Join us for debate at our Facebook Group, Liberty Cafe!

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Rebel Inside Voices

In the fat years and the lean years, the ideologues, the partisans and the activists never stop believing they're the oppressed. Republicans held Congress for years, spent like wolves in the hen house, but now lays blame for it all on Democrats. Yet, Democrats have ruled Congress for almost every session since World War II, but its the Republicans who block all their pet projects dreamed up by the proto-fascist heroes or their current corrupt jawboners, and not America's keen resistance to overbearing government (when we recognize it). Why does this happen? Because, I believe, American political culture, and culture in general, has become fully invested in victimhood.

Sometime ago, probably at the beginning of the leftist Cultural Revolution in the 60s, the idea of the eternal struggle against the Other (in their case, sanity) became mainstream. The New Left (democratic socialists, front group communists, etc) and the New Right (neoconservatives, big government conservatives, etc) both took and ran with the idea they were the ones who held the American idea AND were oppressed by the government or mass movement. It works well. Americans love to root for the underdog. Mr. Smith, Rudy, Rocky; American heroes in media are usually ones who start from nothing and achieve everything. These stories aren't always false. President Obama himself was born to an impoverished (and somewhat mentally damaged) mother. Obama used this story to his benefit to gain the love of even his political enemies. Yet, it clouds the fact that he was raised by well-off grandparents (who he threw under the bus) and became the center of the Chicago political machine way before even thinking about running for President. Like the President, the Democrats and the Republicans are hardly oppressed, and in fact do a lot of oppressing themselves, and that both ideologies have a long history with massive funding from think tanks, oligarchs like George Soros (by the way, f**k you, Jimmy Carter) and wealthy private citizens. People like Nancy Pelosi, who've got millions, and Micheal Bloomberg, who has billions, can hardly start complaining about being held back. Being the mayor of a city as giant as New York City, or being a American Congressman, makes you more powerful than 99.5% of the rest of the world. Shut up and actually lead for once.

But this infection has also hit we noble citizens as well. We sympathize with the party out of power. We feel the words of a politician recalling a past trauma though it doesn't explain his voting record. Americans give more in private donations than anyone else. We are too emotional for our own good. We are too nice to our political leaders and we suffer for it by being gipt out of our earned labor, our futures, our standard of living and our freedoms. If we were harder on our leaders, inflation wouldn't have destroyed the American family by forcing both parents to work for a good living. If we were more hawkish, the debt wouldn't be at $14 trillion. If we were meaner, they'd fear crossing us by putting a majority of teens out of work by raising the minimum wage beyond what most small business can afford.

It's nice to believe you're the rebel, even if you're a straight-line Democrat or Republican. But you're not, dear reader. You're part of the mainstream. You're okay with Social Security, like the Republican Party. You're a-okay with Obamacare, like the Democratic Party. You may think the Tea Party is racist and is oppressing you from having a big government view, like many leftist anchors... commentators.... no, wait, MSNBC anchors.... believe. You may think Fox News is the next Paul Revere. But none of it makes you the next American revolutionary. It makes you part of the problem.

The problem isn't Glenn Beck or Jon Stewart or the liberal/libertarian/socialist/atheist/agnosticwhatever Bill Maher. It isn't that Nancy StretchyFace has no clue what's in any of the bills her cronies write for her, though that's a big issue. The overall problem is the complanency of the citizenry with short-term programs and short-term issues when the entire facade of central banking and demcoratic socialism is coming down around them. Most people don't have a plan for that. Most people won't know its happened under the paper mache arches that held up the last 100 years of the American Republic are at their feet and our leaders are no where to be seen.

The name of the game is LONGVIEW, people. Not who has whose seat in 2 years, but what structure the American government NEEDS to be in the next 20.

Friday, October 29, 2010

Elections and Ideas

I've been away for a while. Personal and business problems have kept me busy, but I hope to shoot off more frequent posts. But, as always, life in reality comes first before life on the virtual page.

Yet, this time away from writing has given me thoughts (GASP!). Like, the GOP won't fix anything when they gain whatever power they'll get from the upcoming elections. They hoot and hollar now, but like 1994, little change will come from it. It may be little good change, but we don't need little. We need big. We need a massive reduction in the federal government's spending, size and power, but all we'll get probably is maybe another 10-year tax cut, or maybe a shot at Obamacare repeal, or maybe... yeah. If all three of you fans have been reading this blog steadily, you'll know that Michelle and I (mostly Michelle) have been spilling out the details on why we need this hard change economically. The Fed has been f**king up the economy since its inception, taxes are overly complex and oppressive, politically connected corporations use lobbying due to over regulation and get little turfs carved out for them by friendly Congressmen (coughBARNEYFRANKcough), unions suppressing American innovation for lifetime comfort on your dollar; crap like that. Even if the cutesy named “Wave” happens, and the GOP takes everything but the kitchen sink, I doubt they'll do what is necessary, or hold to even 1/10th of whatever promises they've made this cycle. No one should forget 2002-2006. It's just how it goes, no?

