Received In Email: Populism as a Negative

I receive in email every few days or so articles from the Patriot Post. This one, I believe, is a must read, and so I've posted it here in full, including the pictures. You can find the original here, and subscribe yourself. The original article has numerous links which I did not add here. Check out the original if you're interested.

One particular comment at the site is posted below this article, and it speaks to what a lot of us on the right are thinking... "why bother?"




Populist Socialism on the Rise
The "99 Percent" are really the "35 Percent" but their cadres are growing

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If 'Thou shalt not covet' and 'Thou shalt not steal' were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free."

--John Adams, 1787

The populist message of the Occupy Movement, the agelessly adolescent class warriors who make up Barack Hussein Obama's Red October Uprising, now has the support of some 35 percent of Americans, mostly urbanites.

The Occupiers have now infested cities from coast to coast, including Oakland, Seattle, Denver, Austin, Chicago, Atlanta, Baltimore, New York, and Boston. Their mantra is simple (by necessity): "We are the 99 Percent, and we're all victims of the 1 Percent." By any objective standard, the 99 Percent are not the brightest bunch, and they really represent the roughly 20 percent of Americans who are irrevocably dependent upon government subsides, and pay no income tax. Thus, this 20 percent has no vested interest in the cost of government and is predisposed to vote for the redistribution of others' incomes rather than work for their own. The underlying assumption is that it's easier to confiscate wealth than create it.

This "entitled" 20 percent combines with the 10 percent of American labor who are collectivists and another 5 percent who are perpetual malcontents to thus form Barack Hussein Obama's entrenched socialist constituency of Useful Idiots.

The intellectually challenged Occupy morons have built their movement around the errant assertion that if the assets of the 1 Percent were entirely redistributed, everyone would live happily ever after. Unfortunately, what the 35 Percenters really want, "redistributive justice" as Obama calls it, would require the redistribution of income from the other 65 percent of Americans families who live on earned income, so that everyone could be equally impoverished.

Of course, there's a problem with liquidating the assets of the 1 percent (comprised of more celebs and pro athletes than Wall Street bankers), or even the top 25 percent of the so-called rich: Most of their assets are on paper, and the rest of that "wealth" is in the form of small businesses and real property that support the jobs of tens of millions of Americans who actually work for a living -- and take pride in their occupations.

Thus, liquidation would result in the collapse of the entire economy, leaving everyone under the same statist tyranny as Obama's 35 Percenters -- equally miserable, equally dependent upon the government, and that much closer to Obama's mandate to implement Democratic Socialism.

Fact is, socialist economies always fail. In the inimitable words of former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, "Socialist governments ... always run out of other people's money. They then start to nationalize everything."

Of course, socialists never let reality intrude upon their classist fantasies of universal equality and happiness. Nineteenth-century historian Alexis de Tocqueville once observed, "Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

If you have any doubt about the socialist motives of the Occupy Movement, consider this proclamation from my daily American Communist Party communiqué (yes, I subscribe to certain leftist publications, so, yes, I know my enemy): "We Are the 99%! The AFL-CIO has taken another step to embrace the Occupy Movement by creating their own We Are the 99% website. Also, CPUSA Chair Sam Webb has an article on the movement at the People's World: 'Occupy: embrace the new, build the movement.'"

Next, I suggest you review the official list of Occupy supporters, including Marxists, Nationalists, Fascists and even Islamists. What a sorry lot for a supporting cast.

Given all this, it's not surprising that the Occupiers' highest-profile support emanates from Obama himself, who says, "People are frustrated and the [Occupy] protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works. ... I think it expresses the frustrations that the American people feel. ... The American people understand that not everybody's been following the rules. These days, a lot of folks doing the right thing are not rewarded. A lot of folks who are not doing the right thing are rewarded."

As to the Occupy Movement's momentum, Obama says their agenda "will express itself until 2012 and beyond until people feel they are getting back to old-fashioned American values. That's going to express itself politically in 2012 and beyond."

By "old-fashioned" we suspect he's merely re-warming some propaganda from one of the most notable of 20th-century socialists, that inheritance welfare liberal Franklin Delano Roosevelt. It was FDR, after all, who channeled Karl Marx when he proclaimed, "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle."

Roosevelt issued a collectivist "bill of rights" in which he said that the government should ensure "the right to a useful and remunerative job ... the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation ... the right of every family to a decent home ... the right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health ... the right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age ... the right to a good education."

For his part, Obama has been clear in his collectivist rhetoric: "[T]he wealthiest Americans have made out like bandits. ... It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

Our nation is at a critical juncture, and the adversaries of Liberty are well funded. However, a great national debate about the proper role of government is underway. The Patriot Post, since its inception, has been plowing the fields and sowing the seed for this Great Awakening. Our goal is to ensure that the movement remains, first and foremost, about the restoration of constitutional integrity, and to support its momentum.

----

In Comments, from SubVet....

Who is John Galt?

Hopefully, there are many of us in the "Contributing Class" who are making preparations to simply walk away from this expanding nonsense.

The idea of a simple life up in the mountains somewhere is becoming more appealing as each day goes by. Why should I bother to work so hard to earn fiat currency that the government takes most of to redistribute to those that choose to do nothing?

Besides, the coming collapse is inevitable at this point and why not start learning how to exist comfortably in what, as the many dystopian novels of the near-future are depicting, is nearly certain to be realized?

Why not indeed?

Because despite what the Left wants us to believe, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

A Question to Consider

What right does a leech have to the life blood of another creature?

Imagine

"Our great democracies still tend to think that a stupid man is more likely to be honest than a clever man." ~ Bertrand Russell

Over at fellow blogger Marshall Art's place, a comment thread is steadily growing over what would seem to most reasonable, logical people to be a logical, common sense measure that would insure only eligible, legally registered voters would, in fact, be able to vote in elections.

Art (and I agree) has posited that a simple and nearly effortless requirement of presenting a legal photo ID would help prevent voter fraud.

Apparently, some of Art's resident Liberal's argument against this is a rather illogical supposition that the requirement of Photo ID's would somehow intimidate and/or discourage those legal voters who want to vote from doing so.

I say "apparently" because the whole thing seems rather cut and dried to me. I fail to see any logic in allowing just anyone who wants to show up and vote to do so without asking any proof beyond their word, that they are legally registered and eligible.

Incidentally, recently I noticed a television ad for Wal-Mart which states that shoppers are no longer required to show proof that some other retail outlet in town is offering items at lower prices than Walmart in order to get Wal-Mart to "match the price". Formerly, if a shopper wanted Wal-Mart to match the price of some other retail outlet, they were required to bring in an advertisement which proved the other outlet was indeed selling the item at a lower price.

Now, all they have to do is state that the item is being offered at a lower price than Wal-Mart to get a lower price.

No proof is required.

Apparently, Wal-Mart doesn't consider the possibility that some unscrupulous shoppers might actually lie about lower prices just to get a lower price from Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart employees are expected to simply take the shopper's word for it. If one doesn't see a potential disaster in that practice, one would have to be incredibly naive.

This is the exact same reason that not requiring proof of eligibility to vote is a horrifically bad idea.

Perhaps, in the 1950's we could be safe in assuming we could trust someone's word, but that era has long since passed.

Admittedly, it's unfortunate that we have regressed to the point that we can no longer trust our neighbors, and I wish it were not so, but the fact is, we can't. And, that is why we need to require proof of eligibility.

