Sunday, November 30, 2008
Out of the 25 Most Educated States, only 6 voted for McCain.
Out fo the 25 Least Educated States, 13 voted for McCain.
What does this information truly say? Well to me it says a good bit.
It confirms higher education is very liberal in its direction.
It confirms hard worker blue collar American vote for values and not bling.
It confirms that high education means more income and less decision making on economic variables.
The coal miners of West Virigina, factor workers of Kentucky, dock workers of Louisianna, the crab fishermen on the Bearing Sea, and the Republic of Texas DID NOT SELL OUT THEIR VALUES.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Policy that will not achieve useful consequence is pointless as well. This happens all the time. Politicians make laws that do way more harm trhen good or do not even impact what it is they set out to change. The love to tell us taking not action is just like taking an action, etc, etc.
PriceWaterhouseCooper estimated his plan will cost tax-payers, not the 40 million that don't pay, but real tax-payers $75 billion the first year. It will however provide health insurance to 95% of Americans.
What they are really saying is half of America already has health insurance and a good bit of the non-insured will not have heathcare.
There are 47 million Americans and ILLEGALS that lack healthcare and this plan will only cover 66% of them leaving the remaining 15 million plus with no coverage. Not a very good solution, Karl must be burning in hell looking up with a very disapproving look on his face.
The good news is the estiamate a shortage or primary care physicians because people will stop becoming medical doctors and that the program costs, like anything implemented by the federal governemtn will become "unsustainably high".
As a bonus, another socialist from Montana, Senator Max Baucus, has unveiled a reform plan to require all Americans to carry healthcare. More government telling Americans what is good for them. Reminds me of a mother feeling cold on a nice fall day so she bundles her child up in winter-like clothing so he can run around outside sweating like its mid-summer. She may have the best of intentions, but just as she cannot use her body to judge that of a young active boy, the government, led by people, cannot use their experiences to make policy, they should try going to the people and asking.
There is no reason in this modern day that any member of Congress cannot have simple registration and polling systems on their websites to really get daily input from members of their constituency. I kind of laugh at the power driven naivity of our elected officials.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
To my grandfather, whom I never met; To my father, whom I haven't spoke to in years because of personal reasons; and to my older brother Robert.
You all served our country. My grandfather in the Army during the great war. My father a graduate of Paris Island and Vietnam grunt. And my lifer Navy brother whom has been around the world and in too many war zones and conflicts. The extent of what you gave was often deep I know the horrors of war has haunted my father since 65. Eighteen year olds should never have to kill or see their friends killed.
I am very proud of your service. And while I am thankful I never went to the Air Force academy like I wanted to, I am glad I avoided the endless ribbing I would have taken for it. I am deeply saddened that I will never know the honor of having served in the military like most of my family. Such is the esteem at which I hold your service and the service of all in our armed forces. One of the few regrets that I will take with me to my end is not having served my country in the military.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Address on behalf of Senator Barry GoldwaterRendezvous with DestinyOctober 27, 1964
I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used "We've never had it so good."
But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations in the world. We have $15 billion in gold in our treasury--we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are $27.3 billion, and we have just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.
As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We are at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it has been said if we lose that war, and in doing so lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well, I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.
Not too long ago two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, "We don't know how lucky we are." And the Cuban stopped and said, "How lucky you are! I had someplace to escape to." In that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except to sovereign people, is still the newest and most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the "Great Society," or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a "greater government activity in the affairs of the people." But they have been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves--and all of the things that I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say "the cold war will end through acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism." Another voice says that the profit motive has become outmoded, it must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state; or our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century. Senator Fullbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the president as our moral teacher and our leader, and he said he is hobbled in his task by the restrictions in power imposed on him by this antiquated document. He must be freed so that he can do for us what he knows is best. And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as "meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government." Well, I for one resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me--the free man and woman of this country--as "the masses." This is a term we haven't applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, "the full power of centralized government"--this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
Now, we have no better example of this than the government's involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming is regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we have spent $43 in feed grain program for every bushel of corn we don't grow.
Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater as President would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he will find out that we have had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He will also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress an extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He will find that they have also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn't keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.
At the same time, there has been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There is now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can't tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.
Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but who are farmers to know what is best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.
Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights are so diluted that public interest is almost anything that a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes for the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a "more compatible use of the land." The President tells us he is now going to start building public housing units in the thousands where heretofore we have only built them in the hundreds. But FHA and the Veterans Administration tell us that they have 120,000 housing units they've taken back through mortgage foreclosures. For three decades, we have sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency. They have just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over $30 million on deposit in personal savings in their banks. When the government tells you you're depressed, lie down and be depressed.
We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion that the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they are going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer and they've had almost 30 years of it, shouldn't we expect government to almost read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn't they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?
