The Gray Society

Like so many other liberals, my daughter-in-law doesn’t see it coming yet. But I’m fighting to save her children (my granddaughters) from the uniformity and dullness of The Gray Society that appears to be in their future. She, like so many other Democratic/Socialists probably thinks people who share my — newly ignited and suddenly radical — political passion are misinformed, misguided Astroturf Tea Partiers. That’s what she’s been told and she probably believes it. For the sake of family harmony this — and several other topics — are taboo.

But those who are relying on the messages and advice of our mainstream media are the ones who are misinformed and misguided, as a few are beginning to discover. They are the pawns in a great socialist movement. Those of us who can think independently are this country’s only hope.

If all goes according to the socialist plan, this is what I foresee (and fear) for my granddaughters:

• A country full of safety nets. No one will be able to fall too far. But no one will be able to achieve too much.

• A country of mediocrity. No one will be expected to accomplish much. And no one will.

• A society with no risks and no rewards.

• A community of sameness and homogenization, lacking extreme happiness and extreme grief. The highs of life will have been removed along with the lows.

• A politically correct society in which no one ever offends or challenges anyone or anything. A society in which “diversity” has come to mean “sameness.”

• A country of vapid television reporters/government mouthpieces supported by government stipends and having no competition.

• A country in which the proletariat works to support the ruling class with government jobs being the only “good jobs” and “secure jobs” left, one in which voting for the ruling political party is the best way to protect those jobs.

• A country in which the government runs everything (banks, auto manufacturers, utility companies, schools, news media, insurance, doctors, hospitals, and air transportation) as well as it runs the postal system, the railroads, and the welfare system.

• A country with crushingly expensive but nonetheless bad health care for all (or most anyway).

• A country with Russian-style education in which the ruling class determines what’s real and what will be included in the curriculum.

• A society in which only the criminals have guns and other countries have destructive weapons (that’s OK, we’ll meet with and talk to them).

• A country in which the wilderness is protected as a park and people are completely safe there in a Disney-like cocoon. There will be rationed time slots for visitors, so it’s never crowded (sign up now).

• A society of absolute security for most and unending dullness and sameness for all, one of no worry but also of no joy.

• A country of 1984-speak duplicitousness and misinformation provided by the media and big government.

• A country in which food, fuel, and entertainment are rationed, hyper-taxed to prevent many from buying (or from buying too much), or simply unavailable.

• A country of oppressive dept. My granddaughters and their fellow proletariat (including those lucky enough to land the “good government jobs”) will work to support their government and have little to show for their efforts. They’ll have exactly what everyone else has. Perhaps they won’t realize what they’re missing.

• A country of cities, mass transit, community-think, and stifling sameness. One for all and all alike.

• A country in which all forms of energy have been limited or capped so travel becomes impossible, creating a country with inhabitants who are insular and whose ideas are inbred.

• A society in which the proletariat is manipulated not so much by the thought-police as by their friends and neighbors who know what is correct and how all persons should behave in order to conform to all social expectations (recycling, driving green vehicles, joining certain clubs, shopping in approved stores, voting in acceptable ways, reading correct books, and eating the currently sanctioned diet).

• A world with unremarkable gray gauze stretched in everyone’s field of vision and blinding everyone’s world view.

• Essentially a world in which all the blacks and whites have been removed, leaving just the grays behind . . . a safe, secure, and monstrously monotonous society: The Gray Society.

That is the scenario I fear for the next generations. One by one, I hope others will turn off their one-way televisions, toss out their misleading and biased newspapers, boycott Hollywood, and begin to see the trends anew as independent thinkers. As more and more join our Astroturf revolution and the Tea Parties, it is my fervent hope that we will prevent the graying of this country for the sake of the generations to come.

By: KTL 26 December 2009

Christmas Greetings

Wishing you
the warmth of
hearth and home
this blessed Christmas season.

Matt and Linda Morehouse


Wood Stove Baked Apple or Poached Pear for Two

You can, of course, cook this on your stove top rather than your wood stove, if you prefer. Adjust proportions if you want to serve more than two diners.

