Finally, foreigners have started railing on Obama's policies as well as his problems with communication and respect for foreign leaders. Several European publications have outlined Obama's poor methodology of communiating his aspirations for our nation and the world.
If foreigners were in the United States press corps, Obama would probably put them in a muzzle. Obama is already, only a couple of months in office, talking to only those reporters who will agree with his policies. He walks a fine line with the Liberal and Hispanic Publications, as he is not pulling all troops out of the Middle East or bailing out the common American citizen. He is a tax and spend corporate elitist, Liberals only agree with the first part of that mantra, and unfortunately for him John McCain and George W. Bush agree with both.
The hispanic publications also put him in a tough spot. If he wants Hillary Clinton to talk a big game on tightening the southwestern border then it is difficult for him to exclude much of his media exposure to hispanic publications. Not in terms of race, but rather due to his ignoring of accessible media outlets for organizations that do not necessarily have the best interests of the entire country at heart.
Fortunately foreigners don't have to be "politcally correct", we wouldn't have anyone to take down the Obama fraud machine.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Out of It....
I have been out of it for the past couple of weeks. Here are some observations about the world:
1) President Obama is digging his own political grave. He defends the indefendable in his own cabinet, he keeps taking the blame for Congress screwing up legislation as well as for his own cabinet appointees having troubled pasts, and he is overextending himself in the media. Not only that, but he's a complete partisan. He's limiting media exclusives to individuals in at the Huffinton Post, Black Enterprise, hispanic television networks, and blowing off the Washington Press Corps. Seems to me he's showing his true agenda for the economy when he talks to liberal bloggers and minority-based publications instead of economists, business publications, and major news networks.
2) The NCAA Tournament is the best time of the year for sports, bar none. Mizzou is putting up a fight, but the thought of having to play their next three against Memphis, UConn, and Louisville is very daunting. It has been an excellent season, and another one close to it is going to get the recruits back to looking at the black and gold as a strong place to play.
3) Royals season is coming up, and this town should be excited. Jacobs and Teahan have been destroying the ball, Davies is solidifying the #3 spot in the rotation with ease, and the team has a true leadoff threat. When in the past have the Royals had a solid leadoff batter, slugger, three starters, a lights out closer, and 20+ homer potential from 6 guys in their lineup? AL Central title, here we come.
4) The events happening in the United States are just alarming. The worst part of it all, is that the Government keeps refering to the current US Economy as a "Capitalist" system which does nothing more than give Capitalism a bad name. Capitalism was once, when pure and free, the most efficient system in human history for allocating resources based on individual freedom, choice, preference, and intelligence. Today, we have a government that tells us what we are going to buy, what businesses it is going to prop up, and fixes prices on things such as incomes, bonuses, health care procedures, and more. The funny thing about it all, is that the industries where the United States has faltered the most in recent years (lending, housing, health care, food products, energy, etc.) are also the ones which the government has the most control over through subsidies, regulations, and monopoly protection. Now they ask for more control. The irony is that the government will give itself power with no consultation of the people that control it.
Here are my recommendations for what to do about the world: e-mail your congressman and tell them that you will vote every single incumbent to power out of office unless they start voting themselves less power over your life (regardless of party affiliation), watch the NCAA tournament and cheer loudly, go out to the K and support the Royals this season because if they're in a pennant race that revenue will help them add that one bat or pitcher at the trade deadline to put themselves over the top, and watch Obama fumble around his speeches and jokes and laugh at him continuously. He's making several mistakes, and the media is going to turn on him in the very near future.
He's the new Bush. When you alienate members of the media and do not listen to the will of the people, you will be destroyed politically. The White House should be the summit, not a black hole where the president goes to die politically. Obama will make president #2 to commit political suicide in the White House. Let's hope the people vote him out of power sooner than they did Bush.
1) President Obama is digging his own political grave. He defends the indefendable in his own cabinet, he keeps taking the blame for Congress screwing up legislation as well as for his own cabinet appointees having troubled pasts, and he is overextending himself in the media. Not only that, but he's a complete partisan. He's limiting media exclusives to individuals in at the Huffinton Post, Black Enterprise, hispanic television networks, and blowing off the Washington Press Corps. Seems to me he's showing his true agenda for the economy when he talks to liberal bloggers and minority-based publications instead of economists, business publications, and major news networks.
