As I was walking through the local grocery store today, I noticed something in the toy isle. Between Dora and Elmo there was a book about the most important man alive. Yes, Bobama himself was the subject of a new children's book. I didn't have the time nor stomach to pick it up and read it but I will soon. It did, however, get me thinking. I scurried home and looked up the author to see if there was a pattern.. and there was. Check it out for yourself at http://www.nikkigrimes.com/books.html.
This "artist" writes about nothing but black people..or African Americans for the moron liberals who are reading this. (As if all blacks are from Africa or all Africans are black. My sister in law is African but she's as white as the driven snow, on the other hand, my father in law is a black Haitian and you'd have to go back almost a quarter million years to find any African in his family)
Sorry, I get on tangents every once in a while. Anyway, would the fact that she only addresses the problems of black people make her racist? If I only worked in the interest of whites I'd be racist right? I know.. this is an old argument, it is also standing proof that the election of Bobama meant nothing for race relations in America, in fact, it merely highlighted just how racist this country really is.
My point is this.. This is the kind of woman that would depict Santa as a black man and believes that Jesus, Moses and Adam and Eve were also black (since they came from Africa). If you agree with that premise then you're a nut job and you need to stop trying to think before you hurt yourself. For the rest of us.. It is clear that pure, unbridled racism is what drove this "artist" to write a book about the inspirational story of Bobama before even knowing how it will end.
I'm sure that Hitler, Pol Pot, Jim Jones and countless other tyrants had an inspirational story about their rise to power but I've never seen a children's book about them. Perhaps this black activist should wait to see how he leads before glorifying his leadership.
I know, I know.. give him a chance. I did! he's already done more to screw up our country than any other leader since F.D.R. destroyed the constitution during "the new deal". Bobamas thoughts and ideas (as expressed by him) are deeply frightening but the fact that people are buying into it shakes me. This is a man who has described our constitution as a document that "reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” How can he "protect and defend" a document that he has promised to destroy and rewrite?
I don't care what color my leader is on the outside as long as he's red, white and blue on the inside. So far all I've seen from this guy is bright communist red! "The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it does not say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf", does that sound like freedom to you? Our forefathers are rolling in their graves, every soldier that has ever given his life for freedom will have died in vein if this dictator gets his wish.
So, for all of you hate mongers that voted not for the "content of his character" but for the "color of his skin", I want to thank you. Thank you for crawling out from beneath your rock and showing us that your rhetoric about equality was nothing but a giant power grab. Thank you for proving unequivocally that the Democratic party is nothing but a whore who stands on the corner of bigotry and hatred, collecting the souls of the ignorant. Most of all... Thank you for unifying the millions of God fearing, gun toting, right thinking Americans who had become complacent and allowed you to chip away at everything that made this nation, as Ronald Reagan emphasized, "a shining city upon a hill whose beacon light guides freedom-loving people everywhere."
So remember.. If you are willing to throw away all of the facts and try to convince us that Jesus was a black man,then that means that the Devil is a black man too!
Friday, March 27, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
The Old "New Deal"
"And so the commissions come together and revise the old plan and frame a new one, in which everybody gets his share. The peasant gets protection for his agriculture, the industrialist protection for his product, the consumer protection for his purchase, the teachers' salaries are raised, the civil servants' pensions are improved, widows and orphans are to be taken care of most liberally by the state, trade is promoted, tariffs are to be reduced, and taxes are pretty much, if not altogether, done away with. Occasionally it transpires that some group has been forgotten after all, or that some demand circulating among the people has not been heard of. Then anything there is room for is patched in with the greatest of haste, until the framers can hope with a clear conscience that the army of run-of-the-mill petty 'middle class' have been pacified and are simply delighted." I know what you're thinking, FDR sounds a lot like Bobama. Well, you would be right, but... maybe the preceding quote was not from FDR. Let's read on... "Thus inwardly armed with confidence in God and the unshakable stupidity of the voting citizenry, the politicians can begin the fight for the 'remaking' of the kingdom".
What you have just read is a paragraph from Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf . He was a student of Marxism but he knew that the overtaking of a world philosophy could not be achieved through fighting alone. He placed the bulk of the power squarely in the hands of democracy. It would take a social movement born from simple humanity and cultivated into the youth through federal programs that would provide a guided wealth of knowledge, equal wages, national pride and unshakable confidence. Merit and personal responsibility were corrosive to his plan because those virtues bore independence where dependency was the foundation of socialism.
At the same time, the U.S. population was outpacing it's own resources and the gap between the wealthy and the workers was spreading like a cancer. The "have nots" who were generally uneducated were learning from the thousands of new immigrants, who were flooding into America, about the promise of socialism. A new idea was needed, a deal that would close the wealth gap through government regulation. Much like every attempt at democracy since the days of ancient Greece, the poor were prepared to vote the money away from the rich, giving up the freedom to succeed in order to protect themselves from failure.
Enter the "New Deal". The American socialist movement now had a hero in F.D.R. and he was far more effective at gathering support for outright state dependency then even Hitler had imagined. With an overall equal goal, Hitler and Roosevelt had unwittingly entered a race to create the most perfect "social democracy", a race that would forever change the face of the American free market.
We all know the Hitler doctrine, his plan to revive the economy by raising taxes on the rich to help pay for his stimulus package. A package that included the provision of jobs through the building of new infrastructure such as the Autobahn, the legal federal support of trade unions to help keep power in the hands of employees instead of employers, a demand for energy independence through the development of synthetic oil and easy access to transportation through the federally backed VW Beetle which destroyed the other, free market, auto manufacturers within Germany. We also know that his plan was to take over the neighboring countries to help make up for the lack of resources within his own.
