Is it me or is the argument moving to the left. During the campaign we, the right wingers, were trying to convince people that Obama was a socialist. The response from those who were backing Obama was that we were just trying to scare people into voting for a republican. They denied any socialist inclination on behalf of Obama and refused to look at the facts.
Then the government take over of the banking industry as well as the automotive industry took place. We pointed to that as the evidence of Obama's attempt at moving our nation towards socialism. Those who voted for him felt as if we were attacking them and came to his defense. They claimed that it was necessary to take over those industries in order to save the economy and the many jobs that were at stake. They swore that there was no tie to socialism, that it would be a short term fix but those entities would be returned to the market once Obama saves the economy.
Then the truth about Obama's appointments was exposed. We pointed to the admitted communists and proud radicals as proof that Obama was on the road to socialism. We saw video of his czars telling us that they had to quiet their own intents in order to push through their socialist agenda. We heard Obama tell us to judge him by those who he surrounds himself with, yet, his supporters just claimed that we were claiming guilt by association. They said that we were engaged in a "smear campaign" against everyone around Obama while we only pointed to what came from their own mouths as the proof of their intentions, but still, they insisted that socialism was not the goal.
By this point they were beginning to really trash capitalism. They were beginning to hate the free market while looking to other nations as a guide to a more "fair" system. They refused to acknowledge that those model countries were socialist and denied that we could ever become a socialist society.
Now we are slowly seeing a shift in our debates. We are watching as the ignorant masses start to admit that they would accept socialism and rather than denying that Obama is pushing socialism. Now we are actually forced to defend free market capitalism as a philosophy against the overwhelming push toward socialism. How is it possible that people who, a year ago, got angry with us for suggesting that we were headed towards socialism are now defending that very system.
Seriously, if I hear one more indoctrinated nitwit say "what's wrong with socialism" I'm going to blow a gasket. I mean... really? Do I really have to answer that question? How the heck did we get here? I know the answer to that question but I still refuse to believe that people are that ignorant. To look at the rest of the world and not be able to see that all of their advances, all of their successes and all of their freedoms are a direct result of our free market is evidence that the majority of our populous has just given up looking for answers and simply accepted the "common sense" as reality.
Most people think of us (people who actually follow politics) as geeks. We need to "get a life" as they would say. Meanwhile they get any and all political opinion through marketing. They see a 30 second news clip and assume that it represents the entirety of the story so they then feel confident in their own conclusions. So much so that they are willing to fight against anyone who would challenge them to look deeper into a subject and refuse to hear any new information.
This indoctrination is nothing new. Even during the days of the revolution there was a constant battering from the media about how radical our forefathers were. It is accepted that more than 70% of Americans opposed the Revolution, yet, these free thinkers pushed through the nonsense and brought a change toward freedom, far from the kind of change that we face now.
If you call yourself a "progressive" or think of yourself as a "liberal" and still refuse to see that we are rolling down the hill towards socialism then please wake up! This is your alarm, this is your chance to beak the trance. If, on the other hand, you consider yourself all of these things and are accepting, even excited about socialism then please explain to me why you like this idea. Please leave a comment so that we can understand how you've come to this acceptance and give me the chance to engage you in a reasonable debate.
If you are with me then stop letting people mash the snooze button and start dragging them out of their slumber. It is information that brought us our freedom two hundred years ago and it is information that will help us keep that freedom today.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Friday, September 25, 2009
Thank God for Beck
Last night all of the liberal television stations were interviewing the two anti-American producers who have new releases coming up. The first of which was Ken burns, the documentary film genius who has shown outstanding skill in producing some of the most moving films I've ever seen. I really do mean it, regardless of his communist/socialist slant, he is a great producer.
His new mini-series about national parks is showing throughout the week on your local PBS station. In it, he highlights the creation of our national parks as the best idea ever, both in terms of saving land and providing jobs.
For me, the jury is still out on that premise. The fact that FDR "created jobs" for millions of unemployed people and thus created (printed) the money to pay them, was not such a great idea. We are still paying that back today.
I am, however, pretty sure that I like that certain landmarks belong to everyone. If the stated fact that those parks only consume 1% of our taxes is true then I think I can live with that as well. I just can't stand that he has so much hatred for capitalism. After all, capitalism is what pays for him to spend months filming some of the most beautiful places on earth.
Then there is the nemesis of freedom himself. This clown started out by attacking our right to own guns, then moved on to defacing America after 9/11, then tried to sell us a socialist health care system and is now admitting that he hates capitalism in and of itself.
No, I'm not talking about Obama, though I could be, I'm talking about the jelly donut himself, Mr Moore. He seemed to enjoy trashing capitalism with all of his buddies at MSNBC and Comedy Central while trying to sell us his new propaganda film. I find it funny that those who have supported Obama the most are the ones preaching socialism while God... I mean Obama, tries to say that he is opposed to socialism. But then Obama has trashed capitalism, the military, the Constitution and pretty much everything else that has made America the greatest place on earth as well.
If you want to learn more about Obama, watch Mike Moore make a fool of himself with this new movie and see what the underlying philosophy of the left really is. He is not a fringe lunatic who even upsets the left, he is a perfect representation of the lunacy that is the foundation of the left. Moore, Olberman, Maddow and the Democratic party are all in lockstep in the march of socialism that is attacking the very soul of our freedom.
