Archive for September, 2009

Lying as a Political Tactic

September 30, 2009

After President Obama’s speech before congress, and after seeing how the democrats are arguing their side of the debate on health care, and especially after seeing Rep. Grayson (Democrat-Florida) tell outright, bald-faced lies about the other side of the aisle, I have to admit, as any honest person must, that the democrat strategy is and has been for some time:

  1. Lie.
  2. Lie some more.
  3. Accuse your opponents of being racist, fascist homophobes.

I can understand why the democrats, socialists, communists, and fascists (the real ones who want to mix government and business) have to lie to win the debate. It’s simply because their position is indefensible.

On our side, we argue about natural, God-given, unalienable rights. We declare, boldly, that not only white Americans, but every American, indeed, every creature on earth who can be considered human in any way, shape, or form, has these basic rights:

  1. The right to life.
  2. The right to liberty.
  3. The right to the pursuit of happiness.

We define these rights plainly, in a way that everyone can understand and appreciate.

  1. You get to live, and the only reason why someone should kill you is to protect life.
  2. You get to do what you want with your life, and the only reason we’d lock you up or keep you from doing what you want is when you deprive people of their rights to liberty.
  3. You get to keep the product of your life and liberty, and the only reason we’d stop you from doing so is if you were using that to deprive others of the fruits of their labor.

This message resonates with every human being alive, to be alive, or ever alive. This is the nature of our human spirit. This is the kernel of conscience implanted by God in every living soul.

These are things we are ready to sacrifice our lives for. Not just because they are wonderful ideas, but because without these things, life isn’t worth living. We will gladly take unnatural risks if it means we get to keep our rights.

The Democratic Party has had to lie to obtain power. They lied about what they believed. They lied about what they intend to do with their power. And they, most of all, lied about their lies.

Let me describe, briefly, what rights the democrats believe in.

  1. The right of the government to take the life of her people.
  2. The right of the government to take the liberty of her people.
  3. The right of the government to take the happiness and property of her people.

We can see it in the plans they are proposing. The government determines what liberties we have and so it can determine what insurance plans we can buy. The government determines who lives and dies and so it can determine who will be treated and for how long. The government determines how much money we are allowed to keep and so it determines how much we have to pay into the plans and how much the companies we hire have to pay for the license to operate that particular business.

The left has to lie because no sane person who hasn’t spent their life in the vain pursuit of power or cocaine and marijuana would ever come to believe what they believe.

And so they lie, lie, lie and continue to lie until they are blue in the face.

Americans, don’t trust any politician. The facts are before you. You can read the bills yourself or read the reports on the bills by various organizations, including the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). There are a lot of think tanks in Washington D.C., of all political stripes, willing to tell you what is or is not in the bill. They can reference, easily, particular sections of particular bills and thus have you independently verify their facts, or they may try to obscure the sources of their information.

Above all, trust your instincts. And measure everything government does in this simple way:

Will this increase the natural, God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Or will it infringe upon them?

The answer to that question will tell you whether to support or oppose the action.

And the answer is always surprisingly easy to find, even amidst all the lies.


September 28, 2009

We have gone a long way away from the discussion we should be having.

Today, we are arguing left versus right. Shall we use government to do X or Y?

That is the wrong question. The first question is, “Shall government do X or Y at all?”

Even then, the real question is: “By assigning our rights to government to do X or Y, are we actually making things better than leaving X and Y to the people individually?”

Let me give you an example.

We used to have a feeling in this country that if I don’t help out my brother / sister / father / mother / child / neighbor, no one else will do it for me. That’s because government didn’t have Social Security or Medicare or welfare or food stamps or counseling or unemployment insurance or anything like that.

If I saw my neighbor with a broken leg crying for help, I either stopped to help him or I let him be. And without government providing the support it does today, I was morally compelled to help that person or live the rest of my life in eternal shame because I refused to help when I could.

We’ve somehow come to the conclusion that having individuals help each other out is less efficient than taking all the money we can and hiring government employees to distribute what little is left. This, of course, sounds absurd when you put it this way.

If I give five bucks to my neighbor, that five bucks ends up in his pocket. If government takes a hundred bucks from me, there is little hope even ten cents will find its way into my neighbor’s pocket, and even then only if my neighbor fills out the right paperwork and hires the right lawyer and argues before the Supreme Court.

