Who Are The Intelligent?

We who are constitutional conservatives have hope according to Angelo Codevilla.  In his book The Ruling Class he states: "(O)ur Ruling Class recruits and renews itself not through meritocracy but rather by taking into itself people whose most prominent feature is their commitment to fit in...Thus does our Ruling Class stunt itself through negative selection.  Each succeeding generation is less competent than its predecessor.  But the more it has dumbed itself down, the more it has defined itself by the presumption of intellectual superiority.  In this way, too, it has discredited itself." (The Ruling Class: How They Corrupted America And What We Can Do About It, Angelo Codevilla; Beaufort Books, 2010; p 15)
How many of the Ruling Class comes to mind when you read these words?  How many times as you have listened to them being interviewed have you had these thoughts occur to you: "What world did they come from?  What universe did they come from?  What kind of Kool-aid are they drinking?  What kind of drugs are they on?"
But it would seem from these words that the Ruling Class is going to get more and more strange.  Soon they will be off in another universe and we can get back to the business of living in the real world.
This description is so fitting because the stranger they become the louder they shout: "WE are the intelligent ones."  Those comments that the American people just don't understand should sound a bell to us: here comes some more "intelligent" talk from them.  And what happens when they do that?  People just shut off their ears because they know that the Ruling Class is going try to feed us some more nonsense. Those with superiority complex always scream the loudest when they are challenged by us inferior kind.
What do we do?  We just cling to our Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and our guns, and our religion.  We keep voting out the Ruling Class and find some citizen candidates like Al West, Herman Cain, Michelle Bachman, Sarah Palin, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, etc.

Freedom Sets Creativity Free!

New acronyms: RINO - Representative in name only + SINO - Senator in name only = Ruling Class (RC) vs (CC) Country Class, the rest of us.
I have been struggling with how to differentiate between Republicans who are for small government, fiscal responsibility and constitutionalism from those Republicans who are want big government.  I realize that not all our Representatives and Senators inside the beltway and in our state governments are liberals.  So how do we distinguish the liberal ones from the serious Representatives and Senators?
How about calling them Representatives in name only; the ones who claim to represent the people but are really in it for their own careers and pocketbooks.  The Senators in name only are the ones who claim to represent their states, but are in it only for their own careers and pocketbooks.  And the liberals are not all Democrats; there are many Republicans to which that term also applies.  Just being Republican does not guarantee that one is for small government, fiscal responsiblity and constitutionalism. 
This situation is what makes reform so difficult.  Those of us who want to return to our Constitution and Declaration of Independence cannot depend on either political party.  So many politicians in both political parties have become infected with the socialist idea that government needs to solve our problems, so infected with this socialistic idea that they cannot see the best solution, i.e letting the private sector find the solution.  What those socialistic politicians don't see is that government (i.e. law) whether local, state or federal never encourages creativity.  Rather it stifles creative solutions to problems.
Some law is necessary, but law/government very quickly becomes overbearing and oppressive.  Freedom from government does not necessarily cause creativity, but it removes the oppressive resistance to creativity and that removal sets the creativity free.  And when that creativity is set free watch it solve problems that the government would never be able to solve, in fact some problems that politicians may not even realize exist.
So what do we do?  Well, we do not depend on either political party bringing candidates forth that see the solutions to our problems.  We work within the parties realizing that we cannot follow the party lines, but must create our own lines of direction and work with all our strength as "outsiders", ones who do not follow the party lines.  We work with all our strength and intensity to get candidates who see that the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence gives all the guidelines we need to solve our problems.  These documents, Founding Documents of our country, show how to find solutions to our problems by hindering and halting the oppression with which government weighs us down.  These Founding Documents give us the freedom from our government, freedom that sets our creativity free to solve our problems without regulations and beaucrats.
"Give me liberty or give me death."

Transforming America?