I know you've seen the video of the classroom singing praise to Obama, I know you've heard the enemies of our way of life throw their support behind Obama during the UN competition of "pat yourself on the backers", I also know that you hear idiots preaching the word of Obama on nearly every media outlet in the nation. I know how nervous you are right now... Don't worry, our voices are being heard. We do have a hero, in fact, we have many of them.
In all of the noise and the pounding propaganda that consumes us and our children every day there is one hero that is giving up every semblance of life in order to save our great nation. All I can say is... Thank God for Glenn Beck!
This man is taking on the most powerful predator we've seen since FDR and Hitler. He is exposing the levels of corruption within our government that would make Attila the Hun blush. I'm not blaming Obama for all of it but he does put a face on our terror. He is every bit as guilty as the other scumbags, of both parties, that are stealing our freedom from underneath of us.
I do not know Mr Beck (if that is his real name), other than listening to him since he first hit the air on 970 WFLA here in Tampa, but I do have faith in him. He has earned my trust and with that he has also earned a place in history. Maybe not in the school books but in my family, from generation to generation, his great deeds WILL be remembered and if you have any honor... You will do the same.
I'm not a follower of a radio talk show host, but a companion of a great man. I walk the same path because our philosophy and faith take us to the same place. If you are like me then we must work to defend him together. He is under attack, both figuratively and literally, we must make sure that anyone who would strike him is aware that they are striking us and that we are NOT weak. Glenn Beck must know that we have his back, so that he can continue his crusade against "soft tyranny" without fear of reprisal.
His new mini-series about national parks is showing throughout the week on your local PBS station. In it, he highlights the creation of our national parks as the best idea ever, both in terms of saving land and providing jobs.
For me, the jury is still out on that premise. The fact that FDR "created jobs" for millions of unemployed people and thus created (printed) the money to pay them, was not such a great idea. We are still paying that back today.
I am, however, pretty sure that I like that certain landmarks belong to everyone. If the stated fact that those parks only consume 1% of our taxes is true then I think I can live with that as well. I just can't stand that he has so much hatred for capitalism. After all, capitalism is what pays for him to spend months filming some of the most beautiful places on earth.
Then there is the nemesis of freedom himself. This clown started out by attacking our right to own guns, then moved on to defacing America after 9/11, then tried to sell us a socialist health care system and is now admitting that he hates capitalism in and of itself.
No, I'm not talking about Obama, though I could be, I'm talking about the jelly donut himself, Mr Moore. He seemed to enjoy trashing capitalism with all of his buddies at MSNBC and Comedy Central while trying to sell us his new propaganda film. I find it funny that those who have supported Obama the most are the ones preaching socialism while God... I mean Obama, tries to say that he is opposed to socialism. But then Obama has trashed capitalism, the military, the Constitution and pretty much everything else that has made America the greatest place on earth as well.
If you want to learn more about Obama, watch Mike Moore make a fool of himself with this new movie and see what the underlying philosophy of the left really is. He is not a fringe lunatic who even upsets the left, he is a perfect representation of the lunacy that is the foundation of the left. Moore, Olberman, Maddow and the Democratic party are all in lockstep in the march of socialism that is attacking the very soul of our freedom.
I know you've seen the video of the classroom singing praise to Obama, I know you've heard the enemies of our way of life throw their support behind Obama during the UN competition of "pat yourself on the backers", I also know that you hear idiots preaching the word of Obama on nearly every media outlet in the nation. I know how nervous you are right now... Don't worry, our voices are being heard. We do have a hero, in fact, we have many of them.
In all of the noise and the pounding propaganda that consumes us and our children every day there is one hero that is giving up every semblance of life in order to save our great nation. All I can say is... Thank God for Glenn Beck!
This man is taking on the most powerful predator we've seen since FDR and Hitler. He is exposing the levels of corruption within our government that would make Attila the Hun blush. I'm not blaming Obama for all of it but he does put a face on our terror. He is every bit as guilty as the other scumbags, of both parties, that are stealing our freedom from underneath of us.
I do not know Mr Beck (if that is his real name), other than listening to him since he first hit the air on 970 WFLA here in Tampa, but I do have faith in him. He has earned my trust and with that he has also earned a place in history. Maybe not in the school books but in my family, from generation to generation, his great deeds WILL be remembered and if you have any honor... You will do the same.
I'm not a follower of a radio talk show host, but a companion of a great man. I walk the same path because our philosophy and faith take us to the same place. If you are like me then we must work to defend him together. He is under attack, both figuratively and literally, we must make sure that anyone who would strike him is aware that they are striking us and that we are NOT weak. Glenn Beck must know that we have his back, so that he can continue his crusade against "soft tyranny" without fear of reprisal.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Middle Class Warfare
One of the guiding principals of the modern democratic party is the "strengthening of the middle class". By this they mean the expansion of the middle class. They have gained much political ground by promising to favor the middle class and helping the poor achieve that beloved level of mediocrity. So, have you ever questioned why the right never wants to talk about their programs to help the middle class?
The fact is that the Dems support the lower and middle class while the Rebublicans support the rich. I guess if you are a shallow minded moron with no faith in humanity you might think that this makes the Republicans evil while escalating the Dems to a high level of moral greatness. If you think this way then please run up to the local Wal-Mart, buy some personal lubricant and start spreading it LIBERALLY around your neck... Because... I'm about to force your head back out of your rectum.
You see, over the last few decades I have had to listen to the left complain about how, during Republican administrations, the middle class shrinks while the rich get richer. The facts that they show us only prove that the upper middle class break through the economic barrier and move into the rich column which lowers the number of "middle class" by that percentage.