I think it’s time we asked ourselves if government is the right mechanism to distribute our charity.

Here’s a simple quiz that will help you realize the right answer for yourself.

  1. Do you want to help the poor?
  2. How much are you willing to spend on the poor?
  3. Why haven’t you written a check yet to help the poor with that money?

If you are waiting for government to write a law to seize your money in the name of taxes to distribute it to the poor, then I don’t think you really want to help the poor.

What Motivates Them

September 24, 2009

To someone who is born and raised conservative, conservatism isn’t a choice between one political philosophy or another. Conservatism is a life-view built around the way life really is. Humans are despicable creatures that need to be tamed. Society can be an ugly thing without strict rules enforced. The only hope of mankind lies in a God whose wisdom and compassion surpass anything we can imagine. The only object worthy of desire or worship are abstract concepts of perfection: love, justice, mercy, and salvation.

To the other side, this sounds like lunacy. Despite the fact that this worldview and this worldview alone accounts for the dramatic success of Western European countries compared to countless millennia of human history, and in particular, the “New World” thirteen colonies we now know as the United States of America, they cling to their beliefs about the way things are and the way things should be.

There are many reasons why one might cling to liberalism like a vassal serving a failed lord. Of the several, I believe ignorance, or its sister weakness, naivety are to blame.

Let me expound.

To the liberal, socialism seems like a really good idea. However, we know from sad experience, that not even the most brilliant socialist can be trusted with power. Indeed, no one can be trusted with power. Take the most brilliant doctor of philosophy, or the most ardent supporter of religion, and make them a socialist African dictator, and the end result, inevitably, is death and inequality. Take a man who simply wants to make life fair and peaceful, and elevate him to power in Cambodia, and mountains of skulls pile up. Take a world vision for peace, and start it with a revolution in Russia, and the entire country of Ukraine, the bread-basket of Europe, starves to death by the millions.

To the conservative, no one can be trusted with power. That power must needs be distributed among the people individually and retained as individual rights. The government must needs draw their power from the consent of the governed. That government must be created in a way that only the defense of liberties is possible, and all else will result in a stalemate of conflicting interests. This is common sense to us, because we see the world for what it really is.

Socialist policies in the United States have likewise been a failure. Social Security was supposed to provide retirement for the masses. Its payouts are barely enough to sustain life in retirement, yet it takes so much out of the salaries of ordinary Americans. A similar amount of money, invested modestly, would return several thousand times more benefits than the costs. This program, too, was born out of liberal ignorance. Ponzi schemes simply do not work, except for the short time in the beginning. In the hands of government, it becomes a disaster as the surplus income is squandered on pet projects and corrupt schemes. Today, the Social Security program is a few short years away from bankruptcy.

Conservatives understood this, which is why they demanded no such program be created, and instead, the people be left to do with their money as they saw fit. While many people would be unable to plan for and properly prepare for retirement, it is no excuse to punish everyone together. Instead, if you want to help people prepare for retirement, you must educate them in the truth about reality.

Today, President Obama is pitching outright lies (or, as a former Greenpeace leader admitted, “emotionalisms”) to congress, the American people, and the world. He is proposing dramatic, permanent change away from the system of checks and balances upon government and between governments to address these lies. Why does he do it?

I believe he is ignorant and naive.

He doesn’t understand enough to realize that what he is advocating is not just dangerous to the US, but dangerous to himself. The same controls that keep him in power keep a mob of people from starting a civil war with Obama as the target for a lynching. We didn’t adopt this system because we were racists or hatemongers bent on keeping a segment of the population in subservience. No, this system was designed to provide exactly what it wants to provide: domestic tranquility. Topple the system that has worked, largely, for the past 200 plus years, and you lose the tranquility that came with it.

He is naive to believe that his actions are either benefitting himself or helping the causes he believes in (if indeed he really cares about helping the poor and needy and not establishing a tyrannical government.) While we get to choose what courses of action we take, we are not free to choose what effects those will have on ourselves and others.

From whence does the ignorance and naivety of the left come from? I propose several sources.

One is broken homes. Without a father and a mother, children do not receive the necessary education to survive in, let alone understand, the world around us. If there were a mother and father at home, then the only blame can be poor parenting. Parents don’t just have the right to educate their children, they have the duty to do so. If they fail, no one can fix the damage they have done to their children.

