31Aug09
Sunday night's election results showed the ultra left Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) leading the more moderate Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) by wide margins.

Led by career politician Yukio Hatoyama, the DPJ is a group of majority party renegades, social democrats, and socialists originally from Japan's Social Democratic Party, marching under one banner.

Citing the LDP's failure to improve the life of the average Japanese citizen, the DPJ's platform offered little else of substance, instead invoking the now all too familiar mantra of "Change". The Democratic Party of Japan is political and stylistic protégé to the left wing of the American Democratic party to the point that DPJ supporters chanted "Obama" at rallies.

This is a chilling reminder of the scale of the threat to liberty. That the style over substance collectivist forces of the world, are trying to effect a quiet but global socialist revolution.

This isn't just about politics, or ideology anymore. It isn't just about government health care or cap and trade. The world over a shift is happening from the individual toward the collective, that encompasses all hemispheres, all continents.

Since its founding, The United States of America have been a champion of liberty and the rights of the individual. If don't we win the fight to take back our country from the socialist agenda, we leave freedom no home, we condemn the world to the same servitude.

28Aug09

The debate about health care, the government's degree of control over the free market, and the spectre of socialism it represents are not new topics to the public forum.

It's a debate that has come up every generation or so, beginning with the progressives at the first part of the last century, and continuing today.

Ronald Reagan gave a talk in 1961 which echoes in many sentiments of today:

Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.

There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, the method of earning a living. But at the moment I'd like to talk about another way because this trip is with us and at the moment is more imminent.

One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can't afford it.

Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.

So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand said, if we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, they can we can expand the program after that. Well, let's see what the socialists themselves had to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed, this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Well, we can't say we haven't been warned.

James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said: “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations.”

Now in our country under our free enterprise system, we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.

But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.

This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being.

In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in world’s history. The only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relation to man, a little group of the men, the founding fathers for the first time – established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny.

This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today. And strangely we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. Well, majority rule is a fine aspect of democracy, provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.

What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms and that you demand the continuation of our traditional free enterprise system. You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen, even if we believe that he's on our side to begin with, write to strengthen his hand. Write those letters now. Call your friends and tell them to write. If you don't, this program, I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow. And behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country... until one day as Norman Thomas said, we will awake to find that we have socialism. And if you don't do this and if I don't do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it once was like in America when men were free.

Though Reagan was speaking out against a piece of legislation call King-Anderson, the precursor of Medicare, the dangers he speaks about are spot on.

Those on both sides of the aisle leading us down the path of unlimited government are delivering us into the waiting hands of radical socialists working behind the scenes to shape policy.

They know we'd choke on socialism were the to give it to us outright. Their goal is the feed it to us one bite at a time, until we've sold our freedoms for security, and swallowed the whole steaming mess of it.

There can be no more chilling confirmation than in the words of Nikita Krushchev to Ezra Taft Benson, Eisenhower's secretary of Agriculture:

"You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won't have to fight you; we'll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands."

28AUG 09


The date stamp on my posts hasn't been working.

The coding of Blogger's templates is uber fragile.

I guess I'll start inserting it manually.

It seems the collectivists are taking note of the success of efforts like 9/12 Project, Project 2996 and Patriot 24/7, and seeking to co-opt 9/11 sentiment for their own purposes.

Now I'm not one to suggest that the political right has some monopoly on the sadness of that day, or using the reminder of what happened as a call to action. I am saying that anyone who regards those cowardly attacks as the U.S. getting what was coming to it, and a sign that we should all get together behind the banner of socialism to live as one, are the worst sort of spin doctors.

Beware of jumping on bandwagons, from any side. A call to service is something that comes from within, if it's someone else pushing you on, ask yourself why.

The picture at left is of the August 12th town hall meeting I attended, in Adel.

Save for a handful of clearly paid protesters and the entitled little old lady pictured, the crowd was solidly against government option health care, and the rampant growth of this government.

With his conservative credentials showing wear, and his base eroding, it's clear that Senator Grassley feels he has to step back from bipartisanship and listen to his constituency. Those in favor of reform are "not quite as loud as people that say we ought to slow down or don't do anything," he said. "And I've got to listen to my people."

Now the senator is getting hammered by critics from the left, stating that he's trying to undermine reform. It's more important now than ever that we keep the pressure on him to stay strong, and offer our support. Our message is clear that we've had it with Washington's excess;

"Not everyone is coming to the town hall meetings because of health care. It's kind of the straw that broke the camel's back," Grassley said. "They're seeing the stimulus not working. They're seeing the Federal Reserve shoving money out of the airplane not working. They're seeing big increases in the deficit coming. Then they see a trillion-dollar health-care bill, and they think it's not good for the country."

