If You Can’t Blame “W”…..

Then just blame Congress.  Obama apparently got the message from poll numbers that suggested Americans were tired of his “blame it on Bush” strategy as a way to avoid responsibility for the nation’s still-unrecovered economy. So, what does the Big O do now?  Throw it off on Congress.

– But before leaving for his ninth presidential vacation, 10 days at a…...secluded estate on Martha’s Vineyard, Obama devoted four minutes in the White House driveway to a special statement on the latest disappointing jobs numbers. (Full text, as usual, can be read on the jump, along with a brief reaction from the Republican National Committee chairman.)

No questions allowed because the president didn’t want to explain why despite the administration’s announced Recovery Summer Program, the jobs numbers have started going backward again after 19 months of promises and $787 billion in alleged stimulation spending. Because, faced with the uncertainty of the economy and the certainty of new taxes after Nov. 2, employers are holding back on hiring.

According to the president, he’s been “adamant” with Congress for months now about a new jobs bill to help small businesses. Obama says this really good bill is stalled in the Senate, where so much administration legislation has been crammed through so effectively by Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Interesting ploy.  Blame it on Congress.  But….hold on now!  One problem.  OBAMA’S PARTY RUNS THE DAMNED CONGRESS!!!

It’s time to man up, Barry.  Face the fact that your idiotic policies have done nothing to pull this nation out of a lingering recession.  While Europe begins to turn things around with surprisingly conservative economic measures, you go the opposite way.  You endorse ridiculous spending measures that bring our deficit into the trillions, and you pursue social(ist) entitlement programs during a time when we can least afford it.  You are about to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, and every new piece of legislation that you hatch with Pelosi/Reid is riddled with new taxes.  All of this during a time of recession.

Don’t blame your failure to pull us out of recession on George W.  And don’t blame things on Congress either.  Your party has more than enough votes to ramrod more crap down the throats of average Americans.  If you honestly think that throwing more money in an inefficient manner at this recession is going to solve the problem, then just tell Nancy and Harry to do it.  Are you scared?  Are they?

Libertarian Pacifism: A Pacifism by Any Other Name Wouldn’t Smell as Sweet

Note:  This post is not aimed at all Libertarians.  There are some Libertarians who are not pacifist.  I am only discussing those who advocate pacifism while hiding behind the Constitution.  I am in agreement with many who state that wars should be declared and stated with a clear purpose by our government; to do anything less and drag a war out longer than necessary is, in and of itself, immoral.  This post isn’t meant to be a discussion on war-gaming.  It is, instead, a philosophical post.

Ayn Rand correctly identified the source of all conflicts in the world when she said:

Wars are the second greatest evil that human societies can perpetrate. (The first is dictatorship, the enslavement of their own citizens, which is the cause of wars.)

As long as there are societies on earth who endorse collectivism or dictatorships in any form, whether secular or theocratic, then there will always be wars.  Collectivism is any system of governance defined as that which demands the sacrifice of the individual to the collective with altruism (or in some cases simply the psychosis of its dictator) as its justification. 

My inspiration for this post came after reading an article entitled Glenn Beck’s Lincoln Contradictions by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.  Mr. DiLorenzo utilizes the term “Neo-con” quite a bit.  I want to state upfront that the proliferation of all these new terms, Neo-Con, Neo-Liberal, Neo-Keynesian, Neo-Communist, Neo-Fascist, are simply attempts at continued muddying of the real argument which is between collectivism vs. individualism.  That is the only descriptive consideration that matters when discussing man’s inalienable right to be free; the rest is simply meant to confuse people’s minds and complicate the issues.

Let’s be frank–there is no discernible difference between Libertarian pacifism and Left-Wing pacifism.  Pacifism is pacifism and the justifications for it no matter from which group it arises are equally misguided.  Ayn Rand had this to say about pacifism:

The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative.

If some “pacifist” society renounced the retaliatory use of force, it would be left helplessly at the mercy of the first thug who decided to be immoral. Such a society would achieve the opposite of its intention: instead of abolishing evil, it would encourage and reward it.

Leftists justify their pacifism usually by intoning their committment to peace.  Peace cannot be achieved by the absence of all conflict.  It can only be achieved by the destruction of all collectivism.  Human existence is defined by conflict; the hiring of one person over another who is better qualified, the victory of this hockey team over that hockey team, the victim of a robbery or rape who pulls his gun against his victimizer in order to defend the value which is his or her’s continued existence.  Those who wish to pretend that in order to live one’s life by trying to ignore conflict simply because they don’t like it–will never learn how to achieve the greatest value of all which is their life and by default their happiness. 

Pacifist Libertarians tend to justify their pacifism on the grounds that all cultures are equally valuable and have the right to exist on their own terms without interference from other cultures.  However, the notion of multiculturalism is equally flawed in its premises.  The idea that all cultures are equal in their value necessarily demands that you therefore believe all collectivist cultures have value.  You cannot claim, as many Libertarians do, to stand for individual freedom while at the same time trying to justify the existence of collectivist cultures; that is called “wanting to have your cake and eat it too.”  That is a demand reality imposes on any individual who wants to stand for individual freedom.

