Archive for October, 2011

Education in a Capitalist System

Monday, October 31st, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, one of the places that capitalist based societies have allowed themselves to get off track, is in education. The profound ignorance of the Wall Street Protesters is only the most recent and glaring example, the outcomes as measured by standardized metrics, has declined so much that the metrics themselves have been lowered, to keep down with the academic results of US schools. Coincidental with this, we see that the role of school has undergone a profound change in the last few decades, leading to the decline we see in outcomes. Culminating in the Protests against capitalism, the very system that has enabled the protesters to live in such opulence, by historical and World standards. Threatening that very state of universal opulence and replacing it with a state of perpetual poverty.

We have to ask ourselves, what is the role of a school? Is it a jobs program? Is it a means to fundamentally change society? Perhaps it is a way to create social justice. I, and those of us who’s minds are not clouded by politically correct thinking, believe that the only valid role of a school is to teach children to, read, write, do arithmetic, history, and interpersonal discourse (rhetoric).

Now that schools in the US have been perverted into a new role, one that is counter to teaching these fundamental things, and are now simply a jobs program that doubles as a way to fundamentally change the old societal myths into new social justice. We see that children leaving them cannot read, write, add or subtract. They have no concept of history, or capitalism’s role in it, except for anti capitalist indoctrination. None of them have heard of Hayek, Schumpeter or Mises but all have read Marx, Mao and Che. They have not read any Horatio Alger but have all read My Two Mommies.

How many Protesters have any idea of the tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of people killed, in the name of socialism, since it’s inception? But in most World schools it is not a topic that is covered. Pol Pot’s ordering that political prisoners be executed by suffocation, because of the cost of bullets, is not widely known among graduates of most schools. Those that do know, and still support it, are evil incarnate. Because moving any society in a direction, that causes an angelic little seventeen year old girl, being so polluted with hate that she willingly puts bags over people’s heads, is uniformly evil.

So now we have schools that have eschewed their original mandate for a new one. The results have been quick and decisive. New graduates are absolutely incapable of engaging in the market system. They have been taught none of the Bourgeois virtues like, reading, writing, and history, let alone promptness, reliability, ability to work with others, ability to maintain a level of concentration and self motivation. These Bourgeois values are an anathema, in the modern US government run school, and most schools World wide.

There is a theory of human behavior, it is called, looking for bright spots. It has been used to modify the profound hunger that pervades Vietnam since the socialist victory. Looking for bright spots means looking for examples where something works well among the chaos around it that doesn‘t. In the case of the US (and World) school system(s), the bright spots, are private schools and home schooled children. These are the bright spots that researchers look for when trying to modify a dysfunctional system.

In the US, society has made the decision that teaching the children is a goal that is so profound, it should be taken on by society as a whole. The funding has been this way since colonial times. Elementary schooling being funded by taxation of a variety of means. So if we keep the original funding mechanism pretty much unaltered, and change the direction of the revenues, from dysfunctional schools to the bright spots. We then husband them from bright spots into full fledged LED lighting. Shine a good education on every child and we will find that far more of them are stars than we ever thought possible in the darkness.

This can be done through the voucher system. A system where children are given vouchers that would pay for whatever school the parents thought effective. Public schools, if the parents want, or private schools if that is their choice. As is the case with an ecosystem, those that fail would be punished and those that succeed would be rewarded, so that success becomes widespread. As one of the International Capitalist Party‘s sayings goes, Reward that which you want more of and punish that which you want less of. That is the way nature has worked for a billion years, quite effectively I might add. Wouldn’t a functional system, (nature), be the best example to follow, discarding the dysfunctional one?

Depends on the goal.

The Real Problem In Europe

Thursday, October 27th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that what makes the Greek sovereign debt problem, so problematic, is that no one is looking at what is really the problem. Let alone fixing it. The Elite in Europe only look to “solutions” that keep the ball rolling. They seek to “Shore up” the Greek finances and to “Reassure” the investing public that they have things “Well under control“. But no one is buying that tripe any longer. Like the buggy whip it has become redundant. Everyone knows in their hearts, what the problem is, but no one will face it.

A very good friend of mine once said “in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.” This situation is applicable to that saying. Economists all point in different directions; like blind men. They claim, “Revenues must be increased, no spending problem can be effectively addressed, unless you first increase revenue.” They chide, “They have to hit it hard with a giant fund in the trillions of Euros.” Some opine, “No that’s foolishness, Greece should be kicked out of the Euro zone so it can print it’s way out of debt.”