The U.S., on the other hand, seemed to have unlimited resources but only needed the right plan to exploit them. That was the basic difference between the Nazi party and the American Democratic party of the early 1930s, the Nazis needed to expand to survive while the Democrats needed to withdraw from global involvement which explained Roosevelt's reluctancy to get involved in WWII despite the massive American casualties inflicted by the antagonistic Germans.
So let's try to define this "New Deal". Named for a popular book released earlier that year, the "New Deal" was the complete restructuring of the American political and economical relationship. Prior to F.D.R. the federal government had a slight regulatory role in the free market but was constitutionally prevented from having any direct effect on private industry. The economy oscillated as the struggle between price (set by industry) and market value (set by consumers) rested on the fulcrum of free market capitalism. When the price got too high the people stopped buying, the price would then drop and demand would soar. That led back to an increase in price and so on and so on.. This is what the right calls "natural correction".
That kind of "stability through instability", like a suspension bridge, was frightening to many who would rather not risk crossing the shaky bridge at all, those people would choose to just stay put. These are the people who call themselves "progressive", ironic isn't it. The solution that they presented was called "the broker state", putting the government in charge of defining the terms of any contract. This gave complete market power to a group of politicians and took it away from "we the people".
To simplify the process I will give you a timeline of actions taken by the radical leftist, F.D.R., and the response by the people and the economy.
1929
Oct 24. "Black Thursday", prices on the NYSE dropped as 13 million shares are sold. Four days later, "Black Tuesday", another 16 million shares are dropped.
1930
Dec 2. Hoover gets congress to fund several Public works projects, employing 4.5 million at a cost of $100 million. He, like Bush, was reluctant to enact such a policy but folded under political pressure.
1931
Feb 27. After an overwhelming loss in the mid-term election the republican majority in congress was less than a week away from the change in power. Under more political pressure they overrode Hoovers veto to pass the Bonus Loan Bill. This allowed Vets to receive loans at half the value of the bonus certificates issued to them seven years earlier.
Mar 4. The 72nd congress took over. The senate would still be held by the Republicans but only by one seat, although many of the remaining Republicans leaned left. The House, on the other hand, completely inverted towards the Democrats.
1932
Jan 22. The Reconstruction Finance Corporation was created to "bail out" banks and insurance companies.
Nov 8. Nearly 23 million people cast a vote for F.D.R., helping to defeat Hoover (with nearly 16 million) votes and deny him a second term. It was noted that Roosevelt lost votes to Norman Thomas (socialist party), William Foster (communist party) and William Upshaw (prohibition party).
1933 : The New Deal..
Mar 4. Roosevelt is inaugurated.
Mar 5. F.D.R. orders a BANK HOLIDAY, to prevent the wealthy from pulling funds from banks. This move caused an uproar among business owners who would now have no capital with which do do business and cause the release of countless employees. Instantly, unemployment began to rise.
Mar 9. The EMERGENCY BANKING ACT is passed, requiring banks to prove solvency before reopening.
Mar 31. The CCC (CIVILIAN CONSERVATION ACT) is passed. A quarter of a million men from 18 to 25 years of age are given jobs in "national reforestation".
Apr 19. F.D.R. drops the U.S. from the GOLD STANDARD, this allows congress to write unbacked checks to help pay for the government programs.
May 12. Two laws are passed, the FEDERAL EMERGENCY RELIEF ACT (FERA) to provide grants instead of loans to states to help with social programs, and the AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT (AAA) which paid farmers to stop production so that prices would rise. This would later have an unforeseen and unfortunate effect on the entire country.
May 27. The FEDERAL SECURITIES ACT, forcing all purchases of stocks and bonds to be approved and registered through the federal government. This gave the government total control over the success of the market.
June 16. I call this "D Day" for The New Deal. On this day we were hit with the NATIONAL INDUSTRY RECOVERY ACT (NIRA) which, like the new stimulus act, opened the door for several programs. The results of this act were the NATIONAL WORKS ADMINISTRATION (PWA), who provided funds to build roads, buildings and other infrastructure, the NATIONAL RECOVERY ADMINISTRATION (NRA), which put price and wage controls on business to help prevent "destructive competition" as well as the FEDERAL BANK DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (FDIC), you know what that does. Other, smaller, bills were passed that day as well.
Aug 5. The establishment of the NATIONAL LABOR BOARD gives Collective bargaining rights to unions. This took more power from the hands of business owners and forced them to agree to union contracts, many of those contracts lead to bankruptcy and inflated the unemployment rate.
Apr 12, The NYE HEARINGS, brought forth by senator Joseph Nye, investigates war profiteering charges referring to American involvement in WWI as a corporate decision rather than a national security decision.
Jun 6, The SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION is developed to "clamp down" on "illegal speculation".
The leftest-socialist programs kept coming and coming but the economy kept sliding deeper and deeper into depression. Programs like the SOCIAL SECURITY ACT and the REVENUE ACT (raising taxes on gifts and inheritances) helped dig the hole while more Americans found themselves relying on the government to pull them out of that hole.
Finally some light at the end of the tunnel. While the liberals in our education system are quick to praise F.D.R. as our savior, citing all of his great social programs as the direct cause of the end of the "great depression", our public education-retardation system as a whole have willingly misled us. I know that this seems hard to swallow but our teachers do lie to us, it's more like "falsification through omission", but the affect is the same.
You see, on January 6, 1936 the good people of America won their first battle against the tyrannical president through a Supreme court decision find that the AAA (AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT ACT) was unconstitutional. So it turned out that king Roosevelt was not powerful enough to decide which farmers were "too successful" or how much they could charge for their work. Go figure!