But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater, the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we are told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than $3,000 a year. Welfare spending is 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We are spending $45 billion on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you will find that if we divided the $45 billion up equally among those 9 million poor families, we would be able to give each family $4,600 a year, and this added to their present income should eliminate poverty! Direct aid to the poor, however, is running only about $600 per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.
So now we declare "war on poverty," or "you, too, can be a Bobby Baker!" Now, do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add $1 billion to the $45 million we are spending...one more program to the 30-odd we have--and remember, this new program doesn't replace any, it just duplicates existing programs--do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain that there is one part of the new program that isn't duplicated. This is the youth feature. We are now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps, and we are going to put our young people in camps, but again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we are going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person that we help $4,700 a year! We can send them to Harvard for $2,700! Don't get me wrong. I'm not suggesting that Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.
But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who had come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning $250 a month. She wanted a divorce so that she could get an $80 raise. She is eligible for $330 a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who had already done that very thing.
Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always "against" things, never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.
But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those who depend on them for livelihood. They have called it insurance to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified that it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is $298 billion in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble! And they are doing just that.
A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary...his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee $220 a month at age 65. The government promises $127. He could live it up until he is 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now, are we so lacking in business sense that we can't put this program on a sound basis so that people who do require those payments will find that they can get them when they are due...that the cupboard isn't bare? Barry Goldwater thinks we can.
At the same time, can't we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provisions for the non-earning years? Should we allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn't you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under these programs, which we cannot do? I think we are for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we are against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program was now bankrupt. They've come to the end of the road.
In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate planned inflation so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar's worth, and not 45 cents' worth?
I think we are for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we are against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among the nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population. I think we are against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in Soviet colonies in the satellite nation.
I think we are for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We are helping 107. We spent $146 billion. With that money, we bought a $2 million yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenyan government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought $7 billion worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth. Federal employees number 2.5 million, and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation's work force is employed by the government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man's property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury, and they can seize and sell his property in auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier overplanted his rice allotment. The government obtained a $17,000 judgment, and a U.S. marshal sold his 950-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work. Last February 19 at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-time candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, "If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States." I think that's exactly what he will do.
As a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration. Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England. Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men...that we are to choose just between two personalities.
Well, what of this man that they would destroy? And in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear. Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well, I have been privileged to know him "when." I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I have never known a man in my life I believe so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.
This is a man who in his own business, before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan, before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn't work. He provided nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by floods from the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.
An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas, and he said that there were a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. Then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, "Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such," and they went down there, and there was this fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in the weeks before Christmas, all day long, he would load up the plane, fly to Arizona, fly them to their homes, then fly back over to get another load.
During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, "There aren't many left who care what happens to her. I'd like her to know I care." This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, "There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life upon that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start." This is not a man who could carelessly send other people's sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all of the other problems I have discussed academic, unless we realize that we are in a war that must be won.
Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us that they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy "accommodation." And they say if we only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he will forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer--not an easy answer--but simple.
If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based upon what we know in our hearts is morally right. We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion now in slavery behind the Iron Curtain, "Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skin, we are willing to make a deal with your slave masters." Alexander Hamilton said, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one." Let's set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace--and you can have it in the next second--surrender.
Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face--that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand--the ultimatum. And what then? When Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we are retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary because by that time we will have weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he has heard voices pleading for "peace at any price" or "better Red than dead," or as one commentator put it, he would rather "live on his knees than die on his feet." And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don't speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin--just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard 'round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn't die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well, it's a simple answer after all.
You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, "There is a price we will not pay." There is a point beyond which they must not advance. This is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater's "peace through strength." Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits--not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."
You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on Earth, or we will sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.
We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
The unanimous Declaration of the (Locality/City/State)
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
— Such has been the patient sufferance of our people; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present Presiden of the United States is of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over free men. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has usurped he free exchange of labor of freemen, by taxing for purposes other than revenue of necessity choosing to spread wealth of freemen amongst others that choose not to fairly exchange their labor.
He has demanded the labor of our youth, denying them the free exchange of labor, for socialistic purposes contrary to the establishment of these United States.
He continually refuses freedom of labor by and the free market by passing unionization laws designed for force businesses to close and loss of opportunity in the name of usurping the Constitution and dreams of Americans by creating a trynnaical socialist government.
He has continually usurped state rights and the rights of the people of this Republic by passing federal legislation that is aimed at continually weakening the Republic.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution
by agreeing to international treaties that usurp our right to autonomy.
He has made covenants with enemies of our Republic.
A President, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. We, therefore, the Representatives of (fill in the blank), assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People , solemnly publish and declare, That we are, and of Right ought to be a Free and Independent State, that we are Absolved from all Allegiance to the United States of American, and that all political connection between us and the United States of America, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as a Free and Independent State, we have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which an Independent State may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.