From the article Diversity and Multiculturalism:  The New Racism at The Ayn Rand Institute:

Advocates of “diversity” are true racists in the basic meaning of that term: they see the world through colored lenses, colored by race and gender. To the multiculturalist, race is what counts—for values, for thinking, for human identity in general. No wonder racism is increasing: color blindness is now considered evil, if not impossible. No wonder people don’t treat each other as individuals: to the multiculturalist, they aren’t.

Advocates of “diversity” claim it will teach students to tolerate and celebrate their differences. But the “differences” they have in mind are racial differences, which means we’re being urged to glorify race, which means we’re being asked to institutionalize separatism. “Racial identity” erects an unbridgeable gulf between people, as though they were different species, with nothing fundamental in common. If that were true—if “racial identity” determined one’s values and thinking methods—there would be no possibility for understanding or cooperation among people of different races.

Some ask, “What about America’s melting-pot?  Isn’t that multiculturalism?”  No.  It’s not.  America was devised by its Founders to elevate the individual over the government.  All other nations throughout history elevated the government over the individual.  Freedom of the individual over the government provides a country where all men, of all cultures, backgrounds, and religions come to be free “as individuals” within the American culture of individual freedom.  Can they uphold their roots and honor and celebrate them?  Absolutely.  But, America is not defined by those various cultural roots–she is defined by the individual which is, in and of itself, a “culture.”

I will agree with Mr. DiLorenzo’s statements, as well as Ms. Rand’s statements, that many times war is used to justify the theft of liberty by a nation against its own people.  He says:

Of course, all of this high-handed talk about the Republican Party supposedly being “the party of great moral ideas” is also a convenient smokescreen for the economic greed that is its real motivation, and has been ever since the party first gained power. As Rothbard further explained: “On the economic level, the Republicans [in 1860] adopted the Whig program of statism and big government: protective tariffs, subsidies to big business, strong central government, large-scale public works, and cheap credit spurred by government.” It hasn’t changed much since.

I am in complete agreement with this assessment; both parties are guilty of crony capitalism which is the politically correct term for Fascism.  The only difference is–the Democrats are more open about it while the Republicans like to pretend they are not engaged in it.  Presidents Wilson, FDR and George W. Bush, to name a few, were all guilty of growing government under their administrations during a time of war.  I have no argument with that assertion.  What I do challenge is the notion that a  nation’s citizens cannot demand limited government at home, which necessarily entails separation of the state and economics for the same reasons and same purpose we have separation of church and state, while at the same time protecting itself from threats over-seas.  Many Libertarians say that’s what they want too but then reveal themselves by saying the phrase “protecting itself from threats over-seas” means “bring the troops home from everywhere and cease and desist active conflict”.  Yes.  That’s called “pacifism”.  If you are not actively fighting but instead you are sitting on your weapons–that is pacifism.  If your enemy has already declared war (which the Islamists have) and you are not acknowledging the need to fight back actively–that is pacifism.  If you are not fighting–you are being “passive.”     

What complicates America’s situation is–we are not living in a fully free society under true laissez-fair capitalism.  That is the reason we keep growing government every time we find it necessary to wage a battle against collectivist threats from elsewhere.  I submit, it most certainly is possible to have and maintain limited government and fight necessary wars against collectivists who threaten their free-state neighbors.  The pacifist Libertarians promote the false premise that war must necessarily equal big-government.  These are mutually exclusive concepts; they are not dependent on each other for their existence–necessarily.  A free-nation can remain an economically free nation under laissez-faire capitalism and fight a war to defend itself; the keyword is defend —in other words–not subjugate–which is what tyrannical nations feel it necessary to do against their neighbors when losing their grip on power.  The promotion of the idea that a free nation engaged in a war to defend itself will necessarily result in the growth of its government–is simply a false premise.  Whether that free nation’s leaders grow government or not is another matter entirely and those issues can be dealt with apart from the issue of war itself.

Another aspect that is problematic for America is that we have spread ourselves too thin.  I am in complete agreement with most Libertarians who assert we have too many troops stationed in too many areas of the world where we should no longer be; the Middle East is not one of them, however.  There is no discernible difference between Adolph Hitler, a secular collectivist, and the collectivist theocratic tyrants of the Middle East.  Hitler was driven by national socialism and his irrational hatred for the Jews.  The collectivist theocrats of the Middle East are driven, not only for their hatred of Israel (take note also a free-society–though with a similarly mixed economy like the U.S.), but also by the notion they are doing the will of their God by fighting the infidels for the purpose of creating the conditions of the return of the Twelfth Imam.  Libertarians often state that the Islamists hate us because we are “occupying their land”–but, they rarely, if ever, address the theocratic reasons the Islamists give us in their own words as to why they are fighting us.  Usually the Libertarian will just say, “Those are just words” or “That’s just an excuse”.  Ironically, those are the same excuses the Left-Wing pacifists give in regards to their reasons for upholding pacifist ideas.