This decision led to other decisions that would strike at the heart of President Roosevelt's communist take over and drove congress to soften up the federal programs in order to maintain some control. This loss truly angered his excellency and drove him to his 1937 attempt to drive out the Conservatives in the supreme court and stack it in his favor. At one point he even ordered the addition of 6 extra justices to re balance the power. In my eyes that effort was tantamount to treason and King Roosevelt should have been dragged out of office.
These were the laws and actions of the hero of the modern progressive party. In case you're curious this is the Great Depression unemployment graph , allowing you to get a visual timeline of the great depression. Notice 1930, the year after the stock market crash. Unemployment went up from 4.5 to 9%, not a good year but not devastating like the following years. It was actually going a little better when the mid-term campaign started up and the media induced fear caused the wealthy to stop spending and banks to fold. It was only after the liberals gained control of congress (both in 1931 and 2006) that things went really bad. Much like the recent mid-term election that gave power to the democrats during a prosperous economy, the propaganda from the left caused the rich to sit on their wealth. We all know that when the poor stop spending the prices fall but when the rich stop spending the jobs fall. The rich don't just suddenly lose all of their money, they just get nervous and stop investing it.
Trickle down economics tells us that if successful people get to keep their money they will spend it to make more money. The rich do get richer, but, when they do they hire more people who spend more money and thus creating more jobs to accommodate that new market. With the new market blossoming and the promise of great wealth to anyone who can provide the needed resources, everyone with an extra buck is willing to invest in a new idea. This is the map to the American Free Market system.
If, on the other hand, the unsuccessful get money that they haven't earned (as in the great liberal utopia) then they continue the unsuccessful practices, for which they were rewarded, that made them poor to begin with. Thus, a micro market of un-innovative spenders will simply pass those funds around as they slowly deplete their resources. This is why socialist nations always end up overtaking other countries, they have no system of rewards for effort and no ambition to provide new resources.
In an upcoming post I will show you what led to the 2nd world war and how Bobama is dragging us down the same path. It is both disturbing and aggravating so when you sit down to read the post, please bring some duct tape.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Slaying the Liberal Dragon
I know that I promised a full breakdown of "The New Deal", it's almost ready, but something has come up that I must share.
Over the weekend I sat with some friends and had a cigar while discussing the finer points of politics and religion. They say that those are topics that you aren't supposed to talk about in a group but that's asinine. Really, think about it, the only reason we ever bite our tongues is when we are trying to keep people from learning what we don't want them to know.
That is how the left, throughout time, has stifled freedom. They make it unsociable to talk about anything that they deem a threat. That's why they lean on laws that control free speech like the fairness doctrine. That is also why leftists like Marx, Hitler and FDR have all but abolished the freedom to express religion in public places. It was his era that ushered in the principles of "Social Democracy" or in other words, the freedom to express only the popular opinion. That term is still being used today as a founding principle by the new left.
I'm sure that I will elaborate on that topic later but lets deal with the topic at hand.
Within my group of friends there is one who personifies the liberal mindset. She is a genuinely caring and loving person with her heart in the right place, sort of, well... she's all heart. Her empathy clouds her judgement... or purifies it from her perspective.
We were talking about guns and the congressional attack on our freedoms. We spoke of the hurricane Katrina aftermath when the all powerful government collected the guns from all of those who had bought them legitimately and processed the proper paperwork that lead the government right to the homes listed on those registrations. This left good people defenceless during a heightened state of civil unrest while not accounting for the guns carried illegally by thugs and criminals.
She thought that was a brilliant idea, she said that it was the only way the government could get the majority of guns off the streets and that the police then could focus on just the criminals. We could not explain to her that.. A. It was unconstitutional... and B. It only opened the door for more crime.
People that fall into the trap of ignorance that is liberalism seem to believe that the police are there to protect and serve us as advertised on their cars. They cannot grasp that cops are a response mechanism, not a preventionist organization. While they can dissuade a certain amount of crime they aren't psychic and therefore cannot prevent it. Our founding fathers left it up to us to protect ourselves from others and gave us the justice system to clean up the mess afterwards. Law enforcement is simply there to make sure that we get our trial whether we want it or not.
Her response to our claim that disarming the honest public only emboldens the wicked was "I call Bull Sh--". This was a forty year old woman who was confident that her "BS" defence was rock solid and that the onus was on us to prove her wrong. Again, the mentality of the left, only the concepts of the right require proof.
So as good conservatives would do, we referred to the city of Kennesaw Georgia. In 1982 the city counsel of Kennesaw unanimously passed a law requiring all "heads of household" to own a firearm. In that year the crime rate dropped 89% and has stayed down since then (property crime is .0243% there, as opposed to other towns of equal size which average 20 times higher) . She noted that it was a small town and that we'd offered no proof that the same thing could happen in a big city. She was positive that the same law in a large population would lead to a giant leap in crime but had absolutely no evidence to back up her claim, the burden of proof would still rest on us.
We spoke of the "Wild west", a time when there was virtually no gun control at all and almost everyone carried a firearm. Back then several men would get drunk and start throwing punches, among other things, in a bar fight. Regardless of the scope of the beatings, those guys almost never drew their weapons. They knew that if they were wrong to draw then everyone else would draw on them. In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This means that during the most violent 15 year span of that century (excluding war time) your chances of being killed by a bullet were 1 in 100,000. Below is a list of gun control meccas, with populations generally similar to the combined populations of those "wild west" cities, from one single year (2007).
DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)
She said that people were different back then and that we had still proven nothing. She offered that modern cities would explode in a hail of bullets if citizens were equally armed and that we'd need real proof that she was wrong, all the while, still resting the burden of proof on us.
She made it clear that it was in our best interest to allow the federal government to disarm Americans and that doing so through regulation was perfectly constitutional. We were insane to conceive that we may need to, one day, protect ourselves from the very government that she feels is so capable of protecting us from each other. Again, she replied with "I call Bull Sh--" to that premise. With 10,000 years of historical examples of that very thing happening on every single occasion, she could not accept that we were not exempt from that possibility.