2) The NCAA Tournament is the best time of the year for sports, bar none. Mizzou is putting up a fight, but the thought of having to play their next three against Memphis, UConn, and Louisville is very daunting. It has been an excellent season, and another one close to it is going to get the recruits back to looking at the black and gold as a strong place to play.
3) Royals season is coming up, and this town should be excited. Jacobs and Teahan have been destroying the ball, Davies is solidifying the #3 spot in the rotation with ease, and the team has a true leadoff threat. When in the past have the Royals had a solid leadoff batter, slugger, three starters, a lights out closer, and 20+ homer potential from 6 guys in their lineup? AL Central title, here we come.
4) The events happening in the United States are just alarming. The worst part of it all, is that the Government keeps refering to the current US Economy as a "Capitalist" system which does nothing more than give Capitalism a bad name. Capitalism was once, when pure and free, the most efficient system in human history for allocating resources based on individual freedom, choice, preference, and intelligence. Today, we have a government that tells us what we are going to buy, what businesses it is going to prop up, and fixes prices on things such as incomes, bonuses, health care procedures, and more. The funny thing about it all, is that the industries where the United States has faltered the most in recent years (lending, housing, health care, food products, energy, etc.) are also the ones which the government has the most control over through subsidies, regulations, and monopoly protection. Now they ask for more control. The irony is that the government will give itself power with no consultation of the people that control it.
Here are my recommendations for what to do about the world: e-mail your congressman and tell them that you will vote every single incumbent to power out of office unless they start voting themselves less power over your life (regardless of party affiliation), watch the NCAA tournament and cheer loudly, go out to the K and support the Royals this season because if they're in a pennant race that revenue will help them add that one bat or pitcher at the trade deadline to put themselves over the top, and watch Obama fumble around his speeches and jokes and laugh at him continuously. He's making several mistakes, and the media is going to turn on him in the very near future.
He's the new Bush. When you alienate members of the media and do not listen to the will of the people, you will be destroyed politically. The White House should be the summit, not a black hole where the president goes to die politically. Obama will make president #2 to commit political suicide in the White House. Let's hope the people vote him out of power sooner than they did Bush.
Friday, March 6, 2009
Pursuit of Fairness in Marriage
Marriage is really a great thing, possibly the greatest thing that we embark on in this life. From my perspective, it is the ultimate pursuit of happiness that we can embark on. As the right to pursue happiness is outlined in the United States Constitution, is this great thing entitled to us through this statement? Since I am infact married, I'm sure you would all say that I have a vested interest in the success of it, or it is something I am invested in.
It is my perspective that every individual in this great nation should have a happy marriage, be free to pursue having children and all of those wonderful things that come from a peaceful marriage. Considering the government has moved in a direction of late to "protecting our life, liberty, and happiness" instead of "protecting our right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness," it is my perception that it is the government's role to see that we are all married and that we live our lives married.
Bear with me here, because I know this goes against the main stream. This might be crazy talk to all of you. If everyone always had someone to come home to and vent about their day or to share in all of their professional achievements, overall loneliness would be diminished. Suicides might decline in this country if everyone had someone. Why should the population's happiness be limited in the pursuit of love that is always an emotional struggle? If it was entitled by the state, would we not be all the happier from the start and be lacking happiness for a smaller portion of our lives?
Not only this, but since the supply of "desirable" spouses is probably not 100%, then the government can "subsidize" those who are stuck with less desirable spouses. This way, if you're marriage isn't great then the government can give you a little bit back if through your own choice of a spouse or the unfortunate events beyond your control. Happiness is the ultimate goal here, and the state should do what is in its power to make it happen.
The power wielded in order to get a schmuck like me married is certain to infringe on the rights of another. No one would want to be married to me, but if the government paid them to do it then we would all be better off. I would be married to someone with which I have not earned and someone would be married to me, an individual which reduces their standard of life. It's all fair isn't it, in the name of ultimate happiness?
Perhaps so. As it is the place of the government in these unsettling times to take earned property and added happiness from individuals and giving to others who through their own actions or circumstance are less fortunate, why limit "happiness" to mere money. Money is the root of all evil, but love is what truly sustains us (or can build a bridge as Hilary Clinton would say).
