So — it seems a done deal that the government will take over (that is, will nationalize/socialize) at least CITI, possibly all the larger banks.  This is being made to look like a “temporary situation”.  My experience with both business and government is that nothing has a longer life than something advertised as “temporary”.  Temporary being one of those words used to sugar coat things that most folks would reject if it were sold to them as a permanent thing.

Now I make no claim to expertise in banking.  But this I did know – when anyone, be it an individual or a business, takes a handout from the government, they sacrifice freedom as the initial payback.  How otherwise intelligent people could have failed to see this coming is beyond me.  And, it is a pretty good bet that, once the big guys are nationalized, the smaller fry will soon follow.

Soon, the government will also have taken over 2 of the “Big 3″ US auto companies.  Surely it is clear by now that some “energy crisis” will soon justify the nationalization/socialization of the energy producers, given that the government has been salivating over this idea for months.

Today, I read an article the my late employer, IBM is now in the handout line.  What can they be thinking?  IBM is not in any financial trouble.

Worst of all, a number of states and cities are lining up for their own chance at the flying cash.  Do they not know that, in doing so, they are sacrificing their (and OUR) 10th Amendment rights?

Where does it end?  Here’s a hint… can you say USSA?

World War II veterans are dying at a very rapid rate.  While we will miss them, perhaps it is better that so few of them will have lived to see what we have done with the freedom they fought and bled to win for us.  If you know any WWII veterans, I suggest you thank them again for their sacrifices, then hang your head in shame.

The window for stopping this march toward a socialist dictatorship, without resort to violence (revolution), is rapidly closing.  What will it take to wake people up?

I have no doubt that the private sector, using free market principles, could fix this “crisis”, fix it quickly, and fix it fairly.  If the government would just get the hell out of the way and stop perverting the markets, and encouraging dishonest business practices.  But, this will not happen simply because liberals start seeing the light.  It will only happen if they are frightened to the very core of their beings.  We still have the power to do this, but it is a limited-time opportunity.

Get loud and badger your elected “representatives” until they start listening.  Remember that you are the boss and that they are supposed to be YOUR employees.  Step up to the challenge and do your job.  With today’s internet and email, communicating with elected officials, and keeping tabs on their actions, is so simple that it really will not take very much time or effort and the cost is nearly zero.

Notes to elected officials need not be elegant and, it is actually better that they are not wordy.  Just clearly which the issue you are writing about then clearly state your position on that issue – in a polite manner.  You do not need to justify your position – your status as a citizen of the USA gives you the right to express any opinion on any subject.  Just do it.  Then do it again.  Keep doing it until they hear you.

Don’t forget to buy arms and ammunition while you still can, just in case.

Tweet This Post 

The term “promote the general welfare” has been used (successfully) to justify creation of a welfare state and the constant march toward socialism we see accelerating today.  But, what does “promote the general welfare” really mean?  Let us analyze…

The phrase comes from Article I, Section 8 of our Constitution. Article I, Section 8 is that part of our Constitution that enumerates the Powers of Congress. The actual words are part of the sentence: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;”

It is very clear to me that the above wording refers to the welfare of the country as a whole, not to any specific individuals within it.  I bolster my contention with the words of James Madison, the acknowledged Father of the Constitution:

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on the objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

If the gentleman who inspired, indeed who actually wrote much of the Constitution understands it that way, who are we to argue the point?  Yet the point is argued and the argument has resulted in the interpretation of the opening sentence of Section 8 as a mandate to seize and redistribute wealth.

It has long been recognized that the right to one’s own property is one of the cornerstones of freedom.  And there can be no doubt that wealth is property.

Why are property rights so essential to freedom?  Simple.  Our freedom rests on a platform of free enterprise.  Free markets if you prefer that term.  And free markets involve risk.  Risk in the form of investments.  Investments used to build and expand “production engines” – those activities that provide the goods and services that allow us the free lifestyle we enjoy.