I voted straight Republican on my mail-in ballot. I'm thinking I should of voted otherwise.

And this has nothing to do with the good people who support the GOP or some of the better people who are holding office that are GOP. This has to with the fact that our economic changes need to happen quick, not piecemeal. Giant debt, massive government brick walls, an elite in Washington; these things didn't happen overnight. This goes back to the tail end of the 1800s and the Progressive Era. Teddy, Woody, Franklin, and the rest of their lot. The idea of “progress” swept over all the nation, not just a small cabal. But it died, or so it should have. But a bad idea 100 years ago affects us now. We have two houses of Congress at the behest of voters, not one. We have a unaccountable cartel of banks running the economy and encouraging the government-backed risk and government-ruled social justice crap that tanked us in 2008. We have giant liabilities called “handouts” people will fight and kill over. None of this is sustainable. None of this is freedom.

And none of this will get fixed when it should if we let the GOP establishment, and yes, even the Tea Party, keep the status quo through naivety.

When President Obama talked about change, but what he really meant was nostalgia. He threw back to the days of proto-fascism, state-run society and organic nations.

When WE talk about change, we talk about real change. Adaptation to a new world that has left the industrial era of mechanical dreams and world peace. We live in an increasingly decentralized world. Central powers are declining. Alliances crumbling. Nations that'll survive will survive by cutting the fat off their budgets and their societies. That means less entitlements, more freedom. Harsher responses to attacks, less wars of ideals. We've done a lot of good in the last 100 years, but it can't last. Afghanistan needs to be our last hurrah in to good-deed wars. We need to let Europe sit on its own. Our bases need to shrink, though not disappear. The next war, God help us if we have one with Iran, needs to be about two things: vengeance and victory. Democracy isn't a war goal, its a dream of think tanks. We simply can't afford another Kosovo War or 1994 Haiti or Panama.

Our future goal should be maximizing freedom, because the freest of nations will survive the next decade of economic turbulence. Those like China, building cities where no one lives to use surplus labor, will die quickly. We do not want to be China.

Government Gone Wild: Teenagers Banned from Trick-or-Treating in an Illinois Town

Mayor Mark Eckhert of Belleville Illinois believes the long arm of government should enact his father’s views regarding the age when kids are too old to trick-or-treat. The Mayor told ABC News “When I was a kid my father said to me, 'You're too damn big to be going trick-or-treating. You're done.’ When that doesn’t happen, then that’s the reason for the city governments to intervene.”(*) Therefore, if you are over the age of 12 and trick-or-treat in Belleville Illinois, you will be fined $100. It seems that other townships in several states are quickly following suit.

I understand the position of single mothers and senior citizens. It can be very frightening to have obnoxious teenagers ringing your doorbell, especially when it is dark outside. They could also be adults who can force their way in to rob the person’s home. It is often very difficult to tell just who it is underneath the costume.

Halloween never did much for me as a child and as an adult. I always ended up wrestling the shaving cream out of some punk kid’s hands who thought it was comical to douse people in shaving cream. My kids do not share my view; they absolutely love it, although they are rapidly approaching that “cut-off” age.

Nevertheless, in spite of my views and those who agree that high school kids are too old to be trick-or-treating; I absolutely abhor the idea of the government robbing people of their freedoms. In my neighborhood, there are subdivisions that get so into the day, the intensity of the decorations rivals Christmas. Adults dress in costumes to greet the trick-or-treaters. There are mobs of kids of all ages having a good time and not causing any trouble.

When the long arm of government reaches in, there is great loss of individual freedom. If you detest Halloween; then close up your house, and don’t answer the door. It might be a good day to catch up on all of those errands in which you’ve been procrastinating. It is one’s right to dismiss the day. Nervous single mothers and senior citizens may decide who they open their door to on an individual basis. Those who love the day can go all out. The bottom line is FREEDOM.

Why do some people’s viewpoints trump others and prevail because one is in a position of power to make their views law? The argument always goes back to safety. The news will report on the poor old lady who was robbed for opening her door to who she thought were innocent trick-or-treaters. Playing on the people’s raw emotions of outrage, the knee-jerk reaction is to support such a ban. The truth is people’s homes are robbed every single day. Therefore, people who never outgrow Halloween and wish to do no harm have to surrender their right to celebrate.

