Correlative Context

Here is a story that I found interesting:

It appears that the flu is to blame for causing the White House drug czar to faint twice on a visit to Massachusetts.

That's not the interesting part though.

Those of you who are my age can take a minute and think back to the days of the Soviet Union. Remember when a Soviet leader hadn't been seen in awhile? The official Soviet government response was, he has a cold. Some time later the man would be dead.

Maybe there's no real correlation here, except for the fact that this guy is either a communist or just merely content to work for them.

I certainly wish the man no ill will and hope he recovers soon. But, we have to ask ourselves something here: How much is this administration modeling itself after the Soviet model?

The President has insulated himself with a wall of so-called czars who not accountable to anyone but him. They favor censorship of ideas that conflict with their own (which lead to nothing more than big government-style socialism designed to expand their power over the citizenry).

When they do not get their way while in the minority, they approve of sending in thugs to ransack and protest inside state capitals for the specific purpose of disrupting valid and appropriate state business. When they are in the majority, they ram unpopular legislation down the people's throats and tell them, too bad for you but we won.

It's a game they play, but at our expense. The question now becomes, how much do we want this democratic republic? Are we going to cave into pressure by this criminal element? Or we going to whether the storm, knowing that we are right and they are wrong?

There are more of us than there are of them.

The Market For Unions Is Crashing

Unions and their Left-Wing supporters are demonizing the efforts of governors and legislators, whose only offense is they want to make paying union dues voluntary.

The Teamsters are fed up and not going to take it any more. At least that is what they are saying in essence as they oppose what they call Wisconsin Governor Scot Walker’s “job-killing budget.”

"Wisconsin needs three things right now: jobs, jobs and more jobs," said Gegare. "We do not need a budget that destroys jobs and lowers the standard of living for everyone in the state.

"Walker's budget plan is a partisan, job-killing proposal aimed at punishing his political enemies and rewarding his political backers. Walker claims to be the original Tea Party in Wisconsin."

The argument being used here is, without unions having the ability to forcibly extract union dues from workers, the result will be a loss of jobs. The argument for implementing this is, it will keep the government solvent and save jobs.

To analyze and evaluate these opposing view points, I think we must look at the law of supply and demand. To properly do this, we must examine the most basic principle of microeconomics. When supply is high and demand is low, we know that prices go down. The opposite is true when demand is high and supply is low.

Labor is something we can use in the equation.

When there are a number of workers in a given area that outnumber the number of jobs available, wages go down. Companies figure that because unemployment is high, workers will work for less. And they will, if the government isn't handing out limitless unemployment benefits.

When there are more jobs available than there are workers available to work, wages go up. Workers have more choices based on this scenario. The reason for this is because, if they do not like their jobs they can usually find others fairly quickly. That's why we see a lot of job-hoppers in a booming economy.

So if we look closely at the union position in these cases, we are being told that by compelling workers to pay union dues, this will magically create more jobs and raise the standard of living in these areas. They make these weak and faulty claims in face of looming layoffs that will most certainly be necessary to accommodate union jobs. These are jobs that the employers are forced to pay for, under the duress.

When there is only so much money in a labor budget, it's all a company or government can use and still remain solvent. You only have X amount of dollars to use and if the unions are demanding more, this means a certain amount of people will need to be let go to accommodate the union workers' and their demands.

When people are let go, the union will often blame the company or government when it is in fact the union that caused it. Pointing fingers is little consolation for the one who lost his/her job. The result is more workers looking for work while there are less jobs for them, thus bringing down wages on the whole.

If states have "right to work" laws on the books, it can be used as a tool to attract more businesses to the state. The more businesses in the state mean more opportunities for workers who are looking for work. When this gets to the point where there are more jobs, very often there will be a bidding war between companies for labor and wages will rise. Companies will also do more to retain good workers who show up every day and give it their all.

The only losers in this scenario are the union leaders who have made themselves rich by using agitation and coercion, as a middleman in all of this. Worker sell their time to companies, so companies can make money. If the company makes money, the workers' jobs are secure--unless a worker misbehaves and is terminated for it.

This serves as incentive to do the job, a worker has been hired to do. But under union domination, we have created an environment where tenure and seniority rules. The man or woman who has the most seniority can and often does get away with things, because they are safe from layoffs and the union makes it much harder for the company to shed the dead weight.

Maybe it's time someone makes a stand against this fraud that unions have created in many workplaces, in America. I certainly believe it's time for union leadership to be on the job market, and experience the frustration that comes with losing a job. My guess is the only thing they will qualify for is a position as a petty street thug, who is hired by a mob boss to shake down store owners for protection money.

PYY Storytime

Yesterday had no football game of any real worth to rant and rave on, so for all of the good little boys and girls who read this blog, I have a special treat to start your week off.

Here a more modern version of The Little Red Hen, as told by Ronald Wilson Reagan:



How long ago was this read on the radio?

How plain was it, back then?

Why are we still revisiting the same concepts today?

Will we ever see logic and reason replace fallacies and lies?

Read the story about the experiment conducted in New Harmony, Indiana. Had Lenin, Mao, Castro, or any other Communist leader in the 20th century ever had the sense to spend a few hours studying that microcosm of socialism in action, they would have seen the folly of implementing such a flawed system on larger masses of people.

But then again....maybe not.

Rooms For Rent

Trailer for sale or rent. Rooms to let, 50 cents. It's just a song, right?

From the things that "irritate the hell out of you" department comes this little tidbit. It is an op-ed from Britain's Guardian newspaper and it starts off like this:

There are two housing crises in Britain. One of them is obvious and familiar: the walloping shortfall in supply. Households are forming at roughly twice the rate at which new homes are being built. In England alone, 650,000 homes are classed as overcrowded. Many other people are desperate to move into their own places, but find themselves stuck. Yet the new homes the government says we need – 5.8m by 2033 – threaten to mash our landscapes and overload the environment.