All collectivist societies need war to uphold their control on their populations.  That is why it is so imperative that America beat back the march towards statism in our own country and restore true laissez-fair capitalism as opposed to the mixed disaster we currently employ.  If America’s leaders are indeed using war as an excuse to uphold crony capitalism then that is an issue we as citizens need to confront them with; it doesn’t necessarily translate into “therefore, we can’t fight necessary wars anymore.”  From Ayn Rand:

Observe that the major wars of history were started by the more controlled economies of the time against the freer ones. For instance, World War I was started by monarchist Germany and Czarist Russia, who dragged in their freer allies. World War II was started by the alliance of Nazi Germany with Soviet Russia and their joint attack on Poland.

By no means am I implying that it is the duty of America to transform all of the collectivist societies of the world into bastions of free-market capitalism–no matter how appealing that notion may be.  In fact, that is the only way there ever will be peace in the world–the supremacy of free capitalist societies upholding freedom of the individual.  What I am saying, however, is that it is the duty of the American government, indeed it is the one primary duty of any government of a free-society, to protect its citizens from collectivist tyrants who now need to turn their attention to warring with the free-societies around them in order to maintain their power and hold over their own citizens.  By no means am I even suggesting that the citizens of our country who do have problems with armed conflict from a moral or religious perspective should not be allowed to reserve their tax dollars from being used for that purpose just as those who don’t approve of abortion shouldn’t be forced to have their tax dollars used for that purpose.  However, we do not have that ideal system at the moment and that is a discussion for another time.

Pacifism is driven by guilt over the necessity of justifiable war.  It is an unearned guilt.  Many people are driven in their objection to war by the deaths of “innocent” people.  The truth of the matter is, any “innocent” deaths created in the Middle East by America and it’s allies–i.e. other free-societies–are not on the heads of America and its allies.  The deaths of those people are on the heads of the tyrannical collectivists who enslaved their people to begin with.  A free-nation, just as a free-individual, has the right to protect itself from the force of others who would impose their tyrannical will.  The death of innocent people in a war is no different than that of a woman stepping between you and the mugger you were aiming your gun at and who happened to get shot in the cross-fire.  The mugger’s death is called justice.  The woman’s death is called an “accident” and the guilt of that accidental death is not on the head of the one defending himself but instead lies with the mugger. Whether tyrannical force stems from a tyrannical dictator against it’s more free neighbors or from a mugger in Central Park against a jogger–is irrelevant.  The morality and ethics of the two situations are the same; and it always, without exception, boils down to the individual over the collective, and since capitalism is the only economic system which upholds the freedom of the individual it is only capitalism that can save the world from the constant threat of war.  From Capitalism:  The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand:

     Observe the nature of today’s alleged peace movements.  Professing love and concern for the survival of mankind, they keep screaming that the nuclear-weapons race should be stopped, that armed force should be abolished as a means of settling disputes among nations, and that war should be outlawed in the name of humanity.  Yet these same peace movements do not oppose dictatorships; the political views of their members range through all shades of the statist spectrum, from welfare statism to socialism to fascism to communism.  This means that they are opposed to the use of coercion by one nation against another, but not by the government of a nation against its own citizens; it means that they are opposed to the use of force against armed adversaries, but not against the disarmed.

It is those who, like our friends Cindy Sheehan and Sean Penn, uphold collectivist economics, socialism, communism, or fascism while at the same time preaching peace.  They hold the incorrect premise that we have wars because various populations are poor or subjugated by the more free societies.  Free societies under laissez-fair capitalism have no “need” for war since their citizens and government have plenty of creative fuel on which to draw derived from the very freedom of its citizens.  It is Cindy and Sean who are the hypocrites.  It is they who want to “have their cake and eat it too.”  Reality, from a philosophical perspective, cannot and will not ever allow opposing ideas to occupy the same philosophical space.  They want peace–but, they promote tyranny; and it will always be the reality of that dichotomy that will not let them, in the end, have their way.  It is they who are promoting tyranny.  It is they who stand with the likes of Hugo Chavez.  It is they who, by virtue of what they advocate, are actually continuing that which they say they hate the most–war.

The Big Hypocrisy

I love movies. Love ’em. I’ve been known to sit in line for six to eight hours with my friends to see the midnight showings of new movies and turn around and make it to work on time the next morning. I have a pretty good DVD collection that includes everything from Band of Brothers to Adam Sandler’s Click to the Twilight saga films. I absolutely love movies (and music, too, between my dad and I we’ve got at least two 16G iPods’ worth of music).

No matter how much I love movies, though, I have to also point out Hollywood’s one huge, glaring flaw: it is peopled entirely by hypocrites.

Years of listening to actors and actresses air their political views has taught me that the people are hypocrites, but I came to the conclusion that the hypocrisy is entrenched at all levels while watching the Transformer films back-to-back a couple of weeks ago. During the first film, the president isn’t named; you merely see a faceless actor portraying him laying in bed, shoes off, asking a flight attendant on Air Force One, “could ya rustle me up some ding-dongs, darlin’?” The attendant makes a snide remark about being on AFO to serve the man ding-dongs and goes to retrieve them, at one point taking a bite of one and making a disgusted face. It is obvious that they are portraying none other than George W. Bush, even though they never give his name. He’s depicted as a lazy cowboy who sits out major crises while eating junk food.