"Wilson was the first American statesman to argue that the Founders had done badly by depriving the U. S. government of the power to reshape American society.  Nor was Wilson the last to invade a foreign country (Mexico) to 'teach (them) to elect good men'...The progressives...found it fulfilling to attribute their schemes' failure to the American people's backwardness, to something deeply wrong with American...(D)emocracy in its American form perpetuated the worst in humanity." (The Ruling Class, How They Corrupted America and What We Can Do About It, Angelo Codevilla; Beaufort Books, 2010; pp 17, 18.)
"We are five days away from transforming American." (BO, just before his inauguration.)  This seems to be a hideous attitude of our government.  Our government seems to have take it upon themselves to transform, morally improve, our society.  What a joke!  We see the blatant corruption and complete disregard for law in the White House and the insistent corruption in the Congress and in the agencies of our government.  We see voter fraud perpetrated by government officials and their reluctance to allow laws to be passed to hinder such massive fraud.  We see government officials, even ones who are responsible for collecting taxes, failing to pay their income taxes until their "crimes" are exposed for the public to see.  And then we see no move by the IRS to prosecute these officials for their failures.  But if a private citizen is even implicated for such "crimes", immediately the lawyers are rallied by the government to make an example of them.  Ah sure, our government officials are going to teach us morality, truthfulness and honesty.  That is like the pig claiming to teach someone how to stay out of the mire and muck.  Maybe that is why they call so much of what our government does and our legislation "pork".
What is really pure foolishness is for any of our officials, even the honest ones, to think they can make us honest and truthful through their legislation and regulation.  Don't they know that such morality is not taught by force, but by example?  But of course, they are not able to teach us from the example of so many of our government elected and appointed officials.  Their example teaches just the opposite.  So all they have left to use to teach society such morality is to use the gun.  And we all know how well the gun works in teaching any morality.
What also seems ridiculous is the attitude of our government that we need to help other countries set up a republic.  A republic cannot be set up by forcing the people to desire a republic.  Another country can only learn how to make a republic work by watching a successful example.  And up till the last few decades we had given that example, but the election of BO and the runaway 111th Congress must certainly discourage others from following in our footsteps.  Wilson thought he could teach Mexico how to get good people into their government.  Look how successful he was!  Now BO thinks he is going to teach the American republic how to be kind, loving, honest, and a good example to the world.  He will be about as successful as Wilson was with Mexico.  We cannot turn other countries into Americas.  They can only do that for themselves if they like what they see us doing.  The only difference between BO and Wilson is that Wilson wanted to teach Mexico to be a good country and BO thinks he is going to teach the USA to be a good country.  Talk about arrogance.  A crook is going to teach the rest how to live properly.
If our officials are going teach our citizens morality, those officials need to set the example.  And if we are going to help other countries become republics, then we need to be a good example to them.  Force will never accomplish any of that.

Career Politicians?

"(T)he Ruling Class is largely professional---in the sense that ruling is itself its business...The Country Class can hope to cut that knot only by mobilizing itself against it on a principled, moral basis---understanding that the system of priveleges is dishonest, and being willing to dispense with whatever threads of it they hold...(T)he revolutionary choice for the Country Class has to be: are you willing to upset the apple cart from which you get your ration of apples?" (The Ruling Class, How They Corrupted America And What We Can Do About It, Angelo Codevilla; Beaufort Books, 2010; pp 68-70.)
Angelo Codevilla touches on several points in section of his book.
The first is that the Ruling Class is a professional class.  We have career politicians and they just revolve between the government and the higher echelons of business.  This is not good.  This is not healthy for our country.  The government needs to be made so small that it wouldn't pay for anyone to be a professional politician, a career politician.  Elected officials should not have health care benefits, retirement benefits or other such benefits.
"But if we won't do that, then we will not get the best for elected positions."  Really?  Is that why George Washington served his country?  Is that why the delegates to the Constitutional Convention served their country?
AND how well has it worked with the class of career politicians we have developed?  What have we ended up with?  Politicians who exempt themselves from laws they write, who exempt themselves from paying their taxes, who cheat on their tax claims, who treat the rest of us, the Country Class, as if we were a bunch of uneducated bumpkins who need the wisdom of the Ruling Class to guide us through life. Worked well, hasn't it?
Second, how do we untie this Gordian knot?  We do NOT untie it by creating another class or career politicians.  We as unelected citizens of this country stand toe to toe with the career politicians and confront them with the principles that come from our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.  And if they don't seem to understand, if these principles are too difficult for them to understand, we use the ballot box to get rid of them.
Third, we realize that when we upset the apple cart, we run the risk, indeed, we most likely stop getting our ration of apples from that apple cart.  That is not pleasant, but that is necessary in order to TRANSFORM our country back to the republic it was created to be.  It will be hard work if we "can keep it."(Benjamin Franklin)  But it is well worth it.  Restoring this country back to small federal government, back to a republic of states, is well worth it because that structure is what has brought us this far and given us this rich and exciting life that we have experienced so far and can experience if we are willing to put the work into it. And if we are willing to work at this, we will enjoy apples like we have never enjoyed before.

Take Our Government Back!

Back in 1776, Adam Smith understood economics better than most of our economists do today.  "Plenty of good land, and liberty to manage their own affairs their own way, seem to be the two great causes of the prosperity of all new colonies....In the plenty of good land the English coloniesof North American, though, no doubt, very abundantly provided, are however, inferior to those of the Spaniards and Portugueze,and not superior to some of those possessed by the French before the late war.  But the political institutions of the English colonies have been more favorable to the improverment and cultivation of this land, than those of any of the other three nations."  (The Wealth Of Nations, Adam Smith; Random House, Inc., 2003; p 725.)
The reason the "English colonies" in North America prospered was not because they had so much good land (or other resources), but because of the political institutions that were created for us by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  These documents gave us liberty and that libery brought us prosperity.  The freedom to manage our resources as each of us thought best created a wealth that few societies, if any, have ever known.  That freedom sparked the creativity of everyone and that creativity created wealth never seen before.  It raised more people out of poverty than any society ever has.
The USSR discovered this the hard way.  They discovered that micromanaging by the government not only makes people uncomfortable, that it is not only oppressive, but that government planning destroys the resources and the country and the wealth.  When the government does the managing, no one ends up with any wealth except the planners who fill their pockets with the profits that come from the hard work of the rest of the citizens in the country.  No wonder, Angelo Codevilla in his book The Ruling Class encourages the rest of the citizens in the country to take the country back from the ruling class, the beltway politicians.  If we don't take the country back by the ballot box, it is going to explode into Greek-type riots and bloodshed.  So we better get our act together unless we want our country torn apart.