Oddly, her willingness to circumvent the Constitution, when it came to guns and free speech, was stowed when regarding religion. She thought it absurd that we would lie about the congressional democrats trying to make it illegal for faith based medical establishments to turn away abortions. She swore that we were twisting the purpose of that movement because democrats believed in a total separation of church and state and that such a law would be unconstitutional. After all, it has always been the republicans that stood in the way of our freedoms.
Yes, the whole conversation shook me for hours. I'm still spinning from the pure irrationality of the entire dialogue. This group of liberals, the ignorant ones, are sure that republicans were the racist ones even though it was they who had fought to free the slaves. They insist that the public display of pornography is "freedom of speech" while forcing legislation that prevents anyone from voicing a Conservative opinion without backing it with the opposing viewpoint. They think that republicans start wars and that Democrats end them despite the fact that Americas involvement in WWI, WWII, The Korean War,The Vietnam War, Bosnia and Somalia were all initiated by Democratic Presidents.
We can educate most of them but some are beyond repair. It is true that "Liberalism is a mental disorder" for many but it is our responsibility to get out there and inform those who are merely liberal by default, due to ignorance. This means that YOU are required to talk about politics and religion to everyone you know, no matter how uncomfortable it seems, but you must also be able to recognize the signs and move on when you've encountered someone like my friend.
This is the primary purpose of the Tavernor meeting, to inform and prepare. We need to engage the left and fight common ignorance with historical fact. We need to spread the the hope of freedom through the virtue of personal responsibility. We must teach these angry, bitter, fire breathing dragons that "freedom" does not mean that we guarantee freedom from pain, sickness, failure, loss, hard work or responsibility. They must understand that we only guarantee the RIGHT TO LIFE where no one can take it from you, nor can they take the fruits of your time if not offered. The right to LIBERTY, thus allowing you to make and act on any decision, no matter how self detrimental, as long as you are not impeding the rights of others. The PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, with no implications that others are required to help or hurt your chances of actually reaching that goal. Those are the only RIGHTS that our creator has endowed us with and the only true definition of freedom.
Friends, I wish you luck in your quest to slay the liberal dragons and if you find it hard to do alone then you are welcome to guide them toward me. I'd be more than happy to carry on a friendly, civil debate with your socialist comrade.
Over the weekend I sat with some friends and had a cigar while discussing the finer points of politics and religion. They say that those are topics that you aren't supposed to talk about in a group but that's asinine. Really, think about it, the only reason we ever bite our tongues is when we are trying to keep people from learning what we don't want them to know.
That is how the left, throughout time, has stifled freedom. They make it unsociable to talk about anything that they deem a threat. That's why they lean on laws that control free speech like the fairness doctrine. That is also why leftists like Marx, Hitler and FDR have all but abolished the freedom to express religion in public places. It was his era that ushered in the principles of "Social Democracy" or in other words, the freedom to express only the popular opinion. That term is still being used today as a founding principle by the new left.
I'm sure that I will elaborate on that topic later but lets deal with the topic at hand.
Within my group of friends there is one who personifies the liberal mindset. She is a genuinely caring and loving person with her heart in the right place, sort of, well... she's all heart. Her empathy clouds her judgement... or purifies it from her perspective.
We were talking about guns and the congressional attack on our freedoms. We spoke of the hurricane Katrina aftermath when the all powerful government collected the guns from all of those who had bought them legitimately and processed the proper paperwork that lead the government right to the homes listed on those registrations. This left good people defenceless during a heightened state of civil unrest while not accounting for the guns carried illegally by thugs and criminals.
She thought that was a brilliant idea, she said that it was the only way the government could get the majority of guns off the streets and that the police then could focus on just the criminals. We could not explain to her that.. A. It was unconstitutional... and B. It only opened the door for more crime.
People that fall into the trap of ignorance that is liberalism seem to believe that the police are there to protect and serve us as advertised on their cars. They cannot grasp that cops are a response mechanism, not a preventionist organization. While they can dissuade a certain amount of crime they aren't psychic and therefore cannot prevent it. Our founding fathers left it up to us to protect ourselves from others and gave us the justice system to clean up the mess afterwards. Law enforcement is simply there to make sure that we get our trial whether we want it or not.
Her response to our claim that disarming the honest public only emboldens the wicked was "I call Bull Sh--". This was a forty year old woman who was confident that her "BS" defence was rock solid and that the onus was on us to prove her wrong. Again, the mentality of the left, only the concepts of the right require proof.
So as good conservatives would do, we referred to the city of Kennesaw Georgia. In 1982 the city counsel of Kennesaw unanimously passed a law requiring all "heads of household" to own a firearm. In that year the crime rate dropped 89% and has stayed down since then (property crime is .0243% there, as opposed to other towns of equal size which average 20 times higher) . She noted that it was a small town and that we'd offered no proof that the same thing could happen in a big city. She was positive that the same law in a large population would lead to a giant leap in crime but had absolutely no evidence to back up her claim, the burden of proof would still rest on us.
We spoke of the "Wild west", a time when there was virtually no gun control at all and almost everyone carried a firearm. Back then several men would get drunk and start throwing punches, among other things, in a bar fight. Regardless of the scope of the beatings, those guys almost never drew their weapons. They knew that if they were wrong to draw then everyone else would draw on them. In Abilene, Ellsworth, Wichita, Dodge City, and Caldwell, for the years from 1870 to 1885, there were only 45 total homicides. This means that during the most violent 15 year span of that century (excluding war time) your chances of being killed by a bullet were 1 in 100,000. Below is a list of gun control meccas, with populations generally similar to the combined populations of those "wild west" cities, from one single year (2007).