The other crisis is scarcely mentioned. I stumbled across it while researching last week's column, buried on page 33 of a government document about another issue. It's growing even faster than the first crisis – at a rate that's hard to comprehend. Yet you'll seldom hear a squeak about it in the press, in parliament, in government departments or even in the voluntary sector. Given its political sensitivity, perhaps that's not surprising.

The issue is surplus housing – the remarkable growth of space that people don't need. Between 2003 and 2008 (the latest available figures), there was a 45% increase in the number of under-occupied homes in England. The definition of under-occupied varies, but it usually means that households have at least two bedrooms more than they require. This category now accounts for over half the homes in which single people live, and almost a quarter of those used by larger households. Nearly 8m homes – 37% of the total housing stock – are officially under-occupied.

At this point, we have to know where this one is leading.

And it does.

Here, we have a leftist op-ed journalist who is well-known for his radical stances on Global Warming, making a suggestion that is not unlike others who view the rich as evil, greedy, and worthy of having their wealth redistributed. George Monbiot has written some pretty hard left stuff in the past, but this teeters on the edge of insanity for many reasons.

Monbiot (maybe this is where the term moonbat came from) is suggesting that owners of houses with spare bedrooms not being used, be forced to rent out those rooms to people they may or may not know, because Britain is having a housing crisis. One reason this is so ridiculous is because it does not take into account why there is a crisis to begin with.

Muslims are procreating ten times greater than non-Muslims, which is doing much to create a higher demand for housing. One question we must ask in this scenario, who decides who gets to rent?

Let's say a law is passed and an empty nested owner of a house with two extra bedrooms is forced to rent them out. Will he be subject to anti-discrimination laws that will prevent him from renting to someone who does not share his overall belief system? What if a radical Muslim and his hijab wearing wife wants to rent one of his rooms to live in? If the owner balks, will he be subject to a lawsuit?

If he does decide to rent to them, will he be subjected to respecting the Muslims' belief systems so that they are not offended? Can he cook pork in his own house, or must he refrain? What if the call to prayer is during his favorite TV show? Must he refrain from watching so as not to offend the Muslims?

What about his religious symbols in his own house? Will he be forced to hide Bibles, crosses, or anything else associated with his own beliefs?

I am sure this sounds good to a select few people, who basically have no concept of what it means to think things out before they offer up stupid solutions like this. But when you start to play it out with some critical thinking, it becomes a whole new ballpark. More than anything else, it becomes an issue of whether or not government has a right to dictate to its citizenry how they must manage their own property.

A Rose By Any Other Name.....

....is still a rose.

And feces by any other name, is still feces.

What do I mean by this?

Give a listen to this speech by Nigel Farage of the European Parliament:



Did you hear him?

Did you listen?

What he said has everything to do with the current condition of the European continent, and much to do with state of America's present situation.

Were you paying attention at the end when he said:

....if you rob people of their identity, if you rob them of their democracy, then all they are left with is nationalism and violence.

When we think about what this present American government has tried to do in the past two years, we realize that it has made every effort to pattern its policies after that of Europe's. We who are enlightened are able to see the fallacy of such a system, because we know that it is historically a failed economic model. It has failed in the past, and is still failing now.

Has anyone else noticed that forms that have been rejected in the past have resurfaced under different names?

For instance, China has a system they call state capitalism. People were so tickled to see China reject the agrarian communist policies that Mao implemented, they forgot something along the way: Economic reform is not necessarily and indicator of freedom.

Let's not forget Mussolini and Hitler were huge proponents of state capitalism. But they called it fascism, which meant a corporate state. In reality...there is very little difference between today's China and Germany under national socialism.

Another example is the Green movement. Under the pretenses of environmental concerns, the left has hijacked this movement to use it for the specific purpose of redistributing wealth.

After the fall of the USSR and the reinvention of the Chinese economy, beret wearing activists (who wanted to see a global communist utopia) invaded the Green movement. They invented this scenario whereby they could shake down rich countries to allow less developed ones to catch up, under the guise of fairness.

It's being played out right now in the global warming debate.

So, it would be wise to keep our eyes open and watch the demise of the Europeans play out. We see that liberty and freedom are antithetical to state sponsored socialism because it is restrictive in nature. The people are freest when they can have choices, with as little government regulation as possible.

Whenever a government overreaches its power into the market place, we see that it is a recipe for disaster....just like we are seeing in Europe today. We must keep our foot on the throat of our government, if we expect to live in a world where we can flourish as a nation and a culture.

As for other nations, let them do what they want. They are responsible for their own successes. We need to stop allowing idiots to interject guilt into our national psyche, for being an exceptional nation.

Rockefeller Wants Fox News And MSNBC Closed

I don't know why there are so many people who still cannot discern what is playing out right before their own faces. It is so obvious. It is so irrefutable. They even tell you straight up, what they are wanting to do.

Take a moment and listen to the statement recently made by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV).

We have said it many times and we believe it. Progressives are not the most open minded people we will ever meet. They are not tolerant of opinions different than their own....and they do not want them communicated. They are not respectful of our right to disagree with them and their ideas. They are only proponents of free speech, when they are in the minority.

Additionally, we know and understand very clearly that progressive want control of everything they can get in our lives. They think it is good, but we think it is bad. So Rockefeller does only thing that he can do in this situation. He chooses to make known his preference to limit the choices of what a free market has to offer, because one of those choices presents opinions that differ with his own.