Who (What) Is Most Helpful?

“(W)hen we say that the State ought to protect some of them at the expense of others---we think, on the contrary, that all these living powers of society would develop themselves more harmoniously under the influence of liberty…Our adversaries consider that an activity which is neither aided by supplies, nor regulated by government, is an activity destroyed.  We think just the contrary.  Their faith is in the legislator, not in mankind; ours is in mankind, not in the legislator.”  (That Which Is Seen & That Which Is Not Seen, The Unintended Consequences Of Government Spending, M. Frederic Bastiat; Waking Lion Press, 2006; p 11) (Bastiat wrote these words in the early 1800’s.)

“The government must help the poor…The government must support the arts…The government must take care of the aged…” Or so claim many politicians, liberal and conservative.  But is that true?

What would happen if the government did not do these things?  Would the poor suffer more?  Would the arts shrivel up and die?  Would the aged just up and die?

Well, what if these things were true? Oh, wait a minute.  They are true, at least in the sense that is exactly what is happening even now with the government helping, supporting, taking care.  Are there less poor because of government welfare?  Or are, as some are beginning to claim, there MORE poor because of government welfare? 

Are the arts flourishing because of government support and aid?  Or, as some are starting to claim and seem to have evidence for, are the arts dying because of government support and aid?  And it would certainly seem that the freedom of art is dying because when the government supports and aids it also gets to choose what is art and what is not.  So, government aid may very well be killing the arts.

Will the aged suffer and die if not taken care by the government?  Are Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security (MMSS) beneficial for the aged?  Or by MMSS is the government causing more suffering and uncertainty for the aged?  And MMSS have become so fragile that it seems the aged cannot depend on them for anything, which causes even more stress for the aged.  Those who are now aged have paid into these programs for their life and now there seems to be nothing there for these aged when they need the help.  Would it have been better to let the private sector create tools that would benefit the aged when they needed it?

But, some would say, that the private sector is so greedy and has no foresight to plan and has no concern for others.  Even IF that were the case, why would we think the government has less of these characteristics?  As Bastiat states: So you put your “faith…in the legislator, not in mankind; ours is in mankind, not in the legislator.”  We so often forget: the legislator is part of mankind.  Why would we think them any less greedy with more foresight or concern for others?

But, some would say, the legislators are the cream of the crop; they are the best of mankind.  But, does that make them less greedy, etc.?  Are they the parents and we the children that need instruction and guidance?  I think the scandals that seem to erupt with every increasing frequency would lead us to think otherwise.  Of course, we can cling to this belief in spite of the evidence to the contrary.

And so Bastiat writes: “Government ought not to take part in this correspondence, because in a certain condition of present fortune it could not by taxation stimulate the arts of necessity without checking those of luxury, and thus interrupting the natural course of civilization.” (ibid, p 10)  And so it would seem that by striving to aid the arts by taxation, the government is hindering the life of luxury that would by nature support the arts.  And in the middle the government lowers the aid the arts could get by having to remove some of the funds for its own expenses to support the ones who are doing the work of the government.  And it would seem from the scandals of late, removing a rather large percentage of what is collected for the arts or any other good cause.  So MMSS is in deep trouble financially, the arts have run off a cliff, the poor are getting poorer and the aged are flailing around in death throes in spite of our wonderful government aid.

Now, to preempt any accusation of hard-heartedness, this does not mean that these causes are bad or destructive or whatever.  The only question that is being addressed is: Is government aid the best way to address these needs?  Or does government interference cause more problems than it tries to solve? 

Katrina is a good example.  Just how helpful was the government?  There is evidence that private benevolence was more helpful than any government.  People who received help from private volunteers had their houses rebuilt before the government even began.  And what could private volunteers have accomplished if they would have had the funds the government had forcibly taken from them?  Ah, the free enterprise system is much more effective and efficient than any government.