The facts that they do not show us relate to the ever climbing divorce rate within the U.S.. You see, if a couple who claims a household income of $45k (well within the middle class) gets a divorce, they have now split into two single people who report about $20k which places them into the catagory of "poor". This takes 1 point from the middle class average but adds 2 points to the lower class average, completely skewing the integrity of the results.
So now on to the important stuff. I do not want a leader who needs me to either stay poor or not ever get rich in order to win elections. I am working on getting rich some day and I do not wish to be punished should I reach that goal. The conservatives, however, support, and are supported by, the rich. Therefore, they will only gain if their voters gain. They need more people to get rich in order to get the number of votes needed to stay in office.
You tell me, which person is the real hero? The guy who wants a broader middle class or the guy who wants everyone to be wealthy. I know what you're thinking, "the rich get there on the backs of the workers so there will be as many poor as rich". It seems that way but the economy is not a zero sum game.
I know how hard it is for you to comprehend but we can all be wealthy. Okay, maybe not all of us but we can all be paid according to what we are willing to put in to it. There will always be those who either will not or cannot work. For them there is charity, not government handouts.
The final question is how to define the middle class. For centuries, before we came along, the middle class were those who had food and shelter. Then came cars and boats and second homes and big screen televisions.....
The middle class today is infinatly more wealthy than that of 60 years ago and lets be honest, the poor aint doing too bad neither. I have been to the welfare office and seen the kids sitting in the SUVs playing their video games on their multiple monitors. I watch Cops, I see the worst part of the ghetto and the nasty homes with the 65" flat screens on the wall. For the most part, your economical class is directly related to your lifestyle decisions and not the great government handouts or corporate oppression.
The fact is that the Dems support the lower and middle class while the Rebublicans support the rich. I guess if you are a shallow minded moron with no faith in humanity you might think that this makes the Republicans evil while escalating the Dems to a high level of moral greatness. If you think this way then please run up to the local Wal-Mart, buy some personal lubricant and start spreading it LIBERALLY around your neck... Because... I'm about to force your head back out of your rectum.
You see, over the last few decades I have had to listen to the left complain about how, during Republican administrations, the middle class shrinks while the rich get richer. The facts that they show us only prove that the upper middle class break through the economic barrier and move into the rich column which lowers the number of "middle class" by that percentage.
The facts that they do not show us relate to the ever climbing divorce rate within the U.S.. You see, if a couple who claims a household income of $45k (well within the middle class) gets a divorce, they have now split into two single people who report about $20k which places them into the catagory of "poor". This takes 1 point from the middle class average but adds 2 points to the lower class average, completely skewing the integrity of the results.
So now on to the important stuff. I do not want a leader who needs me to either stay poor or not ever get rich in order to win elections. I am working on getting rich some day and I do not wish to be punished should I reach that goal. The conservatives, however, support, and are supported by, the rich. Therefore, they will only gain if their voters gain. They need more people to get rich in order to get the number of votes needed to stay in office.
You tell me, which person is the real hero? The guy who wants a broader middle class or the guy who wants everyone to be wealthy. I know what you're thinking, "the rich get there on the backs of the workers so there will be as many poor as rich". It seems that way but the economy is not a zero sum game.
I know how hard it is for you to comprehend but we can all be wealthy. Okay, maybe not all of us but we can all be paid according to what we are willing to put in to it. There will always be those who either will not or cannot work. For them there is charity, not government handouts.
The final question is how to define the middle class. For centuries, before we came along, the middle class were those who had food and shelter. Then came cars and boats and second homes and big screen televisions.....
The middle class today is infinatly more wealthy than that of 60 years ago and lets be honest, the poor aint doing too bad neither. I have been to the welfare office and seen the kids sitting in the SUVs playing their video games on their multiple monitors. I watch Cops, I see the worst part of the ghetto and the nasty homes with the 65" flat screens on the wall. For the most part, your economical class is directly related to your lifestyle decisions and not the great government handouts or corporate oppression.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
The Unthinkable
It seems inevitable that we are headed for a major event in our nations history. The question at hand is what type of an event it will be.
Will it be strictly political or will there be an Arch Duke Ferdinand moment that tips the balance and causes a flood of violence and civil unrest. Maybe, God forbid, this whole thing could lead to a civil war or a revolution.
The left is already calling it a political revolution. That is to say that they are proud that they have turned our country on its ear and they are now aggressively working on (as Obama said) "fundamentally changing America".
So with that in mind I think I should help you understand the difference between a revolution and a civil war. Simply put... it's the winner.
If the standing nation is challenged and defeated then we have experienced a "revolution". On the other hand, if the standing nation is able to crush or even resist the opposition then it would have been a "civil war".
So, for now, we have a political entity that has gained power and is beginning to challenge the basic foundation of America as we've known it and a grass roots effort to stand up against that change. At some point somebody will have to give in and say uncle or it WILL escalate to an all out war.
Looking at the two groups involved are you willing to place a bet on which side that will be? I promise you that the resistance will never lie down and just accept the "Change" that is being forced down our throats. That just leaves one possibility... somehow I just don't see the left (who has invested sooo much into this takeover) giving up the fight either. But then.. maybe they realize that it is the right that has been buying all of the ammo for the past 9 months.
I do not hope for this kind of battle but I can see it coming. Just stew on it for a while, you know I'm right. This is why we need to get the information out there to as many people as possible. If everyone chooses to work this out the right way (through discussion and understanding) then those who are behind this takeover will feel so small that they will slither back into the darkness, alone and defeated!
