Monday Quote

If you want total security, go to prison. There you're fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking... is freedom.

-Dwight D. Eisenhower

I am not sure what else I can add to this, except to pose a simple question to the progressives who think government can meet all of society's needs:

At what point do think it is good to stop?

Calling John Galt...

Here is some food for thought on your Thursday.

I have always tried to teach my children that there is no greater freedom on this earth than to be self-reliant. This means being you must be one that you can count on the most. You, and you alone, are the one who can control your destiny the best---not your parents, not the government.

If you have ever read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, you well know the character named John Galt. And if you are intuitive, reflective, someone who reads deeper than the second dimension, you will also know that he is not just a character in a book. He is a symbol of self-sufficiency, creativity, and innovation who needs no one but his own drive, will, and intellect to survive in a cold and demanding world.

To know him in his real form, is to inherit some of his remarkable characteristics. This guy understands him:



He is not the only one, there are many others who know John Galt and have allowed him to inspire them to develop their own inner strengths, free from undue interference and corrupted influences:



Coming next month will be the premier of Atlas Shrugged: Part One. Don't look for John Galt in this part. Look for why we need him.



Some theaters may refuse to show this. Some may be turned off at the fact that Ayn Rand was an atheist. others will call it racist because it goes against everything our President stands for. I say we should ignore both critiques, and take the value of the substance from the material and use to to make ourselves better.

This is not about religion, for God wants people to work their way out of turmoil, finding their own solutions, if possible. Still... I firmly believe that He is not beyond helping us, when we cannot. But we must make every effort we can make, first.

This is not about race either. Had Hillary or Howard Dean been in the White House right now, we would be asking the same questions about a failed ideology. Race matters nothing in this. Race has been made a scapegoat for many who cannot find their own way, but I am telling you all right here and now that I know black men and women who have worked very hard to make themselves self-reliant, and can buy/sell all of us, several times over.

Tell Herman Cain and Robert Johnson that a black man cannot make it in America, and they will laugh you out of the room.

This is not about either of those things, this is about us. It's about we, the people. It's about whether we throw in the towel and allow the forces that want to DICTATE to the people, to prevail and implement their will over us.... or it's about finding individuals, who want to LEAD the people out of dependency and into the real freedom I described in the first paragraph.

The proper question that should be asked is not, "who is John Galt?" It's "where the hell is he?"

I suggest we all start calling our local theaters to ask when they plan to show this movie, and make sure we attend one of its showings. It will be demonized by those who have a vested interest in the failure of the principles it contains, but you can be an individual and freely make up your own mind, after you see all three parts of the trilogy.

Don't let them decide for you. Be unafraid, be willing to challenge yourself. Be John Galt.

Are you John Galt? If so, where are you and what are you going to do about this?

Intents And Purposes: The Constitution

It has been said and written many times that people should not engage in discussions about religion and politics, especially at work. Even with this knowledge so well ingrained in our minds, there is usually someone who occasionally will make a light (or not so light) comment that will easily reveal their ideological and philosophical beliefs.

I try to refrain from responding. As a father (and grandfather) who has raised teens, I am well-conditioned at ignoring things.

One day at work, I was talking with a nice lady (who has made such subtle self-revealing comments in the past) made a statement that left just enough of an opening where I thought it to be profitable, in shutting down future invitations of such discussions.

I was able to communicate something similar to what I have said here many times.

I am a person who is guided by deeply held principles. I respect all people's rights to believe anyway they wish as long as they do not try to force what they believe onto to me (and this is especially true, when they use their belief system as an excuse to want to kill me....only because I disagree with them). I then said something to the effect of, I am not one to praise or extol the virtues of government because they have not not looked out after any of my interests....but only their own.

I could tell she disagreed with me, but remember I said she was nice. And she is. So she remained courteous in her response, by saying something that has led me to this post. She said that she believes the government is us, the people. She added that it is a dynamic force that changes because we are the ones who can change it. It must change, as we change.

It was at that point where I chose to change, the subject, because I knew that where she was coming from wasn't quite where I sat. But she wasn't entirely wrong.

It is our responsibility to vote personnel in or out, based on what we the people think needs to be done, at any given point in time. But I certainly did not want to tell her that the Constitution is not what I believe to be a dynamic, living document that changes with the whims and impulses of people. Somehow, I knew how she would feel about this, so there was no need to extend the discussion any further.

I did, however, think about this quote--which has widely been attributed to a person who was once considered a radical in some circles, in his day:

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."~Patrick Henry

Today's debate about whether or not the Constitution is a living document will often rest on what people think the founding fathers thought, or what they meant when they wrote it. The words contained within are words that are parsed over and  often distorted to justify government taking more control over people's lives.