1 large apple, Macintosh, Rome, or similar
2 tablespoons rum
½ teaspoon molasses
2 teaspoons raw sugar
1 tablespoon creamy peanut butter
2–3 cubes candied ginger, minced fine
1 graham cracker, crumbled fine

Cut apple in half horizontally and core. Place in casserole or in cast iron skillet cut side up. Pour rum over apple. Drizzle molasses over apple halves. Sprinkle with sugar. Cover with aluminum foil or the skillet lid and place on moderate-heat wood stove for about an hour.
While apples are cooking on wood stove, blend peanut butter with minced candied ginger and graham cracker crumbs. Reserve for topping.

When ready to serve, spoon apple halves into small bowls and pour reduced rum over. Top each baked apple half with a dollop of peanut butter mixture.
Serve hot. Serves 2.

If desired, top with whipped cream or vanilla-flavored yogurt, but this is almost gilding the lily, for this dessert is perfect as it stands.

Variation: Wood Stove Poached Pear

Use a Bosc pear, split lengthwise and cored. Omit molasses drizzle and sugar sprinkle, but use the same amount of rum.
Cook on stove top same as apple. Serve warm, garnished with 2 tablespoons Neufachtel cheese, creamed with 2–3 minced cubes candied ginger and one tablespoon finely chopped walnuts. Different flavor, same great hot dessert.

From our cookbook, Cast Iron Cuisine from Breakfast to Dessert, published June 2009, now in its second printing.

Will 2012 Be the Year of the Mass Grave of the Democratic Party?

I think a good portion of the Democrats have finally morphed into full fledged totalitarian socialists albeit I suspect wimpy ones. They may not be fully aware of this change themselves. Being wimpy, once it hits the fan for our economy they will be the first to run for cover and I hope it is to another part of the planet. They may have bought themselves a one way ticket on a train headed to oblivion. Those who oppose their mad rush will unfortunately lose a lot also. Let’s review their current brain dead policies and attitudes.

• They are intent on passing legislation like the government run health care bills and cap and trade bills that a majority of voters don’t want and that are certain to bring economic ruin. Their obsession with CO2 alone is a massive jobs killer. Recent polls show that around 52 percent of respondents oppose the health care reform under consideration in Congress and only 38 percent support it. The other 10% percent are the ones that are habitually clueless I suspect. I also suspect that when they bother to vote it is always for Democrats or RINOS.


• They refuse to allow any type of sane energy policy which again is certain to bring economic ruin. They eschew all but wind and solar power.


• They are continuing a reckless fiscal policy which the Fed is aiding and abetting with an equally reckless monetary policy. This combination alone would bring economic ruin upon any country.


• They have tied themselves to the failed Keynesian policies that prolonged the Great Depression, damaged our economy for decades and now in hyper drive have us within months of going over an economic cliff.


• They have lost any understanding of what a constitutional democratic republic is, what the founding philosophy of this country is and what market capitalism is if in fact any of them ever possessed such understanding.

Increasingly the Dems act like rulers rather than anyone’s representatives. Queen Nancy’s recent “Are you serious?” statement about the Congress’s constitutional authority to pass sweeping health care legislation reminds one of Marie Antoinette’s supposed quote “Let them eat cake.” If the economy continues on the current road a similar statement can’t be far off from the aging hollow-eyed hippie of Haight-Ashbury as Neal Boortz likes to call her.

Of course the problem is that this final banzai charge toward the socialist utopia will bring down our economy and create such misery and economic chaos that it could take a generation to repair the damage. Possibly it might never be repaired at least not in the lifetime of anyone now in existence. That means this madness has to be stopped to avoid a massive train wreck and it has to be stopped soon. At this point however the train may be traveling too fast to stop easily or without a lot of damage anyway. 11/02/2010 looks like our last shot but may not be soon enough. Economic processes like this tend to be somewhat exponential and we may be near extremis.

You might wonder what the point of all this madness is. It has happened before on large and small scales all over the world and has been chronicled by many in countless books. They explain the history and the process but I have never seen a good explanation of why especially given the fact that these suicidal actions aren’t new. There are plenty of bad examples. I believe it is an old Chinese saying that “everyone has a purpose in life even he who serves as a bad example”.