Would this system water down marriage? Is what makes marriages great the pursuit of that ultimate happiness? Is it sweeter if you had to work for it? If it takes work once you have it day in and day out, does that make it more moral or honorable? Are you less likely to "default" on it if you could lose it? If you ultimately find your own spouse through your own struggle, do you find someone more your equal and not someone who will ultimately make you less happy?
If the system was set up this way, it is certain that some would leave the pursuit of marriage up to circumstance so as to avoid the emotional costs associated with its pursuit. Some would continue to pursue that ultimate happiness without the entitlement of marriage.
The ultimate question is whether the happiness and emotional protection that comes with marriage is entiteled to us all. If the government can make the "beautiful, selfless, and intelligent" a little less happy to make all of society happy in the realm of financial security through redistribution of their finances, then why not give ultimate emotional security to society in with the redistribution of their emotional excesses?
It's only fair. Shouldn't the most happy be a little less happy to make all of society not depressed?
It is my perspective that every individual in this great nation should have a happy marriage, be free to pursue having children and all of those wonderful things that come from a peaceful marriage. Considering the government has moved in a direction of late to "protecting our life, liberty, and happiness" instead of "protecting our right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness," it is my perception that it is the government's role to see that we are all married and that we live our lives married.
Bear with me here, because I know this goes against the main stream. This might be crazy talk to all of you. If everyone always had someone to come home to and vent about their day or to share in all of their professional achievements, overall loneliness would be diminished. Suicides might decline in this country if everyone had someone. Why should the population's happiness be limited in the pursuit of love that is always an emotional struggle? If it was entitled by the state, would we not be all the happier from the start and be lacking happiness for a smaller portion of our lives?
Not only this, but since the supply of "desirable" spouses is probably not 100%, then the government can "subsidize" those who are stuck with less desirable spouses. This way, if you're marriage isn't great then the government can give you a little bit back if through your own choice of a spouse or the unfortunate events beyond your control. Happiness is the ultimate goal here, and the state should do what is in its power to make it happen.
The power wielded in order to get a schmuck like me married is certain to infringe on the rights of another. No one would want to be married to me, but if the government paid them to do it then we would all be better off. I would be married to someone with which I have not earned and someone would be married to me, an individual which reduces their standard of life. It's all fair isn't it, in the name of ultimate happiness?
Perhaps so. As it is the place of the government in these unsettling times to take earned property and added happiness from individuals and giving to others who through their own actions or circumstance are less fortunate, why limit "happiness" to mere money. Money is the root of all evil, but love is what truly sustains us (or can build a bridge as Hilary Clinton would say).
Would this system water down marriage? Is what makes marriages great the pursuit of that ultimate happiness? Is it sweeter if you had to work for it? If it takes work once you have it day in and day out, does that make it more moral or honorable? Are you less likely to "default" on it if you could lose it? If you ultimately find your own spouse through your own struggle, do you find someone more your equal and not someone who will ultimately make you less happy?
If the system was set up this way, it is certain that some would leave the pursuit of marriage up to circumstance so as to avoid the emotional costs associated with its pursuit. Some would continue to pursue that ultimate happiness without the entitlement of marriage.
The ultimate question is whether the happiness and emotional protection that comes with marriage is entiteled to us all. If the government can make the "beautiful, selfless, and intelligent" a little less happy to make all of society happy in the realm of financial security through redistribution of their finances, then why not give ultimate emotional security to society in with the redistribution of their emotional excesses?
It's only fair. Shouldn't the most happy be a little less happy to make all of society not depressed?
Thursday, March 5, 2009
M-I-Z-Z-O-U....You Break My Heart
Come on Mizzou. I don't understand how you can't get up for a game in Lawrence. It just makes me sick. How can a team consistently look good against other good teams, then tank against KU in Lawrence? Last night, Missouri destroyed Oklahoma in Columbia. Blake Griffin, the likely NCAA player of the year, was playing. KU barely beat OU with Griffin in the lineup, and Mizzou obliterated them with him. Why couldn't they take that intensity to Lawrence?