With this in mind, it is not surprising to learn that there are even debates over whether Henry actually said this. Many people dispute this being attributed to him, because he was at first a staunch opponent of the Constitution in it's initial phases. The reason was, he feared the Federalists would take it down a path that would leave susceptible  to becoming another monarchy. That's where they just came from and it's all they knew. He was afraid that we would eventually replace one form of tyranny with another.

Like all good statesmen who find themselves on the losing end of an argument, he acquiesced and accepted the outcome.

When he learned of the brutal outcome the nation of France was made to endure, after its bloody revolution, he did come to an understanding that there needed to be some kind of a reasonable blueprint for a union to prevent an out of control mob, from taking control of this new experiment he had worked so hard to initiate. It had to be one that provided for the rights of the states and protected the rights of the citizens of the new nation.

He knew that by working through the system, he could make the Constitution better by adding protections to the states and citizens, who could someday become victims of an out of control federal government. He was an instrumental force for the adoption of the amendments known as the Bill Of Rights.

Once these safeguards were in place, he became a staunch supporter and defender of the Constitution. So with this knowledge, it is not so unreasonable to think that he could have made this statement in some forum or another. But in the big picture, it is not important whether he said it or not (for it does not negate the fact that it is a true statement).

If we fast forward to today, we see that Henry and many other skeptics of his day were wrong about, as far as, the federal government becoming a monarchy that would become an imposing force upon the people. It didn't. But it did become an oligarchy, which has become an imposing force that is strongly influenced (and in many cases controlled) by out of control special interests.

These are interests that do not care about the rights of the citizens, but only what is best for them.

As free thinking intelligent people, we know this did not come to be overnight. It had to evolve over time.

The metamorphosis was slow, gradual, and insidious in nature. The sad part is that it was tolerated by the people along the way. Based on handouts to states, corporations, and individuals who failed develop a strong functional understanding of the Constitution and it's original purpose, the people let their guards down.

In short, they traded safety, security, and comfort for the present time, for loss of rights in the future.They became addicts to big government.

When states, corporations, and/or individuals ran into trouble along the way, the federal government would give them handouts to help them recover. They did it with the full knowledge there were strings attached to that help. Rather than help them with no stipulations, the federal government would use it as bribery, to get the entity being helped to do things that the federal government thought was best.

These things were not in the best interests of the entities accepting the help. however as you can imagine, they were certainly in the best interests of the federal government. These were things wrested from the entities in question and were absorbed into the national responsibility, coming further under the grip of an ever-increasing beast that we see today.

We are now many generations removed from the one that carved out the blueprint for our beloved republic. We now find ourselves in a state of dependency, which is about as far from the original vision as we can get. We can see the federal oligarchy dictating to states, what they must do with money they receive. We see the same with corporations and individuals too. It's especially disheartening, when we realize that we are the ones paying for this.

So now, we see a movement within the nation that desperately wants to reverse the current course of certain destruction. It is comprised of an informed and enlightened citizenry who are not fooled by what has been transpiring over the many decades of foolish actions. But the individuals of this movement are not well-received by the beast we have created, or those who are dependent on its handouts.

In fact, they are often demonized by those who have become accustomed to the free flow of taxpayer money and cannot learn to live without it. They are corporations, both private and public. They are individuals who would rather sit idly by and be parasites of host organisms--who are out in the world making things happen. They know that by cutting off the gravy train, many of them will have to produce something of value to survive, and they know they are not capable of doing so.

So, what do they do? They make those of us who are tired of this massive injustice out to be the villains. They carry signs, they shut down governments. They do it a variety of ways. They are refusing to acquiesce and resign themselves. While clearly being in the minority, they try to bully, threaten, and manipulate events to get their way--because they are too afraid to accept they are losing the argument.

They are not going to win.

Not as long as there is a real working class made up of strong individuals who have made their names and reputations by by hard work and dedication to their duties they committed themselves to perform. Not as long as they realize they want their children and grandchildren to have the same opportunities they did, when given the chance. Certainly not as long as there is breath in my aging body, will I resign myself to accepting the fact that this is a nation of weak and pathetic leeches who want to destroy what we have worked so hard to build and preserve.

Do I speak for you? Or against you?

You must make that decision. But if we are to survive this onslaught from the beast we have created, we must make a stand now. So....for all intents and purposes, I must once again quote the man that I spoke of earlier in this essay:

Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

He used it in a literal context, but I use it metaphorically. Because there is no war acceptable in this struggle, except at the ballot box. I condone no shedding of blood for this, only working hard from within the system as Henry once did in his later life.

I have made my choice.