But no one says what the real problem is. Because it is too big to look at. Like the leviathan it is too scary to even consider. Great lengths are made to avoid even talking about it. Those who bring it up are labeled with the most horrible monikers. So no one wants to openly say, the problem is that the Greek government spends too much money. It sounds simple but it has deep ramifications to the body politic.

The Income tax and social welfare spending are the corner stones of welfare state capitalism. This has been the paradigm in Europe and the America’s since WWII. The welfare state was seen as a means to change the ratio of wealth or the gap between the rich and the poor. As we have seen empirically it does no such thing. It does lower the growth in GDP tremendously but has no effect on the “Gap.“ In fact, where it has been put into the most practice, it has produced the worst results. Greece is only one shining example.

But where the welfare state has been fought most, by the populace, the standard of living has increased the most. The US is the best example of this. In 2010 the GDP per US citizen was around $47,000, while in Europe it was around $30,000 and that includes Lassez Faire Luxembourg with a per capita GDP of around $81,000 per person. With further proof to our conjecture, that now the US has changed course and is running fast to socialism, we see that the dynamic economy that characterized the US has been hobbled. Encumbered by ever changing welfare state regulation and the threat of more taxation around the corner… inevitably, American companies are panicked. They are hording cash and getting as much business offshore as possible. It is virtuous behavior, (in a bourgeois way), to protect the assets of your investors. To do otherwise is corrupt.

States must face the ogre of reforming the welfare state. It must be done, because sooner rather than later it, it will collapse. The World economy will breakdown long before it totally runs out of money. If the monetary system survives a total Greek default, (they have already defaulted 50%), there are time bombs planted all over in Europe. Not to mention the ticking time bombs in the US ala Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

Throwing trillions more good Euros after the trillions of Euros that have already been lost is simply bad business. But there again we are not talking about businessmen are we? We are talking about politicians. People who seek power as a good above all others. To them a good deal is one that lets them keep all their power. A great deal is one that gets them more power. No matter the cost to society. The career politician will bristle at this. But I notice very few did when doctors were accused of removing people’s legs for the insurance money. For logic to be logic, it must be consistent, else it is rhetoric.

So, have rotated our one eye, and focused it on the real problem. No, the thing is not a tax problem, nor is it a question of how much largess and no, printing money is no solution either, it is the welfare state. The solution is to reform welfare state capitalism. The place to start is to throw out the much misused metric of the gap between the rich and poor. Instead measure societies by their sustainable material standard of living. If a society existed where everyone was equally destitute and another where everyone was fat but a few had more money than they could ever spend… which one would be voted for, by immigration? Which one has historically?

And no, the answer is not to eliminate capitalism, to measure socialism’s outcomes by.

Fall of Moammar

Monday, October 24th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the killing and subsequent downfall of Libyan dictator, Moammar Kaddafi, will be a very bad thing for US foreign policy and World stability, in the long run. While nothing could be truer than the fact that Moammar deserved it, the facts surrounding his killing, are an omen of things to come. But if we are self interested, we will take heed not only at what happens tomorrow, but the eventual outcome. This will show the wisdom of what I have said here today so that maybe World War can be avoided in the future.

I thought the lesson of the Iraq War, was that it is easy to knock out a dictator, but hard to win the “peace.” If that was the lesson, (I certainly learned it), then it has been forgotten quickly. In the case of Iraq, the US had tens of thousands of boots on the ground, to ensure the “peace” would turn out in a way favorable to World stability. Even so there were politicians who openly chided that the Iraq war was un-winnable. Well, we won the un-winnable, even Obama admits it… now.

But in the case of Libya, the US has no boots on the ground, to ensure an outcome that is favorable to the Libyan people, US foreign interests and World stability. Remember that in Iraq, even with tens of thousands of soldiers there, it was a close call. It was only once the Iraqi people’s thirst for blood had been sated did the war end. The US had to await that outcome to win. In Libya there is no such stabilizing force. The Libyan people’s thirst for blood will only be whetted by killing Moammar.

Messages are important too. Moammar was the only Dictator that openly gave up his nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (WMD). He showed the UN how the AQ Khan proliferation network gave him nuclear technology and put his WMD under UN supervision. The message to dictators the World over is not to give up their nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Doing so will buy you no UN favor and open you up to invasion and a humiliating death. Don’t think for a moment, that this message has not been understood, loud and clear, by other tyrants the World over.