In case any of you skateboard riding, non-invested voters and lovers of socialism do not trust me others have noticed it as well.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Obama and Biden will strengthen the ability of workers to organize unions. He will fight for passage of the Employee Free Choice Act. Obama and Biden will work to ban the permanent replacement of striking workers. Obama and Biden believe that workers should have the freedom to choose whether to join a union without harassment or intimidation from their employers.
This is going to cost more U.S. jobs than NAFTA, GATT, and eight years of Bush combined. I could see us trying to organize at my job. Instantly the company would go "a new direction" and Indians would be doing my job. This has to be the most ignorant thing I have ever heard of. Small businesses will collapse daily. Large corporations will streamline processes and eliminate positions. People that have jobs will pay well for a decade until trade restrictions are made to help keep businesses profitable and global stagnation occurs again like it did at the turn of 20th century.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Early industrial America sees a paradigm shift from crazy Marxism toward democratic socialism in the 1930s and 1940s as the socialists were absorbed into the Democrat Party and became its radical arm. If you do not think this shift occurs please read this list below and think of how many of these political parties you are familiar with.
Socialist Labor Party
Socialist Party of America
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist party USA
Socialist Workers Party
Workers World Party
Working Families Party
Freedom Socialist Party
Freedom Road Socialist Organization
National Socialist Movement
New Union Party
Populist Party of America
Progressive Labor Party
Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
Workers Party USA
World Socialist Party of the United States
U.S. Labor Party
American Labor Party
Workers Party of the United States
American Workers Party
Communist League of America
Industrial Workers of the World
If you thought Vietnam protests were new or the first gathering of radicals, you would be wrong.World War I saw radical socialists anti-draft demonstrations all over the United States. Eugene Debs, papa Socialist in the United States, was sentenced to 10 years in prison under the Espionage Act. Totally wrong? Yes..but so funny. Two hundred Industrial Workers of the World leaders were arrested and tried..again wrong, but funny.
You see the Espionage Act had valid points like we saw in Iraq the past two years and in Vietnam.When we open our mouths so loud that around the world they know the people won't stand for a war much longer we put our soldiers in jeopardy and tell the enemy "hang on we will quit soon". So it had good intentions, but as the Supreme Court later said it should only be used in cases of "clear and present danger". Cannot believe I have to side with the socialists on that just because they deserve freedom, even though they don't believe I do.
The New Party is fascinating. They used to have this really active website with hundreds of pages talking about how they got Barack Obama elected to the Illinois Senate. It seems however when they had shined his shoes and got him all pretty for the big dance they decided to yank down everything from their website. You can find it on the Internet Archive. I even found a robots.txt file that search engines use to make links. I downloaded it being the uber geek and saw it reference the ACORN website. Turns out I heard on the new ACORN pretty much founded the New Party. Registration information is hidden, odd for a political group, but whatever.
I rather just have the socialist step out and get their RFID chips now so we can stop playing these shadow games. I mean at least shit stinks when we are around it. It would be so cruel and unfair if sometimes it smelled like pistachio ice cream or roses.
I love Wikipedia. "The New Party was a third political party in the United States". Was? Still is.Just folded back into the radical wing of the democrats like so many parties before it. Supposedly it was founded by Daniel Cantor, a former staffer for Jesse Jackson's 1988 campaign. On as side note,Jackson came to my college in 1990 I believe it was. Giving his "I suck bad" speech. I was a teaching assistant for a history professor and got to ask the man a question. Here it was:
Mr. Jackson, you are a reverend that has never had a church pulpit; a politician that has never held office.What makes you think you are qualified to be President?
He didn't bat an eye and just rambled on in. My mentor, whom I was the teaching assistant for, was not too pleased with my question...shit happens..but hey at least it smells like shit.
Meanwhile somewhere in another joke still talking.....
So in these archived New Party documents that Obamanation hid and the ONN - the Obama News Network never bothered to look at we find that certainly he is a socialist.
"We like unions. We like community organizations," declared Joel Rogers, chairman of the party's interim executive council. "We intend to use government to support those things and we're not embarrassed to say it." That sort of talk may be uncommon at a time when attacking government is the rage. But it has struck a chord and made the New Party what many believe to be the most successful progressive third-party initiative since the 1930s. See The Nation October 24, 1994 SECTION: Vol. 259 ; No. 13 ; Pg. 456; HEADLINE: Party's progress(http://web.archive.org/web/20010304164015/www.newparty.org/nation-10-94.html)
I thought this one funny.
The Democrats fool no one but themselves when they rhetorically claim an allegiance to manual laborers but then move heaven and earth for NAFTA and GATT. See New Party Time BY DANIEL CANTOR http://web.archive.org/web/20000815091055/www.newparty.org/progressive-1-95.html
The New Party found admits democrats are the reason for NAFTA...i.e. jobs being lost overseas...wait that was Bush..no wait it as Clinton. Stupid SHEEP!! RIF - Reading is Fundamental. HOBP - Head Out of Butt Please
Anyway. You can read I hope.