DC – 183 Murders (31 per 100,000 residents)
New York – 494 Murders (6 per 100,000 residents)
Baltimore – 281 Murders (45 per 100,000 residents)
Newark – 104 Murders (37 per 100,000 residents)
She said that people were different back then and that we had still proven nothing. She offered that modern cities would explode in a hail of bullets if citizens were equally armed and that we'd need real proof that she was wrong, all the while, still resting the burden of proof on us.
She made it clear that it was in our best interest to allow the federal government to disarm Americans and that doing so through regulation was perfectly constitutional. We were insane to conceive that we may need to, one day, protect ourselves from the very government that she feels is so capable of protecting us from each other. Again, she replied with "I call Bull Sh--" to that premise. With 10,000 years of historical examples of that very thing happening on every single occasion, she could not accept that we were not exempt from that possibility.
Oddly, her willingness to circumvent the Constitution, when it came to guns and free speech, was stowed when regarding religion. She thought it absurd that we would lie about the congressional democrats trying to make it illegal for faith based medical establishments to turn away abortions. She swore that we were twisting the purpose of that movement because democrats believed in a total separation of church and state and that such a law would be unconstitutional. After all, it has always been the republicans that stood in the way of our freedoms.
Yes, the whole conversation shook me for hours. I'm still spinning from the pure irrationality of the entire dialogue. This group of liberals, the ignorant ones, are sure that republicans were the racist ones even though it was they who had fought to free the slaves. They insist that the public display of pornography is "freedom of speech" while forcing legislation that prevents anyone from voicing a Conservative opinion without backing it with the opposing viewpoint. They think that republicans start wars and that Democrats end them despite the fact that Americas involvement in WWI, WWII, The Korean War,The Vietnam War, Bosnia and Somalia were all initiated by Democratic Presidents.
We can educate most of them but some are beyond repair. It is true that "Liberalism is a mental disorder" for many but it is our responsibility to get out there and inform those who are merely liberal by default, due to ignorance. This means that YOU are required to talk about politics and religion to everyone you know, no matter how uncomfortable it seems, but you must also be able to recognize the signs and move on when you've encountered someone like my friend.
This is the primary purpose of the Tavernor meeting, to inform and prepare. We need to engage the left and fight common ignorance with historical fact. We need to spread the the hope of freedom through the virtue of personal responsibility. We must teach these angry, bitter, fire breathing dragons that "freedom" does not mean that we guarantee freedom from pain, sickness, failure, loss, hard work or responsibility. They must understand that we only guarantee the RIGHT TO LIFE where no one can take it from you, nor can they take the fruits of your time if not offered. The right to LIBERTY, thus allowing you to make and act on any decision, no matter how self detrimental, as long as you are not impeding the rights of others. The PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, with no implications that others are required to help or hurt your chances of actually reaching that goal. Those are the only RIGHTS that our creator has endowed us with and the only true definition of freedom.
Friends, I wish you luck in your quest to slay the liberal dragons and if you find it hard to do alone then you are welcome to guide them toward me. I'd be more than happy to carry on a friendly, civil debate with your socialist comrade.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
From 1929 to 2009
In my last post I explained how the media and the Democrats used a relatively small market correction as an instrument of fear to help gain power in the congress and in doing so turned an isolated event into the great depression. It was very similar to what drove todays collapse in the economy. Just like in 1929, we were in a long lasting period of economical growth and prosperity in 2007 despite the impact of 9/11. It was our media and democrats who latched onto the "sub-prime mortgage crises", which had no effect on 97% of the nation, as a vehicle for their power grab.
Democrats, as we know, need victims and thrive on failure to succeed, after all, most of them started out as trial lawyers so they have learned to rely on laws and control instead of hard work and productivity to take profit from their targets. They were able to propagate fear from the small natural correction and create a massive disaster with lots of casualties. That gave them a target rich environment and a clear separation between the classes and thus they now have the power.
Republicans, at least the remaining conservatives, generally grew from business men. They need wealth and prosperity within their targets so that they can become even more prosperous. Victims seldom help the market so it is imperative that any natural correction be as short lived as possible and that they (big business) make the necessary changes and get things moving again. The capitalist economy, that was built into our republic, depends on a free market to keep the economical casualties low. The relationship between government and business is important but must be kept minimal to maintain the desired effect.
The difference is clear, the left needs the government to protect the people from bad business at great cost to the people while the right needs the people to protect themselves from bad business at great cost to the government.
Whatever you believe you must agree that the individual is much more qualified, than the government, at deciding what is best for himself.
Then there was the election of F.D.R., and Bobama for that matter. Proof that the individual thinks that he is better suited for making decisions regarding the lives of others. Think about it, if as much as 20% of all Americans were uninsured and more than 50% of Americans voted for Bobama then that means that at least 30% felt it necessary to force federalized health care on the rest of us even though they were already insured themselves.
This is the kind of control that the left wants and it's not right. This is also the kind of nonsense that got our two most dangerous leaders into office and in both cases, has led us into a vicious downward spiral.
In my next post I will show you, in great detail, how "the new deal" stifled any hopes of a recovery and led the world into war and I will explain why we're headed down that path again. I intended to have brought all of that to you by now but it needed to be compressed to make it readable. There were just too many bad decisions made by the worst president ever (F.D.R.) so I will have to leave some out... Stay tuned!
Democrats, as we know, need victims and thrive on failure to succeed, after all, most of them started out as trial lawyers so they have learned to rely on laws and control instead of hard work and productivity to take profit from their targets. They were able to propagate fear from the small natural correction and create a massive disaster with lots of casualties. That gave them a target rich environment and a clear separation between the classes and thus they now have the power.