I understand it is a hostile crowd, and you're constantly getting hit on by men. I could see how that would be a distraction. But come on, you haven't won there in years and it's like a 3 hour drive. You should spend the first 5 minutes of the game putting anyone who comes in the lane on their back. If Cole Aldrich tries that back door cut for an 'oop and dunk, Lyons and Carrol should stop, turn their back into him, "box him out," and take his legs out from under him.
I know this all sounds harsh, but that's how you win on the road. No one wants to play on the road. You have to make the home team not want to be playing that game either. Mizzou wanted nothing to do with KU, and it is unfortunate.
They could have made a great season something really special.
I understand it is a hostile crowd, and you're constantly getting hit on by men. I could see how that would be a distraction. But come on, you haven't won there in years and it's like a 3 hour drive. You should spend the first 5 minutes of the game putting anyone who comes in the lane on their back. If Cole Aldrich tries that back door cut for an 'oop and dunk, Lyons and Carrol should stop, turn their back into him, "box him out," and take his legs out from under him.
I know this all sounds harsh, but that's how you win on the road. No one wants to play on the road. You have to make the home team not want to be playing that game either. Mizzou wanted nothing to do with KU, and it is unfortunate.
They could have made a great season something really special.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
'D' is for Douche....
I thought that polarization and mockery was reserved for politicians with an 'R' next to their name. Also, I'm thankful that the same CNN that reported on the Clinton's cat-tragedy (family cat died) and negatively portrayed Giuliani's mockery of Obama's "Presidential Experience" as a community organizer at the GOP Convention while encouraging the mockery of the right.
I'm sick and tired of every leftist moron who thinks that Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, and Karl Rove (whooo, chills, huh?) are worse than the likes of Paul Begala, James Carville, Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and others. Get a clue, they're all polarizing power hungry jackasses.
Are the journalism schools just teaching all of our little AP writers to all be liberal d-bags? Oh wait, I already know the answer to that question.....
I'm sick and tired of every leftist moron who thinks that Rush Limbaugh, Anne Coulter, and Karl Rove (whooo, chills, huh?) are worse than the likes of Paul Begala, James Carville, Robert Gibbs, Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and others. Get a clue, they're all polarizing power hungry jackasses.
Are the journalism schools just teaching all of our little AP writers to all be liberal d-bags? Oh wait, I already know the answer to that question.....
Buy Cheap
Complete conspiracy theorist here, please ignore if you don't assume that the worst is possible.
One week ago, when someone in the press (finally) pointed out to Robert Gibbs that every time Obama does something to "fix" the economy, the stock market drops about 5-10%. His response, was a short statement that the stock market should not be a gauge for the economic success of the administration. Why not? Weren't we merely protecting the lost income of people's 401k's and such? That was a major point of the Obama campaign, but if they don't care about the stock market then how are they going to protect people's retirement?
Yesterday, I read the Communist Manifesto. I wanted to read up on the psycho-babble of the other side. Interestingly, it spoke of a time when the bourgeois will gain so much economic ground on the proletariats that there will need to be a revolution among the proletariats. Property will have to be destroyed and rebuilt so as to end the growth and once the revolution spreads to governmental control, then we move toward an era where private property is no more and the proletariat no longer works merely to pay the bourgeois.
I see this coming true in today's society. Property has been destroyed (or at least the value of homes and automobiles) through the government (not the bourgeois) protecting unsustainable growth. Now, the stock prices are plunging and the leader of the "free" world does not care. How could this be? Why would the lost wealth of those who voted him into power not sway his personal agenda?
Could the government be planning the takeover of all private property and wealth? If in 2010 or 2011, the DJIA drops to about 3,500-4,000 points, will the Obama-led facist state buy the economy on the cheap and run it through the totalitarian state? What if Europe is in on the scam, and this is the reason why Gordon Brown (the leftist who is going to lose reelection in 2 years bad) is in the United States working on a "Global New Deal" to end the recession. Perhaps this "deal" involves a massive debt on the backs of every goverment (taxpayer) in the western world so as to not see any major currency shock on either side? The potential insanity is endless, and the nation (not me personally, I voted for Bob Barr) were dupped by the ultimate tease. Obama is the ultimate panderer, the ultimate fraud, and the ultimate destroyer of everything that America was built on.
