Saturday, August 11, 2012

Why Obama Wants to Destroy the Last Place

The US is the last significant and safe place on Earth in which liberty and opportunity still exist.  That is why Obama is focused on destroying free enterprise, liberty, the right to property and opportunity here. In a world populated with states in which the little grey people (think the EU and France where the socialists plan to confiscate 75% of the earnings of the rich) or dictators or committees of dictators run the lives of the people, the US remains the last safe place.  What does the last place represent that Obama wants to end?  Competition and a safe haven.

President Reagan knew that the key to defeating Soviet socialism was competition.  Socialist states, and in particular totalitarian socialist states, cannot in the long run compete with free enterprise states.  What if there had been no free enterprise (capitalist) super power to compete with the Soviets?  Would they still rule Easter Europe with an iron hand? Very likely, yes.  The Soviet Union did not collapse from within.  In a world in which all the major economies are more or less socialist, economic competition (and ultimately military and political competition) is severely circumscribed (don’t confuse this with peace, the desire for peace, or the absence of war —I am speaking only with respect to resources and capabilities). Socialist states do not wither away.  The forces of international competition drive them out of business.  In a world order in which all of the major players are socialist and operate in a competition refereed by the United Nations these slow or no growth leviathans will persists for centuries, stagnating, tightening their control, suffocating their people.

Obama knows this.  And that is one reason why destroying free enterprise in the US is uppermost on his agenda.  He knows that this is a key element in establishing an international socialist order.  Little and not very powerful islands of freedom will be easy to intimidate or destroy.

Coupled with this is the notion of the safe haven.  The US is still the last hope for many.  If not for themselves, for their moveable assets (capital).  When the America that has existed for centuries is replaced by an Obama leviathan run by busy-body bureaucrats (apparatchiks) deciding who gets what and who gets to keep what, of what island of freedom will the rest of the world dream of escaping to? When the US is no longer free, there will be no place to go to. 

Sunday, July 29, 2012

Terrorizing Chick-Fil-A

What is troubling to me it that the mayor of a city (the murder capital of the US) is using his political office to threaten and punish a business for the political and religious beliefs of the company’s executives.  This is patently illegal and fascistic – but right in step with the liberal left’s (starting with Obama’s) response to anyone who disagrees with their ideas: no matter how goofy.  It is their utter and self-righteous intolerance that makes them so dangerous and obnoxious.  The idea there can be only one correct idea about same sex marriage is lunacy.  Here we have basically a brand new idea that is inconsistent with virtually all of human history (apart from the late Roman emperor who married his horse) being elevated to a position of such sanctity that merely saying you disagree is a crime.  Where is the good old gang of four that terrorized China when you need them?  They seem (classically) liberal compared to the intolerance of the new liberal.  What makes this truly ridiculous is the way Chick-Fila operates.  There is one down the street from me.  There can be a line of 50 cars at lunch and you will be served almost immediately.  That’s how efficient and well trained the staff is.  But then, that’s just one more thing that annoys liberals: a well-run business that doesn’t need an Obama bailout.
PS: Suppose that the mayor of a city refused to allow shops with United Colors of Benetton clothing to be permitted because the mayor thought that their advertising promoted inter-racial marriage.  What would the “liberal” reaction be?

Saturday, July 7, 2012

No CoPay Does not Mean Free

Living in a country in which liberals have dumbed down education to the point at which we are surrounded with ignorant numbskulls can be exasperating!  The president proclaims that sex accessories such as birth control pills and “preventive” procedures such as colonoscopies are to be provided by insurance plans without even a modest copayment.  The idiots that swim in the sea of stupidity think: free stuff.  Isn’t Obama a great guy!  NOTHING IS FREE.   Ordering that selected procedures, products or   medical services have no copay is simply cost shifting.  When selected copays are removed then either insurers reduce other benefits or raise premiums —or taxpayers foot the bill.  Somebody is paying.  As with everything this president ordains economics is replaced with politics.  The votes of those receiving the no copay benefit are purchased with money from others.  While this may seem reprehensible and immoral, it is the second play in the liberal political playbook (after racism).   The tragedy is that the suckers being conned (those paying for these “free” goodies but not receiving them) are too dumb to realize that someone is paying and the “generosity” of the anointed one is sleight of hand.  Wouldn’t it be refreshing were the hustler-in-chief to say to the American people: “I know what’s best for you.  And what’s best for me. Certain medical goodies should be free to certain people whose votes I want.  The rest of you will have to pay more for your coverage.  Hey, that’s life in Obamastan. Later maybe I will give something to you.”