In the second film, the President is named. You never see him, but in a jumble of news bites about the new threat from the Decepticons one clip stands out, and this was done deliberately: “President Barack Obama was moved to a bunker for protection…”

Note the shift. The whole underlying theme is that, when you look at the characters from Sector 7, you shouldn’t trust the government. EVER. As soon as there’s a president in office that the filmmakers like, however, it’s a different tune they’re singing. Don’t trust the last guy, but by all means, trust the new one. Don’t bother with what kind of job he’s doing. The facts don’t matter, we just want to know that the guy we like isn’t going to be in any danger. Hope and change.

I’ve begun to notice such themes in a lot of my favorite films. In Mark Wahlberg’s Shooter, which I loved, you’re told from the very beginning the the government can’t be trusted, not for any reason. Wahlberg’s character distrusts the government so much that he won’t have anything to do with them even when they drive up in a motorcade and request his help. Support the troops, but the government that trained and hired them can go to hell.

I find this especially interesting in light of the Hollywood elite’s support of government right now with Obama in charge. Don’t trust the government unless they’re willing to give you free healthcare and an unemployment check! They’ll condemn the Nazis and their slaughter of six million Jews in the Holocaust (and when one of their number, Mel Gibson, is linked to a father who is a Holocaust denier they’ll all turn their backs on the man in a show of outrage). Yet when the Palestinians elect terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah to lead them and send suicide bombers to blow themselves up in restaurants and ice cream parlors in Israel and fire 4,000 rockets into Israeli towns, all of a sudden it’s a different story. the Palestinians are the underdog, you see. They’re fighting for their freedom. Israel has no right to defend herself, she just needs to roll over and give up their homeland.

There are a high number of hypocrites in Hollywood, but even among them there are the real extremists. Take, for instance, Sean Penn.

Penn’s son Hopper was in a serious skateboarding accident and was nearly killed. After his son survived, he felt a need to re-assess his priorities in life and he started by going to Haiti. This wasn’t his first foray into charity work. He’d also taken a small boat to New Orleans after Katrina and blasted Bush’s response to the disaster. He’s been an anti-war activist for eons. Plus, most notoriously, he has “become friends” with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and has defended the man’s actions and policies to the point of calling for American journalists who criticize Chavez to be thrown in jail.

Well, at least he’s learning something while he’s there.

He was so touched by his time in Haiti that he returned to the US and wished publicly that his critics would die screaming of rectal cancer. Real sweetheart, isn’t he? What I find interesting is that Penn defends everything about Chavez. Literally everything – he says that Chavez isn’t doing anything wrong, because everything he’s doing is in line with the Venezuelan constitution. Of course Penn would think that document is beautiful – his amigo Chavez wrote it! You won’t hear Penn talk about inflation, crime rates, or shortages of water and food. You won’t hear him talk about rolling blackouts because they can’t afford to provide electricity to the people the way socialist nations do. You’ll hear him say that Chavez is a “charismatic man” and “fascinating” though, as if that’s enough.

I find Hitler fascinating, too, and I am a friend to Israel…fascinating in that disgusted, horrified way in which people subject themselves to gore movies. Adolf Hitler had no education. His father, Alois, didn’t see the point in intellectual education and didn’t want his children to be subjected to it. After performing poorly in primary school, during which time his mother doted on him and refused to discipline him in the least, Adolf was forced by his father to attend a vocational secondary school. He actually flunked out of that school before living as a homeless artist in Vienna. He really did live a hippie lifestyle, believe it or not; after being turned down for acceptance by the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna, Hitler joined the army and fought in WWI. Believe it or not, he didn’t become a German citizen until 1932, well into his political dealings.

When Hitler’s Nazi party seized power, the first thing they did was confiscate all civilian-owned guns. This was done while the Nazis edged all other political parties out of the government; eventually, the Nazi party was the only legal political party. Then they took over the media. Before long it was illegal to speak out against the government or the actions of Nazi officials, lest the full fury of the SS be brought down on you. First they persecuted the Jews by limiting what they could do and forcing them to wear yellow six-pointed stars; then came Kristallnacht, or “night of broken glass,” when the Jews were forced from their homes and businesses and herded into ghettos. Then they were sent to concentration camps, where those that could work were forced into hard labor and the rest were slaughtered.

Hitler had no education, but he was very charismatic. He was a talented public speaker. He was very, very good at getting his point across, and the German people loved him.

Do we not see the intense similarities here between the real Nazis and what’s going on in our society today? We have entertainment industry leaders telling us how we should think through their activism and the movies we watch and the music we sing to, and we are slowly giving up our nation’s sovereignty to ideals that would dare to force us into charity. Democrats would love nothing more than to take our guns away. Penn and others, including Oliver Stone and Danny Glover, have called for journalists who criticize foreign despots to be jailed. Now we have the FTC proposing ways they can “reinvent the media.”

The big hypocrisy that Hollywood claims against Christians and conservatives is a little closer to home than they’ll ever admit.

Bill Press from The Reading Eagle: When You Put Down Your Vitriol Then We Will Do the Same; Otherwise–Prepare for War

Bill Press

I am getting a little tired of being told by Leftists to “play nice” when the very fabric of our Republic and free-market is at stake.  Progressive Leftists learned long ago that they could not collectivize a society by using guns to intimidate and enslave the populace; so, they replaced their guns with hate-filled rhetoric.  They use this tactic to pit people against each other while Progressives work behind the scenes to steal liberty from the people.  I have news for you, Mr. Press, Americans are onto this tactic.  Many of us have been on to this tactic for a long time while at the same time wondering why our fellow citizens did not appear to see the same thing.  The jig is up Bill.  Even Jeffersonian Democrats have been enlightened as to just how much the hard Left has hijacked this nation.    

