Friday, October 31, 2008
1. All countries, first and foremost, pursue their own interests.
2. Thinking they don't or shouldn't is stupid.
3. (This applies when discussing the United States as much as any other country).
The Stats You'll Seldom Hear Or Read Of
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Loving and Hating Obama…for the Same Reasons
Some people will soon be voting for B. Hussein Obama for president of the United States because they only know the media sanitized version of Obama. That Obama is a moderate Democrat who will “cut taxes for 95% of Americans in the middle class” and “help provide affordable health care.” Accounting for debatable policy specifics, that sounds reasonable.
Many among this easily convinced and less passionate group of Obama voters will be young people, some voting for the first time. Some will be people who wouldn’t even take the time to vote if it wasn’t for an advocacy organization (like the infamous ACORN) transporting them to voting booths to vote for the guy who will give them the most of other people’s money.
There are other voters who will vote for B. Hussein Obama and against him who will do so because they see behind the well-constructed media facade. These voters know that he is ultimately a socialist and will promote a socialist program to “transform” his country – a sort of Chavez-lite (initially). These voters (both for and against) know that his “tax cut for 95% of Americans” is not a tax cut at all but a stipend check issued largely to people who don’t even pay income taxes. Forking over this much money will require taking the money from others of course (the much maligned “evil rich”).
Simply taxing people, not to pay current government expense or to reduce the deficit, to issue checks in a new government program is a wealth theft and distribution scheme, plain and simple. To add a foul icing to Obama’s socialist cake, the millions of people receiving these checks will of course want to continue receiving them indefinitely, thus most will become a permanent enhanced voting base for the new entrenched left-wing power structure. They will be locked into a permanent program of “re”distribution. Of course, such a scheme can’t really be permanent. It will simply, over time, suck the nations productive forces dry like a binge on bread and circuses. The source of the scheme's resources will flounder and the creative dynamism, wealth, and employment capacity of the U.S. will collapse. Add to this the fact that Obama also hopes to give billions more to the UN bureaucracy to “end poverty” and the U.S. will have a perfect political/economic storm – that “change” Obama has promised.
He knows exactly what he is doing, socialists know exactly what he is doing, and those who fear an Obama presidency understand all too well what he is doing (and what some of his end goals are).
For Americans, this will all pretty much layout the end chapter in what was a grand experiment in truly revolutionary politics; self-government. A world without a vibrant and dynamic leader for the values of individual freedom may not be as pretty as so many Euro-socialists and like-minded types envision.
Some will expect a sort of second Sweden to emerge from all of this and will perhaps be shocked to get something more akin to current day Venezuela (though many socialist would be happy to see the latter result).
Many smart and not-so-smart people are soon going to facilitate a world less free, less fun, and less peaceful than they had hoped for.
I don’t for a minute think Obama is a sadistic conspirator who wills tragedy to his country. I do think he’s a typical socialist who wants to “bring change” and “a better world” by destroying a free market and feeding greatly enhanced power to the state. Throw in the weak-willed and naïve cluelessness of most pacifists – and the inevitable acts of terror and war that will follow – and another well-meaning socialist will have set the path to enslaving a people to a powerful state. The demise of prosperity, innovation, and greatness is just a little extra thrown in for the cause.
Some love him and some hate him. There are smart and informed people on both sides of that divide and they know what most media outlets won’t show (but clearly know). Obama is no moderate D/democrat…and America is on the verge of becoming no moderate republic.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Removing Socialism from the Bad Word List
Socialism is no longer a bad word in American politics. It once was – as it should be. Socialism is a top-heavy statist system that clogs the arteries of human creative dynamism, crushes the impulse to innovate and elevates the sloth of mediocrity. At its least harmful, it's merely a welfare state of stifled human accomplishment and byzantine rules. At is most "successful" end-point, it's a beast where the state (usually referred to as, "The People") reins supreme in all aspects of life while it crushes any expression of individuality or opposing viewpoint. Socialism isn't always communism but communism is socialism. As hard as it may be for some to fathom, communism is bad, really bad (I'll just hope the reader has an honest enough understanding of history to confirm that point).