I quote Benjamin Franklin: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” The magnitude of the erosion of people’s liberties ranges from minor incidents such as Halloween ordinances all the way up to the Patriot Act.


Monday, October 25, 2010

Thinking of Voting the Status Quo this November 2nd? Think Again…

Several people have sent me this very well written article published on Hot Air (*). While everything written is factually correct, there is quite a bit missing that would give voters a better perspective. Therefore, I’m going to add the missing pieces to this article since it is vitally important that people vote INFORMED this election. Before I delve into this, I will disclose a few “disclaimers” with the hope to avert subsequent commentary based on false interpretations of my position and purpose of writing this article.

First, this article is not being written to bash George W. Bush or lay blame solely on him for the current economic situation. The following is being written with the intent to better inform people and demonstrate the danger of putting establishment Republicans back in power.

Second, it is important to note that the “genius” idea of “affordable housing” is solely attributed to leftists. This was the Democrats’ baby from day one; however, it got by with “a little help from their friends” on the other side of the aisle.

Lastly, I am not in any way suggesting that people vote third party, or that a third party is the solution. I have never nor will I ever devote myself to ANY political party. What I am suggesting is to NOT vote the STATUS QUO. If you live in a district that has a solid Republican running (i.e. a Meg Whitman, a Pat Toomey, a Rand Paul); then by all means, vote for that candidate! Sadly for me, Illinois is one of the most corrupt states in the union run by a strong political machine; and there is clearly no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both parties have run this state into the ground, and the Republican establishment has done an excellent job keeping candidates who are serious about shrinking government off the ballot. Therefore, I will be voting straight Libertarian until I have viable option, or when candidates with a libertarian view can successfully infiltrate the Republican Party.

Now that my position is clear, let’s get into the task at hand…

The first section on Andrew Cuomo, the current New York gubernatorial candidate, is spot on. In a nutshell, leftists had a dream of giving everyone a home, regardless of whether or not they could actually afford it; and they would get taxpayers and the Federal Reserve to finance this dream. Cuomo did play a major role in expanding the power of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (Perhaps his opponent, Carl Paladino, should focus on bringing this issue to light instead of making absurd statements about homosexuals.) The comment Paul Krugman made was also a nice touch to illustrate the insanity of these policies and his ineptness as an economist.

In the next part of the article where props were given to the Bush Administration is where we run into a problem. While it’s true that President Bush and some Republicans tried to pull back the reins on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; these attempts were pathetic, misguided and very half-hearted. Why? The answer is that it was very difficult for President Bush to reverse his position after he spent the first two years of his presidency touting these very policies. Need proof? Let’s take a walk down memory lane, shall we?

The following video is part of a speech Bush gave way back in October of 2002. He addressed the gap between Black and Hispanic home ownership relative to overall home ownership. He was proud to announce that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will address the “shortage of capital” needed to close this gap and that a low-income home buyer could have “just as nice of a house as anyone else!” Of course, taxpayers will finance all of this, which he alludes to in the next clip.

Video One

The first clip, “Video One,” was not one of Will Ferrell’s better impersonations on Saturday Night Live; but for those who doubt that George Bush would actually say what he did, I’ve taken the liberty of finding clips of him in the flesh…

Video Two

“Video Two” was a speech given by Bush on May 17, 2002. In this video, he talks about not one but TWO government entitlement programs designed to assist people in buying a home they cannot afford. The first was the “American Dream Down Payment Fund” where he actually admits that this program will be funded by the taxpayers! Even the most devout leftists know better than to say that directly! The second was the “Single Family Affordable Housing Tax Credit,” whereby each state received a $1.75 per capita in tax credit dollars in 2002, with an index for inflation. This, of course, was yet another misguided government program designed to encourage real estate developers to build in economically distressed areas.

If that wasn’t bad enough, he talked about the importance of the role of the federal government to provide affordable housing. His intention was to get a “sustained commitment” from the private sector. How was that achieved? That’s where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac came into play. The idea was to expand capital by having the government put a stamp of approval and guarantee reckless lending. Banks loaned money recklessly because the government guaranteed their idiocy!

If you are getting indigestion, I recommend you stop the video because your stomach won’t be able to take the last part of the clip. Don’t say I didn’t warn you. Not only does he foolishly imply that the federal government empowers people, he goes on to say that we must “use the mighty muscle of the federal government along with state and local governments” to encourage home ownership! I honestly don’t think one would hear that come out of Barack Obama’s mouth. The MIGHTY MUSCLE of the federal government?? Why in the world did the left despise this man? They should have embraced him!