I have concluded that the mindset of these folks is not unlike that of fanatics engaged in a religious cult suicide pact. Life for them without their utopian dream simply isn’t acceptable. Do not expect rationality from these folks. In the last few days of the Third Reich Magda Goebbels poisoned all six of her children because she could not conceive of them living in a world without National Socialism. Remember these were not stupid people living in some third world backwater. Germany was a first world industrial nation. Yet they succumbed to the madness engendered by propaganda and the big lie.

Once it really hits the fan economically I think the Democrats are done. The party is headed for a mass grave. We just have to figure out how not to be dragged into our own tomb by the inevitable economic tsunami. I don’t think they will have the stomach or aside from a few thugs from organizations like SEIU the firepower to bring about a true police state which is what they will need to maintain power once the economy hits the wall. I don’t believe SEIU is full of former Marines, Green Berets or Navy SEALs.

A while back there was speculation on the internet, discussions of which you can still find; to the effect that this existence could actually be a computer simulation (OK techies on large doses of caffeine get a little strange late at night). Actually what the proponent of this idea showed mathematically was not that we were in such a simulation but that if it could be assumed that we would some day be able to build machines so powerful that they could reproduce or simulate our reality then the probability was very high that we were ourselves in such a simulation. One of these folks indicated that we might all wake up one day step outside and have an instant epiphany when we saw a sign in a bright blue sky that said: “Game Over”. Maybe that is what will happen on 12/21/2012!

Nothing so dramatic will happen to the collectivist Dems. Their “Game Over” moment will come when they fall ignominiously into the dustbin of history. I just hope things aren't totally FUBAR and we can piece the republic back together when they are finally gone.

Let's hear it for Small Business

I have a small business.

Like in a log rolling contest, past success in a small business is not a predictor of future success. Starting a small business involves risks that are so great that most people never try to do it. Safety nets for small businesses do not exist. "Too small to be allowed to fail?" Still, small businesses are the first engines to start up in an economic recovery, and they are, taken in total, the enterprises that create the most jobs.

In my opinion, the "leaders" of these large multi-national companies are not the kind of people who could or would start a small business. Nor could they run one successfully. They are steeped in the concept, much as politicians are, that you must do everything with other people's money. I can't fault this, they, like the politicians, seem to prosper no matter what.

Speaking as a small business owner, I'll state here what I would like to have from the Government(s).

1. Get off my back.
2. Get out of the way.

It is that simple.

Jerry

Subsidized News

The main stream media seems to be taking no notice of the Climategate Scandal. That is because it does not fit their propaganda message. Bias? Of course, but there is hope. Some of these people are already in the bread line.

As we tap dance merrily down the primrose path toward socialism, we will see more and more elements of society line up at the public trough. After all, we bailed out Wall Street, and bought some car companies, and want to forgive some mortgage contracts while making more shaky mortgages for people that can't afford them. Who or what will be next? Why the journalists of course.

Here is a look at one of the latest schemes:

From Utahpolicy.com:
10/20/2009

Is Government-Subsidized Journalism the Future?

By LaVarr Webb

A new report from Columbia University's School of Journalism says government needs to step in to save journalism. BYU communications professor Joel Campbell, a former colleague of mine at the Deseret News, posted a link on Facebook to a blog called SaveTheNews.org, which reports on the study.

It suggests six steps to save journalism, most of which deal with providing tax breaks, government funding, and philanthropy to journalism organizations.

The report's bottom line: "American society must now take some collective responsibility for supporting independent news reporting in this new environment -- as society has, at much greater expense, for public needs like education, health care, scientific advancement and cultural preservation -- through varying combinations of philanthropy, subsidy and government policy."

So is traditional journalism so important that your tax dollars should prop it up?


Analysis by Jerry

This paper from the Columbia School of Journalism is long, perhaps in the hope that the sheer size of the work will make it more compelling. The authors start with a history lesson, and proceed through the causes of the decline in the fortunes of newspapers. One after another winks out. Many (like my hometown paper) are in bankruptcy. The authors move on to try to develop a crisis out of the lack of local reporting. That seems to be a key to the argument.