If we cannot accomplish this then we may find out, the hard way, if this is a new revolution or just another civil war.
Will it be strictly political or will there be an Arch Duke Ferdinand moment that tips the balance and causes a flood of violence and civil unrest. Maybe, God forbid, this whole thing could lead to a civil war or a revolution.
The left is already calling it a political revolution. That is to say that they are proud that they have turned our country on its ear and they are now aggressively working on (as Obama said) "fundamentally changing America".
So with that in mind I think I should help you understand the difference between a revolution and a civil war. Simply put... it's the winner.
If the standing nation is challenged and defeated then we have experienced a "revolution". On the other hand, if the standing nation is able to crush or even resist the opposition then it would have been a "civil war".
So, for now, we have a political entity that has gained power and is beginning to challenge the basic foundation of America as we've known it and a grass roots effort to stand up against that change. At some point somebody will have to give in and say uncle or it WILL escalate to an all out war.
Looking at the two groups involved are you willing to place a bet on which side that will be? I promise you that the resistance will never lie down and just accept the "Change" that is being forced down our throats. That just leaves one possibility... somehow I just don't see the left (who has invested sooo much into this takeover) giving up the fight either. But then.. maybe they realize that it is the right that has been buying all of the ammo for the past 9 months.
I do not hope for this kind of battle but I can see it coming. Just stew on it for a while, you know I'm right. This is why we need to get the information out there to as many people as possible. If everyone chooses to work this out the right way (through discussion and understanding) then those who are behind this takeover will feel so small that they will slither back into the darkness, alone and defeated!
If we cannot accomplish this then we may find out, the hard way, if this is a new revolution or just another civil war.
Friday, September 11, 2009
See, Obama's corrupt, just like the rest
So that I don't insult anyone whom I did not intend to insult, I feel I must clarify something. When I speak of Liberals and conservatives I am not speaking of Republicans or Democrats. The battle between liberal (left) and conservative (right) Ideals is just that, a pair of opposing theories on the way to govern a nation. Democrats and Republicans, as previously described, are a pair of slick talking heads that allow us to choose the mouth to enter only to end up rotting together in the belly of the same snake.
Now that that is clear... The right is finally starting to move away from the two party system but the left, on the other hand, seems firmly attached to partisan politics.
The proof!... Starting with the recent speech to congress regarding health care. When Obama mentioned that "defensive medicine may raise the cost of care", every Democrat in congress looked as if he just shot their dog. The Republican scumbags applauded (as did I) but the Democratic scumbags just sat with an angry look on their collective face.
COME ON! First of all, Obama came far short of facing the reality that the legal system is MOSTLY responsible for high insurance premiums but at least he acknowledged the possibility. The rest of his supporting cast wants us to believe that they are only interested in helping the poor and being just, but, they are so disconnected that they think that outragious law suits are no factor at all. Somehow, I just don't believe that.
More likely, they are in the pockets of "big lawyers" (as they would put it) and are only paving the road for much greater trouble in our nations courtrooms. They want everyone to be insured so that law suits can continue to line their pockets... Don't believe me? look up how much money the Dems have and where they got it. The proof is in the pudding.
Now we have the ACORN thing. The vast evidence of corruption within that organization seems to keep flowing out while Obama keeps pumping money back in. For all of the crap that I heard from the left and the Dems about Halliburtin (however you spell it), I don't remember them ever actually breaking any laws, not to mention confessing to election fraud on a massive scale!
Perhapse with this information we should reconsider Obamas right to preside, wait, nevermind... God forbid they kick him out and put McCain in his place. That would truly be a disaster.
The point is.. We now know for a FACT that Obama and the majority of Dems are corrupt. We can also be quite sure that the vast majority of republicans are equally corrupt. Can we finally stop blindly marching behind these scumbags and start digging decent people out of our society to help represent the good people of this great nation?
I, for one, am willing to run for office if you think I'm fit. Just let me know so we can get this thing started.
Now that that is clear... The right is finally starting to move away from the two party system but the left, on the other hand, seems firmly attached to partisan politics.
The proof!... Starting with the recent speech to congress regarding health care. When Obama mentioned that "defensive medicine may raise the cost of care", every Democrat in congress looked as if he just shot their dog. The Republican scumbags applauded (as did I) but the Democratic scumbags just sat with an angry look on their collective face.
COME ON! First of all, Obama came far short of facing the reality that the legal system is MOSTLY responsible for high insurance premiums but at least he acknowledged the possibility. The rest of his supporting cast wants us to believe that they are only interested in helping the poor and being just, but, they are so disconnected that they think that outragious law suits are no factor at all. Somehow, I just don't believe that.
More likely, they are in the pockets of "big lawyers" (as they would put it) and are only paving the road for much greater trouble in our nations courtrooms. They want everyone to be insured so that law suits can continue to line their pockets... Don't believe me? look up how much money the Dems have and where they got it. The proof is in the pudding.
Now we have the ACORN thing. The vast evidence of corruption within that organization seems to keep flowing out while Obama keeps pumping money back in. For all of the crap that I heard from the left and the Dems about Halliburtin (however you spell it), I don't remember them ever actually breaking any laws, not to mention confessing to election fraud on a massive scale!
Perhapse with this information we should reconsider Obamas right to preside, wait, nevermind... God forbid they kick him out and put McCain in his place. That would truly be a disaster.
The point is.. We now know for a FACT that Obama and the majority of Dems are corrupt. We can also be quite sure that the vast majority of republicans are equally corrupt. Can we finally stop blindly marching behind these scumbags and start digging decent people out of our society to help represent the good people of this great nation?