Mr. Press, in his latest article, Easy way to end hate-filled talk radio is simply to turn it off, apparently believes certain men and women from conservative talk radio are too “toxic” and too “hate-filled.”  Democrats use words like “toxic” and “hate-filled” when Conservatives tell the truth about the real intentions of Progressive Democrats.  He refers to them as members of the “radical Right.”  What exactly, Mr. Press, is radical about limited government and the preservation of capitalism–which are the only two conditions under which men can retain their God-given rights as free individuals?  The title of his article should be:  “What Democrats Have Wanted for 100 Years:  Total and Complete Economic Control Over the Citizenry Because We Can’t Win Debate Any Other Way.”    

Mr. Press believes these various hosts to be off base when describing the truths about the top-down tyranny this country has been evolving towards in the last 10o years via his beloved Progressive politics and Progressive Presidents such as Woodrow Wilson and FDR.   

Mr. Press may be asking himself, “Why would a gay man defend conservative talk show hosts?”  Well, Mr. Press…I learned something ages ago which you apparently have yet to learn:  conservatism / classical liberalism and the Judeo-Christian foundation upon which this nation was built is precisely why I can be a gay man in this country while not swinging by my homosexual neck.  In case you have not noticed, sir, all of the countries who promote collectivist policies such as you do–eventually massacre not only their own citizens–but, many times various minority groups within those countries who become “problematic” as well.  As a gay man I certainly do not agree with all stands taken by some conservative hosts especially when it comes to civil recognition of gay relationships.  But, I can guarantee you this much–I do agree with them on some basic principles:  limited government, capitalism, common sense national defense, and individual liberty–not to mention promotion of moral and ethical standards to our young people via objective education where they are taught how to think critically as opposed to being taught what to think via Left-Wing collectivists who choose to rewrite our history.  I have listened to all of the talk show hosts that Mr. Press has mentioned in his article quite extensively over the last decade.  And I can tell you this much–the only hateful rhetoric coming from these hosts are toward the hardcore Progressive Left-Wing that has hijacked the once-great Jeffersonian Democrat Party and their tactics of divisiveness which they use to keep people at each others’ throats…why don’t you address that hatred Mr. Press?  

Now…to address some of the article assertions, point-by-point:  

“Both were lamenting the increasingly ugly rhetoric that has replaced legitimate debate about the issues on right-wing talk radio. It’s the very phenomenon I explore in my new book, “Toxic Talk: How the Radical Right Has Poisoned America’s Airwaves.”  

My response:  Let me know when your book reaches the kind of sales numbers Mr. Mark Levin’s “Liberty and Tyranny” or Mr. Glenn Beck’s “Arguing With Idiots” reaches–then we’ll talk.  

“Rush Limbaugh still holds the title of hate-monger No. 1. Without providing any evidence from Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan’s speeches or writing, Limbaugh daily calls her a socialist and accuses Democrats of rushing into confirmation hearings before her radicalism is understood by the public.”  

My response:  It seems Mr. Limbaugh’s assertion that Elena is a socialist is not quite the lie Mr. Press wishes it was.  Here is her thesis for your enjoyment.  In the last paragraph of her thesis she writes:  

The story is a sad but also a chastening one for those who, more than half a century after socialism’s decline, still wish to change America.  Radicals have often succumbed to the devastating bane of sectarianism; it is easier, after all, to fight one’s fellows than it is to battle and entrenched and powerful foe.  Yet if the history of Local New York shows anything, it is that American radicals cannot afford to become their own worst enemies.  In unity lies their only hope.  

Seems pretty sympathetic to socialism to me–not to mention the fact she thanks her radical brother for many of his ideas;  Leftist poison does tend to run in families.  

Mr. Press referring to Glenn Beck:  “This, of course, is the same talk-show host who, in total ignorance of the Gospels, warned Christians to run out of their churches if they ever hear the words social justice or economic justice because, according to Beck, those are just code words for communism and Nazism.”  

My response:  Mr. Press…here is an article that will help clear up your ignorance about whether or not socialism is in the Bible.  And I would also ask you, Mr. Press, if someone hires a hitman to do their killing for them–does it make them any less culpable for the murder?  I think not.  The same goes for socialism.  Just because you elect representatives to our government to do your stealing for you–makes you no less culpable in the theft, sir.  Not to mention–we are discovering that some churches are indeed preaching social justic and economic justice from their pulpits.  These are code-words for socialism and communism.  One only has to recall the revealing aspects of Black Liberation Theology preached by Obama’s own pastor–Reverend Jeremiah Wright.  The Bible never condoned stealing from one person to give to another.  Theft is theft, Mr. Press.  As a Left-Wing Progressive I would also ask where your concern is regarding a link that is being constructed between church and the state?  Hypocrite. 

“Mark Levin attacked Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor as a radical leftist and a bigot.”  