Harmony & A Humane Society

Why does it seem our political process has become so vitriolic, so intense, so violent?  Why are people so upset?  Why does it seem like we have lost our sense of harmony?
Listen to Isabel Paterson: "(T)he real source of social harmony is the spontaneous actions of individuals in a society governed by contract, not force." (The God Of The Machine, Isabel Paterson; Transaction Publishers, 2009; p il)  (Ms Paterson first wrote these words in 1943.)  She also saw "the free enterprise system as the promoter, not the destroyer, of a humane order of life." (ibid)  BO believes that to provide for the needy in our society, we must force people at the point of law (guns, threats, IRS with double-barreled shotguns) to pony up everything they have so the government can divvy up to each one's needs: "from each according to his ability and to each according to his need."  No wonder so many think our President is a socialist of the first degree.
No wonder people are getting extremely defensive.  The feds are getting so threatening that the only choice the people have is to submit and bend the knee or to oppose force with force.
And so if people are becoming vitriolic and forcefully outspoken, maybe it is because they feel threatened when they express themselves.  They are beginning to feel like they are being pressed into a structure they want no part of.
The best way to change that is to give each individual the freedom to make his/her own contracts for his/her own business and associations/relationships.  When that happens people can choose when and who they want to associate with and they don't feel forced into doing anything.
When the feds forced investors to give up their investments in GMC and other companies and turned that money and those investments over to the unions, that created a lot of stress and ramped up the conflict, not only from the investors that were robbed, but from others who realized from that example that they could loose everything they have.  The only way the feds can ease this is to get out of the private sector and just let people create their own society by their own contracts.  "The principle of social harmony is liberty, the rights of the individual; that is the natural law of man, which the United States had discovered and formulated, before the French Revolution." (ibid. p 156) "(I)f it (an idea, like socialism) cuts across an idea previously accepted, it will divide nations in fatal strife....(E)very major disaster is the result of inadequacy, error, or perversion of intelligence." (ibid. p 53)
If BO (and the ruling class) doesn't like the intense opposition from the citizens of this country, then he (and they) need to back off and work to make a contract with the people.  A forced contract just leads to tyranny or rebellion/anarchy.
The "use of the state for 'genuinely benevolent and humane' purposes of social betternment and security must lead to 'economic serfdom, an autocratic, bueaucratic, supreme state...So it is not security, it is dependence, quite another thing.'" (ibid. p il)  What is really interesting here is that to have a really humane society, we must have a society of freedom, a society where individuals are free to choose for themselves how and when and where they  work and associate.  That has created the most humane society that has existed so far and now the libs are trying to destroy that.  They are trying to destroy the humane way of life our Constitution and Declaration of Independence created for us.  May that never be!

Debt Limit

BO walks out of negotiations.  Mitch McConnell panics and claims we have to raise debt limit or BO will surely be reelected.
Have you not been listening to the voters, Mitch McConnell?  Or are you too much a part of the ruling class that you are going to ram the raising of the debt limit down our throats just like the Democrats rammed Obamacare down our throats?  Are you a true Republican conservative or are you Democrat-lite?  I am getting tired of McConnell's whining.  Follow Eric Cantor's lead and get some backbone, Mr McConnell.
But, McConnell says that BO and the Democrats will blame the Republicans for the bad economy if the debt limit is not raised.  What ?????  How blind are you, Mr. McConnell?  BO and the Democrats ARE going to blame you for all the problems our government has no matter which way you go.  So, buck up, and do the right thing and take the baloney that the donkeys are going to dish out.  You are an adult, right?  Haven't you already experienced their baloney over and over again?  Or maybe you haven't experienced it, because you are on their side in this struggle.  If that is the case, I will do whatever I can to support whoever runs against you when you do run again, if you have the guts to run again.  Or maybe you are going to pull a "Specter".

Principled Leaders

"There is no national movement for socialism or dictatorship in America...nothing but fumbling compromisers and frightened opportunists." (For The New Intellectual, Ayn Rand, New American Library, 1963; p 45)
Does this sound familiar today?  How many of us are screaming at the top of our lungs because our "leaders" seem to be nothing but a bunch of "fumbling compromisers and frightened opportunists"?
"To oppose anything, one needs a firm set of principles." (ibid.)  That seems to be what so many of our "leaders" lack, a firm set of principles.  Or maybe their firm set of principles is all or part of the following: "the growth of government power is not an abridgement of freedom...the demand of one group for an unearned share of another group's income is not socialism...the destruction of property rights will not affect any other rights...man's mind, intelligence, creative ability are a 'national resource'...to be taken over, subsidized and disposed of by the government...businessmen are selfish autocrats because they are struggling to preserve freedom, while the 'liberals' are the true champions of liberty because they are fighting for more government controls...the fact that we are sliding down a road which has destroyed every other country, does not prove that it will destroy ours...dictatorship is not dictatorship if nobody calls it by that abstract name...none of us can help it, anyway"(ibid, italics in original).  In either case, if our "leaders" can be characterized by no set of principles or any of the principles above, we are in deep trouble and need to find some others to lead us.
This is a time of crisis.  We cannot be led by fumbling compromisers or frightened opportunists.  We need leaders who have the principles of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution and are willing to oppose the socialist slide that started decades ago with Woodrow Wilson, FDR (or even before them) and the socialist idea that government can solve our problems.  "Government cannot solve our problems; it IS the problem." (Reagan)  The only thing that government can do is create a safe and secure atmosphere where the private sector can do its incredible work of solving our problems. This has worked in the past and it can and will work again.  (Katrina is a good example of that.)
Just think: Ayn Rand originally wrote these words 50 years ago.  It has taken us 50 years to wake up, but we are awake now.  Let us very consciously keep the pressure up and the fight on.