Have you?

Academic Welfare

Many years ago I read where the federal government was appropriating money to study the mating habits of the Japanese quail. It incensed me then.... and today when we read this story, it still irritates the hell out of me.

But this one is worse.

Now that we have learned the deepest physical and psychosocial aspects of this bird's reproductive process, we must reach out further to understand it more. For a grant of $181K, we must know what the bird's sex drive is like on cocaine.

Will we learn anything from this? Only that birds on dope have sex more, or less. That's about all.

If so, how will it affect people to know this? Gee, how hard can answering this question be?

If this gets you upset, then maybe this will just push you over the limit into "really pissed off" status, real quickly. There's a whole lot of waste you may not be aware of, much of tied to research grants like this one.

If you are not fully agitated by now, you either know or are one of those academics, possibly a Senator's nephew/niece or friend of the family who could not get a job with a doctorate in zoology. So that means you (or someone you know) told dear uncle/auntie and he/she asked what you were interested in doing. He/she told you to go to some university with a government grant in your pocket. He/she then tagged it on and earmarked it, into the next piece of legislation. You were then able to study some bonehead concept on the taxpayers' dime.

We have all heard the arguments for and against both social and corporate welfare, now let me introduce you to academic welfare.

It's a simple thing. When a professor (or someone trying to become one) gets taxpayer money from the government to study something, it's academic welfare. This doesn't mean anything to the man or woman who has been out of work for a month or longer and cannot pay their bills. It doesn't mean anything to the man or woman who busts their rear ends everyday to stay free from government dependence, and may have to work until they die because they must foot the bill for this kind of crap.

In 2011, the TEA Party supporters must make this an issue on a huge scale. The elected officials must listen or they can/will be fired in 2012.

Hissy Fits In Europe Will Soon Come Here

Recently, we watched the French take to the streets to protest the raising of the retirement age, from 60 to 62. Yesterday, we saw a British student protest turn ugly in London, over proposed tuition hikes.



Obviously, the big news topic of last evening's British TV news programming was the riot. Here is a lengthy clip from one of them. It includes a 37 year old student justifying the destructive actions taken by the out of control mob that invaded the Tory office building.



Notice how the interviewer tries to pin her down for the purpose of understanding why she thought the actions of the mob were justifiable?

She, like most leftists, do not want to answer perfectly valid questions. Instead, they want to question the validity of the question, in order to avoid answering it. They want to change the question, so they can hijack the narrative. It's not much different here in America, is it?

But let's set that aside and think about how Britain, France, and the rest of Europe are in these kinds of messes to begin with. Let's look at human nature as a microcosm of this situation.

Kids want. They will ask for any and every little thing under the sun, it's what they do best. Parents have the power to say yes or no. But when they opt for no, they must be prepared to explain why and stick to their reasoning behind it.

When kids do not get their way, many times they will act out in some way or another. It is at this point, where the parents can give in just to shut them up or dig deeper for the long term battle that will most certainly ensue.

If the parent makes a habit of giving in too much, there will come a time when there will be no control at all. The child will know that by starting a hissy fit, he/she will be able to control the situation and get whatever he/she wants.

Throw the concept of operant conditioning out the window at this point, because what we will now have is classical conditioning.

Even if the parent can afford to give the child every little thing the child's heart desires, this will not stop the child from wanting more. In addition to this, it makes the parent's job more difficult when it comes time to discipline for other things, not related to this scenario.

Let's say the parent wants to take away something away, as punishment.

Johnny, you have been bad. For this cause you lose your video games for the rest of the weekend. Anger will turn to rage, rage may even turn to destruction.

Or let's say either Mom or Dad has lost their jobs and some belt tightening must now take place temporarily. At this point, they cannot afford to keep buying Johnny these kinds of things he is used to getting (by simply requesting them). Expect a similar response.

To summarize this, what we have seen in France in recent weeks and yesterday in Britain is not much different than this analogy. France cannot sustain its retirement program as it is, so they must modify it. Britain cannot sustain the rising cost of education, so it must raise the fees. In turn, this provokes a hissy fit from those who feel entitled to continue receiving what they have thrown fits for in the past.

Now, let's bring this back to America for a moment.

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is trying to cut spending because his state has the third highest debt load in the nation. they cannot sustain at the current pace, as he explained in the recent video I posted. The spoiled kids of his state are used to getting what they want because the unions have pitched fits inn the past, and former governors have given in. So, he has a temper tantrum on his hands.

And to be fair about it, it's not just unions who are bucking his efforts. Listen to this short piece about someone in his state who doesn't want to be told no:



Get ready, America.