I, for one, am willing to run for office if you think I'm fit. Just let me know so we can get this thing started.
Homage to Jefferson
"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the Atmosphere." Thomas Jefferson, Feb 22 1787.
As a conservative, I admit to practically worship at the alter of Jefferson. I have a great deal of respect for the whole of our founding fathers but I see T.J. as a true "free thinker".
I spend my down time reading his letters, thousands of them, to his friends, families and even political assotiates. He often reminded those who were working with him on writing our founding documents that they were reacting from a natural instinct to repeat the mistakes of the Monarchy because that was all that they had know. He respectfully encouraged others to think outside the box and to resist their first impulse.
In a letter titled "THE HOMAGE OF REASON" To Peter Carr, Paris, Aug. 10, 1787, he laid out some personal beliefs. It was interesting to read this and consider the way things were during those historical times. Below are some of his writings...
"Spanish. Bestow great attention on this, & endeavor to acquire an accurate knowlege of it. Our future connections with Spain & Spanish America will render that language a valuable acquisition. The antient history of a great part of America, too, is written in that language. I send you a dictionary."
"Moral philosophy. I think it lost time to attend lectures in this branch. He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality therefore was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right & wrong merely relative to this."
"Religion. Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place divest yourself of all bias in favour of novelty & singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, & the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand shake off all the fears & servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."... "you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, & neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but uprightness of the decision."
He was clearly an intuitive man with great patience and insight. Just for those of you who have had little exposure to his writings, here are some exerpts...
"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.".."what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.".."The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." To William S. Smith, Nov. 13, 1787.
" How do you like our new constitution? I confess there are things in it which stagger all my dispositions to subscribe to what such an assembly has proposed. The house of federal representatives will not be adequate to the management of affairs either foreign or federal. Their President seems a bad edition of a Polish king. He may be reelected from 4. years to 4. years for life. Reason and experience prove to us that a chief magistrate, so continuable, is an officer for life. When one or two generations shall have proved that this is an office for life, it becomes on every succession worthy of intrigue, of bribery, of force, and even of foreign interference. It will be of great consequence to France and England to have America governed by a Galloman or Angloman. Once in office, and possessing the military force of the union, without either the aid or check of a council, he would not be easily dethroned, even if the people could be induced to withdraw their votes from him. I wish that at the end of the 4. years they had made him for ever ineligible a second time. Indeed I think all the good of this new constitution might have been couched in three or four new articles to be added to the good, old, and venerable fabrick, which should have been preserved even as a religious relique." To John Adams, Nov. 13, 1787.
" Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, & what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences."
"The inconveniences of the Declaration are that it may cramp government in it's useful exertions. But the evil of this is short-lived, trivial & reparable. The inconveniences of the want of a Declaration are permanent, afflicting & irreparable. They are in constant progression from bad to worse." To James Madison, Mar 15, 1789
"No body wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature has given to our black brethren, talents equal to those of the other colors of men, and that the appearance of a want of them is owing merely to the degraded condition of their existence, both in Africa & America. I can add with truth, that no body wishes more ardently to see a good system commenced for raising the condition both of their body & mind to what it ought to be, as fast as the imbecility of their present existence, and other circumstances which cannot be neglected, will admit." To Benjamin Banneker, Aug. 30, 1791.
These are just some of the thoughts of our greatest forefather. I hope that someday you will get the time and take the innitiative to read some of his writings. He provides a great amount of insight for those who intend to keep our nation as he (and his friends) built it. In my doing so, I feel as if I have become friends with him and I am bound by that friendship to stand in his honor.
Sorry if this post was boring but I felt that people needed to know that Thomas Jefferson was more than the guy on the money. He was a brave and wise man who risked his life and lost any chance to be really close to his family, so that you and I can have a debate over whose ideas were the best... his or Marx.
As a conservative, I admit to practically worship at the alter of Jefferson. I have a great deal of respect for the whole of our founding fathers but I see T.J. as a true "free thinker".
I spend my down time reading his letters, thousands of them, to his friends, families and even political assotiates. He often reminded those who were working with him on writing our founding documents that they were reacting from a natural instinct to repeat the mistakes of the Monarchy because that was all that they had know. He respectfully encouraged others to think outside the box and to resist their first impulse.
In a letter titled "THE HOMAGE OF REASON" To Peter Carr, Paris, Aug. 10, 1787, he laid out some personal beliefs. It was interesting to read this and consider the way things were during those historical times. Below are some of his writings...
"Spanish. Bestow great attention on this, & endeavor to acquire an accurate knowlege of it. Our future connections with Spain & Spanish America will render that language a valuable acquisition. The antient history of a great part of America, too, is written in that language. I send you a dictionary."
"Moral philosophy. I think it lost time to attend lectures in this branch. He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality therefore was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right & wrong merely relative to this."
"Religion. Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object. In the first place divest yourself of all bias in favour of novelty & singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, & the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand shake off all the fears & servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."... "you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, & neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but uprightness of the decision."
He was clearly an intuitive man with great patience and insight. Just for those of you who have had little exposure to his writings, here are some exerpts...
"The people cannot be all, & always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.".."what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them.".."The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure." To William S. Smith, Nov. 13, 1787.