With no neutral forces in place, to protect those that disagree with the Islamo fascists, the liberals will soon be killed or shut up. This will allow the Islamo Fascists, the ability to have total control over a much larger population, that may or may not agree with them. However, I suspect a large and growing majority does indeed agree with the Islamo Fascists, in Libya as well as in Egypt and Tunisia. This will inevitably result, in the Islamo Fascists getting total power, in what was, formerly, Libya.

The Islamo Fascists, have as their first order of business, to restore the Caliphate. They would love to have their capital Istanbul, (formerly Constantinople), but they will settle for any Islamic City until Istanbul is captured. With the elections in Tunisia clearly turning to Islamo Fascist parties into power, that Libyan neighbor will soon join the growing Caliphate, as well as Egypt, (being the seat of the Muslim Brotherhood). The very premise of the Muslim brotherhood is to reestablish the Caliphate or Khalipha. Overthrowing Moammar, will result in the combination of these three North African powers, into a new Caliphate, which will then launch into a war of expansion. (This is the best case scenario that I envision. Worst case would be if all of the Middle East Countries fall and join).

We already know of shoulder fired anti aircraft weapons disappearing. Once the Libyan, Egyptian and Tunisian stockpiles of WMD become part of the spoils of war, they will be quickly turned against the Two Satans, Large and Small, as well as, to further enlarge the new empire.

It is a self evident fact, that a major war of expansion, would destabilize the World. It could and probably would pull in other countries. The war and bloodshed would let loose Ares’ dogs, famine and disease, into the regions effected, and the cost to the World economy, due to higher energy prices would be huge. This one political blunder will give us a decade of human misery at the least.

Taken in the aggregate these results will lead to a very unfavorable outcome for humanity. The results could have been avoided but for the lack of wisdom of out political leaders. As I have shown, they are as easy to predict, as that the Sun will rise on the morn. No matter the message it sends to other tyrants, the soon to be missing WMD, and the new wars of aggression that will result. This lack of wisdom is being cheered, but that very applause, will have terrible cost, with of rivers of tears, from grieving parents, at their loss. That is the real toll of foolish foreign policy. The human cost; paid in blood, tears and suffering.

Trading Hostages for Terrorists

Thursday, October 20th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that when it comes to trading hostages for criminals, doing it is a bad practice, but doing it with terrorists is suicidal insanity. The Poor Israeli soldier who was kidnapped is one such example. We all want to see hostages returned safely, and we all want to see people reunited with their families, but if the cost is too great for society then it cannot be done. Because the cost, we can be assured, will go up exponentially.

The first argument always made is that trading hostages for criminals is a way to insure plenty of hostages will be taken. Society will be put at greater and greater risk from the hostage takers. Anytime a risky experiment goes well, (is profitable), it causes a vacuum that sucks everyone nearby into it. One example is the Mexican situation with kidnappers.

In Mexico kidnapping is rampant. You just kidnap someone then demand a terrific ransom. Cut off a finger or two, (to show you mean business), and bank the cash. No muss on fuss. Easy peezy. The government looks the other way and you find some other shmuk to kidnap. As more people get paid off more people go into the business. It is economics 101. If a business model is too lucrative, others enter it, raising competition, thus lowering profits. But not in the Mexican kidnapping business…

Now, negotiating with terrorists, on how much they will be paid for their evil actions, is a Faustian bargain at best. Terrorists see any negotiation as a sign of weakness. Terrorists only keep a bargain as long as they want and terrorists have only malevolence in their hearts. It is like negotiating with the devil over your soul when you are sinless. He has everything to gain and nothing to loose while you have everything to loose but nothing to gain.

Not to mention the slippery slope, that once a government is cutting deals with criminals, paying them for criminal acts, where does it stop? Would the government then pay a different criminals not to engage in graffiti? What if that was commonplace and now they paid another criminal, who was engaging in serial rape, to go to prostitutes, how far down that slope do you think society would slide? Remember, if you told the average American in 1970, abortion would not only be legal but would be available on demand, in less than 10 years, in the US, they would have laughed at you. Slippery slopes have a way of being very slimy.

It is precisely that I want to see people united with their families that I don’t want to see governments trading criminals for hostages. As I pointed out before, it is economics 101, that any business model that pays is imitated. That this kidnapping worked, will cause, unquestionably, more kidnappings. Other families will suffer the loss and bereavement of a loved one being taken hostage by a fiend. Inevitably, more and more, as the business model shows it’s profitability. How long before the terrorists are taking people from the streets, torturing them on camera, and trading them back for some terrorist or another? How many more innocent will suffer for one, seemingly virtuous, action?