People's Blindness

Here is "the real motive of any person who's ever preached the slogan: 'From each according to his ability, and to each according to his need'....At first, I kept wondering how it could be possible that the educated, the cultured, the famous men of the world could make a mistake of this size and preach, as righteousness, this sort of abomination...Now I know that they didn't do it by any kind of mistake.  Mistakes of this size are never made innocently...they have a reson that they do not wish to tell...There wasn't a man voting for it who didn't think that under a setup of this kind he'd muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself." (For The New Intellectual, Ayn Rand; New American Library, 1963; pp 122, 123)
Why would BO say something so stupid as: "We need to spread the wealth around.  That is good for us all"?  Doesn't he realize this has been going on in our country for 2 centuries?  Maybe he doesn't know the history of this country.  Capitalism has raised more people from poverty than any other financial structure or any other society.  Was all poverty gone?  No, of course not.  And the socialist structures certainly could not even begin to claim they had accomplished that.  Capitalism did a much better job in easing poverty than any other structure.  All the other structures created more poverty.   And capitalism raises people out of poverty without taking from some by force to give to someone else who has not worked for it.  And capitalism created more charity than any other society.  It did not erase poverty, but it did much more than any other society ever has.
So why did he make such a claim?  Why do people who are socially cultured, educated, supposedly intelligent make such a stupid claim and buy into this destructive silliness?  It could be a number of reasons.  1.) It could be they are just evil and want to destroy our country.  2.) Or they are not smart enough to realize that what they said makes no sense at all.  3.) Or as Ayn Rand states: they wanted to horn in on the profits that were being made in our society without working for them.
The last one makes most sense.  Look at the corruption in our federal government today.  Look at Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Maxine Waters, and the list could go on almost without end.  Look at the lobbyists.  Look at the CEOs that cuddle up to the politicians.  Read Reckless Endangerment by Ann Morgenson and weep.  When taxes are put together with the force of law, people begin to hope they can horn on the wealth that will collect under the threat of law.
The only way to solve this is to shrink government to such an extent that people are not tempted to use it to force others to supply what they want.  The federal government's purpose is not taking care of us, is not providing for us our daily needs.  Its purpose is to create an atmosphere where the private sector is safe and secure so that it can do the work that supplies us with our daily needs.  Anything beyond that leads to corruption and tyranny, which is where we are headed if we don't get this stopped.

Federal Government Income And Shutdown

Why is there any discussion about raising the debt limit?  Our government takes in enough money to cover all required payments.  The only reason I can see for raising the debt limit and raising taxes is that our government, the ruling class, wants to increase their socialistic programs.  They want to CREATE more expenses.  The only way to shrink government is to cut their life-blood, taxes and the debt limit.
So that means that if the debt limit or taxes were never raised again, our government could continue just fine.  It just would not be able to grow at the rate that these socialists, the ruling class, want.
Indeed, we could cut taxes and lower the debt limit and our government could still continue to operate just fine.  In fact, if we cut our debt limit and taxes, our government would run better, because it would not be running all over the place trying to do tasks that it is not equipped for and that it was never intended to take care of.
So, do NOT raise debt limit or taxes.  Help our government, help the ruling class, work better by cutting taxes and the debt limit.

The Sky Is Falling! The Sky Is Falling!

"We'll pick our poison."  So says Prof. Robert Kaufmann, the professor at Boston University who was involved in the study that showed that the coal burning in China was casting pollutants in to the atmosphere causing global cooling.  So Prof. Kaufmann says we pick our poison, whether that be CO2 or sulfur.
It is beginning to sound like Mr Camping's campaign.  "The world will end in May 2011."  Multitudes of people streamed to him.  News stories showed people with placards and handouts out on the streets spreading his message.
It all sounds very much like Chicken Little: "The sky is falling!"  Or it sounds like the boy who cried "Wolf".  Why do people flock after such doom and gloom "prophets"?  Why do these "prophets" seem to crop up everywhere?
Well, did you know that rumor has it that Mr Camping is worth millions and it seems as a result of his "prophecies"?  And that seems to be the case with the global warming/cooling scare.  There is a lot of money that can be earned by people who scare people enough so that they demand "studies" to research these scares, people who want "experts" to guide them and care for them through such horrible "prophecies".
Is that why people swarm to such "prophecies"?  We all feel like the world is going to come to an end and we want someone who "knows" what is going on to lead us through and to care for us during such difficulties.  As our grandparents often said to us: "Oh, for the good old days when things were much simpler and less threatening."  So we search for "experts" upon whom we can lean when life looks so threatening.  And guess what?  Here they are, whether religious "experts" or science "experts" or psychological "experts" or you name it.  And they willingly(reluctantly?) take our money whether by grants from governments or from private donations or insurance and promise us they know how to take care of us or fix the situation.  And so thousands and millions of dollars go into trying to create a hopeful place of security.
Isn't it interesting that that is what seems to be happening in our society, nation and government.  We want our government to provide us the security so that we don't have to worry about health, wealth or life.  We demand of our government our right to health and wealth.  And so, guess what?  Our government claims to be made up of "experts", including politicians and bureaucrats, who will solve our problems.  That way we don't have to worry our fool heads off with such concerns.
And so the government keeps calling: "The sky is falling!  The sky is falling!"  Our officials keep crying "Wolf".  And we keep ponying up more and more funds so they can take care of us in such scary times.
What is sad about this is that those who could help us the most are the ones who are trampled on in the rush.  The problem, you see, is that these individuals/organizations do not claim the title of "expert".  They just keep plodding along with us striving to do whatever can be done in each situation. We all can think of people and organizations that do this with alarming consistency.  But they receive far less recognition and funds.  As so they are often pleading for donations.  And they don't seek any recognition.  They just invite us to join them in their service/work. The most effective and efficient help after Katrina was provided by the private sector.  It is interesting that the word is out that Joplin, MO does not want government help.  They are going to take care of themselves.
The real Gordian knot in this is that is exactly the line these doom-sayers use also.  So how do we sort this out?  Maybe we just let everyone decide for themselves and some will follow the doom-sayers and some will not.  Let us beware lest we begin to think we are the "experts" who can protect others from the doom-sayers.