But to get rid of FOX, the plan appears to be sacrificing MSNBC under the illusion that they just want to eliminate two polarizing forces. I think any idiot can see that still leaves them NBC, ABC, NBC, CNN, NPR, and PBS to control the distribution of information.

Now let me state emphatically, I may not like what MSNBC has to say. But I don't want it eliminated.

I think the market is proving to be an effective tool in assessing the most accurate sources in news and commentary. And in the final analysis, FOX has been able to attract more viewers than CNN, CNNHL, and MSNBC, combined. Facts are facts and there must be a reason for this.

Of course, we have learned some things over the years. We know from our vast experiences with illogical elitists that the masses are stupid.......and only "enlightened" intellectuals are capable of knowing what's best for people. Only they can know what is fair to all.

This is not unlike things we have witnessed in history. Communists (like Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro) have historically shut down media outlets to suppress dissent and free speech. It may not be taught like this anymore, but this does not negate the fact that this is the objective and rationale behind it.

This is precisely why the 2012 election process must begin right now. We must keep this dynamic force moving. We must get this bunch of big government liberals back into the private sector... where the damage they do, can be absorbed by anyone foolish enough to hire them. And, we must start the onerous process of reversing the massive amount of damage already done by them.

To do this effectively, we must isolate the progressives. They are helping us, by picking Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to stay on as the faces of this movement. While it is true this will make our jobs easier, we cannot become complacent. We must push ahead and expose their ideas for what they are.

Unless we want to witness our nation crumbling into rubble, we have no other choice.

Deja Vu (All Over Again)

Anyone who knows a little about European history may recall that in pre-Mussolini Italy, workers took over factories (by force) and ran them into the ground. Throughout history, workers have proven to not be the best business people. There is much more to running a business than taking orders and counting the money. Workers are workers. They are skilled-unskilled, union-non-union, but they are workers. They are there to work. They own a resource, but are not the entire entity.

This is not to say that worker ownership is always a bad thing. Many times it comes to pass that workers are offered stock options as part of a incentive plan, but that doesn't mean they are in control of day to day operations. There have been successful worker cooperatives, which can be quite problematic to run with so many cooks in the kitchen. The reason it is difficult? As it is in government, direct democracy is a very difficult process. Thus, using this model in the business world can (and does) bog down the decision-making process, which is quite vital to the maintenance and growth of a company.

The 1920s Italian situation was serious, in that the seizures were involuntary and workers were not trained properly to assume control of such an entity. The owners who put up the capital for the company were not compensated for their investments, and were completely cut out of the loop. In addition to all of this, they were demonized as greedy and insensitive to the cause and plight of the Italian workers who toiled in sweat in their plants and shops.

Fast forward to a recent US News and World Report article.

A government-brokered deal between struggling U.S. automaker Chrysler and Italian automaker Fiat moved another step closer Monday, when United Auto Workers Union negotiators reached an agreement to accept concessions in exchange for what could eventually become majority ownership of Chrysler.

The Wall Street Journal reports, "The United Auto Workers union would eventually own 55% of the stock in a restructured Chrysler LLC under the deal reached by the union and the auto maker." Fiat's stake in Chrysler would be capped at 35 percent, "and the U.S. government and Chrysler's secured lenders together will end up owning 10% of the company once it is reorganized."

Today, we see much of the same script.

The unsecured investors (workers) are being given preferential treatment over the secured investors (stock and bond holders). Those who invested their money into the company are being cut out of the loop here, while the workers are being given sweat equity. In the interim, the legitimate investors are being demonized as greedy. If this holds true to the form of 1920s Italy, it will only be a few years (maybe even months) before things really tank out in the car industry.

Knowing what we know about the outcome of 1920s Progressive movement, how is it we are letting the same conditions arise unchecked? We see these things, along with a government that wants to print money. This will only result in hyperinflation, like we saw back in the 1920s. It did not buy them out of that mess then, it will not buy us out of this mess today.

I know it's slippery slope, but we've been down that slope before. It would seem that there would be enough people smart enough to see it. I am convinced there are many, many people who do understand this and agree with my claims. But unfortunately, they are not in a position to do much about it. The same held true back then, that is until a man named Mussolini came along and made the trains run on time.

If we do not want this to repeat itself, it would be a good idea to stop this madness now. It would be smart to do it while there is time to reverse this course. Wait too long and it will be too late.

Generation Landslide

When I read something like this, I must wonder what it will take to get people to react against the current onslaught of private sector nationalization. Let's look at the words of Stuart Varney:

I must be naive. I really thought the administration would welcome the return of bank bailout money. Some $340 million in TARP cash flowed back this week from four small banks in Louisiana, New York, Indiana and California. This isn't much when we routinely talk in trillions, but clearly that money has not been wasted or otherwise sunk down Wall Street's black hole. So why no cheering as the cash comes back?

My answer: The government wants to control the banks, just as it now controls GM and Chrysler, and will surely control the health industry in the not-too-distant future. Keeping them TARP-stuffed is the key to control. And for this intensely political president, mere influence is not enough. The White House wants to tell 'em what to do. Control. Direct. Command.

Yes sir. What a difference a generation makes.

As I think back to 30 years ago, a day when Chrysler was bailed out by the federal government, I have to shake my head. Lee Iacocca borrowed money from the government. He used it to rebuild the company from the ground up and because this endeavor was so successful, he repaid the money early. This is the kind of value system that Mr. Iacocca's generation had. Paying back a loan carried far greater honor than "beating the man".

Today, we have a bunch of self-absorbed little brats who think the world owes them something. They think the government should be the nurturer and government is more than willing to do it. And sadly, there are many from my generation who are responsible for this.

Part of it is because many of my cohorts have refused to grow up. The other part is many have learned and honed their parenting skills using Dr. Spock's model of early childhood development, where the objectives are to teach mob rule. In short, many of us wanted to be their kids' friends instead of parents and because of that, we are watching many Generation Xers and Yers blow everything our parents worked so hard to give us.