As we start making the tough decisions that will need to be made, instances like this in Europe are going to happen here. The children are out of control. Progressives have created a culture of entitlement, and no one will be allowed to make the tough choices without feeling the wrath of the spoiled brats.

Likewise, the situation described by the Governor will likely be played out in other areas of the nation. Other communities, like Parsippany, will need to tighten their belts a little and there will be greedy bastards who will think it doesn't apply to them. Instead of throwing a fit, they will sneak into their parents room at night and take the video game back out. They will make backroom, under the table deals like the one Mr. Christie has spoken about.

So....stay vigilant America. Now is not the time to rest. Keep the pressure on the newly elected officials and do not give in. When the answer is no, it means NO.

Needed: Constitutional Conversation, Not Moral Debate

Most have probably heard of the flap about O'Donnell's questions, concerning the words "separation of church and state". WaTi has a report. 

"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" Ms. O'Donnell asked while Democrat Chris Coons, an attorney, sat a few feet away.

Mr. Coons responded that Ms. O'Donnell's question "reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of what our Constitution is. ... The First Amendment establishes a separation."

She interrupted to say, "The First Amendment does? ... So you're telling me that the separation of church and state, the phrase 'separation of church and state,' is in the First Amendment?"

Technically she is right, those words aren't there.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;......"

"Shall make no law" and "prohibiting the free exercise of" are the operative phrases here. They are not the least bit vague, they are very clear.

Many of the evangelical leaders (who get involved in politics) use this to lobby in certain moral issues that get brought up during the course of every election. This is their rationale for wanting to legislate morality. This is something that is never wise to do, unless it is an issue that directly and adversely affects another person. Our rights all end, where our neighbors' begins.

Don't misunderstand me, there is nothing wrong with voting a person's conscience.... for it is our constitutional right to do so and it is an elected official's, as well. There is nothing wrong with a person's faith guiding their tough decisions as long as it does not impose upon, nor restrict the freedom of others. But if we are discussing this in a deeply analytical way, we must consider something else besides the Constitution when answering this moral dilemma.

When Christ's followers asked Him if it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, He asked for a coin and inquired as to whose inscription was on the money. They told him it was Caesar and He proceeded to admonish them to give Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and God the things that are God's.

In my book, this speaks pretty plain as to what Christ thought of government. It was to be respected and the laws were to be obeyed (unless any of them restricted their rights to practice their faith), but both entities were to be attended to separately. If we truly heed the words of the Holy Bible, this story must not be overlooked or disregarded.

"Congress shall make no law" is a powerful directive that binds the arms of any government that would seek to impose its beliefs onto its citizenry. So if this really be the case, candidates should not promise to make such a law, nor should they promise to impose their personal beliefs on others. Once elected, they must obey the Constitution because it is their Christian duty to do so.

It is at this point in the campaign, whereby moral issues are not important to win independents. They are not looking for pastors, they are looking for leaders to manage the government properly. They want those leaders to create and support the freedom for them to practice whatever faith they choose. In the meantime, liberal interviewers and debate moderators are chomping at the bit to trip up strong candidates, because of social issues. Moral issues are the last ditch gasps they can muster and can be expected to be used even more so, as the election nears.

This is why I get so frustrated with some conservative candidates.

When asked questions that involve personal and deeply held beliefs that are not relevant to any constitutional or government discussion, it is better off to ignore those questions and focus on the issues that are going to sink us as a nation. Instead of being sucked into an irrelevant sidebar, they should be redirecting the conversation back to these things that are of the utmost importance.

How to stop the out of control:

1. spending
2. accruing massive amounts of public debt
3. borrowing money to cover the losses
4. growing government

...and generally screwing up the natural order of things.

These are the things people need to hear, because government is wanting to restrict and tax even more than they already have to this point and they'll do it if we do not rein them in. What does the source of homosexuality have anything to do with anything? Is that going to get people back to work and off the public dole?

In the final two weeks, we need to stay on track and focus on the messages that got us to this point and on those principles that beget this movement. It's time to start the purge of dead weight in the legislature and can those who do not share those principles begin planning the next phase of the purge that will come in 2012.

Ask LA

Time for another dig into the old mailbag. Here's one I just ran across:

Dear LA,

Man, these people be trippin. Ya see, I don't know where to turn. Some people be saying for me to write Aks LA, because the man has the answers. I sed, that's what I am talkin bout. I needs the answers. Right on?

Anyway, here's what's goin down. I am living in a FEMA trailer in the 9th Ward of NOLA (Thassss right, baby. Da Crescent Citty.) But now these people be sayin that I have to give up the crib. They be sayin that da guvment is takin my home away. It only be four years since Katrina and I can't get my act together cuz da man is holding me down.