" How do you like our new constitution? I confess there are things in it which stagger all my dispositions to subscribe to what such an assembly has proposed. The house of federal representatives will not be adequate to the management of affairs either foreign or federal. Their President seems a bad edition of a Polish king. He may be reelected from 4. years to 4. years for life. Reason and experience prove to us that a chief magistrate, so continuable, is an officer for life. When one or two generations shall have proved that this is an office for life, it becomes on every succession worthy of intrigue, of bribery, of force, and even of foreign interference. It will be of great consequence to France and England to have America governed by a Galloman or Angloman. Once in office, and possessing the military force of the union, without either the aid or check of a council, he would not be easily dethroned, even if the people could be induced to withdraw their votes from him. I wish that at the end of the 4. years they had made him for ever ineligible a second time. Indeed I think all the good of this new constitution might have been couched in three or four new articles to be added to the good, old, and venerable fabrick, which should have been preserved even as a religious relique." To John Adams, Nov. 13, 1787.
" Let me add that a bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, & what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences."
"The inconveniences of the Declaration are that it may cramp government in it's useful exertions. But the evil of this is short-lived, trivial & reparable. The inconveniences of the want of a Declaration are permanent, afflicting & irreparable. They are in constant progression from bad to worse." To James Madison, Mar 15, 1789
"No body wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature has given to our black brethren, talents equal to those of the other colors of men, and that the appearance of a want of them is owing merely to the degraded condition of their existence, both in Africa & America. I can add with truth, that no body wishes more ardently to see a good system commenced for raising the condition both of their body & mind to what it ought to be, as fast as the imbecility of their present existence, and other circumstances which cannot be neglected, will admit." To Benjamin Banneker, Aug. 30, 1791.
These are just some of the thoughts of our greatest forefather. I hope that someday you will get the time and take the innitiative to read some of his writings. He provides a great amount of insight for those who intend to keep our nation as he (and his friends) built it. In my doing so, I feel as if I have become friends with him and I am bound by that friendship to stand in his honor.
Sorry if this post was boring but I felt that people needed to know that Thomas Jefferson was more than the guy on the money. He was a brave and wise man who risked his life and lost any chance to be really close to his family, so that you and I can have a debate over whose ideas were the best... his or Marx.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
My Health Care Solution
I have some very interesting stuff that I've been researching and will unleash soon but for now... Back to the topic of the day (there is an uppety french way to say that but I refuse to speak the language of the coward!)
I have made it abundently clear and proven beyond any reasonable doubt that health care is NOT a right. I have also shown plenty of reasoning why the left is wrong on their entire perspective of health care (among other things. Now that that nonsense is out of the way I feel I must clarify my position on the whole thing.
First, the "general welfare" thing. It was made very clear that the framers of the constitution were opposed to anything that the government might do to favor one group over the other. Jefferson said that the majority must always prevail, unless it is at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the minority.
To take money from the "wealthy" in order to strictly provide for the poor is absolutly against the fundimental rights of the wealthy! Therefore it is, by definition, unconstitutional. It is tant amount to the majority (who is not rich) voting the money away from the minority (who is rich). This is the entirety of the, so called, health care reform movement.
The real problem is that we are often forced, by threat of violence, through our government, to pay into the health insurance system. It is the only way that those around us can be sure that if they can find a reason to file suit then there will be enough money to make it profitable for them to do so.
I believe that we should have a "public option". I think that we should be able to BORROW money from a public trust and then be held responsible to pay it back. We should have the choice of whether to pay insurance, pay cash for service or pay on a low interest loan from the public. That public option should be very strict, in that, if you choose to take the loan you will be required to make every effort to make timely payments. If you fail to pay then you should be treated just as if you had failed to pay your taxes. First garnish your wages and then if all else fails, go to prison.
This creates a fair competition for insurance companies while allowing them to make all of the profits and take all of the expensive trips that they would like! It disgusts me to hear the radical left complain about "all of the money" the CEOs of big insurance are making and all of the extravigent trips that they take "on the backs of sick people".
It's called profit, jackass! It's why they offered you the safety net of health insurance to begin with. Without them (and before them) you would have had to pay all medical expenses up front and there would have been no money left over for all of the great research that has led to todays unfathomable medical advances. So, stop whining about other people getting rich because they had a better idea than you...MORON!
My plan also creates a safety net for the poor, who already get far too much free stuff on the backs of those who are considered evil simply because they succeeded.On top of that, it reopens the route for charity. If there are no "free plans" for the rich to be taxed for then they will have the fredom to pick and choose, directly, who they help by "sponsering" an individual.
This is much more "fair" to the rich than just forcing them to pay into a pot from which people of all morality (and lack there of) can dip into. I guess the scumbags wont get much help. but then, they can still just work for it like everyone else does.
I know that there will be a certain amount of cost assotiated with the implimentation and enforcement of my plan, but, it will likely be relativly unpopular (because it requires people to pay back) so it will not require near the workforce as would the "free" plan that is being thrown around.
The purpose of the interest is to allow for those who "expire" before paying back their share. Basically, it will be a Bank. One that lends money without respect to credit but it will have the "Teeth" to get a return on its investment. I know it needs work, but it's a start... One that does not punish people for their success!
I have made it abundently clear and proven beyond any reasonable doubt that health care is NOT a right. I have also shown plenty of reasoning why the left is wrong on their entire perspective of health care (among other things. Now that that nonsense is out of the way I feel I must clarify my position on the whole thing.
First, the "general welfare" thing. It was made very clear that the framers of the constitution were opposed to anything that the government might do to favor one group over the other. Jefferson said that the majority must always prevail, unless it is at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the minority.
