the cars and let them go over the cliff while he steams away, with full approval of the first and fourth branches of government. These guys have no fear of 2010 and 2012. And you know why? Amnesty. That's right, Amnesty.

RHETORIC V. REALITY: HEALTH CARE BY ORWELL

RHETORIC V. REALITY: HEALTH CARE BY ORWELL

By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN

Published in the New York Post on July 23, 2009

President Obama's rhetoric last night summoned the memory of "1984," George Orwell's novel of a nightmarish future -- where the slogan of the rulers is "War is peace; freedom is slavery; ignorance is strength."

The president assures us that he will cut health-care spending...by adding $1 trillion to health-care spending.

He says that "health-care decisions will not be made by government"...while he sets up a new Federal Health Board to tell doctors what treatments they can offer and to whom and under what circumstances.

Obama told the media, "I will free doctors to make good health-care decisions"...by telling the physicians what to do.

When the president says he guarantees the "same coverage" to people who like their current health-insurance policies, he means that their current HMOs, insurers and doctors will be the ones to implement the protocols and instructions the government hands down to them -- not that we'll have our current freedom of decision-making.

When he blandly assures us that we will "stop paying for things that don't make us healthier," he really means that his Federal Health Board will overrule your doctor and stop him from using his own best judgment in your treatment.

The president will "get the politics out of health care" by putting it under government control.

Obama says that he will not "add to the deficit" to fund health care. But the bill reported out by Rep. Charlie Rangel's Ways and Means Committee leaves $550 billion unfunded.

The president says that he'll identify savings that will reduce the need for more taxes -- even though the Congressional Budget Office refuses to say that his "savings" will actually work and warns that the bill will really be added to the deficit.

He repeatedly tells us that he'll cut health-care spending. What he means is that he will cut doctors' incomes and will turn down patients -- particularly the elderly -- when they seek medical care that his bureaucrats disapprove of.

And he ignores that cutting incomes in the medical field will reduce the number of doctors and force further rationing of care.

The president opines that he will replace the most "expensive care" with the "best care" by empowering government officials who have never met you to substitute their judgment for that of your doctor, who has examined you thoroughly.

When Obama laments that "14,000 people lose their insurance every day," he is referring to the job losses that his own failed efforts to end the recession have permitted.

He warns that health-care costs are gobbling up money that employers should use to raise wages and worker pay -- yet the plans he backs would require employers to pay 8 percent of their payroll as a tax or provide insurance to their workers.

The Obama plan highlights greater preventive care -- but, at the same time, cuts medical incomes and so will cut the number of doctors who might provide it.

The stimulus package, in the Gospel According to Barack, was "designed" to work over the next two years. But at the time, he demanded immediate passage to "jump-start the economy" -- something that clearly did not happen.

Medicare and Medicaid are "driving the deficit" even as he increased the amount of red ink by at least $800 billion in six months with little, if any, increase in the cost of either program.

He says he "expects" banks to repay their TARP money. In fact, they're lining up around the block to do so -- but the Treasury will only permit a handful of them to do so.

In summary, Obama's health program will promote "lower cost and more choice" by increasing spending by $1 trillion, telling patients what care they're permitted to have, and limiting their access to quality care.

Orwell's heirs should sue for violation of copyright.

Dick Morris say it better than most here. Thanks Dick, Eileen and...

Thank you for reading this blog.