"Holy underwear! Sheriff murdered! Innocent women and children blown to bits! We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!"
'Cause Heaven knows, you got to do something!!
A new Emancipation Proclamation might be a good start.
"Evil acts can be given an aura of moral legitimacy by noble-sounding socialistic expressions such as spreading the wealth, income redistribution or caring for the less fortunate. Let's think about socialism. Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you that I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive. This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man." --George Mason University economics professor Walter E. Williams
"Democrats are suggesting, however, an even more ambitious reason to nationalize [the auto industry]. Once the government owns Detroit, it can remake it. The euphemism here is 'retool' Detroit to make cars for the coming green economy. Liberals have always wanted the auto companies to produce the kind of cars they insist everyone should drive: small, light, green and cute. Now they will have the power to do it. In World War II, government had the auto companies turning out tanks. Now they would be made to turn out hybrids. The difference is that, in the middle of a world war, tanks have a buyer. Will hybrids? One of the reasons Detroit is in such difficulty is that consumers have been resisting the smaller, less powerful, less safe cars forced on the industry by fuel-efficiency mandates. Now Detroit would be forced to make even more of them. If you think we have economic troubles today, consider the effects of nationalizing an industry of this size, but now run by bureaucrats issuing production quotas to fit five-year plans to meet politically mandated fuel-efficiency standards -- to lift us to the sunny uplands of the coming green utopia." --columnist Charles Krauthammer
I've always wanted a five-year plan, haven't you?
If there is an Obama victory this evening, and all indications point that way, there will be a flood, yea, perhaps of Biblical proportions, of illegal immigrants across our southern border. They'll all want to get in before Obama issues a blanket amnesty.
Why don't Democrats will take it the next logical step and give at least all Mexicans, if not all South Americans, U.S citizenship. Wouldn't dual citizenship for them save a lot of aggravation and expense? We could all but do away with the Border Patrol, stop construction on the fence, and drastically cut back on the Immigration offices all across the country.
It would be that much more money to spend on the many other new programs, soon to be revealed.
1. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
2. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
3. You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
4. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
5. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
6. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
7. You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
8. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
9. You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
10. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they will not do for themselves.
- William J. H. Boetcker, a minister, and outspoken advocate for liberty (1916)
Reverend Boetcker would be reviled and ridiculed by the Left today for merely listing these ten common sense observations about life. And were he to dare mention their basis in Scripture, the howl would be deafening.
The older I get, the better I understand that men will eternally argue the same questions year after year, decade and decade, even century after century. Solomon may have been speaking from ennui when he declared there was nothing new under the sun, but he pretty much described the human condition in those five words.
On Tuesday, our country may elect a man to the presidency who vehemently disagrees with each of these statements. And once again, the old lessons would be learned the hard way as he and his Leftist companions in the Congress ignore the past and forge ahead to "Change", taking our country in a "new" old direction that has failed over and over again.
Mark Alexander of the Patriot Post shared this story.
'I was speaking with a friend recently, a man who lived most of his life under the Communist regime in the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic. He has spent several years and continues to incur many legal expenses in his endeavor to become a U.S. citizen, but he has since lost his enthusiasm.
“The prospect of an Obama presidency is like dèja vu for me,” he explained. “The socialist goal back home was that everyone had equal wealth. They met that goal—eventually no one had anything. Any attempt to work harder to achieve a better standard of living for your family was considered contrary to the welfare of the state, and dutifully discouraged. Socialism is a big hole, easy to fall into and hard to climb out of.”
He lamented, “The American dream is not something I want to wake up from—but too many Americans have no idea what they have, and are about to lose it. Socialism seems an appealing ideal, collective ownership, equal society, ‘sharing the wealth,’ et cetera. But it has a downside: It doesn’t work.”
Nice piece by Victor Davis Hanson. A perspective too many have abandoned.
The current financial crisis has startled America from a hypnotic trance of self-indulgence and irresponsibility. But as we return to American fundamentals, we may discover that our political, social and economic system -- despite all the current election-cycle hysteria -- is still by far the most resilient in the world.
How odd that it took a financial catastrophe to remind us of that.
“It is an unquestionable truth, that the body of the people in every country desire sincerely its prosperity. But it is equally unquestionable that they do not possess the discernment and stability necessary for systematic government. To deny that they are frequently led into the grossest of errors, by misinformation and passion, would be a flattery which their own good sense must despise.” —Alexander Hamilton
I know the spread is closing in the polls, but it looks as though the best chance for a McCain victory is for those who might vote Dem will think Barry has it in the bag, and stay home. Thankfully, a lot of them who show up for rallies and demonstrations seem to have a hard time finding the polls the first Tuesday in November. We'll see.
Read the whole thing here. I've always enjoyed Mr. Card's books, particularly the Ender series, but this may be my favorite bit of his writing. And by the way, he's a Democrat.