Global WcAoRoMling?

A new study from Boston University claims that the huge amounts of soot emitted by the Peoples Republic of China is what is causing a "pause" in global warming.  The statistics show that if any climate change is taking place it is actually cooling.  Now this study claims that the reason cooling is happening is because PRC is putting out too much pollution, specifically sulfur from coal.
Oh?  So burning coal actually cools our globe?  Then why are we trying to stop coal burning?  Maybe we should burn more coal?
Now which science are you going to believe?  Should we strive to create more carbon dioxide?  The problem with that is that the planet would get more green because plants love CO2.  We wouldn't want that.
Maybe we create less CO2.  The problem with that is that the earth would become less green because plants would have less to live on.  We wouldn't want that, would we?
What makes this even worse is that creation of sun spots on the sun is at a low and that may be causing cooling on the earth.  Maybe we should see what we can do to cause more explosions on the sun.  Maybe we should send the EPA to the sun on a fact finding mission on how to increase more explosions on the sun.
What is really scary is that cooling is much more damaging to human life than the little heating we supposedly have suffered.  The last major cooling spell the earth had may have caused the Dark Ages.  Oh no!  Maybe it isn't BO that is leading us back into the Dark Ages.  Maybe the sun is colluding with China to lead us back there.
What to do?  What to do?  Let nature take its course?

Let Freedom Reign!

"(I)t cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals---that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government---that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizens' protection against the government...in today's prevalent view of government...(i)nstead of being a protector of man's rights, the government is becomeing their most dangerous violator; instead of guarding freedom, the government is establishing slavery...the government is initiating physical force and coercion in any manner and issue it pleases." (The Virtue Of Selfishness, Ayn Rand; New American Library, 1964; p 133)
Ms Rand continues by maintaining that our government is not serving as a objective mediator between individual persons or groups, but is creating a "deadly, subterranean reign of uncertainty and fear, by means of nonobjective laws whose interpretation is left to the arbitrary decisions of random bureaucrats." (pp 133, 134)  "(I)nstead of protecting men from injury by whim, the government is arrogating to itself the power of unlimited whim---so that we are fast approaching the stage of ultimte inversion...the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." (p 134)
So is BO trying to bring us back to the stage of rule by force often called the Dark Ages?  Because people don't understand that the Constitution is a limit on the federal government, our nation is getting twisted out of shape: the Consitution is being used to limit the citizens instead of the government.  And so you can't even buy baby chicks now without permission.  And guess what that creates?  An atmosphere (reign)of uncertainty and fear.  Are the citizens terrified of our federal government?  What would happen to you if you opened your door and the IRS stood there with their new double-barreled shotguns ordered for them by BO?  Our government is traveling down the road of limiting freedom, not guarding freedom.  Our government, which does have the reputation of finally ending slavery is now enslavening the whole citizenry.  How ironic!  How sad!
If freedom is going to reign, we MUST stop this madness.  Let the ballot box scream "FREEDOM"!

Capitalism

"Capitalism was the only system in history where wealth was not acquired by looting, but by production, not by force, but by trade, the only system that stood for man's right to his own mind, to his work, to his life, to his happiness, fo himself.  If this is evil, by the present standards of the world, if this is the reason for damning us, then we---we, the champions of man---accept it and choose to be damned by that world.  We choose to wear the name 'Capitalism' printed on our foreheads, proudly, as our badge of nobility.
This is what the battle demands. Nothng less will do." (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand; New American Library, 1967; p 213)
I wish Ms Rand had said the capitalism is (not was) the only system.  Granted, we are getting close to not being a capitalism system with the government trying to acquire wealth by looting (taxation) and  trying to prevent the acquisitiion of wealth by production by piling on regulations, trying to acquire wealth by force, not by trade, trying to monitor our mental traffic under the commerce clause.  But that does not change the fact that capitalism is still the only system where wealth is acquired by production and trade, the only system that stands for man's right to his own mind, work, life, happiness, and himself.
Now if we are damned for such things, then so be it.  This is the battle we are involved in.