My own resident Liberal, Jim, according to his comments, doesn't seem to believe any ineligible people would even consider trying to commit voter fraud. I find this thinking naive at best, and dangerous at worst. The idea that you can trust people, especially people who have a vested interest in pivotal issues that directly affect election outcomes, to refrain from attempting voter fraud, is unbelievably naive.

So, I offer this example of why requiring proof of voter eligibility is crucial to preventing voter fraud:

Hey, we're eligible. I promise!

Imagine I'm an illegal alien, and imagine I have been following the "illegal immigration debate" and I want full amnesty for my 1,000 or so brothers, sisters, mothers, mothers-in-law, fathers, fathers-in-law, uncles, aunts, cousins, and my friends and their friends so they can enter this country and take advantage of all those free hand-outs that the legal U.S. Citizens pay for with their taxes extracted from their hard earned money.

And, imagine me (as an illegal alien) being able to vote for every politician who has promised to grant amnesty to anyone who wants to immigrate to this country regardless of criminal history and/or highly contagious medical conditions, etc, because there is no way to ascertain whether or not I am legally eligible to vote.

So now, with no requirement to insure ineligible people don't vote, I and my 1000's of illegal alien relatives and friends, who share the same vested interest in the outcome of the election as I do, have effectively defeated the candidate who would have enforced the immigration laws, and installed a pro-illegal alien candidate in office.

Is this what the Liberals really want for our country?

It is my opinion that unbridled and unchecked amnesty for illegal aliens would quickly cause the degeneration of this country into third world status. Not to mention the drug cartels and Islamic Jihad terrorists flowing unstopped into our country, and wreaking their own brand of havoc.

All because of simply removing all requirements to show proof of eligibility to vote.

Can anyone think of an easier way to accomplish this task?

On Second Thought... I Like Robin Hood's Example

He stole from the rich and gave to the poor, right? In a sense, true... but in actuality Robin Hood and his band of merry men stole from corrupt government officials and clergy. which makes me question, yet again, the quality of education in this country. The Occupy Wall Street crowd are calling for a 'Robin Hood Tax,' on bankers, financiers, and the über rich; i.e.,  Capitalists, and, believe it or not, the Pope himself is throwing his weight behind that call.

Obviously then the biggest problem with all this is that the OWS crowd AND the pope have it all wrong. Robin Hood didn't steal from capitalists... he didn't steal from crofters, brewers, millers, etc. He stole from nobility which, you might as well say, governed the country, and that rather poorly.

If you steal from capitalists, the capitalists will simply hide their monies and refuse to invest in more innovation, and decide to just sit on what they have. Why be a producer if the government is simply going to steal it?

The lack of critical thought in leftist media and the OWS, in this regard, is astounding. OWS has misplaced their ire, and leftist media (government controlled) are egging them on, anything to divert attention to the truth, that it is government which is to blame for our present woes. OWS and has fallen over its own ignorance and can't get up. On top of which economic ignoramuses like our current president and his 'economic team,' have bungled what was already a fragile economy to begin with. OWS should be protesting in front of the White House and Congress... not Wall Street. But then OWS doesn't want accountability in government, they want handouts, and they want Capitalists to fess up with their fruit of their labor. Wall Street didn't create these 'bubbles'... government-- namely, the Fed --did.

Do you want to solve the problem of market 'bubbles' and instability? I can assure, the president is incapable of doing it, no matter how many bills he threatens and cajoles republicans to pass-- democrats don't want his bill either! But do you really want to solve the problem of market bubbles and instability? How about these suggestions just for starters...

• Eliminate the Fed. It is because of the Fed that bubbles exist at all
• Return to some sort of standard for the dollar. Yes, it'll hurt for a while, but before Nixon took us off the gold standard our currency was stable
• Remove as much regulation and government oversight as possible on business. We need to see lawmakers seizing on the floor of congress, and retching on their fine silk suits before saying 'enough is enough'
• Begin tapping and extracting our own resources of oil and natural gas; this will create hundreds of thousands of jobs
• Eliminate the death tax
• Bring corporate taxes down to 10-15%
• Reduce the capital gains tax to zero for a period of years

These alone won't get us out of the mess we're in, anytime soon. It's going to get much worse before it gets better no matter how deep we cut government out of free enterprise, and the taxpayer's wallets, but at least this way there is hope of saving the country. What I mean by that is, should America lose it's reserve currency status, America will lose more than government, or any number of empty political promises can ever hope to correct. America, as a preeminent nation, as a leader in the world, will be relegated to 2nd class nation.

America will cease to be great if we lose our reserve currency status. Think things are tough now? Prices on just about everything will increase 25-40%, almost overnight. Without the ability to continue to print money to buy ourselves out of crises after crises (as we're doing now), the cost of just about everything will skyrocket. You think there's unrest now? Imagine what will happen when average Americans have to choose between eating and paying their mortgage, or basic utilities, or gas for their vehicles. Riots on Wall Street? No, riots on Main Street.

If America loses it's reserve currency status, there will be a run on the banks. And the government, in an effort to save what it can will close all markets, and banks. Pensions and social security checks will likely stop as well. What happens when the government food stamp program stops? Riots on Main Street? No, riots on YOUR street. Desperate people resorting to desperate acts. And law enforcement unable to be everywhere at once. Government may even impose martial law. Think it can't happen? You're a fool if you think so.

In light of this, therefore, I propose a Robin Hood Tax on the American government... by kicking it's sorry ass out of the economy altogether (where it has no business being), and forcing it (at gunpoint if necessary) to live within its means. by doing this we just may... may, mind you... save this country from economic destruction in the process, and save untold lives.

It's time for another revolution in this country. Everyone else seems to be throwing their own 'tea parties'... perhaps it's time we had a real tea party of our own, here and now, before our government literally kills tens of thousands of Americans through their reckless fiscal policies that will, if left unchecked, doom thousands of Americans to the loss of the very basic of services; without which most Americans wouldn't know how to survive.

Don't let the government kill you! Join Robin's merry band of men today and together we can bring down the evil Price John (government) and that dastardly Sheriff of Nottingham (the Fed). By doing so we just may be able to save the kingdom for our long absent King Richard....... wherever and whoever he turns out to be.

NATO & Obama: Making the Middleast LESS Safe

While Dem's, and the Left in general, boast and thump their chests over Obama's "victory" in Libya, the new provisionary government is implementing Sharia Law. We didn't know who the rebels were before we became their partner in the killing of Muammar Gaddafi, but we do now. This wasn't Saddam Hussein receiving his just punishment after a lengthy and fair (as fair as one could expect) trial. No. This was the former leader of the nation gunned down in the street. Shades of Nicolai Ceausescu anyone? But Gaddafi wasn't even accorded the show trial Ceausescu was.

Obama. I hate to say it (though I've said it over and over again), is the worst excuse for a U.S. President in living memory-- not even Carter was this bad. Yet in spite of this, almost everyone on the Left is touting his foreign policy successes... but what successes? Apologizing to the world, with every official visit to every rogue or friendly nation he arrogantly sets foot in, for being the object of their hatred and despisement. These nations, according to Obama, some run by dictators, are better in his eyes than the nation he purports to lead. He leads from behind! we've heard it said, but what kind of victory did he win in Libya, beside a cowardly one?

In short, what Obama has achieved in 'leading from behind' in Libya is the advancement of Sharia law on the world stage. Thank you, Mr. President.Welcome, women of Libya, to the 9th century.