But it is the nature of modern liberal democracies, to do great harm to their own self interests and the interests of their citizens, for political expediency. Perhaps the terrorists are right, that the West has become weak. Not in military strength but in resolve. The terrorists best friend is the complacent politician who is engaged in teaching helplessness to their constituents. Maybe we have learned helplessness so well we will lay back and watch survivor season XII while we are being eaten, like lions eat a paralyzed wildebeest, stomach first.

So unless we are a paralyzed wildebeest then trading hostages for criminals is bad practice. This will encourage the terrorists to take more hostages, is bargaining with diabolical forces, creates a loose loose for society, is a slippery slope and assure that others will suffer. Perhaps instead, a non suicidal society, would; execute any criminals asked for by the terrorists, that have been convicted of murder, and double the sentences of those who have not. Then ask if the terrorists had any more requests. The hostage would certainly be killed but there would be no other hostages taken. The problem would be solved and society could have another few years of peace. Instead government has decided to reward hostage taking. But maybe it will turn out better this time, with the terrorists in Israel, than it did with the gangs in Mexico…

Supply Side / Demand Side Economic Theory.

Sunday, October 16th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that there is great confusion about what supply side economics and demand side economics mean. I will try to explain the difference in this blog, why our understanding the difference is important, and how it pertains to the economic times we find ourselves in. Everyone who is involved with the economy of any country should take heed and understand the difference.

The media are full of possible solutions to the lack of jobs and growth in the American economy. They opine how, if only this or that program would just get the US citizen to spend a bit more, then the job situation would get better and the unemployment rate would drop. This is all sophistry, because it is based on demand side economics, an economic model that empowers the Elite but does little to create jobs. Demand side was talked about in the nineteenth century but it was John Maynard Keynes who quantified it.

Demand side is best described in the context of the aggregate demand/aggregate supply model. In this model, if aggregate demand drops below aggregate supply, then the economy dips into recession. But, as long as demand is “kept” higher than supply, the economy grows. This model suggests that if demand is kept high then the economy will grow and jobs will be added.

Supply side is best described with the Schumpeterian model of entrepreneurial based model of economic cycles of expansion and contraction. In this model, the growth cycle is started, when a new entrepreneur invents a new product, process or industry. This starts a cascade of events, new firms must be created to service the entrepreneurs’ new idea, economic efficiency improves, new workers must be trained, and old inefficient firms are destroyed. Initially the economic growth generated is fast but as the entrepreneurs’ idea matures the process slows until it stalls, and the destruction of old inefficient industries cause a recession. The lowered cost of doing business, (due to the recession), enables a new entrepreneur to bring his or her new idea into the marketplace. The process starts anew.

In demand side economic theory, as demand is increased, jobs are not necessarily created. This is due to the fact that there is always some slack in any supply chain. If there was not prices would be high. As demand goes up, firms can ramp up production without hiring new labor, but by adding overtime. If the firm believes that the new increase in demand is a short term phenomenon, due to short term government stimulus, they will shop out excess demand to firms that still have slack.

Supply side is a form of Say’s Law. An example Say’s Law would be, we know as a self evident fact, that there is a demand for a robot, call it Rosy, that is capable of performing all the tasks that a live in maid could, for $4.55 a day in electricity costs, the only holdup is the lack of supply of such a robot. That is the essence of Say’s Law; supply drives demand.

In the supply side model jobs are necessarily created when new firms are created. These new jobs are generally better paid and have better working conditions then the ones that are destroyed. In this way, the employment conditions of the working man and woman have improved, throughout the time capitalism has been in use in the Western World.

Demand side is usually implemented by government deficit spending, ala Keynesian economic theory, (but even Keynes, on his most progressive day, never believed, or propounded, that governments run perpetual deficits). The spending is seen as a way to artificially prop up demand, temporarily, so economic demand can catch up with supply. As we saw with FDR’s deficit spending and with Obama’s deficit spending, it doesn’t lead to more jobs, it leads to fewer jobs, as firms lay off in anticipation of the inevitable ending of the temporary stimulus.

Supply side is implemented by helping people start businesses. Lowering the costs of starting businesses is one of the primary ways recession leads to a fast increase in economic output. As the cost of commercial/industrial real estate become cheaper the entrepreneur has increased access to the means of fulfilling his or her ideas. Government can lower regulation opening new possible business models to the entrepreneur. The fundamental point to make about supply side is that… jobs are NESSESARILLY CREATED, when this model is implemented.