To take money from the "wealthy" in order to strictly provide for the poor is absolutly against the fundimental rights of the wealthy! Therefore it is, by definition, unconstitutional. It is tant amount to the majority (who is not rich) voting the money away from the minority (who is rich). This is the entirety of the, so called, health care reform movement.
The real problem is that we are often forced, by threat of violence, through our government, to pay into the health insurance system. It is the only way that those around us can be sure that if they can find a reason to file suit then there will be enough money to make it profitable for them to do so.
I believe that we should have a "public option". I think that we should be able to BORROW money from a public trust and then be held responsible to pay it back. We should have the choice of whether to pay insurance, pay cash for service or pay on a low interest loan from the public. That public option should be very strict, in that, if you choose to take the loan you will be required to make every effort to make timely payments. If you fail to pay then you should be treated just as if you had failed to pay your taxes. First garnish your wages and then if all else fails, go to prison.
This creates a fair competition for insurance companies while allowing them to make all of the profits and take all of the expensive trips that they would like! It disgusts me to hear the radical left complain about "all of the money" the CEOs of big insurance are making and all of the extravigent trips that they take "on the backs of sick people".
It's called profit, jackass! It's why they offered you the safety net of health insurance to begin with. Without them (and before them) you would have had to pay all medical expenses up front and there would have been no money left over for all of the great research that has led to todays unfathomable medical advances. So, stop whining about other people getting rich because they had a better idea than you...MORON!
My plan also creates a safety net for the poor, who already get far too much free stuff on the backs of those who are considered evil simply because they succeeded.On top of that, it reopens the route for charity. If there are no "free plans" for the rich to be taxed for then they will have the fredom to pick and choose, directly, who they help by "sponsering" an individual.
This is much more "fair" to the rich than just forcing them to pay into a pot from which people of all morality (and lack there of) can dip into. I guess the scumbags wont get much help. but then, they can still just work for it like everyone else does.
I know that there will be a certain amount of cost assotiated with the implimentation and enforcement of my plan, but, it will likely be relativly unpopular (because it requires people to pay back) so it will not require near the workforce as would the "free" plan that is being thrown around.
The purpose of the interest is to allow for those who "expire" before paying back their share. Basically, it will be a Bank. One that lends money without respect to credit but it will have the "Teeth" to get a return on its investment. I know it needs work, but it's a start... One that does not punish people for their success!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
Liar Liar!
Ok, I've had enough! Lets put a stop to this right now...
I'm sick of hearing the word "liar" being thrown around so much. Face it, most of aren't liars, we just have different sources from which we gain our knowledge. But to get cornered in a debate and resort to calling the other party a liar is just childish.
Don't get me wrong, people do lie... I just prefer to question their sources and force their hand before I go all in on whining about their lies. For instance.. Bill Clinton lied about Monica. Reagan lied about the arms for hostages deal. Obama lied when he said that he wasn't after a single payer system... or maybe he lied all of those times he said he was... In any case, we know that these were lies because the facts have hit the table and the proof is in the pudding.
On the other hand, I had a leftist call ,me a liar when I stated that there were countless tons of WMDs spread around Iraq and recovered during the war. Just because the facts did not support their opinion does, it does not make them false. It is an absolute fact that we recovered WMDs over there, the scary part was that we lost a disturbing amount of those weapons during the whole thing.
I hear it on both sides, it seems like if someone doesn't know about something then they consider it to be a lie. So, from now on, when someone makes an outragious claim, do not call them a liar, call them out. Ask them where they got that info and check it out yourself. Go to their source and find it, then cross reference it with other sources. If you read enough perspectives you will eventually start to see where the truth sits.
This is how a master debater builds his knowledge without embarassing himself by resorting to name calling and refusing to see the rest of the truth. This is also how some left wingers find enlightenment and come to the right where the soul is in peace and the facts are the foundation for philosophy (not the other way around) as I did when i was just a teenager.
I'm sick of hearing the word "liar" being thrown around so much. Face it, most of aren't liars, we just have different sources from which we gain our knowledge. But to get cornered in a debate and resort to calling the other party a liar is just childish.
Don't get me wrong, people do lie... I just prefer to question their sources and force their hand before I go all in on whining about their lies. For instance.. Bill Clinton lied about Monica. Reagan lied about the arms for hostages deal. Obama lied when he said that he wasn't after a single payer system... or maybe he lied all of those times he said he was... In any case, we know that these were lies because the facts have hit the table and the proof is in the pudding.
On the other hand, I had a leftist call ,me a liar when I stated that there were countless tons of WMDs spread around Iraq and recovered during the war. Just because the facts did not support their opinion does, it does not make them false. It is an absolute fact that we recovered WMDs over there, the scary part was that we lost a disturbing amount of those weapons during the whole thing.
I hear it on both sides, it seems like if someone doesn't know about something then they consider it to be a lie. So, from now on, when someone makes an outragious claim, do not call them a liar, call them out. Ask them where they got that info and check it out yourself. Go to their source and find it, then cross reference it with other sources. If you read enough perspectives you will eventually start to see where the truth sits.
This is how a master debater builds his knowledge without embarassing himself by resorting to name calling and refusing to see the rest of the truth. This is also how some left wingers find enlightenment and come to the right where the soul is in peace and the facts are the foundation for philosophy (not the other way around) as I did when i was just a teenager.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Flounders Dictionary/Translator
One of the biggest disconnects in political debates is the language barrier. Yes, we are debating in English but for the left words hold different definitions than for the right. For this reason I have created the left to right translation dictionary..