So, ask yourself how anyone could afford to make investments, taking the attendant risks, if they were not secure in the rights to their own property?  Why ever would anyone save money with the aim of starting or expanding a business or other entrepreneurial activity if there were a real threat that their saving might, at any moment, be seized, under threat of force, and given to another?  The obvious answer is that most would not.

With only this simple analysis to go on, is it hard to see that the best way to provide for the… general Welfare of the United States is to fiercely protect the free enterprise system upon which our general welfare rests?  Is it not obvious that, a welfare state does anything but provide for the general welfare?  Thus, are Congress and the Executive not in outright violation of the US Constitution when they knowingly move us towards a welfare (socialist) state?  Is the US Supreme Court not remiss in its duty and its oath when it does nothing to hold Congress and the Executive to operating within the Constitution?

The truth is that all three branches of our government routinely ignore the Constitution they are vowed to uphold and protect.  This being the case, what allegiance do we owe such a government?  I love my country and what it once stood for — but I detest what our government has become and what it is doing to my country.

Get angry and stop putting up with it!

Tweet This Post 

Well, here we are, almost a month since the inauguration and the new administration is off to a really fine start.  It seems a good time to review some of the Obama campaign promises and activities then translate them from “campaignspeak” to everyday English so that we can analyze them.  You no doubt have caught a few that I missed — if so, please offer them up.

What I have so far are:

• Change you can believe in. MEANING Business as usual except more so.  In all fairness, there has been change – a huge lurch toward socialism.

• Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. MEANING Tax cuts for the people who actually pay tax.  Tax cuts that more than paid for themselves through increases economic activity.

• Will allow 5 days for public review and comment before signing bills into law. MEANING So far, the only meaning is that this was demonstrated to be, and will continue to be an egregious lie.

• Will veto any bill containing earmarks or pork barrel spending. MEANING Just signed into law the biggest barrel of pork ever conceived.  Even FDR would be embarrassed.  But, how better to “stimulate” an economy than to punish the producers and reward the slackers.

• “Office of the President Elect”. MEANING The US Constitution mentions no such office.  They just made this up to appear in charge during the transition – a period where we still had a duly elected President in office.

• (Income) tax cuts for 95% of Americans. MEANING Since around half of Americans do not pay any income tax, this promise, as stated, is mathematically impossible.  What they really mean is more unearned tax credits for those who have no tax liability.  In other words, welfare, administered by the IRS.

• An ethical administration. MEANING This administration is having more trouble getting its cabinet position filled than any other in modern history.  The reason?  “Mistakes” that would send a common citizen to jail.  The most prevalent being a failure to pay income taxes, duly owed.

• No lobbyists in the administration. MEANING This must indicate a simple misunderstanding of the difference between “in” and “out”.

Add to this your own list and what do we get?  The profile of a pathological liar.  A person who will say whatever he thinks will get him more power, even though he has no intention whatever of following through.  This guy must make Bill Clinton blush!  But, what else could we really expect from a product of the Chicago “thugocracy”?

To get by with such lying, and still be revered by many as the second coming, requires a support base of supporters who are functionally incapable of rational thought.  The real tragedy here is that there are sufficient people in this support base to determine the outcome of elections for decades to come – with little or no hope that the thugs they vote into office will do anything to reverse the trend.  Indeed, there is every reason to expect that the opposite will be the case.

Some of you may find my observations a bit extreme, particularly my use of the term “thug” to describe duly elected and appointed officials.  Think of it this way… what would you call a band of people who went about robbing others at the point of a gun?  Surely “thug” is among the acceptable terms in that case.  Is it really any different when the band of thugs in question hide behind the seal of government power?  I say it is not.

Better yet, what would you call a band of people who capture fellow humans and sell them into slavery?  Would “thug” be too severe?  I think not.  Is it any different when the band of thugs in question use the tax and welfare systems to take what you have earned and award it to others who did nothing to deserve it?  Is this not, by definition, a form of slavery?  Being forced to labor for the benefit of another?