Demand side empowers government to enact oligarchal legislation and practices, (crony capitalism). The Elite are empowered to engage their rapine. Passing laws that redistribute the goods of society, ostensibly to prop up demand, but are nothing but the distribution of the goods of society through political favor. That is what redistribution is; the distribution of the goods of society-through political favor. Does anyone actually think that political favor is the most human hearted or equitable means of distribution? Honestly?

The Schumpeterian model sets up a tension in society however. With this model there is an animosity set up between the now wealthy and the soon to be wealthy. The old money seeks to stop the new money from competing with their established firms. The old money, or the present Elite, don’t want to be supplanted by people who are more virtuous. The workers in the old industries also resent the entrepreneur. They missed out on the new jobs even while there jobs are “creatively destroyed“. So the laid off worker is also part of a voting bloc, that thinks it is in their best interests, (egoists), to use the demand model and eschew the Schumpeterian model. Class warfare is simply a means to inculcate the people to demand side ideology against our own best interests.

The difference is stark and the results are even more dramatic. We have shown the supply side model necessarily creates jobs while the demand side enhances the Elite’s power. Now that you know the difference it is your responsibility to propagate the truth. To your friends, your associates and your peers. Jobs will be created and the economy improved but the Elite may loose some power over us… Oh well at least people will have work.

The American Political Scene.

Thursday, October 13th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me, that the least best form of faux democracy, is a one party State. There can be overtly one party States, like China and there can be covertly one party States, like the United States. This form of faux democracy is pernicious and it is insidious. The incentives are pernicious and the effects on society and culture are insidious.

Today the US democrat party is totally under control of the progressives. Obama, Clinton, Pelosi and Reed are leading members of the progressives. However the democrat party is not the only political institution controlled by the progressives. the republican party is also under the wing of the progressives. The old guard blue blood republicans are also leading members of the progressives, coequal with Pelosi and Reed. The progressives, both democrat and republican, along with the unbiased media and the purveyors of modern culture, make up what I lovingly refer to as, the Elite.

The Elite have set it up so that the American people have a team to root for. Lets say… the democrats are the Red Sox and the republicans are the Yankees. They are both in the same league, and in the case of the political entities, they are largely under the same management. So when the American voter casts his or her vote they have only one real choice… the progressives. The rest is just a team to root for.

Members of the progressives consider themselves to be smarter than the rest of us. You know, some of us haven’t gone to Harvard or Yale (heavens forbid, a Yale man), but it’s true. Obviously if one hasn’t had the correct schooling then one is simply not capable of governing… Of course nothing could be further from the truth. Innovation comes from out of the box thinking not down the line Keynesian demand side ala FDR. Truman wasn’t a member of the Elite but FDR was. Compare how they were each treated by the unbiased press…

The progressives have several core beliefs. That Global warming must be addressed, now, without critical review, by greatly enhancing governmental powers to control industry, (plan it). That all healthcare must be derived from the State. That the tax system should be set up so that people think it is fair, (by taxing high wage earners at confiscatory rates while sparing the wealthy Elite), but is indeed set up to keep the hoi polloi from really competing with the Elite… to hold us down. That the masses should be distracted, as much as possible with Worldly things, especially things that lower our culture- never raising it. That abortion should be on demand regardless of the personal, societal, and/or moral costs. These are a few of the major planks that the progressives hold’s dear.

That is why the Elite hate the Tea party. The tea party represents a true break with the progressives line. The first real break since Ronald Regan. It scares them to the bone. I imagine their blood runs cold at the mere mention of a Tea party rally. It is actually a grass roots upwelling of popular discord with the rule of the progressives. That is also why many republicans hate the Tea party, it represents a threat, to all they have worked together for. That threat is a rollback of the State’s power.

All republicans in name only (rinos), care about, is that power go to the government, possibly more slowly than the marxist faction of the progressives, but inexorably, more and more. Rino republicans don’t mind loosing an election or two. Remember they were totally out of power whenever a democrat was in the White House from the 1940’s up to the 1990’s. and were perfectly happy with it. Progressive republicans are actors, who pretend to be, “small government“, but in fact, are there to insure that no real threat to the progressives’ power ever materializes. Did “conservative” Nixon lower the government’s power or grow it?