Leading By Example

"It is not for her flaws that the United States of America is hated, but for her virtues---not for her weaknesses, but for her achievements---not for her failures, but for her success---her magnificent, shining, life-giving success." (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand; New American Library, 1967; pp 211, 212)
How do you apologize for success?  How do you apologize for freedom?  How do you apologize for people flocking to our borders, indeed trying to get in anyway they can?  How do apologize for having to build fences to keep people out instead of so many countries building fences to keep them in?
BO does NOT know what America is, what it stands for.  Maybe he doesn't care.  He just wants to make us more like the rest of the world.  Is that what you call hope?  Is that what you call change for the better?  Why not lead by example, by doing what we are doing, achieving what we have been achieving, achieving success---"magnificent, shining, life-giving success"---showing people from all over the world that there really is hope---hope of achieving, growing out of despair and poverty?
No, BO wants to bring the US back to earth in more than one way. (He is also destroying the space program.)  That sounds like madness/insanity.  "Here, let me help you by jumping into the hole with you."  Not only is BO destructive to our country; he is destructive to the hope that people world-wide have by seeing that someone can grow/improve/be successful---"magnificent, shining, life-giving success."
We need to replace this leader.  He is leading us backwards.

War

"(T)he hope that we may limit the enemy's war by limiting our own is unreasonable." (No Victory, No Peace; Angelo Codevilla; Rowman & Littlefiled, Publishers, 2005; p 163.)  BO is crazy (Angelo Codevilla calls it "unreasonable") if he thinks that if we limit our power, others will do so also.  That is like saying that if you don't confront the school yard bully, he won't confront you.  We all know how well that works.
The only choices we have with our enemies are either knuckling under to their demands or confronting them with everything we have.  How many of us wants to simply become stringent Muslims, i.e. women stay pregnant and in the kitchen, homosexuals executed in the most horrific way possible, accused considered guilty until proven innocent.
If we don't want that then there is only one other way.  Show the intifada what happens when they mess with us.  That is the only other choice we have.  Hunt them down until they are all gone.  BO's way of trying to placate them is merely enabling them to continue in their war/madness/hatred.  The only thing hatred fears is overwhelming power.
And by the way, isn't it interesting that we are now so concerned about bullying in our country and schools?  Bullies see it happening all the way from the top and so they believe no one should prevent them from doing the same.  And those bullies also see that we do not confront international bullies, so they believe we are not really serious about bullying.  In fact, they are learning from the example of our leaders.

Muslim Terrorism

Angelo Codevilla, in his book No Victory, No Peace, makes an interesting point: "(A)nti-Western terrorism results from a war within Islam that is more serious for Muslims than for the rest of us, because the Wahhabis' ideas imply irreconcilable enmity against other Muslims first, and then against others.  Western elites, religiously challenged as they are, don't understand the mixture of threat and temptation that the Wahhabis pose to the Muslim world because they do not know how analogous Christian heresies have rioled Western civilization...Between the eleventh and the seventeen centures, Europe suffered arguably more from heresies than from plagues." (No Victory, No Peace, Angelo Codevilla; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005; p 179; italics in original.)
We have already seen Muslims attacking each other.  The fanatics are killing each other.  What we need to do is to work so that this internal struggle does not spill over into our society.  Let them have their own struggles in their own countries.  We cannot stop that.  In fact, if we do try to stop them, we get entangled into the mess.
What I find interesting is that probably the most vicious of these Islamic sects, the Wahhabi, is based in Saudi Arabia, one of this country's closest allies in the Middle East.  We can live with those countries even though they have elements that we would not tolerate very well in our country.  The idea of these fanatics is that utopia will come when they can convince (force?) everyone else to conform to their ideals or else kill every single one of those who will not bend to their will ("infidels").
Isn't it interesting that the liberals seem to act this way also?  They are fanatical, i.e. they believe they must convince (force?) every one else to their ideals or at least bend to their will.  That is another danger we face in this country.

The Federal Reserve &The Treasury Department

"The persecution and expulsion of the Jews from various European nations, and the lingering resentment in anti-Semitism, traces mainly to this unhappy combination of the power of the exectuve and the action in kinetic energy (money) undermining the static structure...But the process had no relation whatever to the nationality or race of the persons involved; it occurred at other times in other countries when the financiers were of native stock, and the public fury was just as easily aroused against finance, or financiers as a group, for the same intrinsic reason.  The true remedy...is to...limit the control and absorption of the national finances by the central executive...(A)ny time when finance is under attack through the political authority, it is an infallible sign that the political authority is already exercising too much power of the economic life of the nation through manipulation of finance, whether by exorbitant taxation, uncontrolled expenditure, unlimited borrowing, or currency depreciation." (The God Of The Machine, Isabel Paterson; Transaction Publishers, 2009; p 109)
Does this sound familiar?  Sounds like our government, doesn't it?  Ms. Paterson wrote this in 1943.  All the yelling we hear now about the big financial giants, about all the wealthy, about big corporations from big government comes from the fact that big government has gotten in too deep with those giants.  When one of them doesn't do the government's bidding, there is all kinds of screaming and yelling like some 2 year-old brat throwing a temper tantrum because he/she is not getting his/her desire.
And what is really interesting is that Ms Paterson states this was the reaaon for the severe attacks on the Jews by the Nazis.  Our government is on the verge of committing the same crime, maybe not against the Jews, but against anyone who opposes it, anyone who threatens that government because whoever this is seems to have influence that can oppose the government.  The Federal Reserve is one of those tools that the government uses to threaten anyone who opposes it.  The Treasury Department has overgrown its purpose by buying out GM, AIG, and other corporations "too large to fail".
The true remedy is to limit the control and absorption of the national finances by the central executive.  Get the government out of our economy.  Cut government way back so that it will not use taxation as a weapon on those who oppose it.  STOP unlimited borrowing and uncontrolled expenditures by which the government buys influence and commitment from the private sector.  Just read Reckless Endangerrment by Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner to see how government entanglement in the financial world causes economies to crash.