My response:  Attached is a particular cut from one of Mr. Levin’s shows where he breaks down Justice Sotomayor’s attitudes about race.  Whatever she may be–she is certainly not color-blind.   

“Michael Savage, perhaps the most vicious of all, once told a gay caller, ‘You should only get AIDS and die, you pig.'”  

My response:  This particular statement has been run through the liberal meat-grinder.  While I am not a fan of his particular method of enlightening people regarding their own behavior–Mr. Savage worked, in the early 80’s during the onset of the AIDS crisis, as a nutritionist in a San Francisco clinic serving gay men.  When he mentioned to many of them that perhaps going to gay bath houses and sleeping with a few dozen men in one evening was not a good thing and perhaps they should be shut down–the gay community turned on him.  The gay Left strikes again, “We’re all dying from AIDS due to our own irresponsibility and recklessness–how dare you try to care about us!”  I rest my case.   

“Ever since 1987 and the end of the Fairness Doctrine, which freed station owners from having to provide any balance on the air, conservatives have dominated talk radio to the point where, according to a 2007 report of the Center for American Progress, there are at least 10 hours of right-wing talk for every one hour of progressive talk.”  

My response:  That really eats at you Lefties doesn’t it?  The fact that, when the Fairness Doctrine (a restriction on free-speech by manipulating the free-market) was ended, Conservative talk-radio ballooned in the free-market of ideas; meanwhile, liberals stations such as Air America have barely been able to keep their heads above water.  

“What’s the answer? Progressives need to get in the game by buying their own radio stations, for starters. Bringing back the Fairness Doctrine might also be part of the answer, but Obama’s already said he’s against it.”   

My response:  Go ahead!  Buy your own stations!  They’ll go broke…but, hey…have at it!  The less money you have–the more freedom-loving Americans won’t need to be tortured by you!  And bringing back the Fairness Doctrine?  So…you’re in favor of limiting free-speech?  

…but, in Mr. Press’s next paragraph he says:  

“Censorship’s clearly not the answer. The First Amendment protects all speech, even ugly speech. It also guarantees every American the right to make a fool of himself, as long as there are enough other fools willing to listen.”  

My response:  It’s clearly not the answer as long as Mr. Obama, as you previously stated, is against it?  But…if Mr. Obama were for it…you would support it wholeheartedly?   

I’m so confused by the intellectual trapeze flips you are doing, Mr. Press.  It would be so much easier to follow you if you could just learn to put two plus two together to equal four!  No wonder you guys on liberal talk-radio have such a problem with your ratings–nothing you say makes any sense!  

Your dream, Mr. Press, for conservatives to just sit down and shut up will not happen.  It will not happen unless the Far Left fringe is once and for all purged, not only from the Democrat Party but from the governmental bureaucracies as well–thereby returning the party to its classically liberal roots.  Until that time, Mr. Press–I suggest you keep preparing for war.

Growing Socialism Disguised as “Credits” — Beware!

It angers me that many conservatives — though they have done a great job at holding liberals accountable for their desired health care takeover — have not taken the President to task over his idea for student loan debt forgiveness.

I graduated an online university about two years ago.  I work full-time for a living so many liberals would criticize me.  No, not just for working, being the evil free-market capitalist I am, but they will probably say I wasn’t smart enough to study accounting at some ground university they’d approve of. 

 In truth, I used an online university for the convenience and paid about $50K for a standard Bachelor’s Degree.  I was an A student, I even did it full-time while I pushed through various tax seasons. I am proud of what was available and affordable to me and of my academic achievements.  All in all I felt good for working hard and getting through it.  Anybody could have done it, but sadly many won’t.

As non-elite as my University was (like Palin’s or Reagan’s as well), I received a quality education for a price I could afford.  Like them and millions of other Americans, I CONTINUED TO WORK full-time through school and made monthly payments to the University.  I came out of it owing about $27,000 in student loans.  

For the last two years, I have made regular monthly payments.  In addition, I’ve sent extra payments towards the principal balance reducing the debt substantially.  I have a couple years left, but I will pay it, because I borrowed it!

University elites will continue to jack up education costs — the same university board members that contain the likes of folks like Obama and Bill Ayers.  What better way to hand it all out to folks than to offer a tax credit of up to $10,000 for students, right?  So, basically, we get 100 people doing what only 10 had the courage and wisdom to do without the government steak waved in front of them.  Less competition, less folks caring about the quality of their education, less folks paying attention, plus a lot more beer drinking and pre-marital sex. 

Why?  Why don’t we notice the President’s own words in his State of the Union address where he announced plans to forgive student loan debt after 20 years for anyone?  And what happens if you enter college and prep for public service?  Yep, you get your debt forgiven after only TEN years!

This is a blatant attempt to grow socialism which involves buffeting children in the public schools, entice them to enter college and rack up $100K in debt and wind up paying back only about half of that.  Then what happens?  Are the schools going to reimburse the government the difference or will it be burdened on taxpayers?

And just why does a choice for public office get you a 10-year faster benefit for loan forgiveness?

Could it be that we want kids dependent on the government from the moment they enter school to the moment they get their first job?  Could it be that we are working to crank out a greater number of government workers than we are free-market capitalists?  Then what happens after that?  More votes for the future Hugo Chavez’s of this country!