Well now a threat has. The republican establishment and the unbiased media are pushing Romney and Perry. Near proof they are progressives but their actions speak louder than words. Romney, despite his rhetoric, has absolutely no intention to overturn Obama care. He helped set it up for Pete’s sake. Perry was a democrat before he was a republican. Not that that in itself is bad but having worked for the most totalitarian democrat in the US (other than Obama) Al Gore, shows a profound lack of judgment in political thought. That along with their past (present?) views on Anthropomorphic Global Warming, show them in stark relief, to be members of the progressives.

Bachmann, Cain, Santorum and Huntsman on the other hand are not members of the Elite. They all proclaim they are pro capitalists and expound a consistent, unwavering belief in small government. They are minimized and vilified by the unbiased press and the old guard republicans. They understand the global threats we face. Moreover, Bachmann and Santorum constantly call for the overturning of Obama care… and that is the first thing that MUST be done if a new President is sworn in.

Because that is the one thing that has hobbled the US economy the most. Years of uncertainty in regulation as each succeeding years new laws go into effect. Unforeseeable regulation, tax increases and insurance increases for years to come, and potentially crippling the US insurance industry, Obama care is not so much a sword of Damocles hanging over us, but a mill stone around our collective necks.

I have no problem with the progressives being an option but not the only option. It is up to the American electorate to decide if we want one or two choices. Most rational people would opt for two…

Fast and Furious; a Despicable Act of War.

Monday, October 10th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the US Constitutional Right to keep and bear Arms is under insidious assault along with the entire suite of Constitutional controls on the government. Take Fast and Furious, the US Justice department program to put guns in the hands of Mexican drug gangs. While the US government was arming the Mexican drug gangs, an existential threat to Mexico, an ally, Obama was accusing innocent Americans of it, and calling question to the Second Amendment because of the flow of guns into Mexico. Anytime a Constitutional Right is under assault, let alone the whole Constitution, we as Americans and as interested observers, should pay close attention to the reasons, the tactics and the logical outcome… If we are indeed self interested rightly understood.

Eric Holder, under oath in Congressional testimony, claimed no knowledge of Fast and Furious; but there were records of his getting memos regarding it prior to his acknowledging… his knowledge. In last Friday’s document dump. In his defense he has claimed the Bush administration did it too. However, records indicate the Bush administration’s program tracked the guns from the place of purchase, locating way points and eventually picking almost all the guns back up… before they reached the hands of the drug lords. Fast and Furious intentionally sent the guns, into the dark, and only tracked them when they showed up at crime scenes.

Eric Holder also claimed; that the Congressmen who is pushing the issue was briefed. Which the Congressmen admits. But records indicate that the person sent to brief the oversight committee didn’t know about the guns being let “walk.” So in fact the Congressman was not fully briefed. The problem with the “He does (did) it too” defense, is that it channels valuable time and resources into investigating something other than the crime at hand. Giving the alleged criminal time to hide, destroy and change evidence. This is a form of sophist attempt to focus attention elsewhere, like a magician, so the criminal can escape justice. As such it should be unacceptable. Unfortunately it is one that the democrat party uses all too much.

I would remind the reader that Skooter Libby was sentenced to jail for lying under oath where no crime was actually committed (The person who actually did the alleged crime had already admitted it to the prosecutor but was not prosecuted). Roger Clemons is being bankrupted by legal fees for allegedly lying to Congress. I am very curious if Eric Holder, who came into office wanting to prosecute every Bush administration official, will be prosecuted himself, for lying to Congress under Oath. The likelihood seems remote.

The Obama administration is in favor of the UN treaty on small arms. This treaty would bypass the normal Constitutional process, because in the US Constitution, treaties supersede Amendments. (Treaties were never meant to pertain to the US government’s internal law only to foreign relations, thus the term, treaty). But the UN small arms “treaty” would, at the stroke of a pen, outlaw gun ownership in the US. Bypassing Constitutional restrains. Does anyone think that the assault on Constitutional rights would stop there? Of course not! Banning guns would be only the small edge of the wedge. In short order the US Constitution would cease to exist as a viable document. Treaties superseding every restriction on governmental power. With programs like Fast and Furious providing the rhetorical fodder.

The death of US citizens and the death of a US Boarder Patrol agent, by criminals armed by the US government, is a crime of the highest order. The Government is tasked with ensuring the security and safety of it’s citizens… Not fomenting discord, providing weaponry to criminals destabilizing our neighboring country and using the results to undermine Constitutional rights! Mexico is a friendly country. Why would the Obama administration provide weaponry to Mexico’s drug cartels? Seems to me this is an act of war. I am amazed that the peaceful Obama administration would commit an act of war, against an ally, who is fighting an existential conflict with the drug cartels, by arming those drug cartels? This is not the way the US has historically acted to an ally.