It's all highly unlikely. But it makes you wonder why a president would be so foolish to make such a statement? Since he's spent his time giving us all the worst thus far, I will continue to assume the worst is to come. When he stops taking from me (a producer) to give to others (unproductive) in the name of making me better off, I will stop assuming that the worst is to come.
One week ago, when someone in the press (finally) pointed out to Robert Gibbs that every time Obama does something to "fix" the economy, the stock market drops about 5-10%. His response, was a short statement that the stock market should not be a gauge for the economic success of the administration. Why not? Weren't we merely protecting the lost income of people's 401k's and such? That was a major point of the Obama campaign, but if they don't care about the stock market then how are they going to protect people's retirement?
Yesterday, I read the Communist Manifesto. I wanted to read up on the psycho-babble of the other side. Interestingly, it spoke of a time when the bourgeois will gain so much economic ground on the proletariats that there will need to be a revolution among the proletariats. Property will have to be destroyed and rebuilt so as to end the growth and once the revolution spreads to governmental control, then we move toward an era where private property is no more and the proletariat no longer works merely to pay the bourgeois.
I see this coming true in today's society. Property has been destroyed (or at least the value of homes and automobiles) through the government (not the bourgeois) protecting unsustainable growth. Now, the stock prices are plunging and the leader of the "free" world does not care. How could this be? Why would the lost wealth of those who voted him into power not sway his personal agenda?
Could the government be planning the takeover of all private property and wealth? If in 2010 or 2011, the DJIA drops to about 3,500-4,000 points, will the Obama-led facist state buy the economy on the cheap and run it through the totalitarian state? What if Europe is in on the scam, and this is the reason why Gordon Brown (the leftist who is going to lose reelection in 2 years bad) is in the United States working on a "Global New Deal" to end the recession. Perhaps this "deal" involves a massive debt on the backs of every goverment (taxpayer) in the western world so as to not see any major currency shock on either side? The potential insanity is endless, and the nation (not me personally, I voted for Bob Barr) were dupped by the ultimate tease. Obama is the ultimate panderer, the ultimate fraud, and the ultimate destroyer of everything that America was built on.
It's all highly unlikely. But it makes you wonder why a president would be so foolish to make such a statement? Since he's spent his time giving us all the worst thus far, I will continue to assume the worst is to come. When he stops taking from me (a producer) to give to others (unproductive) in the name of making me better off, I will stop assuming that the worst is to come.
Sorry Roland, but....
you love earmarks. We don't.
See, normal people realize that priviate companies buy private land and build private enterprise that leads to private individuals buying private goods and services. Morons who don't see past the handout "secretly love earmarks." Also, intelligent people realize that the an earmark is not free money. If it was then we would all love earmarkts.
The fact is, Roland, that if earmark spending is (as Obama put it) 0.1% of the federal budget, that the $25,000 in taxes that a $150,000 paid in household led to that individual paying $25 for a bridge to nowhere and a reservoir in some other part of the country. That if 30% of the federal budget is spent on the military empire, that the individual spent $8,333.33 to police the world. That if entitlements are 50% of the federal budget, the individual spent $12,500.00 for medicare and social security that could have went to one hell of a retirement and health care plan on their own. If an individual is making $30,000 and is in the 10% tax bracket, you all can do the math. Trust me it's the same problem.
The government is destroying the individual for the public good, and Roland Martin is trying to shove down our throat that we secretly love it. No Roland Martin, I love my home, my car, my family, my savings, my monthly budget, and all of the things that my wife and I have built up FOR OURSELVES. I do not love earmarks, and I sure as hell don't need you to tell me what I do and don't love.
When will people realize that the federal government taking money from people with no vested interest in a water park in South Dakota, or a reservoir in New Mexico, or a Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska is wrong. The founders of this nation built a Federalist system that decreed that local governments will have most of the control of governing this nation. If a locale or state wants a socialist system, they can do it and leave the rest of us alone. If they want free trade, low taxes, no entitelements, and to build up their personal health care and retirements on their own, they are free to do so.
If liberals in California want the government do run all of these projects that the rest of the country wants to be private, then let them. But DON'T make the rest of us pay for it.
Roland Martin. You publicly love earmarks, you don't speak for the public. You are an idiot.....