What am I ever supposed to be doing to stop dis unjustice?

Right On,

Frustrated In Fematown.



Dear Frustrated,

You have a right to be upset. This current FEMA policy of setting an unreasonable May 1, 2009 deadline is racist. It's not even been a full four years yet.

I suggest you call your local media and whip the locals into a frenzy. Tell them how the current administration is trying to keep black people down, by causing extra suffering in addition to the suffering already imposed.

If that doesn't work, call Al Sharpton to come down and lead a march through the streets calling for Barack Obama's head. Let the President know that you will NOT tolerate the continuation of the racist policies of George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the evil Karl Rove.

You must act to defend your rights. There is no reason for them to be putting this much pressure on you or your neighbors, so soon after this horrible disaster.

Hope this helps.

LA

Just The Beginning

No doubt, many have been following this story out of Chicago.

Chicago window factory workers in the fourth day of a sit-in at their former workplace, Republic Windows and Doors factory are meeting Monday with politicians, company owners and bank officials to resolve the standoff. Gov. Rod Blagojevich ordered the state to suspend business with the bank that pulled the factory's line of credit. CBS 2's Mai Martinez was there.

The company shut down abruptly on Friday after Bank of America canceled its line of credit due to a sharp downturn in Republic's business.

The laid-off workers continue to guard the assets inside their Goose Island plant in around the clock shifts to make sure the items are not removed. They say the remaining doors, windows, and machinery are the only collateral they have left in their fight to get what they feel they are owed.

The 300 workers demanding severance and vacation pay have become a national symbol for thousands of employees laid off nationwide when President-elect Barack Obama took their side.

Details from the company's perspective are sketchy right now, as they have yet to make any statements, other than the bank suspended its line of credit. Right now the only ones talking are the union, race-baiting Jesse Jackson, and anyone else who wants his/her name on the news.

This is reminiscent of 1920s pre-Mussolini Italy, when workers took over factories and then had to close them after running them into the ground. This may be somewhat different, but the rebellious thug mentality is no different. This time, everyone involved here is instantly taking the side of the workers, without understanding the plight of the company.

Don't get me wrong, it's very sad these workers have lost their jobs. I have lost jobs due to recession, it's not fun. It's not fun, when you are the type of person that merely wants to be self-sufficient and not be a burden on society. But the orders dry up, the bank pulls the plug on the credit, and now the workers are canned. That's the way things have always been in business: sometimes there is work, other times not. It's all based on the amount of business, the company is or isn't doing.

In this business, it sounds like the construction industry plays a huge role in how well this particular business does; and with the numbers of buildings being built dropping dramatically, it makes sense that not many windows and doors are being bought or sold, right now. A company such as this cannot keep making things that no one wants to buy, therefore, they have no need for a workforce.

The real problem with this story becomes the reaction of the workers and the attention/support the big names are giving it. But beyond this, it's hard to know what the objective is. Severance packages and vacation pay may be the central issue for the cameras and the reporters, but what is it beyond that? What happens if for some reason these people are given their demands? Will they keep their jobs? Not if there is no market for the products.

They can get angry at Bank of America, which got some bailout money from the government. But where does it say the money BOA received has to be specifically used for a company, located in Chicago, which isn't solvent? How will BOA ever be expected to recuperate it, if the company cannot stay afloat?

Folks, the workers are getting bad advice to strongarm their way into some of that bailout money. Using unions, Jesse Jackson, and now the President-Elect as leverage, the workers are demanding they be compensated from money that doesn't belong to them and they didn't earn.

Where is this headed? Every time a company needs to go out of business, we can expect more of the same behavior. Empowering thuggery is a big mistake, because it invites more of the same. What else will happen as a result of this? In the end, it will only serve to make businesspeople hesitant to take risks and open new companies, in the future.


UPDATE:

This story was breaking as I was typing this post.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris, were arrested by FBI agents on federal corruption charges Tuesday morning.

Blagojevich and Harris were arrested simultaneously at their homes at about 6:15 a.m., according to Frank Bochte of the FBI. Both were awakened in their residences and transported to FBI headquarters in Chicago.

In one charge related to the appointment of a senator to replace Barack Obama, prosecutors allege that Blagojevich sought appointment for himseld as Secretary of Health and Human Services in the new Obama administration, or a lucrative job with a union, in exchange for appointing a union-preferred candidate.

Another charge alleges Blagojevich and Harris conspired to demand the firing of Chicago Tribune editorial board members responsible for editorials critical of him in exchange for state help with the sale of Wrigley Field, the Chicago Cubs baseball stadium owned by Tribune Co.