Finally, the authors say:

“We are not recommending a government bailout of newspapers, or any of the various direct subsidies that governments give newspapers in many European countries.

American society must take some collective responsibility for supporting independent news reporting in this new environment.”


Note here the use of the word "collective", as in collectivist, as in socialist. They say they don't want subsidies in the first sentence and waffle back to suchlike in the next sentence. Collective, collectivist.... socialist. "Do like the Europeans do."


The authors claim throughout the paper that we are going to lose big journalism, which is critical to our democracy. But they peck at the idea, perhaps to expand the length of the piece. (bad writing for a journalist) A better statement of this position actually came from Eric Schmidt, the CEO of Google. This statement was in an article in the Wall Street Journal titled "How Google Can Help Newspapers" which is a piece defending Google for creating a site called Google News. which they bill as an Aggregated headlines and a search engine of many of the world's news sources.


Schmidt says: "We recognize, however, that a crisis for news-gathering is not just a crisis for the newspaper industry. The flow of accurate information, diverse views and proper analysis is critical for the functioning democracy."


I do not disagree with Mr. Schmidt, but I think we have already lost the thing Mr. Schmidt values.


To put it another way, if the main steam media is already not doing its job, I can't see how "collectivist support" (they don't want to call it subsidies) provided by the government will bring it back. I also don't accept the idea, offered by the authors, that government support of news organizations would not compromise their independence. Of course it would.


I offer a different view. I have believed for a long time that the Republican Party is in a life or death struggle with the main stream media. It is possible that neither side recognizes that quite yet, but I believe it is the case. I think the Democrats have recognized this for a long time. The Democrats understand this business of propaganda and control of communications. For example, the Democrats desperately wish to silence Rush Limbaugh, and they are willing to turn the first amendment upside down to do it. They have plans under the cloak of increased diversity, to gag the few other media outlets where Republicans and Conservatives communicate. They even eye the internet as a threat to their control of the "message".


What I mean by life or death struggle is that either the main stream media or the Republican party will survive this contest in some recognizable form. One will survive, not both. The first element in winning a fight is to know you are in one. I wonder if the Republicans know. They complain of bias, that is all. There is no aggressive attack offered in return for the aggressive attack from the main stream media on them.


While it may seem impossible to fight the main stream media, it is not. The main stream media is in a lot of trouble. As the Columbia J School piece says, Newspapers are going bankrupt, and some are closing their doors. The Columbia School of Journalism thinks this is bad and offers ways to save journalists from losing their jobs. They propose we use some "collectivist" (don't call it subsidy) solution so these people can continue to spew their left wing biased propaganda out and call it unbiased news. "Lets tax the internet providers and give the money to the journalists." That has an appeal. Push the competition down and make them give money to the poor journalists.


Instead, I suggest we continue to find ways to encourage the journalists' demise:

1) Embarrass them. Their accuracy has always been horrible. Point that out.

2) Discredit them by pointing out their bias.

3) Replace them with other forms.

4) If necessary, encourage a conservative boycott. (this last seems to be happening with no leadership or encouragement at all, but we could make it worse for them if we organized).


We are already living without good unbiased journalism in the main stream media. Don't subsidize them, let them go. They failed in their task.

Jerry

Quote for the day

"It is disheartening that Americans must overcome not only enemies but their own government. But the spirit of liberty and the majesty of our Constitution empower us to do just that. There’s only one question: Do we have the will?"

Andrew C. McCarthy NRO Online 02 December, 2009

Duty

It is the patriotic duty of every American to keep as much money as possible out of the control of his government.

Matt Morehouse

2010 – Our opportunity to restore sanity

We are enduring a concentrated and vicious assault on American values and principles, led by the “troika” of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. They are aided and abetted by the usual hacks and demagogues in both houses of congress, and in particular by the mainstream media. We can bring it to halt in 2010, hopefully before the damage is irrevocable.