See, normal people realize that priviate companies buy private land and build private enterprise that leads to private individuals buying private goods and services. Morons who don't see past the handout "secretly love earmarks." Also, intelligent people realize that the an earmark is not free money. If it was then we would all love earmarkts.
The fact is, Roland, that if earmark spending is (as Obama put it) 0.1% of the federal budget, that the $25,000 in taxes that a $150,000 paid in household led to that individual paying $25 for a bridge to nowhere and a reservoir in some other part of the country. That if 30% of the federal budget is spent on the military empire, that the individual spent $8,333.33 to police the world. That if entitlements are 50% of the federal budget, the individual spent $12,500.00 for medicare and social security that could have went to one hell of a retirement and health care plan on their own. If an individual is making $30,000 and is in the 10% tax bracket, you all can do the math. Trust me it's the same problem.
The government is destroying the individual for the public good, and Roland Martin is trying to shove down our throat that we secretly love it. No Roland Martin, I love my home, my car, my family, my savings, my monthly budget, and all of the things that my wife and I have built up FOR OURSELVES. I do not love earmarks, and I sure as hell don't need you to tell me what I do and don't love.
When will people realize that the federal government taking money from people with no vested interest in a water park in South Dakota, or a reservoir in New Mexico, or a Bridge to Nowhere in Alaska is wrong. The founders of this nation built a Federalist system that decreed that local governments will have most of the control of governing this nation. If a locale or state wants a socialist system, they can do it and leave the rest of us alone. If they want free trade, low taxes, no entitelements, and to build up their personal health care and retirements on their own, they are free to do so.
If liberals in California want the government do run all of these projects that the rest of the country wants to be private, then let them. But DON'T make the rest of us pay for it.
Roland Martin. You publicly love earmarks, you don't speak for the public. You are an idiot.....
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
This All Must End
Barack Obama is not going to need an entire term to destroy the foundation with which this nation was built upon, he's probably going to need six months. We are a nation that was built on localized control, that solved our own problems and stayed away from the problems of the rest of the world, and believed in individual liberty and freedom. Barack Obama is single-handedly destroying our freedoms more and more by the day. Don't believe me:
Economic Freedom and National Economic Independence
Personal Doctor/Patient Relationships with Regard to Health Care Decision Making
Raising our Taxes while Appointing Tax Dodgers
Running Up Deficits and Policies that will Enslave our Children and Grandchildren to Terribly High Taxes - as well as looking the public in the eye and lying to them about his tax/spending ambitions
A Government that tell you Who to Hire, What to Pay them, What Race/Gender they will be, and What they will take from You to give to who They Want
Running a Communist-esque cabinet filled with a "Who's Who Among Corporate/Washington Elites" while signing excessive numbers of executive orders into law to make political statements while ignoring the loss of civil liberties due to the United States government around the world
Decreasing the Charitable Tax Deductions which will REDUCE charitable contributions in the United States by an estimated $4 billion while increasing governmental charitable giving by $100 million (net loss of $3.9 billion)
Working with one Nuclear Facist to slow the ambitions of another Facist while ignoring free people in Eastern Europe who fear the Imperialist ambitions of Russia
I could go on, but this is a very scary time. This is a nation that is destroying itself by entitlement spending (which soon after Obama's budget deficit FALLS to $533B while drive the budget back up), by handing over our liberties and our personal responsibility to our government, that believes that a corrupt government can dictate what we can afford more than we can, that redistributes BOTH wealth AND troops from one war to another, and on and on.
The government needs to dictate a nation where YOU decide how much health care you can afford, YOU save for YOUR retirement, YOU negotiate deals for YOUR home that YOU can afford, YOU decide the classification of YOUR relationships and the government does not, YOU negotiate your salary and benefits, YOU pay your employees, YOU are responsible for the future success/failure of YOUR business, YOU own YOUR property, YOU pursue YOUR own success and happiness without government intrusion. YOUR cell phone calls are YOURS, YOUR relationships are YOURS, YOUR money is YOURS, YOUR pursuit of YOUR property and more of it is YOURS, it goes on and on.