The kindred spirits of socialism and communist style socialism are alive and well today (scroll to bottom of article) and in the next few weeks their candidate will potentially begin making the "changes" they seek.
Probably half of America's population is sympathetic to some form of socialism (though some many not know their view has a name). Much of the country's education system, media, and even entertainment are active supporters of socialism. One of its major political parties – the moveon.Democrats – is socialist in varying degrees. The country's entrenched and unelected bureaucracies and departments of state are filled with wine-sipping Ivy league socialists snobs striving to fully exercise their concocted authority. Soon, through the grace of the aforementioned institutions, the executive branch and its appointed bureau-leaders will also be socialist.
"The world" (dictators, Islamo-fascists, and Euro-socialists etc.) wants Obama to be president because they want to see America weaker, poorer, less successful, and out of dictators' way (giving dictatorships free rein is called, "peace" by socialists). Unfortunately, the domestic socialists that dominate so much of America today share "the world's" hopes in this regard.
So, where does a self-respecting Jeffersonian individualist hide now? Where can a free spirit go to start a business, become wealthy, or merely be left alone?
For now, they can still go to the United States. In the future, probably not...
Monday, October 20, 2008
"Changing the World"
People who "change the world" usually don't announce it beforehand. If they do, you may justly have cause for concern.
Change We Can Believe In
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Polls and Potential Surprises
A couple of weeks ago I tried finding stats like the ones dug up by Ann Coulter in her recent column but couldn't. Needless to say, what she found confirmed my suspicions about the opinion polls that so often show Obama surging so far ahead. It just didn't make sense to me. That many people can't be that indoctrinated into leftland.
Now, if we could only put ACORN and assorted other fraud-mongers out of business we may get a fair and reasonable voter response -- and Obama will lose by several points.
I've got to admit after listening to podcast of all thee debates (and watching segments), Obama is one smooth con man. He sounds like he's even convinced himself that he's a mainstream moderate who "loves" his country and believes in a strong anti-terror policy and a free-market. But...
Again, do as both candidates said and "look at the record."
To ask the perpetually moot question; if humans are “basically” good or evil, is like asking if rainbows are basically red or blue.
They've been "helping the poor" for the last 40 years or more ("they" being the Federal government -- tax money). By now they should be able to claim one of two scenarios; Their "war on poverty" worked and the nearly 7 trillion dollars spent have paid off in virtually eliminating poverty (in which case the programs can be scaled down considerably if not outright eliminated)...or...their project failed and should therefore be discontinued. Instead we get, "we're not doing enough."
"Greed" is always a trait that someone else has.
Hitler killed six million Jews and loved his dog. It does not then follow that loving dogs is a bad thing.
In a another analogy, the fact that America's founding father were holders of slaves – the common practice of the time (as it was in many societies throughout history) – does not somehow reflect poorly upon the concepts of freedom of the press and religion or the separation of powers within government.
"Predatory lending" is like "predatory" sales of swampland. If someone buys cheap swampland, they're stupid. If someone sells it to them, they're guilty of seeking out and finding stupid people.
Racism, like socialism is impractical (some would find the dispassionate nature of this observation offensive. We're supposed to get excited about some injustices). The way to relieve the world of any stupid or evil philosophy one only needs to demonstrate, in practical terms, how useless and counter-productive it is to peoples' self interest.
Overall, its probably preferable to be among "uncaring" or disinterested people who leave you alone than those who use their self-perception as warm and "caring" people to meddle in your every affair and coerce your every action.
The degree to which one is an "anti-war / pacifist" regarding wars involving the United States is typically proportional to the degree of apathy toward other wars where the U.S. is not involved. In the case of "wars of national liberation" (communist coup d' etats) a "pacifist" often becomes remarkably pro-war.