Republicans, at least the remaining conservatives, generally grew from business men. They need wealth and prosperity within their targets so that they can become even more prosperous. Victims seldom help the market so it is imperative that any natural correction be as short lived as possible and that they (big business) make the necessary changes and get things moving again. The capitalist economy, that was built into our republic, depends on a free market to keep the economical casualties low. The relationship between government and business is important but must be kept minimal to maintain the desired effect.
The difference is clear, the left needs the government to protect the people from bad business at great cost to the people while the right needs the people to protect themselves from bad business at great cost to the government.
Whatever you believe you must agree that the individual is much more qualified, than the government, at deciding what is best for himself.
Then there was the election of F.D.R., and Bobama for that matter. Proof that the individual thinks that he is better suited for making decisions regarding the lives of others. Think about it, if as much as 20% of all Americans were uninsured and more than 50% of Americans voted for Bobama then that means that at least 30% felt it necessary to force federalized health care on the rest of us even though they were already insured themselves.
This is the kind of control that the left wants and it's not right. This is also the kind of nonsense that got our two most dangerous leaders into office and in both cases, has led us into a vicious downward spiral.
In my next post I will show you, in great detail, how "the new deal" stifled any hopes of a recovery and led the world into war and I will explain why we're headed down that path again. I intended to have brought all of that to you by now but it needed to be compressed to make it readable. There were just too many bad decisions made by the worst president ever (F.D.R.) so I will have to leave some out... Stay tuned!
Saturday, March 7, 2009
What caused the "Great Depression"
These days we're hearing a lot about "the new deal" and the actions of F.D.R. that have been credited for ending the great depression but what do you really know about the history of the great depression? Today we are going to open the history book and examine the facts surrounding that era.
It's Monday, march 4th 1929 and the nation has gathered to witness the Inauguration of Herbert Hoover, a mining engineer from Iowa. The country is experiencing its most prosperous years ever and the only major problem is the rise in crime driven by the eighteenth amendment (prohibition). The inaugural address touches all of the usual points such as education, health care and national security. The difference is that he tied each topic into the necessity of "personal responsibility". He promoted "an advance toward the highest conception of self government" and stated that "progress is born of cooperation in the community_not from governmental restraints".
When speaking of the relation of government to business, Hoover said "regulation of private enterprise and not government ownership or operation is the coarse rightly to be pursued". That was the Ideology of the day and with unemployment at 4.2% and a tax rate of 4% things were sailing along quite well. Hoover was the inspiration for Ronald Reagan who we consider the Godfather of conservatism.
President Hoover had won by a landslide (444 electoral votes to 87) and brought with him a 56 to39 republican majority in the senate and a 267 to 167 majority in the house. The Democratic candidate for President, Alfred Smith, lost a quarter of a million votes to Norman Thomas, the Socialist candidate. Yes, the Socialist party was an official party in the U.S. at the time, as was the communist party, but eventually they merged into the Democratic party to offset the power of the Republicans.
During the late 1920s the rest of the world was still smoldering from the first World War and their economies were shaky to say the least. Mexico was in the grips of a civil war that spilled over into American territories which led to military response on April 6, 1929 when Hoover sent war planes to respond to the American lives taken in the crossfire. Meanwhile, China, Japan, the U.S.S.R. and Italy were positioning themselves to take advantage of the war weary nations around them. Then there was Hitler.. but that's another story.
England was leaning on us to help in their recovery and as their economy tumbled many Americans started getting nervous. The media started warning that the depression was bound to spread to the U.S. and that Hoover was too concerned with big business and didn't care about the working class. He (Hoover) insisted that the speculator driven peaks in the stock market would go through the same "natural corrections" as it always had and that the resulting recession would be difficult but short lived. It was his stance that "the sole function of Government was to bring about conditions favorable to the beneficial development of private enterprise" (Bobama recently borrowed the same quote but replaced "private enterprise" with "working class" which made it a very socialist statement). Hoover chose to keep the government out of it and allow those speculators enough rope to hang them selves.
They did, and it just happened to coincide with the campaign for the mid-term elections. The Democratic candidates ran a campaign that focused on that issue, pointing out that Hoover was willing to allow business to fail and thus put countless workers out in the street. They harped on his statement that "private institutions were responsible for serving humanity, Government was not" and drove a new level of fear into the working class. They also claimed that republicans had entered the first world war illegally and that they would be likely to get into one of the skirmishes that were heating up around the world. They promised more government involvement in business along with an investigation into war profiteering from WWI.
The fear that blossomed during the campaign culminated on Thursday, October 24, 1929 (black Thursday) when 13 million shares on the New York Stock Exchange were sold and the floor dropped out. Four days later, black Tuesday, another 16 million more shares were sold off and thousands of people were finished.
A year later America voted. The huge majorities in congress had fallen away, now we had 48 Republicans to 47 Democrats in the Senate and 220 Democrats to 214 Republicans in the House. There was a now mandate. Even some of the Republicans in the Senate were leaning left just to keep their job.
Sadly, Hoovers prediction was true. The stock market did go through its "natural correction" and it was very painful for many middle class Americans. That's not the sad part, you see, in the year following Black Tuesday many companies dropped out leaving lots of unemployed people and empty stores but those gaps began refilling with new business. A new economy was being built from the parts left over and the great deals that resulted. Unemployment was on a slow but steady decrease and the correction was taking place. The sad fact is that Americans were being told that they shouldn't have to rebuild, that the Government should do it for them and that the rich were to blame and they must be held responsible.
On March 4th, 1931 the 72nd congress took office and the economy came to a screeching halt. Over the next three months the Dems were making promises to everyone who was a "victim" of the collapse and by June 20th of that year, taxes on the rich had gone from 4% to 62%. Hoover Vetoed the increases but was overridden by congress. Shortly after that England dropped the gold standard. Those who had money made a run on the banks to buy gold so that they could protect what was left from taxes. The result, by September of that year more than 800 banks failed and unemployment jumped to 56%.