“These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was... the Republican Party. Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout! What? It’s not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame? Now let’s follow the money... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae. And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate’s campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing. If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was. But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an ‘adviser’ to the Obama campaign—because that campaign had sought his advice—you actually let Obama’s people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn’t listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign. You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican. If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.” —Orson Scott Card, Democrat columnist
Politics came up in a recent conversation with a co-worker (not the one I mentioned in a previous post). He asked me why Independents were drawn to McCain. As I went through the points I thought pertinent, most of which do not endear McCain to me, he seemed to be paying close attention.
When I concluded, he nodded his head and said, "You know, I had pretty much made up my mind to vote for Obama, but you've sure given me a lot to think about. I've never thought about him in those terms."
Now, I had no thought of "convincing" anyone of anything that day. We were just chatting during an idle moment. But I bet he still votes for Obama. The last thing he mentioned was McCain's age. I reminded him that cut both ways.
There are days I despair these two are the best we could come up with. November 4th will certainly be one of them. If Obama wins, and it's looking like it, the GOP better get its ducks in a row for 2012. We'll have three years to find a good candidate, and right now, I hope most of the current batch doesn't run.
“The major issue of this campaign is the direct political, personal and moral responsibility of Democratic Party leadership... for this unprecedented calamity which has befallen us. They tell us they have done the most that humanly could be done. They say that the United States has had its day in the sun; that our nation has passed its zenith. They expect you to tell your children that the American people no longer have the will to cope with their problems; that the future will be one of sacrifice and few opportunities. My fellow citizens, I utterly reject that view. The American people, the most generous on earth, who created the highest standard of living, are not going to accept the notion that we can only make a better world for others by moving backwards ourselves. Those who believe we can have no business leading the nation. I will not stand by and watch this great country destroy itself under mediocre leadership that drifts from one crisis to the next, eroding our national will and purpose. We have come together here because the American people deserve better from those to whom they entrust our nation’s highest offices, and we stand united in our resolve to do something about it.” Ronald Reagan
Don't you wish McCain would make this speech? I don't think President Reagan would mind.
Actually, he is -
Justice Peter Zarella (Connecticut Supreme Court), in the minority opinion, wrote, “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry.” He added that if that is to be changed, it should be “a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court.” (from PatriotPost.us)
Of course, we're not really capable of making those kinds of decisions on our own. Or any other decisions for that matter. That's why we need the government to tell us what to think and do. Vote Obama.
“The administration keeps plowing an Uzi’s worth of bullets into the McCain-Palin ticket every time they have something else go wrong... It’s good politics for us.” —Bill Clinton admitting that pain for Americans is good for Democrats
Yes, I've been converted.
Let's see. Congressional Democrats force banks to loan money to people that can't afford their homes. Democrats increase scope of loaning to those who can't afford it, and set up Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac to bail out the banks if there's a problem. Banks jump into the program with joy and delight because government guarantees loans. People jump into the program with joy and delight, because the government said, by God, You deserve that house, when they can't really afford it.
Republicans see the fall coming and try to do something. Democrats ignore it numerous times, and accuse the GOP of being against poor people owning homes.
People who can't afford mortgages default. Property prices go down. Banks panic. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac hold worthless paper. Banks fail. Stock market plunges. Federal government pats everyone on the head and says, "There, there. Uncle Sam will wipe away your tears, kiss the booboo, and make it all better."
Democrats say it's Republicans' fault that the government had to bail out big business. Bush should have "Done Something" to keep this from happening.
Makes perfect sense to me. Vote Obama.
“Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.” —Milton Friedman
“Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others.” —Ayn Rand
“Government cannot make man richer, but it can make him poorer.” —Ludwig von Mises
“The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else.” —Frederic Bastiat“How odd that all those boring lessons from our grandparents turn out to be true in the globalized, hip 21st century: Save your money. Don’t borrow what you can’t pay back. Look first at a man’s character, not his degrees. And if a promised return on an investment seems too good to be true, it probably is.” —Victor Davis Hanson
“Mr. Obama’s leadership during the [financial] crisis has consisted of standing out of the way and mouthing platitudes about the failings of the past eight years of Bush economics.” —Rich Lowry
Our tax system has become so complicated, hardly anyone really understands it. Maybe this will help us get a handle on how it works.
Might want to send it to your congressman and senator. If you like teaching pigs to dance, send it to a Leftist.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100 , each man drinking $10 worth of beer.
If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve.
'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
And so:
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28% savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20 declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, 'but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
For those who understand, no explanation is needed. For those who do not understand, no explanation is possible.
David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics
University of Georgia
“’You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.’ So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left ‘community organizers’ called ACORN, for assistance. In retrospect, of course, encouraging customers like this to buy homes seems little short of madness. At the time, however, that 1995 Chicago newspaper article represented something of a triumph for Barack Obama. That same year, as a director at Chicago’s Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to ACORN, and sending still more money ACORN’s way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Through both funding and personal-leadership training, Obama supported ACORN. And ACORN, far more than we’ve recognized up to now, had a major role in precipitating the subprime crisis... In June of 1995, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Secretary Cisneros announced the administration’s comprehensive new strategy for raising home-ownership in America to an all-time high. Representatives from ACORN were guests of honor at the ceremony. In his remarks, Clinton emphasized that: ‘Our homeownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation.’ Clinton meant that informal partnerships between Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN would make mortgages available to customers ‘who have historically been excluded from homeownership.’ In the end of course, Clinton’s plan cost taxpayers an almost unimaginable amount of money. And it was just around the time of his 1995 announcement that the Chicago papers started encouraging bad-credit customers with ‘dog-food’ wages, little money in the bank, and even histories of bankruptcy to apply for home loans with the help of ACORN...ACORN is at the base of the whole mess... And Barack Obama cut his teeth as an organizer and politician backing up ACORN’s economic madness every step of the way.” —Stanley Kurtz
Somehow I don't remember that being the drill when I bought my home. They kept bringing up things such as adequate income, down-payment, ability to pay, and much more.
“Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis warned, ‘The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in the insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding.’ The freedom of individuals from compulsion or coercion never was, and is not now, the normal state of human affairs. The normal state for the ordinary person is tyranny, arbitrary control and abuse mainly by their own government. While imperfect in its execution, the founders of our nation sought to make an exception to this ugly part of mankind’s history. Unfortunately, at the urging of the American people, we are unwittingly in the process of returning to mankind’s normal state of affairs. Americans demand that Congress spend trillions of dollars on farm subsidies, business bailouts, education subsidies, Social Security, Medicare and prescription drugs and other elements of a welfare state. The problem is that Congress produces nothing. Whatever Congress wishes to give, it has to first take other people’s money. Thus, at the root of the welfare state is the immorality of intimidation, threats and coercion backed up with the threat of violence by the agents of the U.S. Congress. In order for Congress to do what some Americans deem as good, it must first do evil. It must do that which if done privately would mean a jail sentence; namely, take the property of one American to give to another... There is no question that if one were to ask whether we Americans are moving towards more liberty or more government control over our lives, the answer would unambiguously be the latter—more government control over our lives.” —Walter Williams
This morning's timeline:
0650 - Niece goes downstairs to eat breakfast, forgets to turn off house alarm. Alarm sounds, sister-in-law turns off alarm. My wife is asleep and I'm in the shower.
0652 - Alarm company calls, sister-in-law answers the phone, but can't remember password. My wife is still asleep and I'm still in the shower.
0655 - Alarm company calls, I answer the phone. The attendant tells me the police have been dispatched. I didn't even hear the alarm go off and the wife is still asleep. Going to have to get a louder siren.
0723 - Twenty-eight minutes after the last call from the alarm company, there's a knock on door; the police have arrived. I explain it is a false alarm, and the officer was quite nice about it. Last time, they were not amused.
It took 28 minutes from the time I was told the police had already been dispatched for an officer to show up on my doorstep. Our house is less than three miles from the nearest police sub-station. There were no traffic accidents or incidents anywhere close to our house, according to the morning traffic report on the radio.
Now, I'm not complaining. Yes, I would have liked to have seen a better response time than 28 minutes, but I understand it is not the job of local, state, or federal law enforcement to protect me it the alarm goes off. As the timeline above shows, they know it's not their job, too.
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not slamming the police. I think our police do a pretty good job. If they were sitting outside my home when the alarm went off, I'm sure they would have done the necessary. However, the police are not in the habit of sitting outside my house, and since it took them 28 minutes to get there
Yes, when seconds count, the police are only 28 minutes away from my house. So what does one do in the meantime? Cower in a corner while you wait for the cavalry to arrive, or get behind cover and stand ready to protect yourself and your family with tools suited to that purpose? (that means guns, if you missed it)
Rob Allen has a short video about being prepared over on Sharp as a Marble. Substitute armed burglar or home invader for civil war. You get the idea.
GBW
Sep 13-14 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center West Hall A&B RK Shows (Kenny Woods Gun Show, LLC)
Sep 20-21 Lexington, Heritage Hall of Lexington Center Map RK Shows (Kenny Woods Gun Show, LLC)
Sep 27-28 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center 2100 tbls National Gun Day
Oct 11-12 Cave City, Convention Center Sat 9-5, Sun 9-4 A:$5 S/T Promotions
Oct 25-26 Hindman, Knott County Sportsplex RK Shows
Nov 1-2 Somerset, The Center,Map, RK Shows (Kenny Woods Gun Show, LLC)
Nov 22-23 Cave City, Convention Center Sat 9-5, Sun 9-4 A:$5 S/T Promotions
Nov 28-30 Lexington, Heritage Hall of Lexington Center Map RK Shows (Kenny Woods Gun Show, LLC)
Dec 6-7 Ashland, El Hasa Temple Map RK Shows (Kenny Woods Gun Show, LLC)
Dec 13-14 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center 2100 tbls National Gun Day
Dec 20-21 Somerset, (Kenny Woods Gun Show LLC) The Center Map (2292 S. Hwy 27) RK Shows
Dec 26-28 Louisville, Kentucky Fair & Expo Center West Hall A&B RK Shows
“When we hear about rent control or gun control, we may think about rent or guns but the word that really matters is ‘control.’ That is what the political left is all about, as you can see by the incessant creation of new restrictions in places where they are strongly entrenched in power, such as San Francisco or New York.” —Thomas Sowell