My friends, if we can see all this after less than a month, imagine what these thugs can accomplish in 4 years.

Your continued freedom is your own responsibility.  Take action while it is still possible to do so.  Remember the best avenues open to us, in order of preference:

1. A Constitutional Convention, called by the states.  If you have not done so, petition your state legislators and governors to pass a bill demanding a Constitutional Convention.  Then to use said Constitutional Convention to severely curtail the out-of-control powers illegally assumed by the Federal Government, returning them to the States and to the People as specified in the Constitution
2. Secession from the Union. If the states combined cannot (or will not) demand a Convention, the next best thing is for the viable states, those that still treasure freedom and free enterprise, to secede from the Union, then either form its own republic or join with other states who share the same values.  Remember that our previous experiment with secession had the appearance of being for the purpose of denying freedom to some.  This time, it would be for freedom for all.
3. Armed rebellion.  Certainly a disagreeable option and one of last resort.  But, if that is all we have open to us, it would be nothing more than repeating the method used to secure our freedom to begin with.

Get angry then get active!

Tweet This Post 

Seems the notion of term limitations is back in play – at least on the radio talk shows and probably among a growing number of the electorate.  One can’t be surprised, given the blatant criminality and outright stupidity exhibited by many elected officials.  And, given the fact that so many of our elected “representatives” no longer make any pretense of actually representing the people who elected them.  Many citizens are extremely frustrated and I, for one, can’t blame them.  I am frustrated too.

Yet, before we waste time and effort on a cure for the problem (term limits), are we sure we truly understand the root cause of the problem?

The implementation of term limits would seem to imply the root cause is simply too long spent in office.  While that has a ring of truth (just look at Robert Byrd), it is really the root cause or is it just another symptom?  I contend it is the latter.

Examine the actions of the typical office holder and what do you see?

• The office holders using the resources of the offices they hold to help ensure their reelection,
• The office holders trading/selling the power and influence of their offices in return for contributions to help ensure their reelection,
• The office holders using time and effort to gain reelection that should be used doing the job they were elected to do – the job they are still being paid to do.

I could go on until you are bored stiff but I think the point has been made.  The main recurring theme in an office holder’s life is reelection.  And, doing what is in the best interest of the people in general is not high on the list of activities that help ensure reelection.

From this bit of logic, I easily conclude that the real root problem is incumbency.  Therefore, I propose a “no incumbency” bill.  Some states already have this for their governors and it works fairly well.  However, I would tighten my version up a bit and add a few more rules to make it even better.   The new election rules I propose, for all elected offices in the federal government are:

• No incumbency.  This means that nobody may run for reelection to an office they currently hold.  Further, the ban would extend to members of the current office holder’s immediate family.  The “no members of immediate family” part is to prevent the alternating husband/wife or parent/child nonsense we have seen in the past.  One might reasonably ask “don’t the people have the right to elect anyone they choose, as many times as they choose?”.  In theory, yes they do.  In actual practice, the power of incumbency has become so great that few challengers can overcome it.  How else could one explain how legislators with a less than 10% approval rate get reelected over 90% of the time.  The sad result is far too many people who are, effectively, elected for life.  The no incumbency rule would stop this.  It would not, however, stop anyone from running every other term, so that truly effective people are not barred from the office forever.
• Resign to run.  This means that, should a holder of one elected office decide to run for another, they would be required to resign the existing office before any meaningful actions are taken in pursuit of the new office.  This would include: forming committees, accepting contributions and the like.  Indeed, nobody should be allowed to accept any contribution of money or other support before they are a registered candidate for office.  In addition, resign to run would allow appointment of a new person to the office in question, ensuring the function of the office continues while the previous holder seeks greener pastures.
• No limits on campaign contributions.  Such limitations serve to curtail free speech and encourage “under-the-table” deals.
• Open publication of campaign contributions.  This means that no beneficial use can be made of any campaign contribution before the contributor(s) and the amount given have been openly identified, by individual name, and advertised on the public internet for at least 2 weeks.  In those cases where contributions are made by groups, political action committees or the like, the names of each and every member of the group/committee must be part of the public notice.  I know of no practical way to keep the rich, labor unions, etc. from, in effect, buying political influence through campaign contributions.  However, there is no reason we should not know who our politicians are beholden to – and know it well before any votes are cast.
• Six year presidential terms.  If we disallow a president from being reelected, we should allow them enough time in office to accomplish something meaningful.  Despite what some in the MSM would have us believe, the “ship of state” does not make instant changes of direction on inauguration day.
• Voter initiatives at the federal level.  These could be used to initiate the recall of any elected official, to propose legislation, etc.  However, they should not be used to amend the U S Constitution.
• Eliminate retirement benefits for federal elected offices.  Letting time served be added to that from other federal jobs is reasonable.  Allowing a person to “retire” with benefits after a 2 to 6 year stint in office is ridiculous.  In addition, this would help discourage viewing elected office as a career, rather than temporary service to one’s country.