Our president has publicly snubbed, humiliated, and thrown under the bus, our greatest ally in the middle east; namely, Israel. Yet he has coddled, befriended, and apologized to the Arab nations, Israel's enemies. And this new turn of events in Libya? the implementation of Sharia? This makes the middle east less safe. Especially Israel. Where have all the shoulder fired missiles gone to? Some have made their way to Gaza. How? The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Libya borders Egypt, Egypt borders Gaza, Gaza fires missiles into Israel on a daily basis.

Tunis has fallen... revolution... who knows what form of government will eventually be installed.

Egypt has fallen... revolution... we know, at least, that the Muslim Brotherhood is more sympathetic to Sharia, than to anything else. The Muslim Brotherhood has already made menacing overtures toward Israel, and is supplying Gaza.

Libya has fallen... Civil War... we don't even know who the rebels are, but we do know they're implementing elements of Sharia.

All of this makes the middle east less safe (despite these players being African nations). Syria is experiencing unrest. As is Jordan. Yemen. Iraq. Algeria. While there is nothing to say these nations would not have seen turmoil, revolution, and civil war had Obama been a stronger leader, but neither is there any evidence to suggest his weakness didn't embolden these nations... Obama's speech in Cairo was a fine example of appeasement, abasement, acquiescence... and incitement. He said to Mubarak: you must leave! To Gaddafi: you must go! Yet nothing to Syria's Hafez al-Assad. He had the nerve to chastise Israel, but hadn't the stones to give Syria the same.

He's a coward. And the poorest excuse for a president in American history. November 6, 2012 can't come soon enough.

Why Liberalism Must Be Defeated in the Classroom

...ONE reason, at least... Economics.

"Mainstream economists and the financial press are usually Keynesian. This means that they like to hide the true cause of economic problems. Their explanations, therefore, are ones that try to show how the tail can wag the dog. But these fallacious explanations have been around so long and are so widely taught that most people who do not know real economics -- including most of these same Keynesians -- easily believe these improbable explanations."

Kel Kelly,
Author of, The Case for Legalizing Capitalism
                      [downloadable as a PDF file]

Because most Americans under 35 don't understand the basics of economics-- it's ignorance by design. Education, therefore, needs to be reformed and true sciences taught. Ask yourself why the U.S. is ranked 25th in Mathematics world-wide, and 17th in Science.(December 2010)

Here's a question to consider: keeping with the theme of one of my more recent posts, Is it within a fascist state's best interest to keep it's populace ignorant of how the world really works?

I believe that answer is, Yes. Why else has this nation spent so much time and money rearing generations of poorly educated children? Children grow into taxpayers, and an ignorant tax-base is more easily managed than an enlightened one.

How is the hubris of today's educators any different than Galileo's persecutors? Aside from the religious angle? None whatsoever. Today's educators are entrenched in philosophies that, for the most part, are doing more harm than good. Which is why liberalism- for that is the culprit in the sad state of enlightenment in this country -must be defeated in the classroom first, if we're ever to defeat it in the public square.

The answer to all this mayhem is a better educated populace, and less interference in public management by government. In short: we need to kill the fascist state, and restore the republic. When 47% of America pays no personal income tax, when government expects it's populace to accept the ridiculous notion that increased spending will reduce deficits... and half the population believes it! ...something is terribly wrong in academia.

Remember that final scene in Animal Farm? We're already there.

It's time to drag the pigs away from the table, and make bacon.

Laissez Faire ... there's your jobs bills, folks.

It's called free enterprise...

Capitalism made legal once more.

Learning to Levitate Above a World of Bad Ideas

"These right-wingers hate government so much," bellowed the Rev. Sharpton, "that they don't want any government at all!"

Our mother smirked and jabbed an accusing finger at us. We'd reluctantly sat at the dinner table, something we usually try to avoid during our visits because MSNBC is always blaring in our mother's household at dinnertime.

We hadn't realized that right-wingers had become quite so anarchist as the Rev. Sharpton had just declared.

The Rev. Al had just gotten through talking to Barney Frank about what Americans really want from their government.

"They want jobs," he said. "The want infrastructure. They want government programs."

Barney Frank enthusiastically agreed. I'm sure the millions upon millions viewing the exchange that evening agreed as well. Add to that another hundred million more throughout the land...

The thrust is that when all else fails, we just need the government to do the spending. The government knows best where to invest. The government is wiser and more far-seeing than the fickle markets. Just ask the Soviets!

Mind you, the government has no money of its own...only that which it takes, on pain of imprisonment, from its subjects who make their money in the private sector.

The government has no way of measuring demand or success. Its motives are political, not market-driven. The very polls and votes that inform it come from a demos eager to decide how other peoples' money ought to be spent....And that decision is usually for the "rich" to pay for everyone else.

In today's feature article, we call upon the spirit of Murray N. Rothbard to provide an explanation of why the public sector should not be considered on equal footing with the private sector.


Gary Gibson, Whiskey & Gunpowder
October 5, 2011


We have heard a great deal of the “public sector,” and solemn discussions abound through the land on whether or not the public sector should be increased vis-a-vis the “private sector.” The very terminology is redolent of pure science, and indeed, it emerges from the supposedly scientific, if rather grubby, world of “national income statistics.” But the concept is hardly wertfrei; in fact, it is fraught with grave and questionable implications.

In the first place, we may ask, “public sector” of what? Of something called the “national product.” But note the hidden assumptions: that the national product is something like a pie, consisting of several “sectors,” and that these sectors, public and private alike, are added to make the product of the economy as a whole. In this way, the assumption is smuggled into the analysis that the public and private sectors are equally productive, equally important and on an equal footing altogether, and that “our” deciding on the proportions of public to private sector is about as innocuous as any individual’s decision on whether to eat cake or ice cream. The State is considered to be an amiable service agency, somewhat akin to the corner grocer, or rather, to the neighborhood lodge, in which “we” get together to decide how much “our government” should do for (or to) us. Even those neoclassical economists who tend to favor the free market and free society often regard the State as a generally inefficient, but still amiable, organ of social service, mechanically registering “our” values and decisions.

One would not think it difficult for scholars and laymen alike to grasp the fact that government is not like the Rotarians or the Elks, that it differs profoundly from all other organs and institutions in society, namely, that it lives and acquires its revenues by coercion and not by voluntary payment. The late Joseph Schumpeter was never more astute than when he wrote, “The theory which construes taxes on the analogy of club dues or of the purchase of the services of, say, a doctor only proves how far removed this part of the social sciences is from scientific habits of mind.”

Apart from the public sector, what constitutes the productivity of the “private sector” of the economy? The productivity of the private sector does not stem from the fact that people are rushing around doing “something,” anything, with their resources; it consists in the fact that they are using these resources to satisfy the needs and desires of the consumers. Businessmen and other producers direct their energies, on the free market, to producing those products that will be most rewarded by the consumers, and the sale of these products may, therefore, roughly “measure” the importance that the consumers place upon them. If millions of people bend their energies to producing horses-and-buggies, they will, in this day and age, not be able to sell them, and hence, the productivity of their output will be virtually zero. On the other hand, if a few million dollars are spent in a given year on Product X, then statisticians may well judge that these millions constitute the productive output of the X-part of the “private sector” of the economy.