January 22, 1932.. Election year, congress passes the Reconstruction Finance Corporation as a way to loan Government money to help failing business. You know it as a "bail out"
All of this happened within a two year period. We went from the most prosperous years in history to the great depression and it all points at the Democrats and the media as the real cause despite what our history teachers like to believe. This is exactly the path that we are tumbling down today. In my next post I will show you the rest of the story, how FDR prolonged the depression and put a limit on the American dream that is with us today.
It's Monday, march 4th 1929 and the nation has gathered to witness the Inauguration of Herbert Hoover, a mining engineer from Iowa. The country is experiencing its most prosperous years ever and the only major problem is the rise in crime driven by the eighteenth amendment (prohibition). The inaugural address touches all of the usual points such as education, health care and national security. The difference is that he tied each topic into the necessity of "personal responsibility". He promoted "an advance toward the highest conception of self government" and stated that "progress is born of cooperation in the community_not from governmental restraints".
When speaking of the relation of government to business, Hoover said "regulation of private enterprise and not government ownership or operation is the coarse rightly to be pursued". That was the Ideology of the day and with unemployment at 4.2% and a tax rate of 4% things were sailing along quite well. Hoover was the inspiration for Ronald Reagan who we consider the Godfather of conservatism.
President Hoover had won by a landslide (444 electoral votes to 87) and brought with him a 56 to39 republican majority in the senate and a 267 to 167 majority in the house. The Democratic candidate for President, Alfred Smith, lost a quarter of a million votes to Norman Thomas, the Socialist candidate. Yes, the Socialist party was an official party in the U.S. at the time, as was the communist party, but eventually they merged into the Democratic party to offset the power of the Republicans.
During the late 1920s the rest of the world was still smoldering from the first World War and their economies were shaky to say the least. Mexico was in the grips of a civil war that spilled over into American territories which led to military response on April 6, 1929 when Hoover sent war planes to respond to the American lives taken in the crossfire. Meanwhile, China, Japan, the U.S.S.R. and Italy were positioning themselves to take advantage of the war weary nations around them. Then there was Hitler.. but that's another story.
England was leaning on us to help in their recovery and as their economy tumbled many Americans started getting nervous. The media started warning that the depression was bound to spread to the U.S. and that Hoover was too concerned with big business and didn't care about the working class. He (Hoover) insisted that the speculator driven peaks in the stock market would go through the same "natural corrections" as it always had and that the resulting recession would be difficult but short lived. It was his stance that "the sole function of Government was to bring about conditions favorable to the beneficial development of private enterprise" (Bobama recently borrowed the same quote but replaced "private enterprise" with "working class" which made it a very socialist statement). Hoover chose to keep the government out of it and allow those speculators enough rope to hang them selves.
They did, and it just happened to coincide with the campaign for the mid-term elections. The Democratic candidates ran a campaign that focused on that issue, pointing out that Hoover was willing to allow business to fail and thus put countless workers out in the street. They harped on his statement that "private institutions were responsible for serving humanity, Government was not" and drove a new level of fear into the working class. They also claimed that republicans had entered the first world war illegally and that they would be likely to get into one of the skirmishes that were heating up around the world. They promised more government involvement in business along with an investigation into war profiteering from WWI.
The fear that blossomed during the campaign culminated on Thursday, October 24, 1929 (black Thursday) when 13 million shares on the New York Stock Exchange were sold and the floor dropped out. Four days later, black Tuesday, another 16 million more shares were sold off and thousands of people were finished.
A year later America voted. The huge majorities in congress had fallen away, now we had 48 Republicans to 47 Democrats in the Senate and 220 Democrats to 214 Republicans in the House. There was a now mandate. Even some of the Republicans in the Senate were leaning left just to keep their job.
Sadly, Hoovers prediction was true. The stock market did go through its "natural correction" and it was very painful for many middle class Americans. That's not the sad part, you see, in the year following Black Tuesday many companies dropped out leaving lots of unemployed people and empty stores but those gaps began refilling with new business. A new economy was being built from the parts left over and the great deals that resulted. Unemployment was on a slow but steady decrease and the correction was taking place. The sad fact is that Americans were being told that they shouldn't have to rebuild, that the Government should do it for them and that the rich were to blame and they must be held responsible.
On March 4th, 1931 the 72nd congress took office and the economy came to a screeching halt. Over the next three months the Dems were making promises to everyone who was a "victim" of the collapse and by June 20th of that year, taxes on the rich had gone from 4% to 62%. Hoover Vetoed the increases but was overridden by congress. Shortly after that England dropped the gold standard. Those who had money made a run on the banks to buy gold so that they could protect what was left from taxes. The result, by September of that year more than 800 banks failed and unemployment jumped to 56%.
January 22, 1932.. Election year, congress passes the Reconstruction Finance Corporation as a way to loan Government money to help failing business. You know it as a "bail out"
All of this happened within a two year period. We went from the most prosperous years in history to the great depression and it all points at the Democrats and the media as the real cause despite what our history teachers like to believe. This is exactly the path that we are tumbling down today. In my next post I will show you the rest of the story, how FDR prolonged the depression and put a limit on the American dream that is with us today.
Monday, March 2, 2009
The Front of the Dumpster
It seems like a simple concept, like an instinctual reaction to an everyday problem. It's not like I really think that everyone else is actually all that stupid nor do I consider myself exceedingly intelligent but sometimes I feel that way. Does that make me a bad person?