How Far Have We Gone?

To see how much work we have to do read what Isabel Paterson writes (in 1943) about our government programs: "Proposals to 'abolish poverty,' or to guarantee 'freedom from want' or 'freedom from fear' are a mere confusion of terms.  Fear and want are subjective; and poverty is the absence of wealth...The only condition in which no one can experience poverty, want, or fear, is that of rigor mortis.  The dead neither want nor fear." (The God Of The Machine, Isabel Paterson; Transaction Publishers, 2009; pp 219, 220.)
So our Federal Government for decades now has been trying to instill rigor mortis in our society.  BO is the ultimate expression of that attempt.  We need to get rid of the ruling class, the chronic/career politician.  The chronic/career politician is always looking for work to do and so attempts things and passes laws/regulations that create rigor mortis in a society.
Real people have work to do other than politics and to them politics is a necessary evil.  That is why our founding fathers said that government is a necessary evil.  The only reason we need a government is that men/people are not angels.  So the sole task of government is to our protection from evil governments and evil people.  Those are the only laws needed from our government.  The rest of the work the political/ruling class does just creates heavy burdens for the real workers who are trying to make a profit/living.  Government regulation destroys profitability.  Some regulation is necessary, a necesary evil, a "tax" we need to pay in order to live in a society, but most of those regulations are simply attempts by the ruling class, which includes all beaucrats, to find work to do, to find a reason for their position, their class.
We need to shrink government to such an extent that all legislatures including Congress and even the executive and judicial are part-time where the "country class", (anyone outside the DC beltway) do whatever is necessary to protect us and then go home to their real jobs where they actually earn the income.  Politics should never be a livelihood; it should be a service.  Our founding fathers sacrificed to serve their country.  They did not earn a living doing this.  In fact, they suffered, giving their finances, lives, property, and reputation to do it.
That is scary!  How many of us are willing to sacrifice so that our country can survive and grow?  The only group I can think of at this time that is doing that is our beloved military.  How many of us are AS willing to sacrifice as our military personnel have been?
We have had it pretty nice, haven't we?

Profit Is Self-Justifying

In 1943 Isabel Paterson wrote: "The objection to profit is as if a bystander, observing te planter digging his crop, should say: 'You put in only one potato and you are taking out a dozen.  You must have taken them away from someone else; those extra potatoes cannot be yours by right.'  If profit is denounced, it must be assumed that running at a loss is admirable.  On the contrary, that is what requires justification.  Profit is self-justifying." (The Gos Of The Machine, Isabel Paterson; Transaction Publishers, 2009; p 221)  BO admires businesses running at a loss.  Indeed, BO wants the government to run at a loss.  That supposedly is admirable.  BO wants our whole society to run at a loss.  The problem with that is that nothing can run at a loss indefinitely.  It will eventually die.
We cannot let that happen to our country.  If BO has his way with our country, the world will suffer a huge loss.  People flood here as their last hope.  If BO has his way, the world will be without any hope.  If BO has his way, even BO will have no hope.  That is what evil does.  It destroys everything, even itself.

Choices

In 1944 F A Hayek wrote: "(U)nless this complex society is to be destroyed, the only alternative to submission to the impersonal and seemingly irrational forces of the market is submission to an equally uncontrollable and therefore arbitrary power of other men.  In his anxiety to escape the irksome restraints which he now feels, man does not realize that the new authoritarian restraints which will have to deliberately imposed in their stead will be even more painful." (The Road To Serfdom, F A Hayek, edited by Bruce Caldwell; The University Of Chicago Press, 2007; p 212)
We really only have two choices: free market or socialism.  Since BO does not like the free market, guess where he is taking us.  And if there is no difference between socialism and nazism/fascism, guess what that makes BO.
And don't think that will be wonderful.  It will be painful.  The USSR discovered that; China is discovering that; Poland discovered that; East Germany discovered that; Cuba is discovering that.  Why in the world would we ever want to go there?

Anita Dunn

One of Anita Dunn's (an appointment of BO, now resigned) favorite philosophers is Mao Tsetung.  But Mao Tsetung is really no different than Hitler or Mussolini.  They each killed millions of people in their own countries.  So Anita Dunn is a nazi, a fascist.  What does that say about her former boss, BO?  Then when BO threatens members of his own country, that begins to sound very much like Hitler, Mussolini, Lenin, Stalin, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro.  We need to remove BO either by impeachment or by election, whichever comes first.