One of the most important features of our economic resources is their scarcity: land, labor and capital-goods factors are all scarce, and may all be put to various possible uses. The free market uses them “productively” because the producers are guided, on the market, to produce what the consumers most need: automobiles, for example, rather than buggies. Therefore, while the statistics of the total output of the private sector seem to be a mere adding of numbers, or counting units of output, the measures of output actually involve the important qualitative decision of considering as “product” what the consumers are willing to buy. A million automobiles, sold on the market, are productive because the consumers so considered them; a million buggies, remaining unsold, would not have been “product” because the consumers would have passed them by.

Suppose now that into this idyll of free exchange enters the long arm of government. The government, for some reasons of its own, decides to ban automobiles altogether (perhaps because the many tailfins offend the aesthetic sensibilities of the rulers) and to compel the auto companies to produce the equivalent in buggies instead. Under such a strict regimen, the consumers would be, in a sense, compelled to purchase buggies, because no cars would be permitted. However, in this case, the statistician would surely be purblind if he blithely and simply recorded the buggies as being just as “productive” as the previous automobiles. To call them equally productive would be a mockery; in fact, given plausible conditions, the “national product” totals might not even show a statistical decline, when they had actually fallen drastically.

And yet the highly touted “public sector” is in even worse straits than the buggies of our hypothetical example. For most of the resources consumed by the maw of government have not even been seen, much less used, by the consumers, who were at least allowed to ride in their buggies. In the private sector, a firm’s productivity is gauged by how much the consumers voluntarily spend on its product. But in the public sector, the government’s “productivity” is measured — mirabile dictu — by how much it spends! Early in their construction of national-product statistics, the statisticians were confronted with the fact that the government, unique among individuals and firms, could not have its activities gauged by the voluntary payments of the public — because there were little or none of such payments. Assuming, without any proof, that government must be as productive as anything else, they then settled upon its expenditures as a gauge of its productivity. In this way, not only are government expenditures just as useful as private, but all the government needs to do in order to increase its “productivity” is to add a large chunk to its bureaucracy. Hire more bureaucrats and see the productivity of the public sector rise! Here, indeed, is an easy and happy form of social magic for our bemused citizens.

The truth is exactly the reverse of the common assumptions. Far from adding cozily to the private sector, the public sector can only feed off the private sector; it necessarily lives parasitically upon the private economy. But this means that the productive resources of society — far from satisfying the wants of consumers — are now directed, by compulsion, away from these wants and needs. The consumers are deliberately thwarted, and the resources of the economy diverted from them to those activities desired by the parasitic bureaucracy and politicians. In many cases, the private consumers obtain nothing at all, except perhaps propaganda beamed to them at their own expense. In other cases, the consumers receive something far down on their list of priorities — like the buggies of our example. In either case, it becomes evident that the “public sector” is actually anti-productive — that it subtracts from, rather than adds to, the private sector of the economy. For the public sector lives by continuous attack on the very criterion that is used to gauge productivity: the voluntary purchases of consumers.

We may gauge the fiscal impact of government on the private sector by subtracting government expenditures from the national product. For government payments to its own bureaucracy are hardly additions to production; and government absorption of economic resources takes them out of the productive sphere. This gauge, of course, is only fiscal; it does not begin to measure the anti-productive impact of various government regulations, which cripple production and exchange in other ways than absorbing resources. It also does not dispose of numerous other fallacies of the national product statistics. But at least it removes such common myths as the idea that the productive output of the American economy increased during World War II. Subtract the government deficit instead of add it, and we see that the real productivity of the economy declined, as we would rationally expect during a war.

But how is it that only government agencies clamor for more money and denounce the citizens for reluctance to supply more? Why do we never have the private-enterprise equivalents of traffic jams (which occur on government streets), mismanaged schools, water shortages and so on? The reason is that private firms acquire the money that they deserve from two sources: voluntary payment for the services by consumers, and voluntary investment by investors in expectation of consumer demand.

If there is an increased demand for a privately owned good, consumers pay more for the product, and investors invest more in its supply, thus, “clearing the market” to everyone’s satisfaction. If there is an increased demand for a publicly owned good (water, streets, subway and so on), all we hear is annoyance at the consumer for wasting precious resources, coupled with annoyance at the taxpayer for balking at a higher tax load.

Enterprise makes it its business to court the consumer and to satisfy his most urgent demands; government agencies denounce the consumer as a troublesome user of their resources. Only a government, for example, would look fondly upon the prohibition of private cars as a “solution” for the problem of congested streets. Government’s numerous “free” services, moreover, create permanent excess demand over supply and therefore permanent “shortages” of the product. Government, in short, acquiring its revenue by coerced confiscation rather than by voluntary investment and consumption, is not and cannot be run like a business. Its inherent gross inefficiencies, the impossibility for it to clear the market, will insure its being a mare’s nest of trouble on the economic scene.

In former times, the inherent mismanagement of government was generally considered a good argument for keeping as many things as possible out of government hands. After all, when one has invested in a losing proposition, one tries to refrain from pouring good money after bad.

Most economists have two basic arguments on behalf of the public sector, which we may only consider very briefly here. One is the problem of “external benefits.” A and B often benefit, it is held, if they can force C into doing something. Much can be said in criticism of this doctrine, but suffice it to say here that any argument proclaiming the right and goodness of, say, three neighbors, who yearn to form a string quartet, forcing a fourth neighbor at bayonet point to learn and play the viola, is hardly deserving of sober comment.

The second argument is more substantial: Stripped of technical jargon, it states that some essential services simply cannot be supplied by the private sphere, and that, therefore, government supply of these services is necessary. And yet every single one of the services supplied by government has been, in the past, successfully furnished by private enterprise. The bland assertion that private citizens cannot possibly supply these goods is never bolstered, in the works of these economists, by any proof whatsoever. How is it, for example, that economists, so often given to pragmatic or utilitarian solutions, do not call for social “experiments” in this direction? Why must political experiments always be in the direction of more government? Why not give the free market a county or even a state or two, and see what it can accomplish?


Regards,

Murray N. Rothbard

We're All fascists Now

How Fascism Kills the American Dream
Whiskey & Gunpowder
October 7, 2011


President Barack "Infrastructure Jobs" Obama is mad as hell. Says the prez...

"I think it's fair to say that I have gone out of my way in every instance -- sometimes at my own political peril and to the frustration of Democrats -- to work with Republicans to find common ground to move this country forward.

"Each time, what we've seen is games-playing, a preference to try to score political points, rather than actually get something done on the part of the other side."

According to The Associated Press, President Obama "challenged Republicans...to explain to the American people why they oppose his plan to create jobs and rebuild U.S. highways, bridges and schools as an ‘insurance policy' against a return to recession."
Ahem. Allow us to quote our friend Lew Rockwell by way of answering...

"There was stimulus one and stimulus two, both of which are so discredited that stimulus three will have to adopt a new name. Let's call it the American Jobs Act.

"With a prime-time speech, Obama argued in favor of this program with some of the most asinine economic analysis I've ever heard. He mused about how is it that people are unemployed at a time when schools, bridges and infrastructure need repairing. He ordered that supply and demand come together to match up needed work with jobs.

"Hello? The schools, bridges and infrastructure that Obama refers to are all built and maintained by the state. That's why they are falling apart. And the reason that people don't have jobs is because the state has made it too expensive to hire them. It's not complicated. To sit around and dream of other scenarios is no different from wishing that water flowed uphill or that rocks would float in the air. It amounts to a denial of reality.

"Still, Obama went on, invoking the old fascistic longing for national greatness. ‘Building a world-class transportation system,' he said, ‘is part of what made us an economic superpower.' Then he asked, ‘We're going to sit back and watch China build newer airports and faster railroads?"