Folks, if this “proposal” becomes a reality, we are looking at a disaster that will cause as much trouble as the United States Government getting its hands on health care.

Say NO!  Otherwise the Congressman representing your district in 20 years just might be a person who couldn’t pay off his own damn debt that he created and felt entitled to.

We already see what happens through Obama, the Clintons, and even worse – the Kennedys – when politicians are bred from birth.  The best politicians who delivered the best for Americans like Washington, Reagan, or even Palin as leader of her town or state — are people who were forced to be Americans first.  People who were forced to work in the free market and not in universities, law schools, or fancy prep schools.

If this disaster happens, you can expect millions more in the next couple of generations.

Freedom of Choice

I’ve been enjoying my time with my family (I taught my 18-month-old niece to say “tattoo” even though she can’t say my name yet) and friends, missing those who can’t be here. Every family has their own quirky traditions, mine being no exception. I would gripe about the news that the Obamas have an ornament on the White House tree bearing a picture of Chairman Mao, but I’m not sure that would do any good at this point.

What I really wanted to write about tonight is the healthcare takeover boondoggle that is playing out in the Senate. I almost cannot believe some of the outright bribery going on hasn’t managed to show up as so much as a blip on our collective radar. I say almost because I know how liberal the vast, overwhelming majority of the MSM is and I know what’s going on now is completely acceptable to them.

It is entirely UNacceptable to me. It should be to all of us.

Lousiana senator Mary Landrieu declared that she couldn’t be bought off just before accepting a $300M payoff for so-called “Gulf Coast recovery.” Nebraska senator Ben Nelson accepted a promise that Nebraska would never have to pay Medicaid expenses–millions of dollars that every other state in the Union cannot get out of. Hundreds of millions in buyoffs have been attached to the legislation about to pass the Senate, and every Democrat in elected office is defending this behavior.

This after Nancy Pelosi and co. announced in 2006 that they were going to fight against the “culture of corruption” in the Bush administration. Ironic, isn’t it?

All who support this legislation claim that healthcare is a right. It’s not fair, they say, for the uninsured to have no access to the same care that others do. What they’re conveniently forgetting is that nobody is denied access to care. According to the law, if you go to a hospital emergency room in need of medical attention they cannot refuse. If you are ill or injured, whether you’re insured or not, you’ll be taken care of. So I still don’t understand what they’re wailing about.

Let’s go over some of the facts. The complaint is that healthcare costs too much. They say it’s because insurance companies are greedy and they’re making money hand over fist in this business. Actually, that couldn’t be further from the truth. Insurance companies aren’t nearly as profitable as, say, trial law firms.

Doctors pay big bucks to go to medical school. They often end up in debt for their student loans afterwards, and they need to pay it back while making a living. On top of that, once they begin practicing they need something the vast majority of the populace doesn’t need: malpractice insurance. They need something to guarantee financial security in the event that a lawyer ends up suing and winning in a big way. That insurance is expensive, starting off at $20,000 annually and getting up to $275,000 annually, depending on the specialty.

Then there’s equipment. The high-tech equipment that helps run everything from a family physician’s office to a major metropolitan hospital comes with a price tag that would make most of us go nuts trying to compute. One single x-ray machine costs upwards of $8,000, while an MRI scanner costs around $3M.

Unfortunately, healthcare is run by people. Not just nurses and doctors, mind you–there are lab techs, x-ray techs, MRI techs, CT techs, patient care techs, phlebotomists, janitors…millions of people have jobs in the healthcare industry. They have to be paid. That isn’t cheap, either, considering most of them require special education for their fields as well. I looked into going to school for respiratory therapy and nearly had heart failure at the cost, which I was not willing to get a student loan for, no matter how much money they make.

All of this has to be considered when debating healthcare. It’s not cheap to provide because it’s not cheap to keep it running. To complain that healthcare should be a right means you have to be willing to accept that having a certain amount of income, whether employed or not, is also a right. It is pure socialism, like it or not.

This is also the first time in America’s history that the government has suggested mandating that every citizen, regardless of circumstance, purchase anything. Car insurance is a different issue; driving a car has the potential to affect many people if a driver gets stupid behind the wheel, and driving is not something that everyone does. This legislation is suggesting that every single citizen of this country must be insured, whether by a private company or the government. That strips us of some of our most basic freedoms. And, like it or not, it brings us one giant step closer to a socialist America, one void of the freedoms I hold so dear.

Then again, we have the FDA banning certain products left and right simply because some people are irresponsible with them (such as ephedrine, which I liked, and alcoholic energy drinks–my Jaegerbombers will be illegal soon!).

The government admitted the need to stay out of my bedroom. Now they need to stay out of the rest of my life unless I commit a crime. Nobody has any business whatsoever forcing me to pay for someone else’s healthcare. We had federal welfare once that operated in a similar fashion.

It was a disaster, resulting in entire generations living off the government dole without ever working a day in their lives. I will not give up one freedom, my freedom of choice (which you Dems seem so keen on when it comes to abortion), for some imagined “right” to substandard healthcare that I wouldn’t have bought when I had the right to provide my own care.