Who wants to bet this gets squashed, once Obama gets in office?

Folks, the Chicago machine is just getting revved up.


MORE: For more on the factory situation, AC at Fore Left has some things to say that we might all consider.

The Blame Game

Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, and now AIG are dominating the financial news. Naturally, the blame placers are looking to finger everyone, other than themselves.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, when asked Tuesday whether Democrats bear some of the responsibility regarding the current crisis on Wall Street, had a one-word answer: “No.”

Pelosi (D-Calif.) ripped President Bush’s “mismanagement” of the economy and a lack of regulation that led to the current situation.

“I think the American people have had it with this situation where the middle-income people in our country are not protected from the ramifications of the risk-taking and the greed of these financial institutions,” Pelosi told MSNBC.

When asked whether the Democrats “deserve some responsibility” regarding the economic crisis, Pelosi responded: “No.”

Ms. Pelosi has to be in the biggest state of denial, since the dawning of time. In the election of 2006, the Democrats promised to clean up "George Bush's mess", if only the American people would give them a chance. They have had almost two years to get things done, and so far nothing but some hearings on baseball steroid use. They also promised to make this Congress the most ethical in the history of the institution. They have had almost two years to clean up the vile stinking culture of Congress, and yet, tax-cheat Charlie Rangel still has his committee chair and William Jefferson still has his seat. Some ethical reform that was.

Additionally, Obama has been a member of the US Senate for almost four years and has been running for President for 19 months, now. That has been ample time to warn the people of the impending doom. But until today, he has essentially been silent. In fact, it is very interesting to note that he has benefited greatly from Freddie and Fannie.

When Reid Pelosi or Obama are asked about what this major debacle, all they do is blame the policies of George W. Bush. If you ask them what can be done about the entire mess, all they say is elect them so they can change directions from the "failed policies of George Bush".

Democrats running Congress into the ground further than it already was and Barack Obama standing idly by until it gives him campaign fodder. Can anyone fathom the damage that will be done if these imbeciles control both the legislative and executive branches of the US government?

Personally, I don't think government should do anything about these greedy companies that make bad business decisions. I think the government should allow the market corrections to take place, unabated. At some point, we must stop the bailouts and ride this thing out. But as you can see, I am not in Washington and have no plans to ever be, unless it's a sight-seeing tour.

Politicians should stop trying to insult my intelligence by telling me that this someone else's fault (usually the opposite party and its leadership). It's not government's job to control the economy, it's their job to get the hell out of the way and allow the market to cleanse itself. Anything else just sets the market up for failure, another day.

Think of it as resuscitating a terminal cancer patient, only to have the patient die next week.

Obamania Hits Europe

This story comes from the IHT:

According to Samuel Solvit, president of France's support committee for Barack Obama, the French have not been this excited about America since they shipped over the Statue of Liberty in 1885.

Obamania has gripped most of Europe. But the enthusiasm is particularly striking in France. This is where the disenchantment with U.S. foreign policy under the Bush administration has been the most vocal. And this is where the Continent's largest community of African immigrants and their descendants live.

I suppose it was only a matter of time before it happened. France is permeated with socialist ideologues, African immigrants, and saturated with multi-culturists, so it's only natural they love this guy. In fact, it's not only France that has adopted this view. The vast majority of the entire continent has become enamored with him, as well.

For years now, Europe has been wanting to promote this "all-inclusive" model as some atonement for past attitudes and actions that were a result of vehement nationalism, which directly resulted in two world wars that destroyed their continent and killed multiple millions of their own citizens. To the many that openly promote this ideology, Obama is a symbol of this spirit. They do not look at the whole of U.S. history, how it welcomed many of Europe's oppressed and persecuted over the years (to include those that came during the two world wars). They refuse to consider this nation afforded them much greater opportunities than could be had elsewhere at the time. Instead, they view Americans as hedonistic and materialistic.

After WWII, the European continent laid in ruins for a second time in less than half a century. Meanwhile, the U.S. prospered immediately afterward, with some of it a direct result of money made off of rebuilding. While Euros were struggling for basic necessities and repairing much needed and badly damaged infrastructure, Americans were getting used to commodities like television, rock & roll music, and hot rod cars. So naturally (as human nature often allows), America became a primary source of envy for many continentals.

Today, 63 years after the bloodbath created by Europeans, many of them are still envious.

But with this understanding of why Euros feel such jealousy towards Americans, comes something they fail to consider in their judgmental biases. Americans sacrificed much to help liberate Europe. Commodities like sugar, coffee, and gasoline were rationed. Many men went to lay down their lives while fighting for the cause, leaving women to operate the factories (many of which were converted to making armaments and supplies for the war effort to succeed).