The freedom of the INDIVIDUAL is being destroyed by governmental expedience. We cannot print money out of control, and we certainly cannot have a "Global New Deal" to combat the recession. Recessions happen. Guess what? A massive housing and debt bubble has burst. Things will get better as soon as the government stops propping up housing and debt (which Obama said he would continue in the Congressional Address). Not only is he aiming to "redistribute" from the successful to the unsuccessful (bailouts take from productive to give to non-productive business in addition to rich/poor), but he's aiming to redistribute American wealth to the world through the Global New Deal.
It is disgusting. It must come to an end or we will be bankrupt and slaves to a totalitarian state.
Economic Freedom and National Economic Independence
Personal Doctor/Patient Relationships with Regard to Health Care Decision Making
Raising our Taxes while Appointing Tax Dodgers
Running Up Deficits and Policies that will Enslave our Children and Grandchildren to Terribly High Taxes - as well as looking the public in the eye and lying to them about his tax/spending ambitions
A Government that tell you Who to Hire, What to Pay them, What Race/Gender they will be, and What they will take from You to give to who They Want
Running a Communist-esque cabinet filled with a "Who's Who Among Corporate/Washington Elites" while signing excessive numbers of executive orders into law to make political statements while ignoring the loss of civil liberties due to the United States government around the world
Decreasing the Charitable Tax Deductions which will REDUCE charitable contributions in the United States by an estimated $4 billion while increasing governmental charitable giving by $100 million (net loss of $3.9 billion)
Working with one Nuclear Facist to slow the ambitions of another Facist while ignoring free people in Eastern Europe who fear the Imperialist ambitions of Russia
I could go on, but this is a very scary time. This is a nation that is destroying itself by entitlement spending (which soon after Obama's budget deficit FALLS to $533B while drive the budget back up), by handing over our liberties and our personal responsibility to our government, that believes that a corrupt government can dictate what we can afford more than we can, that redistributes BOTH wealth AND troops from one war to another, and on and on.
The government needs to dictate a nation where YOU decide how much health care you can afford, YOU save for YOUR retirement, YOU negotiate deals for YOUR home that YOU can afford, YOU decide the classification of YOUR relationships and the government does not, YOU negotiate your salary and benefits, YOU pay your employees, YOU are responsible for the future success/failure of YOUR business, YOU own YOUR property, YOU pursue YOUR own success and happiness without government intrusion. YOUR cell phone calls are YOURS, YOUR relationships are YOURS, YOUR money is YOURS, YOUR pursuit of YOUR property and more of it is YOURS, it goes on and on.
The freedom of the INDIVIDUAL is being destroyed by governmental expedience. We cannot print money out of control, and we certainly cannot have a "Global New Deal" to combat the recession. Recessions happen. Guess what? A massive housing and debt bubble has burst. Things will get better as soon as the government stops propping up housing and debt (which Obama said he would continue in the Congressional Address). Not only is he aiming to "redistribute" from the successful to the unsuccessful (bailouts take from productive to give to non-productive business in addition to rich/poor), but he's aiming to redistribute American wealth to the world through the Global New Deal.
It is disgusting. It must come to an end or we will be bankrupt and slaves to a totalitarian state.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Let History Guide Decision on Socialism
We presently live in a nation teetering on the brink of Socialism. It is the word of the day. People (or businesses) cannot be trusted to dictate the supply, pricing, payroll, and overall direction of their companies. In the United States, moving this direction is the desire of many, as people have jumped off the deep end and decided that the government is more trustworthy than they are.
Think about it, the Constitution of the United States outlined a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The people have decided that as long as they have job, health care, and the opportunity to pay 25% of their money in debt, 50% in taxes, and keep 25% of it for their own sustenance that it is acceptable. They have decided that they are entitled to health care, a retirement, an overpriced home, and such paid for by other people. If they get them then it is acceptable to reform this nation into "a people of the government, by the government, and for the government." Does history dictate that this is possible or rational?
Current events around the world paint a rather unflattering picture of Socialism. The only parts of the world actually lifting people out of poverty reside in Asia, and China, Japan, and India are three of the freest traders and most powerful producers in the world. Poverty (and recessions) cease to exist in the conditions of productivity and economic freedom. There is ascending Capitalism on the continent of Asia.