Senator Grassley has represented Iowa in the senate for some 24 years, and I am on record as favoring term limits for congress, to rid Washington of career politicians. While I believe the time is coming for Senator Grassley to go, I do know that we need him in this fight. Because finally, the man is ready to fight.

"I've been listening to you all, and I've decided one thing today..." he said, "I won't be walking away from the negotiation table. I'm going to have to be shoved away from it."

The term "social justice" is employed by socialists to describe a system of economic egalitarianism; achieved through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or outright confiscation of property. That’s socialism.

The aim is to award groups an impartial share of the benefits of society, through distribution of advantages and disadvantages within the society.

Of course it's difficult to redistribute such perceived (dis)advantages as geographic region, or race. Thus the primary measure of advantage in the eyes of social justice advocates is monetary.

This administration has been engaging in social justice initiatives and wealth redistribution from day 1. Can you regard the stimulus, TARP, and Waxman-Markey as anything else? These programs take money from taxpayers, and redistribute them in the form of entitlements.

The propose single payer healthcare plan, as outlined in House Resolution 3200, would be the largest entitlement program in human history, and will be disproportionately funded through increase taxation on those making more than 250,000 dollars a year. Yet these individuals would not receive benefit in greater portion than those who contributed less into the system, and since the benefit would not be in proportion to contribution, the wealth has in effect been redistributed.

Meet Peter. He's a successful small businessman who designs and builds children's playhouses, and sells then on online. He only has one employee to help with the website and shipping, but he does buy health coverage for himself and that employee. He makes a decent living, President Obama's 250K tax line, but after expenses he's still very much within the middle class.

Meet Paul. Paul makes his living as a frame carpenter, and doesn’t have health insurance. He doesn't have any formal training, but has always loved working with his hands. He would like to try something more challenging, but the uncertainty of the economy means few employers are willing to take a chance on him.

Let's say that H.R. 3200 does pass. Under the provisions of the bill, Peter's taxes both personal and corporate are going to go up. In addition, government regulations on 'qualifying health plans' cause the premiums he pays on his employees health care to rise dramatically. Both of these things mean less working capital for his business, he has to delay plans for expansion, and even struggles to make payroll.

Now, under the new plan, Paul has healthcare. While this offers some peace of mind, opportunities to get a better job have become scarcer, so his standard of living hasn't increased measurably.

One person's life had gotten slightly better; one person's has gotten worse. It's a wash. There's no net increase of standard of living, because no wealth was created in the process. It only changed hands. This relationship is something that socialists have a hard time grasping, because socialists have no understanding of what it takes to create wealth. It takes a capitalist to create wealth. The socialist only knows how to take what the capitalist has created.

But let’s say that we defeat H.R. 3200, and any other single payer option for the foreseeable future.

Paul still doesn't have health insurance. He still feels like he’s in a dead end job, but he’s optimistic that if he works hard and keeps looking he’ll find something better eventually.

Peter’s business is still doing well. As his taxes aren't going up, and he’s free to squirrel away capital a little at a time. Finally he gets enough money together to upgrade his website, and purchase enough tools to hire a helper, and greatly increase his output.

Paul answers Peter’s advertisement for a finish carpenter. He tells Peter that he hasn’t done finish work before, but that he’s eager for a new challenge. Impressed by Paul’s honesty, Peter decides to take him on for a trial basis. It’s not long before Paul impresses Peter with his work, and Peter offers him the job full-time.

Peter grows his business; Paul has a better job that comes with health insurance. Wealth was created, and both men feel like their lives are better. A net increase in standard of living. That’s capitalism.

"I think we all have something to lose ... if we let cable television come to town hall meetings and kill health care reform for another year," White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.

Whereas I think we all have something to lose if we the people stop fighting, drink the Kool-Aid, and put the socialists in charge.

Senators and Representatives all over the country are starting to cancel town hall meetings and dodge their constituency.

Now, more than ever it's important to keep the pressure on and make them understand that we're not astroturf, or a mob. We are everyday people talking to a handful of friends, and deciding to go and get some damn answers.

I'll be attending Grassley's town hall on Wednesday:


Dallas County Town Hall Meeting

* Date/Time: Wednesday August 12, 2009 4:30 - 5:30 PM

Adel Public Library

Meeting Room

303 South 10th Street

Adel

While there I intend to ask if it's his intention to act in accordance with the conservative values he claims to have, or continue to be a "Bi-partisan" (read: pussy).