"Well, the answer to that question is yes. And you know what? It doesn't hurt a single American for a person in China to travel on a faster railroad than we do. To claim otherwise is an incitement to nationalist hysteria.

"As for the rest of this program, Obama promised yet another long list of spending projects. Let's just mention the reality: No government in the history of the world has spent as much, borrowed as much and created as much fake money as the United States. If the United States doesn't qualify as a fascist state in this sense, no government ever has.

"None of this would be possible but for the role of the Federal Reserve, the great lender to the world. This institution is absolutely critical to U.S. fiscal policy. There is no way that the national debt could increase at a rate of $4 billion per day without this institution.

"Under a gold standard, all of this maniacal spending would come to an end. And if U.S. debt were priced on the market with a default premium, we would be looking at a rating far less than A+."

Lew has a way of getting to the heart of the problem. It's the central bank monopolizing and debasing the money supply. It's the assumption that government interference in the economy is a good thing...and that the government knows where best to spend the money it either steals, borrows or, essentially, creates when it borrows from the central bank.

In today's feature article, Lew Rockwell shows us how close these poisonous assumptions have come to killing off the American Dream. Keep reading for more, and then stay tuned for the Parting Shot to see what you can do to make sure the Dream doesn't end for you...

Whiskey & Gunpowder
by Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.
October 7, 2011
Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.A.

Fascism Kills the American Dream

Everyone knows that the term fascist is a pejorative, often used to describe any political position a speaker doesn't like. There isn't anyone around who is willing to stand up and say, "I'm a fascist; I think fascism is a great social and economic system."

But I submit that if they were honest, the vast majority of politicians, intellectuals and political activists would have to say just that.

Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police state as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals and makes the executive state the unlimited master of society.

This describes mainstream politics in America today. And not just in America. It's true in Europe, too. It is so much part of the mainstream that it is hardly noticed anymore.

It is true that fascism has no overarching theoretical apparatus. There is no grand theorist like Marx. That makes it no less real and distinct as a social, economic and political system. Fascism also thrives as a distinct style of social and economic management. And it is as much or more of a threat to civilization than full-blown socialism.

This is because its traits are so much a part of life -- and have been for so long -- that they are nearly invisible to us.

If fascism is invisible to us, it is truly the silent killer. It fastens a huge, violent, lumbering state on the free market that drains its capital and productivity like a deadly parasite on a host. This is why the fascist state has been called the vampire economy. It sucks the economic life out of a nation and brings about a slow death of a once-thriving economy.

Let me just provide a recent example.


The Decline

The papers last week were filled with the first sets of data from the 2010 U.S. Census. The headline story concerned the huge increase in the poverty rate. It is the largest increase in 20 years, and now up to 15%.

But most people hear this and dismiss it, probably for good reason. The poor in this country are not poor by any historical standard. They have cell phones, cable TV, cars, lots of food and plenty of disposable income. What's more, there is no such thing as a fixed class called the poor. People come and go, depending on age and life circumstances. Plus, in American politics, when you hear kvetching about the poor, everyone knows what you're supposed to do: Hand the government your wallet.

Buried in the report is another fact that has much more profound significance. It concerns median household income in real terms.

What the data have revealed is devastating. Since 1999, median household income has fallen 7.1%. Since 1989, median family income is largely flat. And since 1973 and the end of the gold standard, it has hardly risen at all. The great wealth-generating machine that was once America is failing.

No longer can one generation expect to live a better life than the previous one. The fascist economic model has killed what was once called the American Dream. And the truth is, of course, even worse than the statistic reveals. You have to consider how many incomes exist within a single household to make up the total income. After World War II, the single-income family became the norm. Then the money was destroyed, and American savings were wiped out, and the capital base of the economy was devastated.

It was at this point that households began to struggle to stay above water. The year 1985 was the turning point. This was the year that it became more common than not for a household to have two incomes, rather than one. Mothers entered the work force to keep family income floating.

The intellectuals cheered this trend, as if it represented liberation, shouting hosannas that all women everywhere are now added to the tax rolls as valuable contributors to the state's coffers. The real cause is the rise of fiat money that depreciated the currency, robbed savings and shoved people into the work force as taxpayers.

This story is not told in the data alone. You have to look at the demographics to discover it.

This huge demographic shift, essentially, bought the American household another 20 years of seeming prosperity, though it is hard to call it that, since there was no longer any choice about the matter. If you wanted to keep living the dream, the household could no longer get by on a single income.

But this huge shift was merely an escape hatch. It bought 20 years of slight increases before the income trend flattened again. Over the last decade, we are back to falling. Today, median family income is only slightly above where it was when Nixon wrecked the dollar, put on price and wage controls, created the EPA and the whole apparatus of the parasitic welfare-warfare state came to be entrenched and made universal.

Yes, this is fascism, and we are paying the price. The dream is being destroyed.

The talk in Washington about reform, whether from Democrats or Republicans, is like a bad joke. They talk of small changes, small cuts, commissions they will establish, curbs they will make in 10 years. It is all white noise. None of this will fix the problem. Not even close.

The problem is more fundamental. It is the quality of the money. It is the very existence of 10,000 regulatory agencies. It is the whole assumption that you have to pay the state for the privilege to work. It is the presumption that the government must manage every aspect of the capitalist economic order. In short, it is the total state that is the problem, and the suffering and decline will continue so long as the total state exists.

Regards,

Lew Rockwell

Assassination of the U.S. Constitution

I don't say he didn't deserve to die... we all do, and toward that end we are all traveling... but, whether you like it or not, Anwar al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen denied due process... assassinated by his government.

If the U.S. government can force its citizens to buy a product it does not want or face fines and penalties, then we have ceased to be a republic governed by rule of law. If the U.S. government can target and obliterate any specific individual via hellfire missile (or by any means), then we have ceased to be a republic governed by rule of law.

I do not lament the passing of al-Awlaki, but I do lament the passing of America.

It is the height of hypocrisy for an administration to criticize its predecessors for violating the constitution in the defense of this nation after the events of 9/11, and then violate the very same document by telling every American it has to buy medical insurance of face financial penalties... by trying, convicting, and executing an American citizen without due process.

I used to fear someone would target and kill our president; that would be a great disaster for this nation. But now I see that my fear was misplaced. I should have feared for America.

Obama Election Scenario Update

Seems that Dick Morris and I have been thinking along the same lines.

In my opinion, the very BEST thing Obama could do for his legacy at this point would be to bow out of the 2012 race while promising to focus like a laser on getting the economy moving again through TRUE bipartisanship efforts. However, by doing so now or in the future rather than when he had the opportunity during his infamous Joint-Session Jobs Bill speech, the impact will be greatly diminished. Had Obama done what Dick Morris and I have suggested he needs to do during that Joint-Session of Congress, he would have endeared himself to many people across the political spectrum and softened some of the harsh criticism he will likely receive throughout America's future history.

Questions to Consider

But I have to present it...

No one gets rich without the blood, sweat and taxes of ALL Americans?

If I make a million dollars day-trading.... I have no factory, no product ships over any highway... and thieves like Warren tell me that government has a right to expect and insist I "pay it forward"? To who? The poor? Did the poor help me make my trades? Did they tell me when I should sell or buy? Did they offer stock tips? At present government is entitled to 15% capital gains tax on long terms trades... on money that has already been taxed once! That percentage jumps considerably higher for short term (of which day-trading is) capital gains. Even at that, the question still remains to be answered by ANY Republican candidate, 'how much of every dollar I earn should I be allowed to keep?'