But what if there was a working NUMA in place? There would already be a power in place that would look into it. A properly functioning NUMA would investigate not only Eric holder but the entire Obama administration as well. The Obama administration has apparently been caught, arming the Mexican drug cartels, essentially committing an act of war against Mexico, then using the violence the guns enabled, to justify and all out assault on the US Citizen’s right to keep and bear arms, while senior officials were denying it under oath. If senior Obama administration officials did indeed send thousands of powerful weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels then at least those officials should face jail time. But if Obama knew, covered it up and condoned it, while he was vilifying gun ownership… covering up potentially criminal acts was what Nixon was impeached for. A NUMA would see it done.

Future History

Thursday, October 6th, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that when the history of our time is written, years from now, they will record the Elite of our day as the most reckless idiotic people who ever lived, nearly causing the entire market system to be overturned by Marxists and Islamo-fascists… Or they will be written as heroes of the revolution.

Lets start with the life and death of Leon Trotsky. He was a comrade of Vladimir Ulyanov (Lenin), and helped in every way possible during the years of bloodshed. He was riding high until he ran afoul of Stalin (the Georgian bank robber). Then he fled to exile in England where he wrote anti Stalin pamphlets. The good little Marxist who had stained his soul with the blood of countless counterrevolutionaries was murdered by one of Stalin’s agents in London. He did his part and was discarded when he became inconvenient. He is still a hero of the revolution, but was done away with, as the helpful idiots camping out on Wall Street will be when their part is played.

The Elite make sure the government careens to the precipice of default. Ratcheting up spending no matter what. No problem can be solved without raising revenue… is what they pull from their rear ends and expect us to swallow. No amount of taxation would suffice. There is absolutely no association, program, slush fund, rent seeker or half witted brother in law they can see their way clear to cut. The Elite either want to drive the car over the cliff of a general default or they are incompetent to drive the car in the first place. Yet drive they do…

The problem with deficit spending is the deficit spending part. I wouldn’t think it would be that hard to understand but to the Elite it is. They apparently believe that the problem with deficit spending is that others are greedy and not willing to give their fair share. While all the time those that chastise the rest of us for being so greedy, buy their yachts in Australia to avoid the high union labor costs, dock their yachts in neighboring States to avoid the Massachusetts tax, forget to claim income and are occasionally caught with a cool one hundred thousand in their freezer… untaxed. Yet we are greedy…

The hypocrisy is bad enough but the reckless nature of the way the Elite are running the country is amazing. Take the Wall Street protests. They are obviously backed by some heavy hitters. The people protesting are being fed and being given free healthcare while they are protesting. Paid for by whom? Poor people I presume. They claim to be nonviolent but that is mere sophistry because they have every intent to be violent. There have already been arrests. As soon as they have reached critical mass, the protests will immediately turn violent and the useful idiots will rampage through the streets, demanding free this and free that, simply for being barbarians, smashing all they come across and beating a few bystanders for good measure. But the Tea Party is violent with their flags, lawn chairs and old people‘s glasses…

Encouraging barbarians is the worst thing that the Elite could do; but again that is exactly what we see them doing. If a barbarian is offended he or she gets a few hundred other barbarians together, they riot and burn down a city pillaging in the process. The Elite quickly give and change law, societal moor, or cultural norm to suit the barbarian. If a civilized person is offended or has his or he rights stomped on, they try to go through the legal system, which has been set up as a capacitor. It soaks up the complainers and bankrupts them. So, either the Elite want a barbarous society, where violence is the only way to interact with your government, or they are incompetent and should not be in control. Why would encourage barbarism?

Now I ask you, are these things happening? If they are then why are they? Either the Elite want a general collapse or they are stumbling towards one, but if we don’t do something different, one is coming. Encouraging barbarians, deficit spending as far as the eye can see and the outright hypocrisy of the Elite are combining to put us all in a real bind. But not them. The Elite think they will sail over the chaos they have wrought on the rest of us. Maybe they will. But if we recover and the market system is saved they will claim it was not their fault. No, once again they will claim, it was outside human ability to correct. Until it is corrected. They will claim that if they hadn’t acted, as they did, things would have been much worse. But most of all they will claim that the only truly innocent… were the people in charge when it went bad.