PATRIOTIC:
.....Left: Dessent is the highest form of patriotism, to agree with or support any governing body or fundamental reasoning would make you imperialistic. To be truly patriotic means that you should defy your parents, employers and founding fathers.
.....Right: To support and defend the ideals of your patriarch is the foundation of patriotism.
PATRIARCH:
.....Left: Clinton, FDR, Obama, Marx
.....Right: Jefferson, Washington, Madison
FREEDOM:
.....Left: The right to do whatever you want without being held responsible for the results. Freedom from being homeless, hungry, ill, lonely or otherwise uncomfortable is the governments responsibility to everyone, not our own.
.....Right: The right to take risks and be bound to the results. If a free man takes a risk and loses everything then he must find his own way out, if he gets filthy rich then he gets to keep all of it.
RIGHTS:
.....Left: Rights are granted by the majority, as long as the majority agrees with the left. Everyone has the right to take the excesses from the rich and equally distribute them throughout society.
.....Right: Rights are granted by god and they only include life, liberty and the product of ones own labor. For liberty see freedom.
THE RICH:
.....Left: An evil group of people who have taken the money from the poor and force them to work long hours as slaves to their own income.
.....Right: Those who have earned, through effort, a mass of money with which they often invest into private industry and create jobs while increasing wealth. Some of the rich worked enough to support several generations of their family, thus creating the illusion of "unworthy rich" which creates anger and jealousy on the left.
THE POOR:
....Left: Wise and worthy people who have been robbed of their opportunity by the mean rich people. They always have honorable intentions, even when they resort to crime in place of being forced to work as a slave to the rich.
....Right: people who, for whatever reason, have not yet taken the steps required to get rich. The rich want the poor to become rich so that they will spend more money.
JUSTICE:
.....Left: A system that punishes the rich for having so much money. Lawyers enforce justice through such acts as fining a company thousands of dollars because a poor guy bit into a candy bar that had a worm in it.
....Right: A system that gives every person a chance to defend his actions in front of an unbiased jury. The system is blind and cannot see the race or wealth of those involved.
US MILITARY:
.....Left: An organized crime unit, funded by republicans, who travels the world killing and raping civilians while claiming land in the name of oil.
.....Right:The best and bravest of Americas youth. They travel the world killing terrorists (hooah) in the name of spreading freedom in order to protect our own peace. They also spread food and water in times of emergency and rebuild most of what they destroy.
GUN CONTROL:
.....Left: Total governmental control over where every single gun in the United States is located. Keeping guns out of the hands of anyone beyond authority figures (military, police, Obama's youth army)
.....Right: A steady hand! The ability to place multiple rounds into a small grouping.
Feel free to add your own definitions and debate over them. for now, however, I think I've got the more important ones covered.
PATRIOTIC:
.....Left: Dessent is the highest form of patriotism, to agree with or support any governing body or fundamental reasoning would make you imperialistic. To be truly patriotic means that you should defy your parents, employers and founding fathers.
.....Right: To support and defend the ideals of your patriarch is the foundation of patriotism.
PATRIARCH:
.....Left: Clinton, FDR, Obama, Marx
.....Right: Jefferson, Washington, Madison
FREEDOM:
.....Left: The right to do whatever you want without being held responsible for the results. Freedom from being homeless, hungry, ill, lonely or otherwise uncomfortable is the governments responsibility to everyone, not our own.
.....Right: The right to take risks and be bound to the results. If a free man takes a risk and loses everything then he must find his own way out, if he gets filthy rich then he gets to keep all of it.
RIGHTS:
.....Left: Rights are granted by the majority, as long as the majority agrees with the left. Everyone has the right to take the excesses from the rich and equally distribute them throughout society.
.....Right: Rights are granted by god and they only include life, liberty and the product of ones own labor. For liberty see freedom.
THE RICH:
.....Left: An evil group of people who have taken the money from the poor and force them to work long hours as slaves to their own income.
.....Right: Those who have earned, through effort, a mass of money with which they often invest into private industry and create jobs while increasing wealth. Some of the rich worked enough to support several generations of their family, thus creating the illusion of "unworthy rich" which creates anger and jealousy on the left.
THE POOR:
....Left: Wise and worthy people who have been robbed of their opportunity by the mean rich people. They always have honorable intentions, even when they resort to crime in place of being forced to work as a slave to the rich.
....Right: people who, for whatever reason, have not yet taken the steps required to get rich. The rich want the poor to become rich so that they will spend more money.
JUSTICE:
.....Left: A system that punishes the rich for having so much money. Lawyers enforce justice through such acts as fining a company thousands of dollars because a poor guy bit into a candy bar that had a worm in it.
....Right: A system that gives every person a chance to defend his actions in front of an unbiased jury. The system is blind and cannot see the race or wealth of those involved.
US MILITARY:
.....Left: An organized crime unit, funded by republicans, who travels the world killing and raping civilians while claiming land in the name of oil.
.....Right:The best and bravest of Americas youth. They travel the world killing terrorists (hooah) in the name of spreading freedom in order to protect our own peace. They also spread food and water in times of emergency and rebuild most of what they destroy.
GUN CONTROL:
.....Left: Total governmental control over where every single gun in the United States is located. Keeping guns out of the hands of anyone beyond authority figures (military, police, Obama's youth army)
.....Right: A steady hand! The ability to place multiple rounds into a small grouping.
Feel free to add your own definitions and debate over them. for now, however, I think I've got the more important ones covered.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