Well .... we sowed it and now we are reaping it. Mob rule is here.

So unless someone gets serious about turning this country back from its imminent collision with future consequences, this is what we can expect (nothing more, nothing less). Now that the government has its greedy little hands in things it knows nothing about, they are not willing to allow people the leeway to become self-sufficient, again. And why should they? There are many who are more than comfortable with this arrangement, they even wear this as a badge of honor because they like to "beat the man".

Even during the Great Depression when suffering was far greater than today, people were not happy about taking government handouts. In fact, many refused and suffered more abject poverty, as a result of their pride.

Today, we have many on the public dole who feel no remorse for lounging around in bed until noon on a daily basis, and taking whatever government assistance they can hustle up. They use government welfare checks and food stamps to supplement their drug selling money, or other illegal activities which afford them the luxuries that the rest of us have to work for.

But, what can we say, other than these are just the ramblings of a paranoid delusional cynic, who will not give Øbama a chance? What will the naysayers say, when the dollar is replaced with an even more worthless currency for international use, and we witness the collapse of what was once the most economically sound nation in the entire world?

A Tale Of Terre Haute

I once lived in Terre Haute.

Both of my children were born there, my mother still lives near it. So as you might guess, it still holds a little special place in my heart and enough to check the TH Tribune-Star's website every now and then (mostly for obituaries).

Immediately prior to writing this post, I made my weekly check of the Hautean territory's premier newspaper. Here is something I ran across:

Union-affiliated political activists have been walking door-to-door across Terre Haute the past few days attempting to garner support for President Barack Obama’s proposed budget and to put pressure on Hoosier lawmakers.

About a half-dozen members of Working America, a group affiliated with the AFL-CIO, arrived in Terre Haute on Friday and were still canvassing the city Monday. They urged people to write letters to 8th District Congressman Brad Ellsworth or Sen. Evan Bayh, both seen as possible no-votes on the Obama multitrillion-dollar budget.

“We have a lot of confidence in both [Ellsworth and Bayh],” said Dan O’Malley, assistant director of Working America, which sent seven professional canvassers — mostly from Ohio — to Terre Haute on behalf of the Obama budget. Both lawmakers have “been outstanding for working family issues.”

This is significant for a number of reasons, not least of which is the political leanings of the city.

TH has been and probably always will be Democratic. The overwhelming majority of the local elections, there, are decided in the May Democratic primaries. Mainly because whoever runs on the GOP side is a political unknown, is untested, and/or is usually without much financial support. There are some exceptions, mind you. But overall, I think it's pretty safe to say that the GOP has very little chance of making a lot of headway, anytime in the foreseeable future.

If we analyze this appropriately, we can pretty easily figure out why this is.

Much of this can be traced back to the days of Eugene V. Debs. This is his town by birth and is still his town long after after his death. He has a website and there is even a foundation that bears his name. All one has to do is take a look at the past winners of the Debs Award, and it will tell us just about everything we need to know about it.

Anyway, back to the news story. Back to the irony.

Here, we see Obama volunteers from out of state canvassing a city that is well-entrenched in progressive politics. Never mind that Hauteans have a university and the deep socialist past, these programmed robots are still wasting precious time, money and energy. Instead of being in an area where it is more conservative or moderate, they focus on an area where support should be assured.

TH's U.S. Representative is Brad Ellsworth, a blue dog Democrat. One of the Senators from the state is another blue dog, Evan Bayh. Both are facing re-election in 2010. Both had better know something, they should understand there is a lot of outrage over the performance of the U.S. Congress lately. Both need to be thinking very carefully about how much support they plan to give to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, from here on out. District voters have elected Republicans before. So it stands to reason, Terre Haute's progressive union hackery cannot always deliver a win.

If I were Team Obama's zombie programming department heads, I would seriously re-evaluate the game in its present state. I would be looking to invade certain select counties in central Florida and there is one I can think of right off the bat. One person's house, in particular, would just love to see have a conversation with them. If nothing else, it would be quite a valuable learning experience. Plus, he is retired and always enjoys the company, unless it is one of his offspring.

Turning Anger Into Positive Action

Before we get started, let's hear a very important lesson in modern political terminology, shall we?

This occurred some time ago, before the last election. But as you may have surmised by now, it fell on deaf ears.



Although it had little to no effect last November, it is not too late use it as an educational tool for instruction in the social sciences.

This man gave the lesson, but no one learned. He piped, but nobody danced. People were more than content to allow themselves to be lied to, by lesser men and women. Fool us once, shame on you Mr./Ms. Politician. Fool us twice, shame on us.

But hey, it's all water under the bridge now.

The time to learn is now, the time to dance is now. This mean it's time raise the awareness and organize a common sense movement to unseat the scumbags who have infiltrated our institutions, permeating them with slime and other disgusting materials.

It's time to blog it, it's time to talk it, and most importantly, it's time to live it.

Do not think for one minute that they own this country, because it is you and I that have the control. We have the power to vote against the very incumbents who have sold our children's and grandchildren's future to finance their power grab. If only we will have the courage, the guts to do so. If only we will hold them accountable.

As you become irate about the AIG bonuses, let us not forget the people that made those bonuses possible. Certainly let us not fail to recognize that every last lying thieving bastard who has feigned outrage at it is guilty of the same thing on a daily basis. It is their dirty dealings in the halls of our buildings that have led us to be at this point. It is them we should blame, not the corporate welfare recipients whose bad behavior was just positively reinforced, by these lower than the lowest vermin.

If their blatant and brazen hypocrisy isn't enough to make your blood boil, maybe this will.