Next, we move to Europe, which is very popularly labeled as a beacon for Socialism by the right and is the desire of the left. Seldom does the media explain to us all that the government is reducing its share of GDP in nations in Europe as opposed to increasing. Nations with governments that were once 40-50% of national GDP are actually doing less, and for the better. They are realizing the grand illusion that if you take everything from the rich above a certain line, you still are unable to pay for Socialist ambitions as the rich will decide not to pay themselves so much if it means redistribution of their work to someone else. As this system is not sustainable, the government must eventually take less, influence less, and leave life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness to the people and not to the nation.
And then there is the United States. There is now this 2% illusion (or lunacy) of Barack Obama regarding taking from the rich to subsidize a lack of success. The United States is moving toward a 35% government share of GDP by 2010 when the Socialist nations in Europe are moving down into the upper 30's. They have learned their lesson, and Obama ignores the lessons learned by others to believe that he's different. He chooses to NOT look to the loss of poverty in Asia, to NOT look at how unsustainable Socialism is to nations in Europe, and to look at governing selfishness alone. When one believes that they can fix someone else's problems, they will be sadly mistaken. History has spoken.
Fix someone else, they fix their own problems. Fix their problem, they're bound to repeat the events that lead to their problems in the first place. Economies that facilitate work and production are economies that lift people out of poverty through their own economic freedom, choice, and through the very work of their lives teach them that all of life (career and personal) takes work. Economies that facilitate spending and entitlement like the United States reward no work, no production, and are doomed to see GDP decline, tax revenues decline, poverty to increase, and wealth to decline.
Not only that, but the government will be so far in debt that it will be rendered insolvent. Hopefully Obama looks at history sooner or later and go back to learning as opposed to believing he has the answers. He's been campaigning since he was in college, perhaps it's time he opened up a newspaper, magazine, or a certain blog!
Think about it, the Constitution of the United States outlined a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people." The people have decided that as long as they have job, health care, and the opportunity to pay 25% of their money in debt, 50% in taxes, and keep 25% of it for their own sustenance that it is acceptable. They have decided that they are entitled to health care, a retirement, an overpriced home, and such paid for by other people. If they get them then it is acceptable to reform this nation into "a people of the government, by the government, and for the government." Does history dictate that this is possible or rational?
Current events around the world paint a rather unflattering picture of Socialism. The only parts of the world actually lifting people out of poverty reside in Asia, and China, Japan, and India are three of the freest traders and most powerful producers in the world. Poverty (and recessions) cease to exist in the conditions of productivity and economic freedom. There is ascending Capitalism on the continent of Asia.
Next, we move to Europe, which is very popularly labeled as a beacon for Socialism by the right and is the desire of the left. Seldom does the media explain to us all that the government is reducing its share of GDP in nations in Europe as opposed to increasing. Nations with governments that were once 40-50% of national GDP are actually doing less, and for the better. They are realizing the grand illusion that if you take everything from the rich above a certain line, you still are unable to pay for Socialist ambitions as the rich will decide not to pay themselves so much if it means redistribution of their work to someone else. As this system is not sustainable, the government must eventually take less, influence less, and leave life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness to the people and not to the nation.
And then there is the United States. There is now this 2% illusion (or lunacy) of Barack Obama regarding taking from the rich to subsidize a lack of success. The United States is moving toward a 35% government share of GDP by 2010 when the Socialist nations in Europe are moving down into the upper 30's. They have learned their lesson, and Obama ignores the lessons learned by others to believe that he's different. He chooses to NOT look to the loss of poverty in Asia, to NOT look at how unsustainable Socialism is to nations in Europe, and to look at governing selfishness alone. When one believes that they can fix someone else's problems, they will be sadly mistaken. History has spoken.
Fix someone else, they fix their own problems. Fix their problem, they're bound to repeat the events that lead to their problems in the first place. Economies that facilitate work and production are economies that lift people out of poverty through their own economic freedom, choice, and through the very work of their lives teach them that all of life (career and personal) takes work. Economies that facilitate spending and entitlement like the United States reward no work, no production, and are doomed to see GDP decline, tax revenues decline, poverty to increase, and wealth to decline.
Not only that, but the government will be so far in debt that it will be rendered insolvent. Hopefully Obama looks at history sooner or later and go back to learning as opposed to believing he has the answers. He's been campaigning since he was in college, perhaps it's time he opened up a newspaper, magazine, or a certain blog!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