Video Three

I never took it personally when I was called an “economic charlatan” by a former graduate school professor, as “Video Three” demonstrated the prominent line of thinking at the time. It was very obvious that my opinion would be considered daft, especially when I voiced it long before 2007.

Here we have the Bush Administration, who by this time tried umpteen times to “rein in” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, denying the impending economic disaster. At this point in time, it was obvious to many prominent classical liberal economists the magnitude of the disaster that was coming our way. The problem is Bush already slept with the left on this issue. The Democrats, namely Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, who sat on the congressional financial committees, were indeed blocking any attempts for reform. However, Bush couldn’t take it a step further because he was treading on dangerous ground in the sense where he had to “180” his position and admit that the policies he flaunted were going to be responsible for a major economic meltdown. That’s political suicide, especially when the left would jump all over him for reneging on his word to help minorities; and leftists knew very well who they can blame (and still blame) when things came crashing down. Due to the fact that Bush was worried about the post-911 economy, he thought inflating investment in the housing market was the way to go. When it became obvious that disaster was looming, what was his answer? More REGULATION and more government expansion, as the next video illustrates. Oh how that works so well. I wonder if he idolized Herbert Hoover because his legacy is that of a modern day Hoover.

Now, it is time for the grand finale. Please stay with me my Republican cheerleaders! It really is for your own good that we travel backward in time.

Video Four

“Video Four” takes us to late 2007, where Bush still believes that the fundamentals of the nation’s economy are sound. In the meantime, our dollar is worth less than a roll of toilet paper, gas prices are shooting through the roof and inflation is everywhere. The man still had the audacity to suggest that the subprime market was “innovative.” He cited the problem with adjustable-rate mortgage (ARMS) rates rising, but he didn’t give the real reason why ARMS rates were rising – INFLATION. I also wonder just where Americans got that “overly optimistic assumption” regarding the performance of the housing market.

He then proceeds to demonize those “irresponsible lenders,” who were only playing by the rules the government laid out for them – the very rules he advocated during the first few years of his presidency. On top of that, he has the arrogance to ask lenders to renegotiate the terms of these loans so they could hold paper with sub-par rates of return, which only leads to future economic turmoil. This is certainly not a sympathy vote for the lenders, as they should have moved beyond their short-sighted view of temporary government security. That will cause your demise every time.

The real kicker here is when he clearly stated that it is not the job of the federal government to bail out the lenders and investment houses. Interestingly enough, one year later, he came on national TV and said we had to “abandon the free market to save it.” He ended up signing into law one of the largest financial bailouts on record.

In the latter half of his speech, he talked about more government programs to combat the crisis – specifically “FHA-Secure.” It is important to note that all this program did was keep the prices of homes inflated; and worse, moved MORE people into federally backed loans. Further expanding the role and influence of the government in the housing market was Bush’s answer when it should have been the opposite. So much for reining in the role of government sponsored enterprises! They should have been ABOLISHED.

All I ask of everyone who reads this column is to HONESTLY answer the following questions:

• Can you see President Obama giving these same speeches, and are the positions exactly the same? Do you understand that Obama has simply expanded on these very same policies?
• Are you confident that establishment Republicans will rail against reckless government spending and the current Obama agenda? Have you read the GOP Pledge to America?
• Are you able to now see how establishment Republicans have laid the groundwork for the current economic state?
• Will you admit to the danger of blind partisan voting?

The latter question is probably the most important, as it is ultimately responsible for the current tyrannical government.

Once again, the purpose of this column was not a Bush-bashing session. I am also aware that George W. Bush is not on the ballot this coming election; BUT the establishment Republicans, some who played a role in helping the leftists in this country achieve their dream, ARE on the ballot! For your own sake and for the future of this country, do not vote blindly this election.

Leftists cannot enact their agenda in this country without help, and the Republican establishment gave them plenty of help all through Bush’s eight years. Government interference in the housing market goes all the way back to FDR. The Carter administration resurrected and expanded the role of government in the housing market; and it was former members of the Clinton Administration (all mentioned in the Hot Air article), that are directly responsible for sowing the seeds of the current economic meltdown. It is very true that Democrats were the masterminds of a scandal that would make Bernie Madoff envious; but the beauty of it all for the left was that they had a staunch ally in George W. Bush to keep those dreams alive. They also had a perfect scapegoat to blame when it all came crashing down. Let’s not re-elect more scapegoats.