A hedge fund manager who predicted the global credit crunch has said the financial crisis has been 'stimulating' and the culmination of his life's work.

George Soros, who predicted the global financial crisis twice before, was one of the few people to anticipate and prepare for the current economic collapse.

Mr Soros said his prediction meant he was better able to brace his Quantum investment fund against the gloabal storm.

But other investors failed to take notice of his prediction and his decision to come out of retirement in 2007 to manage the fund made him $US2.9 billion.

And while the financial crisis continued to deepen across the globe, the 78-year-old still managed to make $1.1 billion last year.

How great is that? The biggest financier of the Progressive movement is making money, while average people have lost their asses in their retirement funds. The man that is known as the kingmaker has been profiting from other people's calamity. And the sad thing is, these jerks in office are beholden to this worthless puke.

Let's get busy, let's get the incumbents out of there. If the person running against them looks like another idiot, so what? Is the current idiot doing anything of any value now ? Could the next idiot screw it up any worse than this bunch already has?

Let's take back the process from special interests. It time to let them know the only special interest they need to be concerned with is, the American people that spill their blood, sweat, and tears to make this country what it is.

Let's persuade good men and women who are qualified to run against these deviant minds and toss them out in the street. Let's put these crooks into the private sector, force them to earn their own money, and pay taxes like the rest of us. Let's not wait until election day, let's start today.

Not to mention any names (Mustang), but to those of you who have some time, how about getting an anti-incumbency blog network together? I'll join it. I'll do whatever I can to further the cause. I 'll help in whatever way can and I bet others will too.

Let's not sit idly by and merely be content to vent and bitch. Let's do something and let's not wait any longer. Let's have people organize events and activities this summer, like the tea parties. Because of the economy, people are looking for inexpensive vacations where they can bring their families. Let's stand up, be counted, and show the young people how to peacefully assemble --how to make their voices heard.

Let's do it the right way and see what happens. What do you say?



Hat tip for the video:

Chuck Thinks Right (for leading us to where I found this gem),

Which was I Hate The Media (which is now blogrolled).

Sunday Reflection: Will and Determination

The Left believes that the state assures social and economic mobility, in which they define as an egalitarian society. Since the state is the "so-called" guarantor of egalitarianism, justice eludes any other socio-economic model. They insist that without the help of the government, people just cannot make it in this country and many are forever doomed to a life of poverty and despair.

If you didn't get the opportunity to see ABC's 20/20 Friday evening, here is where you can watch a report that debunks this myth, advanced by those on the Left. I found the entire show noteworthy for many reasons, the one I would like to highlight can be found in Part Six, entitled America: Still The Land Of Opportunity. If you want to read about it, you can read Stossel's blog entry, which also includes a video witht some startling information.

Briefly, the part I want to point out is the profile of two books and the two stories behind the books. This is something liberals will not be able to refute, but they'll try anyway. It discusses the myth of the middle class erosion.

From Stossel's blog entry:

Social commentator and best-selling author Barbara Ehrenreich agrees. "It used to be that you could expect to get a job after college, rise in that job, maybe switch jobs at some point and then retire with a generous pension," she said. "Now, it's a very bumpy road with many gaps in between."

In her book "Nickel and Dimed," Ehrenreich went undercover to work as a nursing home aide, a Wal-Mart associate and took on other low-wage jobs to see if she could make ends meet.

She said she struggled to pay her bills and live comfortably. If you are poor, she said, and you want to move up the income ladder, in her experience, America doesn't "offer as much upward mobility as we think it does. That's a myth."

But is she right? Can only the rich make it in America? Not everyone agrees.

"I wanted to discover for myself if the 'American Dream' is still alive," said Adam Shepard, author of "Scratch Beginnings," a book he wrote after reading Ehrenreich's book in college.

Shepard, now 26, picked a city out of a hat -- Charleston, S.C. He went there with $25 in his pocket. How far could he get if he didn't tell anyone about his college degree?

"I arrived, and right away I figured I needed to get into a homeless shelter," Shepard said.

He lived in a shelter for two months. Then he got a job with a moving company, making $8 an hour. Soon he'd saved enough to buy a used truck. And within a few months he had an apartment. After one year, he had $5,500 and a car. How?

"I was able to do it because I made sacrifices," Shepard said.

Despite Ehrenreich's claim that income mobility is a myth, Shepard succeeded from humble beginnings.

There's more the learn from this particular segment. America: Still A Land Of Opportunity is worth your time because it demonstrates that anyone with a dream, properly motivated, and refuses to quit, can achieve success with little or no government assistance. I have a friend who is fond of saying that life provides two choices: chicken salad, or chicken crap. The video shows how a young person was able to demonstrate how flawed an older woman’s thinking is; it was very inspirational.

Much of human behavior is learned. People who are conditioned to believe they cannot succeed outside of extraordinary circumstances, generally will not succeed. It is a cruel joke played on young people by their parents, by our socialist education system, and often, by the people with whom we choose to associate. Evidently, this young man in the video went against that grain and resisted the lure to underachieve, because the mainstream educational experts said he would.

In all of this, let's not fail to consider the amazing transformation among people who complete military training. They become positive thinkers, planners, and develop amazing self-confidence. They, more than any other segment of our society, understand that we cannot help the circumstances of our birth. But we have much to say about what we actually accomplish in our lives.

Go ahead . . . watch this. And unless you are one of those people who love to be miserable, you’ll be encouraged at what you see. I recommend watching the entire report. But if time is limited, make sure you watch the entire Part Six. I think you'll be very surprised at what you see.

Obama's Double-Edged Sword: Healthcare

Here is a moment of wonderment that I think we all need to be aware of. CNN is reporting it.

Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance, but was told by lawmakers that it would be "dead on arrival" if sent to Congress.

Apparently, we have read this correctly. Thankfully, it is not being well received by Washington Senator Patty Murray.

Washington Sen. Patty Murray used that blunt terminology, telling Shinseki that the idea would not be acceptable and would be rejected if formally proposed. She made the remarks during a Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs hearing about the 2010 budget.

Even with the knowledge that this will be a waste of time, it may be that Team O will still want to press for it.

No official proposal to create such a program has been announced publicly, but veterans groups wrote a pre-emptive letter last week to President Obama opposing the idea after hearing the plan was under consideration. The groups also noticed an increase in “third-party collections” estimated in the 2010 budget proposal—something they said could only be achieved if the VA started billing for service-related injuries.

Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under "consideration."

"A final decision hasn't been made yet," he said.

If this is true, this clearly shows that the arrogance of these clowns is unsurpassed by any in our nation's history. But this is not the only point worth thinking about.

Ask any proponent of single-payer government run healthcare and you will hear them blame the insurance companies for the mess we are in right now. But as we can see from this story, they are the problem only when it's convenient for them to be so. From this story, it sounds like they have no problem billing them for care, which they are not willing to cover.

Now that they are learning the costs of what it take to care for an injured troop, they seem to think the insurance company is the answer. How hypocritical is that? Is this a red flag, or what?

If you think that single payer government run healthcare is the only answer, you may want to reconsider. If the government is having trouble covering the cost of taking care of those that have been wounded serving their country, how much more difficult do you think it will be if everyone is on the same plan?

This is something for you people (those who think healthcare is the responsibility of the government) to think about. Wait until it's your sick child getting lost in the bureaucracy of an inept system and you are told there is no money for what he/she needs done.

Wake up, people. Some of you are starting to fall for the lies being advanced by elitist politicians. They want you to believe that government is the answer to every problem we have. But as one great man used to say, government is the problem.

You can't have it both ways, so don't let your emotions override your intellect. And above all, let's not ignore the red flags anymore.


(Hat Tip for article: Voice Of Conservative America)


* For more evidence of the arrogance of your elected officials, read the latest post at Social Sense.

Illustrated Imagery: The Fallacy Of Socialism

I have finally gotten around to linking to one of the better political satire sites in the world, The People's Cube. You can now find it under Stellar Sites. I have read it since after the 2004 election. It is the sequel to the Communists for Kerry blog, which was quite active during the 2004 election.

One recent post is pretty funny, but somewhat ironic in that the humor is not so funny, when you think about the reality of the situation. When you get a moment, read this piece called Contradictions of Socialism (I saw the future & ran away).

The six dialectical contradictions of socialism in the USSR:

* There is full employment - yet no one is working.

* No one is working - yet the factory quotas are fulfilled.

* The factory quotas are fulfilled - yet the stores have nothing to sell.

* The stores have nothing to sell - yet people got all the stuff at home.

* People got all the stuff at home - yet everyone is complaining.

* Everyone is complaining - yet the voting is always unanimous.

If you are a social progressive and fail to see the reality of this, you might want to undergo some self-reflection in a monastery for a couple of months. Maybe you could take some time to read without distraction, books that accurately describe and analyze the Soviet Union and her Eastern European Satellites.

But let's not stop there, There are more incongruencies listed. I recommend you read the entire article.

Then.....

In addition to the People's Cube piece, WitNit has one that is an excellent companion piece. He breaks this down into easy-to-understand biological terms which are not hard to follow.

Think about this: The government cannot create wealth. If it could, it would have no need for taxes.

This is a simplification, of course. (Governments can support activities that create wealth.) But the main thing to keep in mind is that politicians and bureaucrats through their taxing power consume wealth that is created by others.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, wait until you read the rest.

These two posts carefully illustrate much of why I am such a critic of socialist policies, and why I believe that socialism (as it has been presented in history) has been an overt failure as a viable socio-economic political model.

As WitNit clearly explains the parasite/host relationship, we would be wise to consider the government as the ultimate parasite, with the people they govern as the host. Socialists are seeking to reverse this completely. They want the government to be the host, and the people to be the parasites. They want to abolish the rich and work toward a classless society. (Well, lets just say two classes, government and subjects.)

Another way to broaden your thinking would be to carefully consider what Europe, Russia, China, Middle East nations, and third world countries would like to accomplish. Up until now, the US has been the host of the free world, while others have been parasites. There are enough nations that have long been envious of America and they are actively seeking to reverse the host/parasite relationship, as well. Obama is helping by sending a bumbling fool around the world to speak for the US, Madame Secretary Of State Clinton.

Reid and Pelosi are helping too. With the help of social progressives in America and abroad, the Left is doing whatever damage can be done. Meanwhile, the nation weakens little by little. It's so subtle, very few have caught onto it. They see it as change for improvement.

The globalists abroad are not particularly helpful and are seeking to destabilize us on their end, because these people really believe it is time for another entity to become the host and the US to become the parasite. We may be the last stronghold of strength, not to mention the last to be desirous of a national identity, individual rights, and a real liberty to pursue true happiness, free from unwanted and unneeded government intervention. But that hasn't stopped them.

Want to know why I rail so much against this ideology and philosophy that many believe will save people from themselves? Just read these two articles. They break it down, as good as any. They leave little else to say.

Prosperity Through Debt?

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.

You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.

You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away a man's initiative.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.

- Rev. William J. H. Boetcker

These ten cannots have been erroneously attributed to Abraham Lincoln on the internet, through e-mails. blog postings, etc.; but that doesn't make them any less applicable and certainly doesn't make them any less true.