These rules may seem harsh (as if there were some chance they could actually be enacted).  But, like in every other part of life, rules and regulations tend to be made in response to the failure of some people to exercise restraint, self discipline, honesty, and integrity.  Far too many of our federal elected officials fit this description.

I have heard it said, in quite a few instances, that such-and-such candidate for office “knows nothing about how things are done in Washington”.  Isn’t this a good thing?  A thing that should be encouraged?

Get mad.  Get involved!!

Tweet This Post 

I often read how Americans, on average, are falling behind other nations is our understanding of science, mathematics, history, you name it.  We, on average, know less about most everything than our peers on other countries.  And, might I suggest this situation is far worse than most suspect.  Why?  Because that average includes a lot of truly brilliant Americans who do understand, and who translate that understanding into the near miracles we take so much for granted in our everyday lives

Yet, there is one area where I am sure we lead the world.  That is in wanting.  Yes, my friends, we can out want anyone from anywhere.  In fact, we value wanting so much that it is one of the first meaningful things many parents teach their children.  Sound like a stupid thing to say?  Well, how many of you were helping your children compose a letter to Santa – in other words, a “want list” – long before they could read or write for themselves?  Indeed, all most children are capable of, at that stage in life, is to point at things then pitch a fit because they “want” it.  And, we go right along, encouraging that kind of mistaken view of life, playing along with the notion that some magical being might just produce the things they want, just because they want them.  Well – it is true that the myth of behaving and eating yucky food may have been thrown in to the bargain but none of the children really take that part seriously.  But they darn sure are serious about the magic man with flying beasts who can get a fat body down a narrow chimney, carrying a bag of stuff they want.

No doubt, most of you have decided I am the Grinch, out to steal Christmas.  Not at all.  In fact, there is actually nothing at all wrong with wanting.  Instead, there is very much right about it – and its ability to motivate – that is totally good.  But only so long as, while being taught to want, we are also taught how wants are properly satisfied.

I propose that there are 2 basic kinds of wanting.  One I call an “idle want”, this being a want that I have but am unwilling to put forth effort to satisfy, expecting others to do that part for me.  The other I call a “true want”, this being a want that I have and that I will work to satisfy for myself.

You probably think that most Americans give up the Santa Claus myth fairly early in life and start to get more serious about things.  Well, you would be wrong.  Indeed, a dwindling minority do just that, but a growing majority merely substitute Government for Santa Claus.  Then go right on having their idle wants.

I contend that teaching the fine art of wanting, especially idle wanting, has been so successful in the USA that many of our people “want” themselves into the slavery of credit card and other consumer debt.  Just as wanting more house than they can afford has helped us into the current financial “crisis”.

Most of us have seen the recent news clip of a woman telling our new president how she wants a house, a kitchen and a car.  And, did said president respond, “be glad you were born here because, in this country you can work hard and have everything you want”.  Not at all.  Instead, if I heard correctly, he instructed a member of staff to get the woman’s name and address.  Presumably so that Uncle Sam Claus could pay her a visit.