Ideologues like Elizabeth Warren will say: 'you can have whatever is left after all the underachievers, moochers, and government spendthrifts and wastrels, are appeased.

48% of wage earners pay no federal income tax at all (after IRS refunds); many of that 48% get more back than what they paid in via EITC. What happens when that number breaks the 50% threshold? A permanent underclass dependent upon government handouts and a permanent party power-structure in Washington... Freedom in America will be, effectively, dead. Our Republic will be finished.

As it stands now 86% of all federal income taxes are paid by the top 25% of wage earners. The top 50% of wage earners pay 96% of all federal income taxes. What happens when the top 55% of wage earners are paying ALL federal income taxes? Refer to the previous paragraph: the republic will be dead. American will be dead.

When is a rich person's "fair share" paid in full? When 50 cents of every dollar is going to the government (including income, capital gains, state, city, & local taxes)? 60 cents? 70 cents? 80 cents? 90 cents out of every dollar? How much of one's labor is considered inviolable to government forfeiture?

And just who is rich?

Elizabeth Warren is the worst kind of thief. She doesn't steal to satisfy a personal need, she steals to make herself feel good about helping those she deems 'downtrodden.'

She wants you to give her money so she can steal from you when she wins.

Well, we have enough of those in Washington already. 

What's wrong with Senate politics...

This:




Did you hear it? No? Check out her website. What does it say at the top in big bold letters?

Elizabeth Warren... for Massachusetts
 

That's right: FOR Massachusetts. Not America.

Is she's asking AMERICANS to support her bid to, ostensibly, represent the interests of Massachusetts? No! Hell, no! Does she wants to represent the interests of ALL Americans? No!

If she wants to represent the people of Massachusetts she should be running for a house district seat, this way she could represent the people of her district. But she's running for the senate, where, according to her own words, she'll represent the interests of her ideological constituency over those of her state. She wants your support, your money, whether you live in Massachusetts or not. And that is what's wrong with Senate politics. That's what's wrong with the 17th Amendment.

I have no doubt she means well, in her own democratically twisted way, but the senate has been corrupted by the 17th amendment, which should be repealed. Let senators return to the days when they were appointed by their state governors and represented the interests of their state... not the entire nation, and only one faction of the electorate at that.

2012 Obama Campaign Scenarios

While pondering the present state of the 2012 General Election cycle, I have developed several interesting scenarios concerning Barack Obama  that are perfectly capable of occurring. In the present environment of both a highly energized GOP and a frustrated and fearful left-wing Democrat electorate, it is easy to imagine one of these scenarios actually taking place.

First, as President Obama's approval rating continues to fall amidst a growing unease with his leadership abilities, it's not hard to imagine him announcing another nationally televised speech when he admits he has no answers to our ongoing economic situation and informs America that he will not be seeking re-election to a second term. In fact, if his numbers do not improve by the end of 2011, it's likely the very best thing he could do for his legacy. By announcing his decision not to run for a second term and vowing to dedicate his remaining time in office to working with Congress to find real fixes to America's problems, Obama could leave office still admired by his followers and even forgiven by his political enemies. I must admit, I was somewhat expecting this very thing to occur last Thursday night during the Joint Session, so please...take that into consideration as I unveil these scenarios.

Secondly, because of his obvious narcissistic tendencies, Obama could continue pretending to be POTUS while actually the Panderer-in-Chief, lose the general respectably, and have to live with his failed presidency and infamous legacy.  

Third -  if his numbers continue to fall, Obama could face a landslide loss in the General Election. This should, of course, be an unthinkable thing to say in the wake of the Democrat punditry proclaiming as well as celebrating the death of the GOP during the aftermath of the '08 General Election. And this leads to my fourth scenario -one which is very possible.

Like every other perpetrator of political assassination against a sitting US President or prominent political figure in America's history, some left-winger, most assuredly a Democrat, will take it on his/her self to eliminate a doomed Obama candidacy with a well-placed shot to his brain. Remember, it was a Democrat who shot Lincoln, a left-wing anarchist who murdered McKinley, a communist who fired the magic bullet into Kennedy's cranium, a palestinian activist who took out Robert Kennedy, a Democrat racist who ended MLK's life, a left-wing Manson family-member who tried to kill Gerald Ford, and a crazy weirdo trying to impress a vocally left-wing actress who nearly ended Ronald Reagan's life. One can easily imagine some deranged leftist "nobly" rescuing his party from a shameful defeat in November of 2012 by making room for a more competitive candidate.

Then again, Obama could win re-election. Despite...or perhaps because of...his record, he could win re-election. An ugly symptom of American descent.

All are viable scenarios.

If Obama does happen to be re-elected, I predict he will be forced to resign from office in disgrace during his second term.

But that's another scenario we can explore later, perhaps. 

That Scheme Called "Ponzi"

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there was only 1.75 full-time private sector workers last year for every one Social Security recipient. Obviously this doesn't include part-time workers, or "covered" workers-- those who, while receiving Social Security benefits, also work part-time and pay social security taxes. But part-time and covered workers didn't pay enough to make up the difference between what came in and what went out...

That means that for each husband and wife who worked full-time in the private sector last year there was a Social Security recipient somewhere in the country taking benefits from the federal government.

Most state and local workers are part of the Social Security system and pay Social Security taxes; and, since 1984, all federal workers have been part of the system and pay Social Security taxes. However, unlike private sector workers who pay Social Security taxes with private-sector dollars, government workers pay their payroll taxes out of wages government pays them with tax dollars or with money that was BORROWED BY GOVERNMENT AND TAXPAYERS MUST EVENTUALLY REPAY. [emphasis added]


In its latest annual report, the Social Security board of trustees reported that the federal government’s total revenue from Social Security taxes in 2010—$544.8 billion—was not enough to cover Social Security’s total benefit payments—$577.4 billion. 

This is the beautiful part: government workers paid their social security taxes with our tax money... that non-government workers have to pay back. Taxed twice, essentially... private sector workers paying for public sector workers' social security benefits.

Public sector workers deserve to receive benefits when they reach that age, but there needs to be a better system in place where the private sector isn't carrying the tax burden of public sector workers as well as their own.

This pyramid scheme isn't going to be able to keep pace with demand for much longer. Last year saw a 32 billion dollar shortfall. Reforms MUST be made. Reforms that include a lock and key on all future contributions; no more plonking it all into the general fund where politicians can squander it. Reforms that include allowing taxpayers the option of investing a portion of their pre-tax earnings into private retirement investments. Reforms that ensure that present recipients and those of a certain age are guaranteed the benefits promised them.



Follow the link for the full article:

Labor Dept. Data: Only 1.75 Full-Time Private Sector Workers Per Social Security Recipient


UPDATE:
Found a bit of history surrounding Social Security over at Godfather Politics. Here are the salient remarks:
 

Most Americans don’t know much about the financial structure of Social Security, and they also don’t know much about its history. Here’s just a little background. Take it for what it’s worth.

In William L. Shirer’s book The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich we learn the origin of Social Security policies and the effect they had on the German people. Social Security was engineered by German Chancellor Otto Von Bismarck in the 19^th century. His policies gradually made the German people “value security over political freedom and caused them to see in the State, however conservative, a benefactor and a protector.”[1] Between 1883 and 1889 Bismarck put through a program for social security far beyond anything known in other countries at the time. It included compulsory insurance for workers against old age, sickness, accident and incapacity, and though it was organized by the State it was financed by employers and employees. Sound familiar? This is American-style Social Security!