On the other hand… If the market system is lost, they will be hailed as heroes of the revolution, even as the newest tyrant orders bags put over the heads of the old elite, because bullets are so expensive. Machiavelli said that tyranny mostly oppresses the aristocracy. He never experienced Communism / socialism… they oppress everyone. Not just those that bring it on… too bad.

Human Equality

Monday, October 3rd, 2011

Dear Friends,

It seems to me that the concept human equality is a relatively new phenomenon. In the annuls of human history, there have been many steps made towards this ultimate concept, or philosophical breakthrough. Each a step in the right direction with a few stumbles along the way. The concept of Human Equality however, is extraordinary in that it has led to the largest, fastest increase in the material welfare of Mankind that there has ever been. It would be a shame to discard such a useful concept and replace it with an outmoded one that would set us back a few thousand years in philosophical advancement. Our toys would be our downfall if this were the case.

Perhaps the first written step was the Upanishads from Hindu theocracy. While it ushered in the concept of man’s immortality, and an escalating status each rebirth offered, depending on the virtue that an individual showed in his or her past lives. This was an important first step. It started men thinking about virtue and how their actions interacted with society. But it also had within it’s cannon that not all people are equal. There was, and still is, the caste system. A person born to a lower caste is less than a person born to a higher caste thus it’s cannon codifies people as less than equal.

Confucius coined the tern, as it has been variously translated, Human Heartedness. This new philosophical concept, (from 550 BC), had as one of it’s three legs, the Golden Rule. Confucius may have been the first teacher to introduce the idea of the Golden Rule. But even Confucius believed that those born to the aristocracy were born to lead while those born to peasants were born to farm. Another leg of Human heartedness is that people should be content in their status. This idea calls attention to the fact that not all are born equal under Confucianism. There is the aristocrat, the emperor and the peasant each should be content in his or her place.

The civilized world has a debt to Islam, in that the Islamic wars of expansion and depredations forced most of the civilized people to retreat to Europe, massing the World’s civilization in one place and thus setting up the conditions for the Renaissance. Which otherwise may have taken another thousand years or maybe never would have occurred at all. But in Sharia Christians and Jews are considered Dhimini. A lowered status, that essentially means, diminished human. The Dhimini must pay the dhimini tax or the jizya, (ransom themselves and their children to the Islamic State), else they can be raped, murdered, enslaved or anything else the Sultan or Islamic ruler thinks appropriate… (those of other faiths have no human status under Sharia). So, there is a codification that not all people are equal, within Islamic cannon, political, and personal laws.

The only prophet to say, explicitly, that all people are equal… is Jesus Christ. He put in many ways, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” “Look not at the mote in your neighbor’s eye but the plank in your own,” and “Judge not lest thee shall be judged,” along with many others. The very nature of Christ’s message is the call for the true Christian to have love in his or her heart, even for those that are your enemies. Jesus did not qualify or modify his statements of equality and love; he made them universals.

While Christianity has been accused of atrocities, it is clear that the atrocities that Christians have been accused of, are in direct contravention to the values codified by Jesus Christ. There is no question in my mind that Jesus weeps whenever a sin is committed in his name. If the subject of a Republic, does the opposite of what his law orders him to do, is it the Republic’s fault, or the subject‘s?

At the garden of Gethsemane, the greatest burden for Jesus was that, not all of us could be saved by his singular act of virtue… dieing on a cross for our sins. This weighed most heavily on his heart. Not the coming pain, degradation and death. It was his compassion for us that was the hardest to bear. Knowing many of us would fall under the spell of false prophets, and millions of us would be enslaved, tortured, raped, robbed, castrated and simply slaughtered by the followers of the various prophets to Baal… was what he found most torturous.

The first codification in political law, of the philosophical concept that all people are created equal, is the United States Constitution. It was the first, and possibly still the only, political document that openly avows the universal equality of every member of the human race. Others modify their statements of equality. Modification means a lowered standard or subset, ie, a red jeep, clumpy soil, soft bed and tough nut, modification by it‘s definition is exclusive not inclusive. Therefore, those that modify their statements of equality, in fact, have no equality at all.

So we can see that it has only been within the last two thousand years, that any religion’s prophet has stated openly and many times, the equality of all people. But it has been only in the last two hundred years that the equality of the human race has been codified in political law. The last hurdle we face is culture. Once our culture not only nods in the direction of equality of the individual, but acts as all people are equal, will the Human Race emerge into a new era of understanding, peace and prosperity.

I wonder… Is class warfare a form of holding all people as equal or as unequal? Therefore is it a step forward or backward?