Two is substance abuse. We know from sad experience that chemicals like alcohol, marijuana, cocaine and other drugs damage the brain and change the personalities of people who abuse them. Barack Obama is an admitted cocaine and marijuana addict, in addition to an alcohol and tobacco habit. These things damaged his brain, irreversibly, and would make any hope of overcoming his ignorance and naivety difficult if possible at all.

Three is miseducation. As the saying goes, attributed to Adolf Hitler, if you tell a lie often enough, eventually it becomes the truth. Unless you are programmed to constantly seek the truth and always evaluate every claim with skepticism, it is easy to be led astray and come to believe things that are not. A good example of this is the amount of hatred poured on Christians for being ignorant and violent. This is such a common lie that is so easily refuted as to make it laughable to anyone willing to think for a moment on their own free from foreign influence. (Both the scientific and pacifist movements derive from the Christian religion.)

Finally, is moral depravity. To the Christian, truth, morality, Christ and God are all one and the same. You cannot be immoral and intellectual honest at the same time. You cannot be a liar, a thief, a murderer, an adulterer, and a coveter and also be a true seeker of truth. The Greeks understood this. Morality and honesty are inseparable.

These attributes combine to create the perfect ignorant, naive liberal.

It is interesting that the Soviets understood this and used this to attack America’s foundation. By washing our country with broken families, families where education is no longer the priority, drugs and alcohol, miseducation and immorality, they hoped they could crack us and bring us down. Perhaps a weak United States would stop supporting nations in their moment of need, allowing them to degrade into the social chaos that must immediately precede true communism.

Unfortunately, the people of the United States have not all fallen victim to this trap. There are a great number of families who quietly, but effectively, raise children free from miseducation, moral depravity and substance abuse. These countless millions are today standing up, against the federal government, in defense of individual liberties.

If Mitt Romney is Bush Light, No Thanks

September 20, 2009

I was amazed when I first discovered the variety of liberal issues that President Nixon gave birth to during his presidency. I had always assumed that he was a stalwart of liberty and a champion of the people, and as devoted to the constitution as any other president in history.

But then I grew up and could see what was really happening.

In the Republican Party, the majority have been and always will be of the Nixon / Ford / Bush I /  Dole / Bush II camp: compromisers and weenies unwilling to wield their power to bring the constitution back into force thus freeing the people from the monster of a government we have today.

The years of 2000-2006 were dominated by these republicans. The most traitorous among them are simply called RINOs (Republicans In Name Only). But to be truthful, if there is an (R) next to their name, assume it stands for RINO before assuming they would ever sign on to a tax cut or the abolition of a socialist program.

There is a minority that has only one toe in the Republican Party and that is the conservatives. Today, we’re actually pretty well represented in the House and Senate compared to past years. Our hey-day was in the early 80’s under Reagan (who bullied the republicans to behave like conservatives) and in the few short years after the Republican Revolution in 1994. The only time before then when we see a real conservative tinge to the federal government was under Calvin Coolidge in the Roaring 20’s.

The litmus test to determine if a Republican is a RINO or a conservative is simply this. Ask them what they think of unions. If they say, “Well, they’re ok, and I have union supporters I work with” then you’re dealing with a RINO. If they say, “Unions are an instrument of the communisty party and their leadership doesn’t represent their members and they’re abusing their power to corrupt the legislative process” then you may be getting somewhere.

As many conservatives have discovered, the core goals of any conservative can be summed up in the following key points:

  1. Dramatically limit the size of government at all levels through tax cuts that diminish revenue and by restricting spending to only constitutionally mandated programs such as defense.
  2. Attack the welfare state mentality by actively campaigning to destroy reliance on programs like Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and unemployment, in addition to corporate and individual welfare and public health. (By public health, I mean the kind where we give free medical care to the poor at the taxpayer’s dollar.) Instead, replace these with private charity, starting with your own money.
  3. Propose solutions to problems that don’t involve legislating action or regulating behavior or imposing taxes. For instance, kids are using drugs, so let’s do something to stop that by privately funding a national campaign to educate kids about the dangers of drugs and building facilities to help kids to get off drugs or get addicted to something healthy. Or kids need schools so let’s build a private network of schools that educate poor and rich alike.
  4. Emphasize the importance of individual, God-given rights above even the Constitution. For instance, the courts can never limit our right to bear arms since it is a God-given right, never subject to legislation or interpretation by anyone. If we want to bear arms, we will bear arms and it’s pointless to try and stop us because someone (you or I) will end up getting hurt.
  5. Emphasize a society built on individual morality centered around family life. The true bedrock of our society is not our business or our governments, it’s not our charities or churches. The true bedrock is the day-to-day interactions in our families, and by keeping that healthy through morality, we keep the entire nation happy and healthy. Such a society cannot be brought about by government or businesses or even charities or churches, but only by individuals choosing the right.

On these counts, Mitt Romney, frankly, scares me. I don’t doubt that he wants to cut taxes, but I do doubt that he wants to limit revenue. I also don’t expect him ever to produce a budget that would cut the size of government by something like 20%. Nor would I expect him to come out and say, “Social Security is a fraud and a crime perpetuated by the government on her people. The time to end this injustice is now.”

However, on the other points, I believe he’ll be fairly good.

Because of my fears, I worry that electing Romney will lead to what we got with Bush II. Bush II, campaigning in 2000, nailed every conservative point on the head. In fact, he even came out and said he wanted to dismantle the Department of Education and reduce the size of government. Once elected, of course, he, like Nixon and all the others (save Ford, who was never elected), went veering off to the left.

The only two presidents of the 20th Century who got elected as a conservative and stayed conservative were Reagan and Coolidge. Both of these campaigned as some sort of super-conservative. Thus, when they, naturally, turned to the left in government, they still ended far to the right of everyone else.

For this reason, and this reason alone, I would rather throw my support behind a wild card like Sarah Palin. She campaigns like a super-Reagan on all the issues. Yes, the media hates her. Yes, she’s woefully under-experienced. And yes, there are things about her personal life that lead me to believe she would be a less-than-ideal role model. However, taken as a whole, we’d probably be better off with her than Romney.

Keep in mind, of course, that it’s 2009, and there’s a long way to go before 2012. My opinions on  “who” is subject to change.

The Problem of Dealing with the Devil

September 20, 2009

The devil has an attractive offer, one that many are clamoring to partake in. It’s simply this: Sell out all that is good and moral, and I’ll give you anything you want.

The problem with this proposition is that the devil is a liar, and has alway been, and wll ever be. He won’t give you money or power or women or anything like that. Sure, you may profit for a season, but in the end, you’ll be worse off than when you started.

Some of you who are virulently anti-religion think I’m talking about an imaginary character made up to scare children. Just like you can think of God as the personification of good, justice, morality, mercy, beauty, and love, you can think of the devil as everything else: evil, injustice, immorality, cruelty, ugliness, and hatred.

These things may give you profit for a time, but the end result is never what you wanted.

That’s what’s happening to the left right now. They thought they could lie, cheat, steal, and prostitute their way to power. Sure enough, they are in power now. But is it really the kind of power they wanted? Now, they have to keep the lies and the cheats and the thefts and the prostitutions working at a higher degree just to maintain their power. President Obama is no more powerful at pushing health care socialization than he was when President Bush was in power and both houses were run by the republicans. He can no more balance the budget or fix the problems of racism in our country than he could when he was a student in college.

In the end, the devil’s plan will result in their complete collapse. That is, unless they change.

Somewhere along the line, those who play the devil’s game will have to start changing their own rules back to God’s plan. It’s a painful process, both because it means giving up your fast cars, painted whores and pay-to-play schemes, and even handing the gavel over to people who don’t play the way you played your game. But it’s the only way to move in a positive direction.

Liberty vs. Tyranny

September 18, 2009

On government, there is really only one question, and there is really only one correct answer.

The question is simply this: “Liberty or Tyranny?”

What is liberty? Liberty is freedom—freedom that doesn’t come at a cost to anyone else. Liberty is the freedom to wake up in the morning and pursue what you think is best to pursue. Liberty is the freedom to succeed and keep the fruits of your success, or to fail and reap the bittersweet. Liberty is the freedom to love, to hate, to sing, shout, dance, play, work, sleep, think, and do all manner of things we, as human beings, are given just by being born.