As well, most of us are aware of the woman in California (where else?) who wants more children that she (read we) can possibly support.  So, some mal-practitioner, masquerading as a medical doctor, provides her with in vitro fertilization sufficient to raise her baby/body count to 14.  But, hey — she wants them.

Notice that, thus far in my rant, I have not used the word “need”.  This is because, in our country, we have so much more than we actually need as to have made the word more-or-less obsolete.

To make matters even worse, our sorry excuse for a government plays on our constant idle wanting by telling us we should want, even demand, what other have.  Simply because THEY have them and WE want them.  Not in the least because we deserve those things, have worked for them, would work for them, or, in fact, even need them.  No.  Don’t honor the system that lets these “others” satisfy their wants while we go on wanting.  No.  Despise the crooks.  Who do they think they are anyway?

Well (you saw this coming, right?) I propose to tell you who they are and how most of these supposed crooks got where they are (assuming they earned it rather than stealing it with government assistance).  Indeed, while the free enterprise system lasts in this country, anyone can do what they have done.  You see, most of them focused more on what OTHERS want than on what they want for themselves.  Many of them put their own wants totally aside, sometimes for a long period of time, while they focused on what others want.  And, (this is the important part) they focused on how to PROVIDE what the others want – while making a profit for themselves in the process.

We have several names for these people.  The ignorant call them crooks, greedy business people and the like.  The more enlightened call them entrepreneurs.  And, a lot of people on both sides of the issue end up calling them boss.

Yes, my friends, all one really has to do to flourish in a system of free enterprise, in a free and open marketplace, is learn what others want then figure out how to deliver it to them at a profit.  Does this require an MBA from Harvard?  Not at all.  In fact, once your enterprise grows enough, you can hire all of those you want.  Does it require advanced degrees in the sciences?  Nope.  You can hire those too, if you want them.  In fact, if you want to start a business, there are loads of folks already out there, running their own businesses, for the express purpose of providing you whatever you want to get your own business started, to grow it, and to flourish.

Now, I have to tell you, I find it hard to understand how anyone can manage to be poor, to have less than they truly want, with such an almost magical system just sitting there wanting to be used.  Yet, too many of us have allowed ourselves to be convinced that said system is evil.  That it only allows the greedy to feed on the downtrodden.  That it needs to be taxed and regulated out of existence to make room for more government.

Have any of you ever stopped to consider what governments, all types of governments, are really good at?  And I am referring here to Democracies, Republics, Monarchies, Dictatorships, you name it.  All you need do is glance across history to find the answer.  They are consistently good at stealing resources from the producers then using them for the aggrandizement of the so-called leaders.  Inevitably, said aggrandizement leads the “leaders” to play at war, using their people as the fuel the war machines consume.

Will we ever have enough of this?  Will we ever step up to the responsibility each of us has for our self, and stop this madness?  Or will we continue to let our idle wants drive us into servitude?  All you need to do is decide what you truly want then act accordingly.

Tweet This Post 

I have wanted to write about this for some time but it seems there was always something more entertaining to write about.  Now I have put it off long enough so, entertaining be damned, I’m writing!

I have long observed that people have very different views about money.  To oversimplify, there seem to be 2 primary views:

1. The view that money is a sort of commodity whose main purpose is to be spent.  Usually, spent as quickly as possible, even if that means spending money not yet earned (assuming debt).
2. The view that money is a resource – a tool that can be used to promote or improve productivity.  Usually with the express purpose of creating even more money.

To my simple reasoning, this goes a long way toward explaining that old saw that the rich get richer while the poor get poorer.  One primary difference between the rich and the poor derives from their view of money – their understanding of the very nature of money.