Adolf Hitler took full advantage of the German state of mind and Bismarck’s early progress in turning the nation into a model of socialist reform. Hitler remarks in Mein Kampf, “I studied Bismarck’s socialist legislation in its intention, struggle and success.”[2] It was Hitler’s social security policies and promises that helped get him elected.

Hitler was not alone in his admiration of Bismarck and what he was able to accomplish. FDR borrowed Bismarck’s socialist agenda and created what is now known as the Social Security System. Bismarck said that “the State must take the matter in hand, since the State can most easily supply the requisite funds. It must provide them not as alms but in fulfillment of the workers’ right to look to the State where their own good will can achieve nothing more.”[3] Roosevelt and his admirers agreed. P. J. O’Brien, writing in Forward with Roosevelt, links Bismarck’s social policies with those of Roosevelt: “[The quotation by Bismarck] might have been lifted out of a speech by President Roosevelt in 1936, but the Iron Chancellor uttered it in 1871.”[4]

Read more: The Hidden History of Social Security | Godfather Politics

Ten Years Later

Everyone has been looking back this week; where they were, what they saw, heard, felt.  I was fortunate enough to actually work at a television station [and still do]... I literally got paid to watch the whole spectacle, in all its grandiose horror, for some 48 hours before we ever bothered to do a local news broadcast. Looking back, it seems now that at the time we were too focused on what we were losing to worry or even bother about what we were doing, or saying... we allowed ourselves freedom enough to express [or expel] our very natural uncertainties and insecurities born of that day. 

Not only could I not believe what I was witnessing, I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I heard language on live television that would incur huge fines were such words and phrases ever uttered on live television today. I remember being stunned by some of the "vocalizations" CBS allowed to air that day-- especially the blasphemies.


I wasn't blogging then-- very few were (blogger was only two years old) --but I was writing.

What follows are my own impressions of that day, on that day, September 11, 2001.
 

To Shine That Much Brighter

It is said the Egyptians built with eternity in mind-- perhaps inspired by the Sphinx itself which is older than Egyptian civilization. It’s said also, that Caesar found Rome brick and clay, and left it marble. The Pyramids still stand, the Coliseum still stands, the Acropolis still stands, but the Twin Towers do not. We build to satisfy our egos, but we don’t build for posterity. In three thousand years, will there be anything left in America to exemplify the culture of our time? Will we leave a mark, or will others leave marks upon us?

It’s been said of one era or another, "these are evil times…" but times are neither good nor evil. Rather, it’s the hearts and minds of Men that shape the times which create pain and suffering enough for others to name these times evil. World War II saw evil times; Hitler’s Final Solution, America's own use of atomic weapons. There were evil times in Korea, and Vietnam, and the killing fields of Cambodia, but the times themselves were not evil. Again, it was the hearts and minds of Men. The times are not evil, Men are. Change the heart of a man and you can change the world.

But can any one man or woman change the world? Can any one Nation make a difference? While it’s true the United States has had a hand in inspiring and helping to shape today’s world, it’s also true there are those who have resisted this change, seeing in the U.S. a great evil; rather to be destroyed than emulated. They cry out that the west meddles in things that don’t concern it, that it forces its own ideals and belief system upon nations incapable of defending themselves against its unwelcome intrusion. The Taliban government of Afghanistan recently arrested several westerners for trying to convert Muslims to Christianity; an offense punishable by death. Not too long ago the Chinese used tanks against their own people in Tienanmen Square, simply because they wanted to be more like the West. U.S. companies push such products as cheeseburgers, Coca Cola, and ‘decadent’ television programming upon starving third world countries. They turn a blind eye to those who see these companies as intruders, not as business adventurers; but as subversive attacks upon the core values of nations which didn’t want or even care about Kentucky Fried Chicken, before Colonel Sanders stepped off the plane. "We’re just making money!" the West cries, but others see this as an attempt to weaken their culture and their sense of national pride. When the Pharaohs built the great pyramids it’s certain they never envisioned Burger King moving in next door. China is only now beginning to open its borders to the West. They need the money; they want the money, but how much does that Big Mac really cost? How much will it cost the West?

‘But the West is decadent! It has lost its moral center!’ Many who hate her call America a Christian nation, and in this they demonstrate their ignorance. Certainly the United States was founded on Christian principles, but those principles have eroded over the last three centuries. America today is but a dim shadow of what it once was. ‘Christian’ is a word bandied about by everyone; the Right, the Left; the Agnostic and Atheist alike, but less than ten percent of avowed Christians even put their faith into practice. The mind of this nation has changed, and Morality is now viewed subjectively at best; where once the people held to a belief in God, and right and wrong were seen as black and white issues, is it any wonder Christianity has fallen from grace? Every nation we thrust our interfering hands into can see the truth in this, so why can’t we? Could it be the Emperor has no clothes after all?

Times have changed, however. It no longer takes months on horseback to reach the Pacific Ocean from the Big Apple. It doesn’t take years for ships to circumnavigate the globe. Weapon of war have also changed. Where once armies faced one another with swords and knives and spears, they now face each other not at all; they simply make a call and push a button. Where once they rained arrows down upon enemy ranks, they now rain devastation from the skies, leveling whole cities. War has become too clean, and so we balk when the children of the Third World use our methods against us, albeit with less finesse and less concern for innocents (though that point could be debated). But destroying ten thousand innocent lives is not acceptable, no matter who pulls the trigger, pushes the button, makes the call, or hijacks the plane. And justice should be required of everyone responsible, no matter where the blame falls.

Mercy, however, should not be forgotten. Any thought of revenge should be put aside. America should not concern herself with revenge; it is not a pure enough motive for what must be done. For what must be done is terrible in and of itself. A life for a life will not return said life. Death cannot be undone. And since it does not lie in our power to give life, we should be careful in our deliberations to take life. Hunt down those responsible, yes. Make them pay the ultimate price for their crimes, yes. But let us not take pleasure in what must be done.

Changing the hearts and minds of all men is impossible. It is human nature to set ones own needs above the needs of others, but its man’s capacity for self-sacrifice that sets him above nature. A dog can only be a dog, it cannot choose to rebel against millions of years of evolution; but man most certainly can. He can say to himself, "I could die in this collapsing building, but I will work anyway to save the life of someone who might yet be alive."

Today in Manhattan civilian volunteers are finding ways to make a difference; digging through the rubble, assisting in the hospitals, donating blood, giving money, praying or simply holding a stranger in their arms as they weep. This is man at his best. This is what he aspires to, but never seems to find until times like these. The times aren’t Evil, men are. But despite the times, it is comforting to know there is still good in the world, that Evil no matter its magnitude only serves to make Goodness shine that much brighter.

The Egyptians built things to last, as did the Greeks and Romans, but then they never saw anything so big as a jumbo jet falling from the sky. It’s not likely even the pyramids could have survived such an attack unscathed; neither could men. But we will survive. That is what we do. Judgment must come, but so must rebuilding. Terrorists thought to destroy a national symbol; they think even now to force us into the bunkers for fear of other such attacks, but we must not give in to this. Find those responsible, punish them swiftly, with mercy, and then rebuild. The Towers are dead, but the ideal is not. Build a memorial to the lives lost, by all means, but rebuild. Show the enemy the measure of our strength, our courage, and our resolve. Rebuild and show the world that these places are sacred; the Spirit of America does not reside in buildings, but in the hearts of her sons and daughters.