Today, both Europe and America has embarked upon a new era. Many of that generation that made such sacrifices are dead and gone, or are so old they cannot participate fully in the realm of politics. And with the political scene being what it is today, they wouldn't want to even if they could. The generations that want Sen. Obama to be elected are primarily those that weren't alive in the days of blitzkrieg and genocide. Many, who were alive, are too young to understand the gravity of the situation. This goes for Americans and Europeans, alike.

These are those who see a world, where everything they do not like is unfair. Subsequently, someone must rise up and make it fair (SEE: 1930s Germany). In this world, we are taught that those who work hard for what they have are greedy and selfish. Those that choose not to work hard are disadvantaged and oppressed. And it is up to government to rectify this perceived disparity. Europeans have long felt this way. So when we look at Sen. Obama's website, read his proposals, and analyze his worldview, it should come as no surprise that the French (as well as the whole of Europe) are enamored with him.

Envy is a powerful thing. Planting the seeds of it will ensure its continued existence throughout the ages.

GOP Debate Highlight (And Other Observations)

While all of the pundits are clamoring over whose little quips were the cutest in this last debate, one thing went largely unnoticed. Hillary's name came up twelve times, Obama's came up none.

Hillary is now in the driver's seat and looks to be getting stronger, because the others have showed too much affinity for the Kossack Brigades. By distancing herself somewhat from the Netroots groups, she has been successful in painting herself as more moderate.

Dems may not like Bush or other Republicans, but they also see the folly of adopting a hard Left-Wing platform that many in the MoveOn ranks would have. By contrast, Edwards and Obama have embraced them more, with Edwards getting much of his talking points right off the web pages of these fringe operatives.

But not to worry PYY fans, this doesn't mean that I am buying into Hillary's sales pitches. Let's not forget, she still embraces socialist ideology, as a foundation of her philosophical view of what government's objectives should be. Therefore, many of her proposals are still based on this premise, no matter how she packages and markets them.

But, the GOP really isn't showing much right now. They have talked about reducing the role of government, but in reality they have fallen prey to the will of the dependent masses that want handouts, for one thing or another. Handouts are not limited to welfare, they can be anything that earmarked spending generates. In many ways, the GOP has become Democrat Lite. They fight some things, but relent when they fear they will not win re-election. One only needs to look at the stunts that many politicians like Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) pull, just prior to an election.

Are You Going To San Francisco?

Have you heard the latest about San Francisco? Read it about it here.

If you live in SF, get ready. Four things are going to happen (pretty much in the following order):

1) There will be an influx of people coming to SF, soon. 82,000 will be the starting number. It is going to swell. Do not be surprised if homeless people from up and down the west coast flock to it.

2) Your taxes are going to swell, with the population.

3) The taxpayers are going to flee the city.

4) The city will need bailed out by the Federal Government, because the city's tax base cannot support the city and its grand schemes.

Enjoy. Just be sure to put some flowers in your hair.

A Tale Of Two Ideologies

I am sure many of my readers have scratched their heads and wondered what I have against government programs and intervention. Although I have feverishly and desperately tried to articulate and demonstrate my rationales behind my bias, there may be some that still do not understand. My, how I have tried.

But try as I might many times over, I cannot do near as good of a job of conveying my reasonings, as this article published today in USA Today.

Two communities, two miles apart, are the subject of this examination. One used private funds to re-build, the other is still waiting on the government and is nowhere near being back to normal.

Imagine that.

This shows that reliance on government is not only a philosophical mistake, but it also just plain foolish. I say this because time after time, it is clearly demonstrated that the government cannot run anything nearly as efficiently, as the private sector (with the exception of public safety). We see it over and over again, yet, there are still many people that have this faulty trust and confidence in a system that cannot do anything marginally well, except levy and collect taxes. And believe me, they are experts at that.

Anyone that thinks that the government is going to do a better job of fixing anything that is broken, would do well to consider the tale of these two towns, featured in this article. Let it be an example of what to expect, the next time someone is tempted to put their faith and trust in a system that is weighed down in so much corruption, bureaucracy, and red tape. There are times that I consider it a miracle, it can cut it's own paychecks. But they are certainly able to do that quite well, wouldn't you say?

I know what some of you are thinking, right about now. You are thinking that if George Bush hadn't put in his crony as Director of FEMA, this wouldn't have happened. Some of you may even be thinking that Democrats would have never allowed this to happen, because they represent the common man, that is to say, they care more about people.

If you are one of these people, ask yourself something. Toss this question around your inquisitive mind: If Democrats are this all-wonderful group of compassionate people that care more about the citizens of the area hit hard by Katrina than does the filthy rich GOP Administration, why hasn't the DEMOCRAT-led Congress failed to do anything to help these people that are still sitting there (two years later), waiting for the government to rebuild their community?