"Multipolar/Multilateral world" actually means an alliance of emerging dictatorships that determine the destiny of humanity – nice going.
"Helping the poor" always sounds nice 'on paper'," In practice it seldom amounts to little more than punishing the rich or, eventually, punishing anyone who opposes "helping the poor."
The Democrats’ economic policies can best be summed up as “trickle-down” taxation. Their rant always begins with a proclamation that “the rich” will be forced to “pay their fair share” (an amount determined by the demagogue and various bureaucratic parasites). It’s never acknowledged that the “rich” already pay the bulk of America’s tax revenue (40% of Americans pay no federal taxes at all). In the end, the call to steal through such punitive tax measures “trickles down” to the middle class and everyone else through eventual higher taxes, higher prices for products and services, reduced employment options, and an overall drag on the economy. For what? So that socialist politics can enact its standard war upon success and achievement. …Pathetic.
Although most socialists would fancy themselves skilled in their insights into the economics of war, their view is ultimately incredibly simplistic...basically, "War requires weapons therefore weapons makers benefit from war, therefore weapons makers cause wars. It's like saying farmers cause hunger.
"Greed" is supposedly what guys in smoke filled rooms process (never people like you or I). Risking one's fortune to produce a product to sell is seen as "greedy," Buying a lottery ticket and risking ten dollars in the hopes of becoming rich is what exactly? Productive enterprise?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Obama Wins!…no matter what happens
Had recent economic events not emerged I still feel that John McCain would win the upcoming presidential election.
The sudden shocks to the world economy changes everything of course. It shouldn’t, but it does. Obama and his cheering squads in most media outlets have successfully and inaccurately tied McCain to the dreaded George Bush (himself a non-stop target of dishonest journalism and popular myth intoxication).
I think some legitimate suspicions remain regarding how accurate the polls are that indicate dramatic increases for Obama. I’ve yet to find really good accounting as to how these polls are conducted to insure genuine accuracy. I know that many of them have deliberately oversampled Democrats, justifying their actions on the assumption that the Democrats are so thoroughly energized that they are more likely to actually show up at the polls on election day (this is total BS of course). So, if the polling is bogus, why would a polling organization choose to steer a poll's outcome? If those that administer the polls are sympathetic to the left (as is the case now in so many institutions) then deliberately making it appear that their guy is Mr. popularity may keep those pesky Republicans from bothering to vote. The added bonus of phony polling results is that if McCain still wins (because real voters aren’t brain-dead pawns of Newsweek and CBS etc.) then the left can be “shocked” that their man lost “when all the polls proved he was going to win.” Then they can pull out their racism card again (as they have done several times in this election). That’s a pathetic “argument” of course. First off I’m not so sure Obama can even be considered a black guy since he pulls off the caricature of an elitist Ivy League white lawyer so well. Remember, the left doesn’t really consider Michael Steele, Clarence Thomas, or Walter Williams to be legitimate African Americans (one can’t possibly be black and conservative of course).
If opinion polls are being deliberately skewed hoping to add to Obama’s vote, such a con could backfire dramatically. As with an overly transparent news bias for Obama, many conservatives and moderates are likely to respond by voting for McCain out of disgust for having their intelligence insulted one too many times.
I’m not being a sore pre-loser here. Maybe the opinion polls are completely untainted and reflect a genuine upcoming win for Obama but…I’m still not going to be completely shocked if McCain makes a surprising win (in spite of the voter registration fraud and massive questionable funding that the Obama campaign already has at its disposal).
Perhaps I’m in denial. I just can’t believe that a majority of America’s voters share the values of New York and California’s radical chic cocktail set.