Liberty is also the freedom to trade and manufacture, to build and share, or to sell and buy.

On the other hand, is tyranny. Tyranny is simply liberty bought with someone else’s blood, sweat, and tears. It is liberty that comes by taking food out of someone else’s mouth and eating. It is the kind of liberty that is no liberty at all, but another thing we call “dependence”. It is the slavemaster of the slave. It is the king over his subjects. It is the lord over his serfs. It is all these things, and more.

Tyranny is Hitler’s death camps, complete with medical experiments and gas chambers. Tyranny is Stalin’s Ukraine, with millions of moldering bodies, starving in the bread basket of Europe after one of the most bountiful harvests ever. Tyranny is Southeast Asia’s killing fields, with skulls stacked one atop each other, unnamed and uncountable. Tyranny is the prisons of Cuba and North Korea, where not even free thought is allowed.

Tyranny is also the taxman telling us that we have to fork over our paychecks to let Uncle Sam take his “fair share” before we can even touch it. Tyranny is the regulator telling us that we can’t buy and sell what we like, despite our best interests and the good of mankind. Tyranny is the censor who prevents us from speaking our mind. Tyranny is the man who shouts “racist!” when faced with political debate. Tyranny is the group who kick a black man while he is down, because he dares to speak out for freedom and individuality. Tyranny is the doubt at the back of your mind, that you shouldn’t say something negative about something, despite their race, or worse, you shouldn’t say something nice.

Government has to make a decision. Will it use its awful power to the ends of liberty or tyranny?

Governments in all ages past may have started with good intentions. The result has always been the same. That result is tyranny. It is nothing new, nothing surprising, and nothing unusual. When you find yourself in a foreign land, your expectations should be that any government in operation is there to extract taxes and beat the people down. That’s the way the world has worked for almost everyone at all times in history.

But America has bucked that trend. We were the not first country to stand up and shout “No!” to a tyrannical government, but we were the first to leave a new government behind properly bound in shackles and limitations such that its only pursuit could be the happiness of her people.

That isn’t so much true today as it was long ago, at least in certain areas. In other areas, we enjoy greater liberty than our forefathers did. (Certainly true, if you forefathers were bought and sold as slaves.)

It’s good to reflect from time to time on what makes us free and what makes us not free. And it’s good to put those principles into practice. It’s even better to do this without any influence whatsoever from the sitting government, so that we can judge their actions by our own light and knowledge.

Separate Foreign and Domestic Policy

September 17, 2009

Protectionism: Always Wrong

September 12, 2009

If you work in Industry X, whatever that might be, you may feel like having tariffs and other protectionist measures put on your competitors is a good thing. At least, you believe, you can make more money by charging a higher price or putting out a shoddier product.

However, you’re wrong. Not only doesn’t protectionism benefit you, the worked in Industry X, but it hurts you and everyone around you.

Let me explain.

Where does wealth come from? What is wealth? Wealth is simply having the things you want. There’s two parts—one, wanting the things you want, and two, getting it.

For some people, they value money. Others, good food or a nice car or popularity. Still others, family and things of a spiritual nature. It doesn’t matter. You want something, you go out to get it, and when you do, you get a little wealthier.

How do you get the things you want? Either you manufacture it yourself, or you obtain it from someone else who manufactured it for you. And how do you get it from someone else? You can either take it by force, such as theft or robbery or deceit or any number of dishonest ways, or you can trade for it.

Let’s examine what happens in the heads of two people involved in a trade. The person on the left says “I’ll give you this if you give me that.” The person on the right agrees. Both agree because both will walk away from the trade with something better than what they had at the beginning. That is, provided the following conditions exist:

  1. Both sides were well-informed about the nature of what they were giving and getting for the trade.
  2. Neither side is coerced to make the trade, but is free to either make the trade or not.

This is all terribly theoretical, but it is extremely important. See, when you have something to buy and sell, you can either go to a small market or a large market to find buyers and sellers. Which would you rather visit?

Everyone sane person will say, “The large market”. Why? Because there are more opportunities for trade. A small market may have only 2 or 3 people who are willing to engage in a trade, but a large market can have thousands or even millions of people willing to trade. It’s a no-brainer. I’d rather have the best choice of millions than the best choice of 2 or 3.