Nah, the AP Isn’t Biased!

Associated Press: Obama urges Dems to pass health care overhaul

The opening paragraph reads like the new Pledge of Allegiance authored by Hugo Chavez.

Casting health care overhaul as a legacy for the American people and failure as politically unthinkable, President Barack Obama on Sunday rallied Senate Democrats to deliver on their party’s half-century quest to expand the social safety net by providing access for all.

HR-3962 Passes…..”historic change” we can believe in!

I was glued to my television all day yesterday from 2pm until the final vote last night which handed the liberals in the House of Representatives an official victory on HR3962.

Consider the results.  In a House of 435 Members controlled by 258 Democrats and 177 Republicans, the winning numbers were a not-so-impressive 220-215.  218 votes were needed for victory, so the liberals in Congress stole the night’s win with three deciding votes

Of those three deciding votes, we can credit one to Republican Joseph Cao, who today; as Ann Coulter jokes, “fantasizes about being re-elected.”

The Democrats last night hammered on about how “historic” this vote and bill was.  Every person who irresponsibly catered to the President’s plea yesterday – for the sake of serving him as opposed to their constituents – will be remembered from now until November of 2010.  What makes last night’s vote historic is in fact it’s opposition. 

As John Boehner pointed out repeatedly, the only bipartisanship displayed yesterday was the opposition to this bill, not its support.

After all that work to win a majority in 2006, Democrats could not get all of their own people behind them last night – in addition to the majority of their voters.

As this moves toward the Senate now, we must remember that 60 votes will be needed to actually put this travesty into law.  Looking at the worst case, we have 58 Democrats, 2 Independents in Democratic caucuses, and Olympia Snowe.  There is 61 votes.  However; we also have a tiny handful of common sense Senators who may be liberals on some social issues but oppose a public option.  Getting the votes required to put this into law are nearly impossible.

But most importantly, as we move ahead now, let’s remember the political suicide committed by one Republican and 219 Democrats.  Let’s remember how one party trusted by the American people turned on those same voters for the purposes of serving their President and his radical left-wing views. 

Never in history have Democrats made it easier for Republicans to take over a House than they did last night, and for that, I thank them from the bottom of my free-market heart for this truly historic move.

They’d Rather the Poor Were Poorer Provided the Rich Were Less Rich


Boy do I wish Margaret Thatcher were still around.  This lady sure could enrage liberals right out of their chairs – and she handled journalists well, too.

“Freedom incurs responsibility, that’s why many men fear it”  Margaret Thatcher quotes in this early 80’s interview when millions of British were out of work when she came in.  Afterwards, I have provided a speech she gave toward the end of her tenure when she argued with another liberal about “the gap between the rich and the poor.”

When she discusses prosperity for a nation she says in the end of video one: “it isn’t done by the pontification of politicians or commentators.”  She’s absolutely right.  Barack’s blather isn’t going to give free health care away.  Only the American people through freedom can better their own situations.

Nothing is different today and the treatment of national economic problems lies solely within the people, not the government.

Leave it to the AP to keep us divided….

Divided AP

I am fascinated now that the White House is backing away from the public option – particularly at two aspects here:

1.) Does anybody notice that ALL WEEK on any article written about the proposed public option, that the top of the page has been graced with Sarah Palin’s statement on the bill as a “fact check” that no ‘death panel’ exists in the bill?  Of course, Sarah Palin used quotations around the phrase to voice her concern over direct quotes read from Michelle Bachmann that came straight from Zeke Emanuel (Rahm’s brother).  Couple those exact words with the fact that extreme leftists and environmentalists argue pro-abortion as a means to population control and blame “carbon footprints” on too much human existence and consumption – AND that the public option would have eventually lead us to rationing health care OR raising taxes on the middle class, Sarah Palin made an extremely valid point.  For someone who everyone thinks has little power and is revered as a quitter, it’s amazing how thorough the AP is at reminding us that the term “death panel” never existed in the bill.  Thanks guys!

2.) The opening of this article begins: “Bowing to Republican pressure, President Barack Obama‘s administration signaled on Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new U.S. health care system.”

No, I am sorry but this is blatant partisan reporting.  The fact is, Republicans hold the minority in both the Senate and in the House.  Democrats have the majority and have the White House.  They could have passed it with no trouble whatsoever.

The turnaround is public opinion – the great wisdom of the American people – where Democrats, Independents, and Republicans all united to say “No!” 

The real story should be how one country made one crucial decision and fought together as one against something that they did not want.

But, here the writer credits Republicans and their “pressure” for the sudden turnaround.  If this were the case, the White House would have backed down weeks ago and even the AP knows it.

Obama won the support of independents because they thought he was going to govern as a centrist – as he promised during the campaign.

He has continued the surge in Iraq, and increased the surge in Afghanistan, Gitmo is actually still in place – and he used those “centrist” facts to try and quickly pass through some insane liberal-socialist fantasy.

He claimed he wanted to “keep them honest” with regard to free market insurance companies.

Unfortunately for him, he is one being kept honest – by the American people.  

Shame on the AP, but thank you President Obama for doing the right thing and listening to your voters.  No matter what side of the fence you are on, today is truly a day to be proud of our American democracy.