Then in all of you ponderings on that one, let me know what you come up with.



Footnote ~ And while we are at it, consider the government's reaction time in handling the aftermath of this horrible disaster, whenever you are tempted to buy into the notion that the government can do a better job of running healthcare, than the private sector. (While you are at it, take a look at more skewed data being fronted out by ABC's John Stossel)

The Adventures Of Hillary Hood

On Tuesday, Hillary Clinton made a statement that said much to define who she is and what she stands for. From CBS comes the specific details:

Sen. Hillary Clinton outlined a broad economic vision on Tuesday, saying it's time to replace an "on your own" society with one based on shared responsibility and prosperity.

The Democratic presidential hopeful said what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor.

Putting politics aside for a moment and taking a close look at these particular words gives us all an opportunity to examine her political and economic ideologies, with some much needed scrutiny and tells us much about how an economic system might look like, under a Hillary presidency. I also think it's extremely important to note that this economic view is not much different than what we have expected from Democrats (in general) over the years, one that began in a troubled time known as the Great Depression (the New Deal) and was exacerbated by LBJ's "so-called" Great Society.

One thing we must all consider in this is, FDR inherited an economy with 25% unemployment. And while the causes of this tanked economy can be debated into eternity, the fact remains that something had to be done as a means of emergency intervention. If not, there was the strong probability that suffering was going to become even more widespread than it already had become. In no way was public assistance intended to become a way of life like many people have made it, in the years that have followed.

If we contrast the New Deal with the Great Society, we will see a very different set of economic circumstances. When LBJ and his staff of liberals were propelled into what was perceived at that time to be a mandate for economic change (as a result of the 1964 election), they immediately enacted tax cuts that were originally proposed by JFK before his death. The unemployment rate in 1964 was around 5.2%, not the staggering 25% left in the lap of FDR three years after the Stock Market Crash of 1929. (The rate in 1963 was 5.7%.) And while the Great Society promoted programs that many felt were needed at the time, there was a lot of pork that was unnecessary and many felt were a hindrance to the improvement of the lives of the poor and underprivileged.

It can be argued that with Johnson's program came even lower unemployment rates. Unemployment bottomed out in 1969 at a meager 3.5%. But with that low rate came sky-rocketing inflation (5.46% in 1969). In fact, from 1965 to 1966 the nation watched inflation grow from 1.59% to 3.01%. It almost doubled and right at the time when Johnson began implementing his welfare state. Coincidence?

Although Jimmy Carter was not known for his coined economic phraseologies like FDR and LBJ, many of his programs were deemed directly responsible for inflation topping out at 13.58% in 1980 and an unemployment rate of 7.1 %, in the same year. And if you were in the workforce at this time, you no doubt remember that your cost of living increases were nowhere near 13% annually. Add to this a prime lending rate topping out at 20% in early 1980, and you have the makings of an economic disaster.

So, looking at giveaway programs coupled with high tax rates intended to level the playing field for all, we see that the ideology being promoted my Hillary has already been tested and tried by many before her, with some pretty harsh results. At the times this country has leaned more towards socialist policies, people were not helped (as was the intention), but were hindered as an unintended consequence.

When the lending rate was high, so were the payouts by banks in savings, money markets, and CDs. This did not encourage growth, because it was more advantageous for a rich man to put his money into savings than it was to invest in a new enterprise that would create jobs and more opportunities for those that were part of the labor force. Instead of building a new business or adding on to an existing business or industry, it was stashed in a bank and only created wealth for the select few that had the money and capital to create and produce. (If that's not enough to convince you, consider the former Soviet Union and China. Neither could effectively meet the needs of their populations until after the economies were shifted towards free-market enterprise.) Add to that this concept: There are many that look at socialist programs as a means of enslavement and nothing more than a modern-day version of feudalism (not to mention Jim Crow), with the masses dependent on government for their well-being (and not the individuals, themselves). And quite frankly, from where I sit, I agree with them.

This is precisely why, I am not an active proponent of more government control, but less. I say this because from where I sit, the more government can control in our lives, the more we will depend on them. The more we depend on them, the more they will fail us. Therefore, with this in mind, we must ask ourselves this all-important question: With more control yielded to government and more dependency resulting from that yielding, coupled with less potential for freedom of opportunity/self-sufficiency, where else could we turn when that government fails us, if not ourselves?

Can anyone see why I am very wary of proposed wealth re-distribution as a commonly promoted theme, especially when there is a Democratic President and Congress serving simultaneously?