That’s why we trade across our borders. If two countries were ever to agree to completely free trade without any tariffs or controls, they would immediately see a sudden increase in wealth. (Remember, wealth is getting what you want.) In fact, the 50 states of the USA have entered into such a pact, encoded in the Constitution of the United States, and we are enjoying the massive wealth from it.

Now, let’s examine the fact as we see it.

  1. Wealth is getting what you want.
  2. You can either make it yourself or trade for it. (Or commit crimes, but we agree that is generally a bad idea.)
  3. You only trade if you will get a good deal, provided you are well-informed and not coerced to trade.
  4. You’d rather trade in a larger market than a smaller market because you will get better deals that way.

What does protectionism do?

Why, it limits the size of your market by cutting out the entire rest of the world as your potential trading partner.

Let’s suppose we write a law putting a 10% tariff on China’s Industry X. What if China decided to not reciprocate, but put no tariff on any other country’s Industry X. Who would have a stronger Industry X? The answer, surprisingly, is China. Why? Because China’s Industry X is participating in a larger market than our Industry X. We would, in effect, be like the small store on a forgotten strip mall, while China would be a famous internet retailer, trading to everyone who has an internet connection.

If you work in Industry X and expect protectionism to help you make more money, you are sorely mistaken. By cutting yourself out of a larger market, you are going to make less money.

I encourage anyone to try and dispute my conclusions. The state of the art of economics today leads to the inevitable conclusions above. Combined with practical experience, we know for a fact today, as a world, that free trade multiplies the values of our economies, and that free trade is the best way to lift ourselves and others to newer and wealthier heights.

Almost 1% of the US Shows Up at DC

September 12, 2009

The official count will never be tallied, but early estimates have the number of people at DC today over 2,000,000. (link)

That’s about 1 out of every 100 people in the United States, showing up in Washington D.C. with a simple message:

Get government out of our lives.

The people have spoken. They shall speak again until government hears them.

“You Lie”

September 10, 2009

Representative Joe Wilson, republican from South Carolina, shouted, “You lie!” to President Obama’s face as he gave his speech before a joint session of congress.

Of course Rep. Wilson apologized, not for the content but the delivery. After all, only leftists and democrats are allowed to shout down the president in the middle of a speech. It was inappropriate for a republican and a patriot to shout down his own president, regardless of whether he was born in the United States, enacting policies designed to destroy our great republic, or telling the largest fibs in United States history.

Vice President Biden announced he was embarrassed. (link) Of couse he should be. I’d feel embarrassed if I told a fraction of the lies that the administration has in that speech alone.

My take on it is this.

One, we are under attack. Our constitution has been assaulted on all sides for the past hundred years. Today, it barely means anything to anyone. The enemies of our constitution are, of course, those outside our borders who would see America fall from glory into the mediocrity that is the status quo of human nature. That is, into tyranny and despotism, where the people are little more than pawns to be manipulated, sheep to be herded, and pork to be slaughtered and served to their masters.

Two, when our rights are assaulted, we are justified in using violent force to protect them, regardless of the mechanims that our enemies use. The Declarataion of Independence is quite plain on this topic. Governments exist to serve the people by protecting their God-given rights, and when they no longer do, it is time to overthrow the government and replace it with one that will.

Three, the president and congress serves us, not we them. This is a concept that Obama and the democrats have a difficult time understanding. No, you cannot borrow money and expect us to pay it back. No, you cannot spend and tax as you please, ignoring the plain language of Article 1, Section 8. No, you cannot pretend you have powers you do not have. No, you cannot abuse the people when they exert their natural, God-given rights.

These things above mean that we the people have a duty to stand up against our president, in any forum. Any president that would sell us out to our enemies, apologize for crimes we did not commit, and bankrupt our country needs to be stopped.

He who is our common enemy has no right to take any podium and has no right to be heard. He who is our common enemy must be thwarted in every effort.

Let us stand up against President Obama and against hte tyranny of massive government debt, massive government spending, and his proposals to destroy our free society. Let us use every opportunity to denounce his lies, with shouting if necessary, and prevent his lies from being heard.

Would that every republican in that congress shouted down the president after the first big whopper he told. Would that President Obama had been driven from the chambers, rightly mocked and scourged for abusing our fundamental rights.