Today, the US federal government is looking at a $7 trillion spending spree to boost the economy, create jobs, rebuild infrastructure, and generally throw money around like it grows on trees. Politico calls it the 21st Century New Deal, I call it foolishness. Why? Just look at the sound words above and you can plainly see how many cannots this big-spending government is violating with proposals like this.

Sadly, I believe that common sense is not so common anymore. The people of this nation have lost their way and are not thinking of the repercussions of things like this, and how they can effect things down the road.

We have an entire generation raised on credit card default, bankruptcy, and now foreclosure; not as unfortunate events that cannot be helped under extreme circumstances - but as a way of life. They heard a presidential candidate promise to spend more money, despite the debt is already astronomical. And they voted for him anyway.

One cannot help but wonder, why did they do this? Class envy, selfishness, ignorance, take your pick. Maybe in some cases, it was a combination of all three.

I will throw a little adage of my own to go with the good reverend's words above:

You cannot have wealth, if your debts are greater than your assets.

- LASunsett 2008

Think about it.

A Fractured Fairy Tale: Robin Hood

From the San Diego Union Tribune comes this short piece on Robin Hood politics. Let's focus on this part for a second:

It is not surprising that those who have worked hard, made sacrifices, saved money, started businesses and made payrolls would frown on the idea of a presidential candidate actually boasting that he plans to raise their taxes, if elected, in order to give tax breaks to those who make less money. But it is a little frightening to think that there are so many people on the other side who covet their neighbor's bank account.

The writer thinks it's frightening that so many people have their hands out. But what can we expect from society, when leftists have so deeply permeated our educational system and planted socialist theory into the masses' heads, for so long? Would we expect anything else, when those very same educators have romanticized the tale of Robin Hood and elevated it to one of the more prominent places in the world of illustrative metaphors. It now ranks with FDR's New Deal and LBJ's Great Society, as required lesson material.

The scarier part of this is, the inability of the Robin wannabes to have the moral courage to define rich:

And what's the cut-off for the tax cuts? No one knows, because Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, can't settle on a figure. First, it was said that only wage-earners who earned more than $250,000 annually would have their taxes raised. Then Obama, in an interview, lowered the figure to $200,000. Then Biden, in a speech, lowered it to $150,000. Luckily, this campaign is ending. Or we might be headed for a situation where anyone earning more than poverty level gets a tax increase.

Think this is worrisome and confusing? Let's take a look at this.

For the second time in a week, a prominent Democrat has downgraded Barack Obama's definition of the middle class -- leading Republicans to question whether he'll stick to his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000.

The latest hiccup in the campaign message came Friday morning on KOA-AM, when New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson pegged the middle class as those making $120,000 and under.

Don't believe it? Here it is:



So much confusion. So little consensus on definition of terms. How can anyone trust these people, when they do not display any consistency in such an important matter?

But beyond the absurdity of this "so-called" noble notion of taking from the rich to give to the poor, lies the underlying message of Robin Hood and how it has been used as a Marxist teaching tool, erroneously. Even fiscal conservatives sometimes do not fully understand the message. The truth is, they use a skewed analogy to promote or oppose wealth redistribution.

Robin Hood's chief target was the money belonging to Prince John , who was the mythical, economically-despotic monarch, better known as the government. He had asserted his power through a coup and wanted to tax the hell out of his new royal subjects, regardless of their wealth. But instead, he kept the money.

Instead of targeting hard working entrepreneurs that worked and risked to make their money, Robin concentrated his efforts against those that benefited from that excessive taxation. Any revenues destined for the royal till, was fair game.

If anything, there is an analogy to be had here. But it's not the one the leftist school teaching community has been successful in sowing, among the fertile fields known as our children's minds. It's the coup, the excessive taxation for government expenditures, and the blatant arrogance in doing it. And it is my firm belief, the real Robin Hood would have targeted an Obama administration as well.

I cannot deny to myself in any way, a vote for Obama is a vote for Prince John. The next problem that will need to be solved is, who will be the Robin Hood? Honestly, I don't know why I should even have to worry about this, because it would stand to reason that most Americans do not want this kind of life.

Campaign Integrity: Obama-Style

Obama doesn't seem to mind attacking McCain for accurately describing Obama's economic ideology.

Barack Obama accused Republican rival John McCain on Wednesday of stooping to low tactics by labeling the Democrat a socialist. "I don't know what's next," Obama, the presidential candidate, said at an outdoor rally in North Carolina. "By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich."

Someone explain to me just how calling someone something, when they clearly are, is wrong?

The people that are eating up this guy's rhetoric are unable or unwilling to believe this guy has ideas and policies closer to Marxism, than any other candidate ever. The entire foundation of his campaign has been built around people that espouse socialism, and actively desire it to become the predominant way of life, here in the USA.

It is what it is, it's nothing else. Just like the 95% that will supposedly be getting tax cuts.

The percentage of people that pay no taxes cannot receive tax cuts. The word "cuts' implies a decrease. You cannot cut nothing, you cannot decrease nothing. If you cut them a check, you give them something. This is not rocket science here.

But back to the word socialist, it implies taking from rich people that have a monetary stake in the economy, punishing them because they are rich, and then giving it to someone that has no stake in anything but their own little world and didn't do a damned thing to earn it. The people who have that vested interest are in the best position to help people, by using their money to make more. As a by-product of their desire to make more money, it is they who create jobs for those less fortunate.

Make no mistake here, tax them more and it will cost jobs, it will not create them. Jobs will always pay taxes.

But go ahead, just try and take more of his money. It will not be long before he will cut jobs, eliminating the taxes those jobs paid out and the revenue generated in the private sector. Then, there will be more people clamoring for jobs, who were not clamoring for one, before it was decided to teach the rich people the lesson. No taxes, no durable good being sold, this is not the route to take. This, too, is not rocket science.