Sunday, May 13, 2012

Roe v Wade: Demographic A-Bomb

One can discuss Roe v Wade and abortion on demand without considering its moral aspects; one can discuss Roe v Wade without considering its legal aspects.  Both are grave. You cannot live in an era in which 50 million babies were casually snuffed out without wondering what impact this has had on people’s (particularly young people’s) attitude toward the sanctity of human live.  You cannot live in an era in which courts create constitutional rights out of thin air without wondering what impact this has had on people’s views regarding the constitution’s relevance and our future as a constitutional republic. However, these are both in some sense problematical considerations since arguments have been raging off and on about these two aspects of abortion on demand for several decades.  Typically one believes one side or the other.  Or one drifts back and forth between the two.
One aspect of Roe v Wade and abortion on demand is indisputable.  It was the greatest demographic event of the last forty years.  50 million is about 16% of the current US population. In some respects it is no different than some medieval plague that has snatched a million babies a year from their cribs.  None of the weeping, none of the sorrow attendant to plagues —at least not until later; often much later.  But demographic events and their effects operate not on the emotional plane but in the tangible world.  The US has its largest foreign born population since the turn of the twentieth century.  Had fifty million more native citizens been born during this time would there have been demand for labor that subjected the country to the stresses attendant to a volkerwanderung?  Now one might speculate as to whether the nation is better off with native born persons or by substituting a huge infusion of foreigners.  Is large scale adoption of foreign born babies good for the country or not?  I leave that to others.  But that there is an effect is what is indisputable.
Would liberal Ponzi schemes which are the basis of their socialist nanny state be collapsing had fifty million babies been born since 1973.  A cohort of these unborn would have started work lives in the mid 1990s.  Paying in.  Paying in.  Instead liberals have struck a blow at the base of the triangle that supports these Ponzi schemes.  All Ponzi schemes require a large and ever expanding base.  I cannot understand why they can never make the connection between this and their stand on population.
The tragedy is that in the greatest constitutional republic in history the real consequences of abortion on demand were never discussed.  There was no serious discussion of the demographic implications.  None.  Even now everyone prattles on about the sanctity of life and the right of a woman to choose. This entire time bomb was lobbed at us by a court —a court that had neither the background nor the inclination to consider the consequences of their actions.
Someone once told me that 75% of everything is determined by demographics.  25% is associated with all other causes.     Perhaps he was right.   At this stage, who cares?  A nation of children deserves what it gets.

Sunday, April 1, 2012

The Schizophrenic Sixties

There were two “sixties”.  I’m not referring to the early sixties (Leave it To Beaver) versus the late sixties (the Beatles anti-war sixties) but to the late 1960’s and early 1970’s that people today characterize as the sixties.    The two sixties I am thinking of are of the multiple personalities type, existing side by side in the same body, interweaving, comingling, sometimes fighting for dominance —which ultimately lead to the dominant personality often viewed today as “the sixties” emerging.
One aspect (what Rush Limbaugh seems to view as the sixties) was the re-emergence of thirties left wing progressives (the ones who at any meeting or demonstration or party or anything accuse one another of being Trotskyites or worse — basically New York types or perhaps those that gravitated from their homes in Minnesota and other hotbeds of twenties and thirties progressive thought); the other aspect is what I refer to as the motorcycle-surfer personality.  Strongly anti-statists and paranoid about government “rules” the motorcycle-surfer personality was defiant and libertarian. Populated with people like me: I drove the roads of America for 19 years without a valid driver’s license since doing so would just be cooperating with the “statists pigs” — requiring a driver’s license has never kept bad drivers off the road and was just a way to control, regiment, and keep track of people.
During the sixties the two personalities usually dressed alike and projected similar social views— but for the left wingers this was merely a disguise.   They were (and are now) statists to whom “alcohol, drugs, sex, and rock-n-roll” was a way to hide in the tidal wave of freedom that engulfed America.  And in the end, just the way the Leninists they admire took control of the Russian Revolution, they have managed through persistence and single-mindedness to now dominate the political/media view of the sixties, and to be the primary representatives of the period.  You know the type: any good idea is the only idea —if being gay is OK, then everyone has to agree that being gay is OK; if abortion is OK, then everyone has to agree that abortion is OK; if car pooling is better than driving alone, then everyone has to car pool instead of driving alone; if ______ is OK, then everyone has to agree that ______ is OK.
The people I wonder about are the ones who were there and worshipped freedom (mostly now late boomers) but now chant “Obama, Obama” which is synonymous with statist control through literally thousands of regulations and rules along with tens of thousands of know-it-all bureaucrat apparatchiks whose task is to control every aspect of our lives. This leviathan makes the reviled government of the 1960’s look like parents on vacation.  
Just recently I saw one of those political refugees that I knew from the sixties in South Carolina prattling on about the Republican Party attack on women’s contraceptive rights.   Rights.  Rights.  Rights.  Where did freedom go?  The past is another country.