If opinion polls are not an issue and a majority of voters really believe that Obama’s background gives him extra insight into handling economic turmoil (it doesn’t) than it appears that McCain and Palin will lose. If they win as I had predicted in an earlier post, the left will go ballistic and everything a McCain administration does will be probed, poked at, and twisted to even more pronounced degrees of dishonesty than occur now with the current president. If he loses, Obama’s loss will of course be attributed to “racism” or the knuckle-dragging stupidity of the American electorate (Euro-snobs favorite argument) – there is simply no way that anyone could simply disagree with his view of things or dislike him personally for the character and judgment flaws he possesses.
An Obama win will be even more bizarre if the tipping point is the recent economic meltdown. There’s simply nothing in his background or worldview that indicates he understands economics any better than John McCain. Although McCain is no economic expert it’s clear that he and/or his advisors see the value of returning business activity to some degree of stability. Now is no time for attacks on the “means of production.” As a socialist, the main plank in Obama’s domestic agenda is basically punishing “the rich” (class war is the least effective solution to recession).
I’m sickened not so much by the thought of a socialist president and congress, but more so by the certain continued media adulation that will hide this clown’s every flaw and error. Also, and this prediction is certain, anything that goes wrong in an Obama Presidency will be blamed on “the mess” George Bush “left him.”
Win or lose, Obama and the continued expansion of the socialist state wins / freedom and limited constitutional government loses.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
"Do As I Say..."
Friday, October 10, 2008
Today's "Conservative" is Yesterday's "Liberal" Democrat
I will, of course, be voting for McCain/Palin in this election (though now, circumstances may render such a vote irrelevant).
The libertarian "protest" vote I used to cast in elections just doesn't seem practical when a full-blown socialist is so close to becoming president. I do follow both candidate's advice and "look at the record." The very brief record Obama has is one of a socialist ideologue with unsavory alliances and poor judgment on national security issues and world affairs. There is nothing to indicate he has anything sound to offer in economic matters (and clear potential to do greater harm).
Regarding the other side of the election -- McCain/Palin -- I have to note how utterly bizarre it is that we've actually come to a point in American history when the "conservative" side of the contest proudly speaks of their belief in "man-made" global climate change (remember, climate has changed drastically throughout history and currently there is "global warming" on Mars).
The "conservative" side of the debate also has been lambasting the "greed" of capitalists (though they don't use that word) as if greed was not a quality we all possess. The current economic dilemma is the fault of a variety of actions and inactions within society. The government mandate to promote "fair housing" (loan money to people with horrible credit histories) was as much to blame as the actions of investors and speculators. In fact the "fair housing" con was the initial spark that began the current "meltdown."
Although socialist Europeans are using the current economic dilemma to blame the U.S. and "The Anglo-American Economic Model" (free enterprise), their own "structural" flaws are cracking under the weight of their own incompetent statist schemes. The fall of America is an exaggerated wish among some of Europe's more pampered authoritarian temperaments.
But...back to America's bizarre election scenario; Perhaps I'm oversimplifying the candidates' messages here (although it's hard to "simplify" sound-bites), but when a "conservative" is talking like a typical 60's Democrat (or 90's Democrat for that matter) on many issues, something odd seems to have occurred in the political process.
I think this bizarre phenomena is the result of a normalization of the socialist worldview, having effectively taken over major outlets of communication in society. Marxism in some form is now mainstream. The socialist outlook is now regularly inculcated amongst the population in public schools, colleges, and the media. One can barely listen to a pop song or watch an adventure movie where the socialist mindset does not "state it's case." Nearly every contemporary movie villain is a businessperson of some kind and the CIA is depicted as one of the greatest forces of capitalist conservatism in the world (when in fact the agency -- like the State Department -- is now full of Ivy League internationalist snobs that are barely loyal to their own country).
The weird thing is that McCain and Palin are already being compared to Nazis by some. For what? Believing in man made global warming and greed on Wall Street?
'Makes one wonder what the Jacobin response would be if a real conservative were running for office.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Yes We Can...Now, Bend Over...
In politics, "Yes we can" is probably more often stated as a threat against citizens than a statement of affirmation with citizens.
In Obama's PR scheme, I'm thinking the former.