You see, there are roughly 40 families sharing my town home community and only one dumpster. Every day the people of my community drag out their garbage, slide open the small door that faces the parking lot and tip their refuse through the opening. This hungry brown monster is peacefully snuggled into a three sided cage of dark wood fencing that hides all but the business side from the view of those who feed it so well. There is a narrow pathway between it and the wall of wood that nearly surrounds it that serves as a buffer for the city truck that lifts and dumps it twice weekly.
The problem is this, every time the truck comes there is wall of paper, plastic and rotting leftovers wrapped in cheap white garbage bags and crammed into the spaces around the dumpster and even some just posted up in front of it. In the ultimate example of "not my job" the truck driver simply lifts the container from its pungent cocoon with the forks of his truck and after emptying its contents, he drops it back onto the pile. Now the foul remnants of the exploded bags left out to rot are littering both the parking lot and the surrounding property.
You might be thinking that the solution is simple right? Sure, just raise the association fee and add another dumpster or just dump more often. Well, that would probably work.... but.... would it solve the problem?
It's not the amount of garbage that causes the overflow,in fact, it's the inconsiderate morons who just tip the trash in through the front opening that gum up the works. I know that they aren't trying to do the wrong thing, as a matter of fact, they are just normal, decent folks, doing what seems right. It's just that.... well.... they never stopped to think about the problem. If they, like I, had taken a quick moment to consider the situation perhaps they might have noticed that all of the junk is being dropped into the front of the dumpster and that the back half was always left empty, blocked by the wall of junk that ends up stacked just inside the doorway, then they would surely make an effort to pack it better.
Sometimes I mention it to them in passing but they get offended. "What do you think, I'm stupid?" they ask as they scurry about their way. No, I don't, but clearly they were too busy with their daily stresses to consider what really led to the disaster, and yet, didn't mind stopping to complain about how someone needs to fix the issue once the mess was already made. These were the same people who wanted the guys at public works to come more often to clean up the mess "free of charge" (code for out of the tax fund) but weren't willing to pay for the extra dumpster through higher association fees.
It doesn't take a round of "competitive cerebral gymnastics" to make the leap. We have elected a new group of garbage men to clean up our mess because we are too busy to look at the root cause of the problem. Yes, a few of us were trying to enlighten our neighbors before it grew out of control but we were met with anger at the suggestion that it was their fault for not thinking ahead when they took out the trash. Their lives were too important or too involved to even consider the ramifications of their actions and now we have a huge, smelly mess to clean up. Meanwhile these myopic nitwits would rather force us all to share the cleanup cost than to get their hands dirty and take responsibility for their actions.
So the next time you run into someone who would rather not pay attention to politics because "it's not my problem" or find that your friend or neighbor is too wrapped up in the small things to get involved, just politely ask them not to drop their trash into the front of the dumpster. Yes, it will surely confuse them, but maybe....just maybe.... it will eat at them until they have to know what you meant. Then,and only then, they will listen with interest instead of snapping with anger.
You see, there are roughly 40 families sharing my town home community and only one dumpster. Every day the people of my community drag out their garbage, slide open the small door that faces the parking lot and tip their refuse through the opening. This hungry brown monster is peacefully snuggled into a three sided cage of dark wood fencing that hides all but the business side from the view of those who feed it so well. There is a narrow pathway between it and the wall of wood that nearly surrounds it that serves as a buffer for the city truck that lifts and dumps it twice weekly.
The problem is this, every time the truck comes there is wall of paper, plastic and rotting leftovers wrapped in cheap white garbage bags and crammed into the spaces around the dumpster and even some just posted up in front of it. In the ultimate example of "not my job" the truck driver simply lifts the container from its pungent cocoon with the forks of his truck and after emptying its contents, he drops it back onto the pile. Now the foul remnants of the exploded bags left out to rot are littering both the parking lot and the surrounding property.
You might be thinking that the solution is simple right? Sure, just raise the association fee and add another dumpster or just dump more often. Well, that would probably work.... but.... would it solve the problem?
It's not the amount of garbage that causes the overflow,in fact, it's the inconsiderate morons who just tip the trash in through the front opening that gum up the works. I know that they aren't trying to do the wrong thing, as a matter of fact, they are just normal, decent folks, doing what seems right. It's just that.... well.... they never stopped to think about the problem. If they, like I, had taken a quick moment to consider the situation perhaps they might have noticed that all of the junk is being dropped into the front of the dumpster and that the back half was always left empty, blocked by the wall of junk that ends up stacked just inside the doorway, then they would surely make an effort to pack it better.
Sometimes I mention it to them in passing but they get offended. "What do you think, I'm stupid?" they ask as they scurry about their way. No, I don't, but clearly they were too busy with their daily stresses to consider what really led to the disaster, and yet, didn't mind stopping to complain about how someone needs to fix the issue once the mess was already made. These were the same people who wanted the guys at public works to come more often to clean up the mess "free of charge" (code for out of the tax fund) but weren't willing to pay for the extra dumpster through higher association fees.
It doesn't take a round of "competitive cerebral gymnastics" to make the leap. We have elected a new group of garbage men to clean up our mess because we are too busy to look at the root cause of the problem. Yes, a few of us were trying to enlighten our neighbors before it grew out of control but we were met with anger at the suggestion that it was their fault for not thinking ahead when they took out the trash. Their lives were too important or too involved to even consider the ramifications of their actions and now we have a huge, smelly mess to clean up. Meanwhile these myopic nitwits would rather force us all to share the cleanup cost than to get their hands dirty and take responsibility for their actions.
So the next time you run into someone who would rather not pay attention to politics because "it's not my problem" or find that your friend or neighbor is too wrapped up in the small things to get involved, just politely ask them not to drop their trash into the front of the dumpster. Yes, it will surely confuse them, but maybe....just maybe.... it will eat at them until they have to know what you meant. Then,and only then, they will listen with interest instead of snapping with anger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