For the last year now, the city of Seattle has been trying to levy a 20 cent per bag surcharge on all plastic shopping bags, in an effort to encourage the use of reusable bags.

While Seattle lawmakers are adamant that the fee set forth in the ordinance is a 'surcharge' and not a tax, I would ask, who gets that money? Call it what you will, if the money is to end up in city coffers, it's a tax. Period.

I'm not sure how many times in needs to be pointed out to politicians, raising taxes in a recession is an economic no-no. But consumption taxes like these are especially heinous. The burden is born across all income levels, and thus disproportionately so by the lowest income levels (think Cap And Trade), who have less disposable income to absorb such increases.

And for what? A marginal environmental impact. In fact, all plastic combined represents less than 1 percent of the city's total waste, and a similarly small portion of your shopping's environmental impact.

Bob Lilienfeld, editor of the Use Less Stuff report says that those who want to makes their groceries greener by bashing plastic bags, may be missing the whole point.

"The bag is not the environmental bogey-person that everybody thinks it is," he says. "If you look at the entire grocery package that you bought, the bag may account for 1 to 2 percent of the environmental impact."

"The other packaging may account for 7 percent. Ninety percent is accounted for by the products you buy. That's where all the environmental impact is."

While politicians are attempting to pass ineffective tax measures, the free market is giving you ways to stay informed and shop smarter with a sustainability index of products. That's right lefties, at Wal-Mart.

48% of American taxpayers surveyed say their taxes are 'about right', the highest figure since 1961.

So that not quite half of American taxpayers aren't yet screaming about their current rate of taxation, is a signal for these people to raise taxes? I guess they're of the economic school that taxes, like sodomy, should hurt a little if done properly.

Forget the fact that raising taxes in this recession is a bad idea, for more on that check out this article.

I'd venture to say the results of this poll do not show that Americans feel they could pay more taxes. What it does show is that far more taxpayers are ignorant of how much they actually pay than in recent history. Hell, 48% of people age 18-24 couldn't find Mississippi on a map of the United States in 2006. You think they know how much of every dollar they earn goes to taxes in one form or another?

Why do they say this tax increase is needed as they hemorrhage our hard earned money in every direction?

"But we do not have a choice about this as a country. If we want an economy that's going to grow in the future, we have to bring those deficits down."

- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner

The National Deficit.

That would be one of the few times I might agree to suck it up and pay a little more to rid future generations of the burden. But you can't ask Americans to open their wallets a little bit wider in the name of paying down the deficit, while attempting to pass the largest entitlement bill in U.S. history, and tell me that you care about balancing the accounts.

It's common sense that if you want to create a budget surplus to pay down the debt,you need to address Washington's idea's about spending first. When TEFRA was passed in 1982, in an attempt to shrink the growing national deficit, Reagan only agreed to the tax increase on the condition that Congress reduce spending by three times the amount of the tax increase.

Show me how you're spending my money responsibly and I might give you more.

But from the the house banking scandal of 1992 (Rubbergate), to the pork private jets of today, it is clear that congress doesn't know how to live within its means. Let alone make the American government stay within it.

Until you come and steal it from my paycheck again, I'll keep my money, thanks.

The American Dream has never been one of excess. It is the rightful believe that, given the opportunity, one will get ahead if they work hard.

The American Dream is in trouble.

Not because of the economic downturn, or the plight of some supposed permanent underclass. It's because a growing group political elite in this country are co-opting the concept in the name of social justice. Like George Orwell's Newspeak, they seek to change the meaning behind the words American Dream, and in doing so control the thinking of Americans.

The phrase The American Dream was coined by James Truslow Adams in 1931,in his book The Epic of America - " that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or achievement."

The American Dream is an ideal that stresses egalitarianism, the belief in equal social, economic, and political opportunity for its citizens. It is not, nor has it ever been, a promise of entitlement.

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society." "...that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf."
-Barack Obama in an interview for Chicago Public Radio in 2001

The Social Justice movement believe that equal civil and social standing must make necessary economic equality. That the only way to make the so called disadvantaged whole, is to "spread the wealth around". This means not just equality of opportunity, but equality of results, regardless of input. They want you to believe that it's both moral and constitutional to achieve that equality through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or outright confiscation of property.

It is neither.

We the people must speak out loudly, and at every opportunity, or have our silence taken for consent.