Monday, October 06, 2008
The New Socialist Interest In "The Middle Class"
We know times are changing when leftists now speak of their empathy for the middle class and espouse how their actions will "help the middle class."
Socialism's history is riddled with complete lack of interest in the values or circumstance of the middle class -- if not downright disdain for it.
The middle class has always been seen by the left as materialistic, non-intellectual, selfish, and uncommited to the values of a "revolutionary vanguard." Sound-bites from leftland in the past regularly praised the nobility (anti-pun not intended) of the "poor" and the "oppressed." The mouthpieces for the downtrodden (such demogogues have usually been, ironically, middle class themselves) would seldom fail to reveal their absolute disdain for the "bourgeoisie."
Even relative moderates within the Democrat party had, until recently, sought to convert the middle class to their cause, rallying them in a contirved community effort to "help the poor and oppressed."
Thanks to the success of a free economy the truly poor aren't even a significant voting block anymore. In a country where many poor people are suffering from obesity and too much leisure time in front of color televisions, a populist crusade to help the poor isn't likely to get a politician elected.
So, now we have the relatively sudden interest among Democrats and "progressives" for "the middle class," and that middle class must be painted as a class in dire straits and need for government "assistance" (i.e. John Edward's "Two America's" rant).
The only thing that has actually changed in socialism's message has been the wording of the message itself. Most "progressives" (which now include many within America's Democrat party) still come from a pampered tier of the middle class, and most still hold their counter-intuitive disdain for their own class backgrounds -- they still see the mid-class as selfish, materialistic, and lacking intellectual sophistication. This is a message that they can't verbalize of course in a country where the middle class has flourished and ultimatey decides the outcome of elections. So it is that we now hear non-stop concern amongst socialists for the trials of life in the middle class.
'Just another phony spin from leftland; a place where intellectual snobs seek power and authority over personal lives and do so on bogus claims of concern for groups they either care little for or bitterly hold in contmept.
When many Journalists, academics, and entertainment elites think of the middle class, the caricature in their mind is one of country music, cheap beer, religion, and patriotism, things they themselves are not overly fond of.
Hearing Barack Obama and other Demo-socialists espouse their concern for the middle class is like hearing them espouse the virtue of patriotism. It doesn't even come close to what any discerning eye can see in the heart of a political con.
1972..."help the poor"
2008..."help the middle class."
Always..."help me get elected so I can construct a new world where everyone does what I tell them to."
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Hope, Change, A New World!...again
This version (scroll down a little and click on the video) of the tacky and somewhat creepy Obama children's chorus is even more revealing than the origional one that hit the blogosphere last week.
I really don't like the Nazi comparisons so often thrown about in political "debate." It definitely started with the left in their worn out passion-bites of vitriol but now it seems that almost everyone accuses everyone else of being Hitler in any disagreement.
However;... I think the above video link does capture the reality of idealism when it's applied to any political movement. A politician claiming they will enact sound policies that will be helpful is one thing, the pseudo-religious tone of "changing the world" should always be looked upon with at least a laugh if not a bit of apprehension and fear.
Like I had written once before, if Obama wins, I and other conservatives can certainly live with it. America will be on an accelerated path to socialism and talk radio will have non-stop complaints (until they're stopped by the "fairness doctrine"). The left, on the other hand cannot tolerate dissent, opposition, or diversity of viewpoint. If McCain wins, mass hysteria will engulf leftland with cries of fascism and demands that the results of a free election be overturned to "save the world."
I've studied the history of National Socialism (Nazism) in Germany (actually taking a couple of classes in college devoted to the era) and there is no question that its motivating force was idealism. Nazis were no strangers to the mantra of radical "change."
Obama and his cult are no Nazis (either is George Bush by the way)...but, their idealism (and overall cheesiness) is certainly worthy of ridicule and the above link does so skillfully.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
Changing the World through Socialist Revolution...again
Hugo Chavez has got to be envious of this.
(downright sickening if ya ask me).