Who will ever forget September 11, 2001? Who will ever forget the loss of so many lives, or the tears shed? Who will ever forget that at 8:50am ignorance took a stab at killing something that could not be killed? They have taken untold lives, but they have not destroyed America. Let us rebuild. Let us learn to build for posterity, and hopefully leave in our wake something that will endure.



ELAshley
September 11, 2001

Proof Multiculturalism* is Evil?

[*defined by total inclusiveness at the expense of personal, religious, and (as a result) societal freedoms]

The GZ Mosque has applied for government grants to finish construction of a Mosque that did NOT exist prior to that day, September 11, 2001.

The St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church-- the only church destroyed on 9/11 --has been refused the right to rebuild on it's old site, across the street from Ground Zero.

The City of New York has bent over backward to accommodate the GZ Mosque; the construction of which is a huge slap in the face to most New Yorkers, to say nothing of most Americans.

The City of New York has impeded and ultimately denied a Christian church the right to rebuild what Muslims destroyed.

Mayor Bloomberg has banned all clergy and prayer from the 10th anniversary observance at Ground Zero in 12 days.

Why does New York... why does New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg hate God? Why does he deny Christians a vocal presence at the 10th anniversary memorial? What is wrong with America, with American politics, that it can't bring itself to welcome God to Ground Zero; that it will not allow a Christian church to rebuild, but will allow the religion that brought the tower's down to build a mosque; a symbol of gloating, and an affront to most Americans for it's sheer audacity?

What is so evil about Christianity that it must be denied a voice? Will there be a Muslim cleric there? Will he speak? Will a Hindu be there? Some other motivational speaker? Why do Americans hate God so much that they drive him publicly from events like this? Why is Christ so hated that Christians are told to keep silent at a time when, and where, prayers are not only warranted, but a comfort to (and desired by) many who will attend.

Is all this being done simply to not offend someone? or a group of someones?

What? God kicked us out of HIS Garden, so we're gonna kick HIM out of ours?

This is nonsense, and America will pay for it. And by that I mean: are an earthquake and a hurricane Not enough of a warning for you, America?

Demar on Leftist Dominionism

Strictly speaking, Gary DeMar's hyperpreterism is anathema to me and many others; his theology is so wildly off-base it's a wonder he can't see commonsense or make logical assumptions in regard to biblical context. But where he's 180 degrees wrong in his theology, he's spot on in the article below.

This blog is about politics, not religion; despite my occasional flights off topic, but this post is not about religion, per se, it's about the hypocritical use of religion in politics by the Left.

So while I don't respect DeMar's theology, I can't discount truth even when it comes from DeMar-- a broken clock is right twice a day.

From DeMar's article, Leftist Dominionists Hate Competition...

What liberals hate is to have some group or competing ideology to claim what they believe is their turf. For decades liberals have staked out politics, education, media, entertainment, and every so-called secular area of life to be their domain, and woe to anyone who attempts to enter the gates to their heavily protected and subsidized kingdom.

So when liberals read about a group that wants to impact the family, religion, arts and entertainment, media, government, education, and business, they go into a frenzied dance of defiance and shock. There’s nothing new in any of this. It has a long history.

There is a lot of hypocrisy in this as well; not from DeMar, but from liberals. Religion, they say, has no place in politics, and yet they inject their own religion all the same, claiming it's their moral right and responsibility to do so. But let a conservative member of congress suggest that it is right and moral to do a thing for the benefit of all Americans, and liberals will rise up in apoplectic outrage. The only injection of religious principle into American culture the left will tolerate are those promoted by the left. As though they are the sole, rightful arbiters of morality in all of America.

In 2003, Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry criticized the Vatican for saying that “Catholic politicians like him have a ‘moral duty’ to oppose laws granting legal rights to gay couples.” He went on to say that “it’s important to not have the church instructing politicians. That is an inappropriate crossing of the line in America.” Would Kerry agree to the following logic of his position?:

• "It’s important not to have the church instructing politicians about slavery."
• "It’s important not to have the church instructing politicians about ethnic cleansing."
• "It’s important not to have the church instructing politicians about civil rights."

This 'logic' is at the core of the division between Liberals and Conservatives. Liberals, according to DeMar, having entered "into every civil, cultural and political activity... patiently leavening them all as thoroughly as yeast leavens bread" is loath to give up any ground to Conservatives who are trying to do the very same today. The Tea Party has become the most dangerous grass roots organization to the Left's proclaimed cultural fiefdom, in decades (or ever). Which is why they attack the Tea Party at every opportunity. They fear change. Especially any change that threatens to topple them as the rightful purveyors of approved American license and culture.

Liberalism, especially under Obama, has shown itself to be a failure. It's time for a change. Not the kind of change he wants us to believe in, but the kind of change Americans believe in. And if truth be told, democrats and republicans (outside the beltway) are not so far apart in terms of what's best for America. There are only a few sticking points keeping us on opposite sides of the fence. If the ideologues would simply get out of the way... if WASHINGTON would get out of the way... we could work this out among ourselves.

America has no further need for ideologues. What America needs are some simple, real-world Americans with good ideas.

Quakes in Colorado AND Virginia?

Rare Strong Earthquake Hits Colorado
Quake rocks Washington area, felt on East Coast

Even Obama felt the tremors on Martha's Vineyard, just as he was starting another round of golf. Perhaps the Obama administration will this occasion to blame something other than president Bush for his latest approval rating dip to 38%.

"The recent earthquake in Virginia is the reason my approval rating has dropped another point..."

--President Obama,
(sometime in the near future... perhaps? one can hope?)

Even In Descent, America Still Shines On Occasion

From a purely artistic perspective this is a very nice statue/monument to Dr. King...

In terms of whatever political or philosophical statement it's meant to make, I can't begrudge a great man this kind of recognition. I will, however, argue against anyone's attempt to politicize this memorial or Dr. King's message. The only side God is on is His own, and Dr. King was a man of God.




His memorial opened today on the National Mall.

Would That Obama Took These Words to Heart...

"If a man is called to be a street sweeper, he should sweep streets even as Michelangelo painted, or Beethoven composed music, or Shakespeare wrote poetry. He should sweep streets so well that all the hosts of heaven and earth will pause to say, here lived a great street sweeper who did his job well."

--Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Commentary from Kirk Cameron:

Just as God speaks on tops of mountains, He also paints sunrises with light and clouds, composes symphonies with birds, crickets, and frogs, and sculpts massive rock statues with wind and water. God is not only a preacher; He is also a writer, a musician, an engineer, a carpenter, a father, a son, a brother, a King, and a servant. What has God called you to be? Don't wish you were something else. Be the very best at what you do. As a fellow actor once told me, "There are no small parts, only small actors," likewise, there are no insignificant roles to play in the Kingdom of God; they're all important. There are however, people who fail to see the significance of doing what they've been called to do with all their heart. Go all out. Be all in. Don't quit. Don't back down. Don't stop till you cross the line and finish the race. Then after you've been faithful, you may hear the heavenly words, "Well done, my good and faithful servant."

To anyone reading this who takes prayer seriously...

Pray for our president. Pray for this country. Pray for mercy.

There is more to the descent of this nation than a single man, group of men, or their politics.