We all should have learned from Ayn Rand that, at the very basic level, money represents productivity that has been completed with the corresponding consumption deferred.  That is to say, money is basically a buffer between production and consumption.  In a primitive, barter economy, the product of one person’s productivity is exchanged directly for the product of another person’s productivity, usually for consumption by the receiver.  Ergo, money was not needed.  Indeed, the need for money only occurs when one entity can produce more than it can consume in the same time frame – both by direct consumption and by the consumption of products bartered for.

While this may seem too mind-rot simple for a blog, it does raise an interesting point; if one’s only view of money is of something only to be spent, then does it not follow that those with that view would tend to spend it all, including any excess?  Does it not also follow that spending would become the whole point?

Contrast that with the likely actions of those who view money as a tool.  Will these people not tend to save any excess?  And, will these savings not tend to be invested with the hope of making even more money?  And, since money is the result of production, does it not follow that the way to expand one’s supply of money, without expending additional personal effort, is to use it as a tool to promote and improve productivity?

Could it actually be true that a main cause of poverty is the simple lack of understanding of the true nature of money?  After all, the true nature of  money seems such a trivial thing to teach.

Worst still, could it be that our government run schools don’t provide this trivial education because they actually like poverty and the dependence on government it leads to?

And, always remember that the shortage of money is a symptom of poverty.  It, in itself, is not poverty nor is it the root cause of poverty.  The root cause of poverty is a lack of values and/or the unwillingness to achieve them.

Think this over.  Then get even madder.  Buy even more arms.  And stand by.

Tweet This Post 

As we all know, Cultural Diversity is a hot button today in the USA (Unbounded Silliness in America).  Does it occur to any of the over educated morons pushing this stuff that this is actually a sort of national schizophrenia?

I contend that it is culture, not race, skin hue, national origin or any other superficial attribute that determines the conduct of an individual or group life.

For instance, I contend that President Obama is not a “Black” in the cultural context of current American politics.  For sure, his skin has a pleasing brownish hue, for sure he is literally “African American” in that his father was African and his mother American.  However, much of his upbringing was in a white-dominated, European-American culture.  What he most certainly is not, is a product of the post-slavery abuse that shaped the thinking of many American Blacks, and led to the creation of a pseudo-culture that, today, serves mostly to prevent Black progress.

Yes, there is no doubt that Barack wallowed in Black American culture as a way of enhancing his political career.  But, aside from that, he and his thinking are that of the once-great American university system whose present objective seems to be the socialism of America.  Of course, under the benevolent direction of these same august thinkers.

But, back to the main point, that culture is a (the?) primary determinate of success in life.

And, some cultures are better suited to the situation at hand than others.  No, I am not saying that any one culture is superior to others in terms of morality, ethics, or any simular system of valuation.  For sure, some may be — but this is not the point of my contention.  My contention is based solely on the results produced by a culture in terms of individual freedom and general prosperity.

Using my criteria, what is commonly known as Western European culture has shown itself to be the most function in the industrialized countries of the post-industrial-revolution world.  Most especially, in the United States of America.  The prevalent culture of Asia is quickly becoming a close second in terms of prosperity, although not quite so close in terms of individual freedom.

If you accept my premise, then it naturally follows that, in the USA, people who adhere to one of those cultures will show the most prosperity.  And, people who adhere to the US version of Western European culture will enjoy to most individual freedom.

I contend that this is easily observed throughout our nation.  For instance, Blacks who adhere to Western European culture tend to be indistinguishable from whites in terms of prosperity and almost so in terms of individual freedom.  Sadly, a few vestigages of anti-black bias still exist but, if we will allow it, these will disappear in a generation.

Likewise, it is easy to find numerous examples of the very poor coming from Asia, settling in blighted areas of our inner cities, and creating prosperity for their families – in the midst of environments many of us consider impossible.

Meanwhile, the macho, gang-oriented, hip-hop cultures adhered to my many of the so-called “downtrodden” produce only crime, misery and hopelessness.

I think it goes without saying that, the more an interrelated group of people embrace a common culture, the more likely they will cooperate in ensuring their own rights and safety.