How many people believe that these policies were solely Republican? The left has done an excellent job in indoctrinating people into believing this foolish nonsense. Note some of the commentary on the videos. However, Republicans are just as guilty for going along with the plan. What ideology does the Republican establishment stand for? We just saw a Republican President talk about the “MIGHTY MUSCLE” of the federal government! With rhetoric like that, why fear Obama? After seeing these clips and understanding the history, one can only conclude that A) establishment Republicans are clueless stooges or B) their ideology is a less extreme form of socialism. Neither sits well with me, and it should be a grave concern for American citizens that all we have is a choice between social engineering of varying degrees. It is important to understand that every economic meltdown that has occurred over the past century has been a result of government social engineering and market steering gone bad.

For all who think that a Republican takeover of Congress is all that is needed to stop the Obama agenda in its tracks had better wake up and smell the coffee and brush up on history. Until we as a nation come to grips with the fact that government will not solve wealth inequality (it will only contribute to it), right social wrongs, pad our retirements and cure all of our ills, government will only work to erode what little liberties we have left. Until people stop falling for these populist tactics and get educated, brace yourself for more of the same.

Please vote INFORMED this election…


Friday, October 22, 2010

The NPR’s Firing of Juan Williams: The Authoritarian Left at their Best

Poor Juan Williams. Recently, he found out that if you stray the slightest bit off message, the far left will destroy you. They’ve been known to eat their young in these situations in the past. Juan has also experienced what journalists and commentators on the right have experienced for years – left-wing outlets taking one line out of context and painting the person as a racist, a bigot or intolerant. Apparently, those on the left do not like what stares back at them when they look in the mirror. Juan has now come to this realization, and he told George Stephanopoulos that he “always thought the right wing were ones that were inflexible and intolerant and now I’m coming to realize that the orthodoxy at NPR, its representing the left.” (*)

The NPR has fired their only black, objective journalist; and the reason went far beyond his comment about Muslims that was taken completely out of context. The issue that they so desperately try to hide is the fact that Juan works for and makes regular appearances on the Fox News Channel. After all, leftists cannot attempt to indoctrinate the public about how the network is heavily biased, which makes it the furthest thing from “fair and balanced” if Juan Williams shows up there! Their attempts have had no success, as Fox destroys leftist media outlets ratings wise; and they don’t need taxpayer dollars to do so. The only people who currently hold this extremely ignorant view are people who have not watched Fox News outside of Media Matters clips that appear on “You Tube,” as the network employs a very long list of left-wing contributors who appear regularly on commentary programs.

I disagree with Juan more often than I agree, but he is one of few journalists on the left who have integrity and objectivity. Unfortunately, that’s what gets you into trouble with the George Soros’ of the world. Juan’s firing shows just how much of a tizzy the authoritarian left is currently in; and at times like these, they show their true INTOLARENT colors. I disagree often with conservatives and have been engaged in fierce debates, but there is only one group of people who will go to the gutter as NPR CEO, Vivian Schiller, did when she questioned Juan Williams’ psychiatric health. If she made the right decision, then why assassinate the man’s character? It was also noteworthy to see how she slipped and pathetically tried to cover herself when she said that Juan’s statement was “not compatible with a news analyst on NPR,” which she quickly changed to “the role of a news analyst on NPR’s air.” See her comments along with Bill O’Reilly’s interview below:

The O'Reilly Factor 10/21/10

Juan Williams firing was the most COWARDLY action I’ve seen by the left in some time, and unfortunately Mr. Williams had to learn the hard way. It is impossible to have a logical, rational conversation with these people about very complex issues. I’ve seen it first hand at Liberty Café, my Facebook political discussion group. Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg (who to my surprise came to Williams’ defense) walked off their own set, when they became too entangled in their web of political correctness. Frankly, it’s beyond embarrassing when people who preach tolerance can take their degree of intolerance to an unprecedented level.

George Soros can continue to pump millions of dollars into the NPR, Media Matters and all other left-wing outlets; but his efforts will be for naught. The authoritarian left cannot hide who they really are; and when they have two out of three branches of government monopolized, their ideas as well as their leadership will be challenged and criticized. Now we have seen how they respond to criticism by attempting to silence and publically degrade all who oppose them.

Since the NPR is receiving plenty of money from George Soros, I think it’s time that this supposed “non-biased” organization stop receiving TAX DOLLARS. I expect legislation to be introduced in Congress immediately. It is quite clear who the NPR and all public television networks take their marching orders from. I’m all for the existence of left-wing media outlets; I just demand that they get PRIVATE funding.

I extend major kudos to those on the left who defied their zealot leaders and came to Mr. Williams’ defense and called this action for what it really was. I also would like to see Fox News make room for Mr. Williams’ to have his own television show in addition to the promotion he just received.