Obama is not being truthful with the American people. He describes his plans as Euro-socialism. But when pressed on the proper nomenclature, he ridicules and tries to silence those that call it what it is.

But this isn't the first time, Obama has lied to the American people. He said he would take public funding if John McCain would. But when it became apparent he could raise an enormous amount of cash, he reneged. This was the first sign that he was the same old tired politician, he said he wasn't.

Unfortunately, he has been raking in billions of dollars and there's a good chance much of it has been accepted illegally, with much of it untraceable.

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

The Obama organization said its extensive review has ensured that the campaign has refunded any improper contributions, and noted that Federal Election Commission rules do not require front-end screening of donations.

In recent weeks, questionable contributions have created headaches for Obama's accounting team as it has tried to explain why campaign finance filings have included itemized donations from individuals using fake names, such as Es Esh or Doodad Pro. Those revelations prompted conservative bloggers to further test Obama's finance vetting by giving money using the kind of prepaid cards that can be bought at a drugstore and cannot be traced to a donor.

I wish that were all. Mustang has posted about this Obamanation that the MSM will be guaranteed to ignore. But just because they ignore it, does not mean it isn't happening.

A young Palestinian in a Gaza refugee camp is doing his part to get out the vote for Barack Obama. With a little help from the Internet, 24-year-old Ibrahim Abu Jayab is cold calling random American families from his parent's home imploring them to vote Obama.

Sounds like every street drug dealer, every major urban gang, and a multitude of Gaza benefactors are willing to buy this election for Obama. Is it any wonder, he rejected public funding?

Please tell me where there is any integrity with this man? I would desperately love to see it, but I cannot find any evidence it ever existed. He lies about his ideology, campaign funding, and accepts donations from anyone whether they are legal or not.

This tells us that he is not a man to be trusted in such a high position. His deceits will follow him into every aspect of his administration.

Recommended Reading

Here are some things worth a look:


Jennifer has a good little analogy posted on her site, called Socialism 101-Wild Pigs. You must read this, if you haven't already.

WaPo has an essay that is skeptical of Obama ushering in a new kind of politics, as he has often marketed in his smoke and mirrors act. Yes, you read it right, it's WaPo.

Over at ABC, Nancy Pelosi further demonstrates how stupid one can be and still hold onto power, after two years of not doing one damned thing. More bipartisan after Dems assume total control? My derriere. Even Comrade Dean is looking forward to one party rule.

More on the tape the LA Times is allegedly suppressing. I think we all should be able to decide whether we think there is one or not, just as I think we have had ample to time to evaluate Obama's past assocations as part of his character assessment. One more tape will not sway Obamatons, just as the LAT suppressing a tape will dissuade me from voting for McCain.

For Good Reasons (Why Barbara West Hammered Biden On Socialism)

Much has been said about the recent Barbara West interview with Joe Biden. The radical Obama forces have probably littered their blogs with just about every derogatory name there is for her. Those of us who are resisting the forces of Marxism, disguised as "change we can believe in", are hailing it as one iota of journalistic integrity, in a mass of media collusion and corruption. (Mustang's take is here.)

One must ask themselves why a well-educated veteran news person go to such extremes? Maybe she had good reasons, maybe she had heard Obama make the statements contained in this video:



These statements were made long before anyone outside of the southside of Chicago really knew who Barack Obama was, long before we had ever heard of Joe the Plumber. These were made in 2001.

Give this a listen and you'll soon figure out why I oppose the very thought of this man being President.

Barney Frank: Plenty Of Rich People To Tax

At a time when conservation and wise fiscal prudence should be prevailing, Barney Frank gives John McCain and the GOP another gift in addition to Biden's:



Folks, they are telling us what they are going to do. They are not hiding it anymore. They are going to tax and spend this country into the ground. They are so confident they will control both Houses of Congress and the White House, they are beginning to sell their ideas right now (as if they have already won). I don't know about you, but I think this is the highest form of presumptuous arrogance one can ever see.

Are you going to let them do this? Are you really going to vote for Obama, after all of this?


Addendum:

PYY's good friend AICS of The Logic Lifeline has left a comment worthy of much thought and consideration:

They are strategically telegraphing their intent - weakly enough not to raise too many alarms, strongly enough to later claim they had a mandate to implement their socialist plans.

If Obama wins, watch closely for the words mandate and socialist policies to go hand in hand in the media.

A Saturday Thought

From the AP comes this story in which McCain is calling it like it is.

"At least in Europe, the Socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are upfront about their objectives," McCain said in a radio address. "They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Sen. Obama. Raising taxes on some in order to give checks to others is not a tax cut; it's just another government giveaway."

The Senator from Arizona is half right. It is a giveaway, but the first part of this transaction is a takeaway. Take away from Person A, give away to person B. This is not creating wealth, but merely redistributing it; reallocating, redispensing, whatever you want to call it, this is what it is.

The wealth has already been created from the work of someone, who does not benefit from it. It is taken by decree and if need be, force. It, then, becomes the property of the person who did nothing to earn it. Call it taxing, spending, or implementing new programs, anyway you look at it, it is still socialism. It is still Robin Hood economics, run amok.

Europe wants it. They understand what it means, they are told what it is and what it means for them. And they overwhelmingly accept these things. There is nothing wrong with that.

But this does not mean the theory will translate well into the American system. The majority of people that create the wealth do not want this to be forced upon them and who can blame them? The harder they work to better themselves the more they are penalized. After awhile they might as well give up and join the ranks of the dependent and there goes our productivity, creativity, and innovative ingenuity. And with it, goes our identity.

If you want to see fair, AICS has put together a simple little table that explains it well. Don't take my word for it, go look at it for yourselves.