Could it be then, that those who push the notion of multiculturalism, the notion that all cultures are equal in the value they bring to their adherents, do so simply to promote the sense of failure, despair, helplessness and hopelessness that leads to chaos, crime and government dependence?

And, are these not the very people who claim such compassion for the “disadvantaged” (especially the children)?

My friends, how can it be more obvious that freedom and prosperity are a choice?  A choice open to anyone, even if a harder path for some than for others.  I say that it is.  I also say that many of the obstacles on that “harder path” are placed there intentionally.  By those who do not want others to take the path to freedom and prosperity.  By those who try to make the path to dependence and subjugation look easier – as a way of increasing their own power and control over others.

What does it take to make you folks mad?  Do you not realize that, if you wait until I, and others, are proven correct, it will be too late?

Suppose I am wrong.  What will have been the harm if I, and others, inspire you to take back control of your government, of your destiny?  Personally, I can’t see a downside to taking responsibility for yourself!!

Tweet This Post 

Most of us know that a free marketplace, unencumbered by government “help” could take care of the current financial “crisis”.  Indeed, we know that a free marketplace could take care of most all financial problems, just as it is the most honest arbiter when shortages occur, just as it is the most amazing vehicle for the creation of wealth and prosperity that humankind has even known.

Well, you say, if a free marketplace is all that great, then why don’t we just sit back, reduce taxes and regulations, and let it do its magic?   Simple question, simple answer — because the marketplace, like nature itself, is faultlessly generous to those who get it right, but very severe in its treatment of those who get it less than right.

Being the spoiled Americans we have become, we want a hybrid form of both marketplace and nature.  That is, we want unlimited rewards when we get it right while being shielded from any discomfort or inconvenience when we get it less than right.  Now, a thinking person would know this cannot be.  But, a government that values the power to govern more than doing the right thing for those who created it will try to convince us it has the power to make this hybrid bit of nonsense come true.  And, the non-thinking among us eat it up like hogs eating slop.

And, what is the main reason used to justify this attempt to pervert both marketplace and nature?  The “children”.  My oh my, what will happen to the children if we let nature or marketplace take it course?  Well, the obvious answer is that they will suffer to varying extents.  While this is regrettable, and no sane person actually wants to see a child suffer, there is an element of reality that must enter the thought process.  The most obvious element of reality in this particular instance is this:  if you are born to, or in the care of, people who allow themselves to remain ignorant, uncaring, and/or dependent on government or other dangerous and addictive substances, you are going to suffer.  And, this will be true without regard to the handouts and empty promises of a dishonest government.

When children are born and raised in such environments, only the strong survive and only extraordinary come out of it as “normal” citizens.  And, those that do, do so by their own effort and determination, in spite of government, not because of it.

Bottom line, these pleas based on suffering children are calculated to get your acceptance of programs that, ultimately, continue the suffering into generations not yet even born.

It is good to have compassion for children and to help them when and where you can.  But do this directly while understanding that the “welfare state” exists solely for the welfare of the state.

Get mad.  Don’t put up with it!

Tweet This Post 

The original dollar hemorrhage, begun during the Bush administration, was called TARP.  A bit of research reveals that Tarp is a common abbreviation for TARPAULIN, a heavy cloth or plastic sheet used to cover things up.  That should have been our first clue.

Whatever the intent, it seems not to have worked, inspiring the new administration to propose yet another gash in the Treasury, starting yet another hemorrhage.  Let us review…

Last fall, just in time for the election, we noticed we were in a recession, just as the Dems and the MSM had been telling us for months.  Then, some entity or entities, currently unknown, started a panic in the Bush administration by liquidating a huge amount of money market funds.  This frightened the Bushies so much that they determined only a massive handout to certain banks could right the situation.  Their idea being that, if showered with sufficient funds, these banks would return to business as usual (BAU), lending money without regard to the borrower’s ability to repay.