Friday, March 2, 2012

George Will is a fool to believe in the 2016 fantasy

Will is a fool. Obama reelected is basically 1935.  2008 was 1933 w/o the enabling act that Hitler needed to rule by decree since congress played dead while thousands of extra-constitutional rules/laws were decreed by dozen of unaccountable tsars and bureaucrats. Obama’s reelection in 2012 will be 1935 and Obama’s electoral dictatorship will be irreversible. There are no allies to rid us of him.  The Will thesis is a sham since it supposes that congress can and will oppose Obama and 2016 will really exist.  It will not. If Obama is reelected this republic is a dead as Weimar.   Will and the establishment Republicans are as big a fools as Hindenburg, Papen, and Schleicher.  Once Obama is reelected the Republicans in congress, and certainly not our well-mannered, politically correct  aristocrats in the republican establishment, will never have the Ivy league guts to really oppose Obama.  A little whimpering and posturing in the beginning will not stop Obama’s grandiose plans for absolute and permanent power.  Poof!  200 years of liberty vanish to be replaced by yet another petty, do-gooder tyrant because a hand full of people want to be part of the show and social scene as long as possible.  How pathetic to have a great and unique nation end with a whimper.  These establishment enablers will get their just deserts when no longer needed; but then, so will we all when the beast is realized. There is no new world on Earth with which to start over.  There will be no savior. It will be over.

Saturday, January 14, 2012

How Sad to See the World Through the Eyes of a Liberal

The world a liberal sees is inhabited by the handful of theologically permitted abstractions defined by sex/gender, race/ethnicity, sexual proclivities/identities, disabilities and economic status. Like an eternally fixed abstract painting the liberal’s world is filled with fixed masses.  Glance today, glance tomorrow: the liberal world of fixed attributes is a banal parade characterized by its medieval changelessness. The only illusion of change permitted is change in economic situation achieved through higher welfare payments and subsidies produced by leveling the rich —but this is not a change in economic status since “the poor” remain forever poor regardless of how much they have.
The world a conservative sees is inhabited by individuals who can be described by their character, personality, capabilities, talents, intelligence, goodness, capacity for evil, imagination, ambition, determination, along with a limitless list of other descriptors.
The liberal rejects the conservative vision because to accept it is to accept the ideas of responsibility, individual progress and the exercise of judgment.  No one can be held responsible for his fixed attributes. In fact just thinking in terms of the word “one” is a transcendental act for a liberal since “one” is an abstraction replacing the “reality” of a finite number of categories of humans defined by their fixed attributes. “One” can only be made more comfortable with one’s birthright and that only through government intervention and largesse.
The conservative view inevitably leads to judgmentalism (the greatest sin in the liberal lexicon) since in that view of man a great portion of the descriptors of a man are subject to change: through choice and action one becomes more capable, more ambitious, more wealthy, more generous, more virtuous, and so on.
It must be really boring to be a liberal.  Just N people in the world they see, in which N is the product of the number of races, number of sexes, number of sexual practices/proclivities, and so on.  Such a small number in relation to actual human diversity.