One more thing notice the party names. progressive , union, labor. Don't think a rose
is always a rose because it smells all rosy..sometimes its just shit. Don't step in it.
This asswipe Persian whom thinks no Jews died at Nazi hands was also one of the terrorists whom help Americans hostage while that Naval Academcy graduate liberal spinless jellfish named Carter sat around and saw how many fingers he could shove up his prestine soon to be shiny with a Nobel Peace Prize ass.
Thank God a real leader name Ronald Reagan took office and made it clear after his election that they had until about January 20th to release them or a whole world of shit was coming there way.
Trivia Time: Hey America how do you know you screwed up royal?
Answer: When a terrorist become President congratulates your selection in the 2008 Elections.
We have to collectively be the most stupid sheep on this planet..truly.
NY TIMES: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/middleeast/07iran.html
generation of next will see a revolution in this country. Hopefully one of ideas and restoring the
principles of the Constitution. All too often we think of specificity and focus on the minutia of the wording rather than the grandness of the whole.
The idea of our constitution is simple. Make people safe. This is truly the only job of a government. It must start with external safety, please keep our enemies at bay. Then internal safety, provide us with laws, not to limit our freedoms, but to limit me taking freedoms from another. The murdered are no longer free, so punish the killer. Leave speculation and diversity of controversial ideas lie. No one that is not omnipotent can say when a sperm and egg become a child and when abortion is then murder. That is not to be legislated...that is to be prayed for.
My views are my God will do one of two things if they disapprove. God will smite the wrongdoer or God will wait patiently for them to pass then deal with them for breaking a coventant with God. Either way I am not a God, you are not a God, a collective of indivduals making policy is not a God. This is all goverment needs to do. . . protect freedoms. Is there any other reason mankind needs a government?
Do we need government to give us things? What does a government have to give that it has not already taken from its people? Every government program that distributes or offers services is socialist in the end. What about welfare and food programs? There are many non-governmental agencies and charities that do wonderful work and get many volunteers and money from donations without government involvement. Perhaps when they cannot meet needs or distribution is too great a burden the government should make a program to help.
The problem is once a bureacracy is created it is like the fat kid that cannot stop eating and it feeds on money. The agency will be sure to use all its budget for if it does, it will likely earn more of a budget the next fiscal cycle, and if it fails to spend it all, the budge will be reduced.
It is not like conservatives think everyone is lazy and needs to work. I know first hand having missed six months of work in the past two years, that sometimes only the government can offer a helping hand that is needed. There must be larger goals for agencies. There is a chinese proverb: “Give a man a fish, feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, feed him for a lifetime”.
It is not enough to feed the poor daily, teach them to feed themselves. Do they need mental health coverage? Do they need job skills? Would a government agency designed to help find people the local help they need be better than one that just writes them checks or provides them vouchers for food? Can it do both so the residavism rate of those on the public dole are lowered?
I would give 25% of my pay in taxes if I knew 80% of it was helping to feed and clothe children and make a change in what their futures would be. Most Americans are generous and have good hearts. We send more aid money overseas than any other nation, not because we are so prosperous, 95% of us are never going to be rich. Heck if I lose my job, I have no savings and really do live payday to payday. I'm a heartbeat away from being one in need...trust me.
But is it the job of the government. Do they even have a right to do this? Is income tax even a just way to raise revenue? Supreme Court said it was not. Congress amended the constitution after the Supreme Court ruled against it...now the Supreme Court can have no opinion.
My income is not PROFIT. Do not tax my income. My income is a fair market exchange of my time and labor for cash I need to survive. I traded one thing for another and therefore gained nothing. How can this legally be considered income? We know 3 states that have no income tax have the strongest economies of the 50 U.S. States. Why does our federal government not follow suit? We do not make them. We are apethetic and or cowardly. We does a district not recall their Congressman when he votes horribly. It would not be that hard to do. It would only have to happpen a few times for them to realize they are really a public servant and if they are not serving they are being served.
If Obama wants to prove he is this great beacon of change then eliminate the income tax, disolve the IRS, and make some real changes because making a "real change" doesn't mean doing magic tricks and making money disappear from my wallet. I give him one year before my taxes have doubled or he rescinds on all campaign promises and does not implement anything he talked about. He can't have it both ways. His plans will cost $3 trillion a year and lowering taxes has never raised a big pile of money.
Canadian Dollar 0.83500 1.19760
Euro 1.26920 0.78790
Yen 0.01028 97.29001
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
US Dollar Exchange rate
Canadian Dollar 0.86237