The same situation, seen from the favored banker’s point of view looked a bit different.  To them it seemed that, having damaged themselves by caving in to government demands that they make stupid loans, all they had to do was stop lending, start whining, and the government handed them money.  Given the ease with which they were rescued from their own stupidity, the very LAST thing they wanted to do was go back to BAU.  Not when continued refusal to lend, along with continued whining, might keep the handouts flowing.  None of the financial wizards at the government seemed to have thought of this.

Let us do a quick and concise review…

• Government puts pressure on financial institutions to lend to unqualified borrowers.  This was done in the name of Community Investment.
• Somewhere along the line, government also forced the lenders to value the collateral behind these stupid loans using “Mark to Market” accounting, thereby ensuring a number of banks would be rendered artificially bound to fail.
• Meanwhile, the financial institutions begin unloading their bad loans by packaging them with some good loans then selling the whole package to other stupid financial institutions, who were guilty of what was once called “buying a pig in a poke”.
• The financial house of cards begins to collapse, sparked by a MSM-inspired recession and a run on money market funds.
• Government begins to shower money on favored financial institutions, providing the funds needed to devour the smaller artificially-failing financial institutions, making the big boys “too big to fail”.  (Hmmm… I wonder if I could overeat until I become too big to die?  But I digress.)
• Government assumes the favored financial institutions, once their greed is sated, will return to BAU and restart the economy.
• The favored financial institutions, having learned that accepting handouts is far easier and more profitable than working for income, whine for even more handouts.
• Enter new Treasury Secretary Timothy (why pay taxes) Geithner who has a plan.  A plan so brilliant that, as he describes it to a Senate committee, the stock market drops with every word from his mouth.

OK.  You are now up-to-date on this financial soap opera.  But, be not afraid because the Anointed One has assured us that “only government is big enough” to deal with this problem.

So, stop laughing and get angry.  Get very, very angry.

Remember, our only apparent options for ending this travesty are:

1. Convincing the states to call a Constitutional Convention, then adding words to the Constitution that will put the federal government back into the box it belongs in.  Failing that,
2. Convincing the sane states to secede and form a new federal contract along the lines of the original Constitution.  Failing that,
3. Enter a state of open rebellion against our own government.

Or, we could just sit here and wait for a president to publicly proclaim themselves “president for life” and join the ranks of dictatorship.

Tweet This Post 

As soon as the Democrat spending machine gets past round one of stimulating us by wasting our hard-earned money, one can rest assured they will renew their assault on the Second Amendment to the U. S.  Constitution.  So, I thought, why not try to get ahead of the curve?

I will begin my rant by reviewing the amendment itself:

“Amendment 2 – Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Seems simple enough, right?  Well guess what… it really is that simple!  Let us parse the thing and find out:

• “A well regulated Militia,” — The dictionary defines Militia as armed citizens.  People just like you and me, with arms, the “arms” in question being firearms.  We will return to “well regulated” later…
• “being necessary to the security of a free State,” — clearly this means that, if you want your State to remain free, your Militia should be prepared to defend said freedom.
• “the right of the people” — throughout the U. S. Constitution, the term “the people” obviously refers to us.  That is, to the citizens whose rights and freedom said Constitution was instituted to protect.
• “to keep and bear Arms,” — to “keep” firearms is to have them available (at a place and in a circumstance of your choice) — to “bear” firearms is to have them on your person, ready to use.
• “shall not be infringed” — means simply that the government constituted by said Constitution shall do nothing to interfere with said right.

How anyone can twist, spin or otherwise obfuscate these simple words is beyond me.  Yet they do try don’t they?

Now, back to “well regulated”.  This seems to me the one area where we have fallen short.  “Well regulated” implies some level of organization.  I suggest we have been remiss in not electing local Militia leaders and making all potential Militia members aware of certain rules, such as what type arms and ammunition are best for the purpose, when and where to assemble when an emergency arises, etc.  Were this done, I fail to see how anyone could argue that the Amendment was not being implemented exactly as intended.

So my friends – get arms, get ammunition, get organized and stand by.

Tweet This Post