We’ll eschew the use of the word “Change.” -- That’s what we’d like to have a little bit of remaining in our pockets. We’ll also ignore any reference to “Hope.” -- That’s a little town in Arkansas made infamous for giving us Bill Clinton. The 2010 election will be all about a return to American values and principles, and a course correction to counter the current hard left turn that has all of our heads spinning.

The preceding posts to this blog point out the opportunity to remove chronic offenders such as Senators Dodd and Reid, but they also point out the crowded field lining up for the competition. Such a mob scene plays into the hands of the liberals, because they can and will use a divide and conquer strategy to point out the differences and cause rancor among the various candidates’ supporters. Those feeling hold over long past the primaries.

What do we need to do to make sure this doesn’t happen? We who have been vocal and active here and on other forums need to get involved. Here’s a five-point plan, subject to editing and amendment by those with better political instincts than I have.

1. In each critical race, identify those candidates who reflect conservative values and American traditions, and are not afraid to say so.
2. Carefully vet the candidates – not with the proctological exam techniques used by the media, but with a careful look at the history and career of each. Any red flags than can be used by the libs and the media to destroy a candidate have to be acknowledged and dismissed early, so that it’s old news.
3. Work with State and Local officials to objectively rate the suitable candidates, and then to identify the ones with the strongest chance to win.
4. Work with the other candidates to try and convince them of the wisdom of narrowing the field. A two-or-three candidate primary is far preferable to a ten-candidate primary, and will usually result in the better candidate being selected.
5. Finally – once the primaries are over, support the candidate selected, even if he or she was not your first choice. They are still going to be a preferable to leaving the Dodds and Reids in place.

We will not likely oust Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank – they are both elected in districts that might be described as “People’s Republic of…” But if we actively work in the other important races, we can enhance the chances that sanity will return in 2010. Then we’ll be able to call Pelosi “Ex-speaker” and Reid “Former Senator.” Wouldn't that be nice?

Tom 23 Nov. 09

If it ain't broke...fix it??

When I was a young boy I used to tear down all manner of things just to see how they worked. Not all of these things got back together and went back into service, but my father was an indulgent man and kept bringing me more things to examine. Eventually he brought me things that already didn't work, with the stated expectation that they should work when I was finished with them. For a young boy it was a fine way to learn about how the things in the world worked.

As I was moving through this review of all things, I would occasionally see signs and bumper stickers saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I wondered about that motto. Later I would have engineering bosses who would say, "first prove to me that we have a real problem before you redesign that thing" (to fix a supposed problem based on one telephone call from the field). I learned from them too, and came to understand that they were essentially saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it."

Too late in life I began to take an interest in politics. Before that interest, I kind of understood that out there in the world somewhere there were "others", Nazis and Socialists and Communists. I even ducked a few communist bullets in my misspent youth, but I always had the feeling that those kind of people would never come to my homeland. I had to go to their homeland and fight them there.

As I grew older, I finally understood that "If it ain't broke don't fix it" really meant that lots of things work for reasons we may never fully understand, but if they work and we should respect them nonetheless.

As I studied the behavior of the socialists and communists, I detected a variation on "If it ain't broke don't fix it" Their motto was "If it ain't broke they won't let us fix it" So, "We need to break it first, then they will let us fix it." Socialism and communism cannot easily replace economic and governmental systems that work fairly well. Furthermore, almost all economic and governmental systems tend to work better than socialism and communism unless they are sabotaged.

And that is the point, or at least it is the question. Is our present administration, with their very socialist agenda, trying to fix things, or are they trying to break them? We are told now that our imbalance of trade and our ever increasing deficit are a big problem, big enough to destroy our way of life. Why then are we prevented from exploiting our own energy reserves? Is that so we have to send dollars to our Muslim enemies and aggravate the trade imbalance? Why have we made so many restrictive regulations on our own industry. Was that so we would export our industry and jobs to our arch enemy Communist China? Why are we contemplating cap and trade legislation that can only offer economic destruction? Communist China and India are not stupid enough to join us in this economic suicide. Without them, there will be no significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions so why are we intent on destroying the rest of our industrial base? Why is our government spending money at a truly shocking rate, thereby driving up the deficit and driving down the dollar? Why are we promoting the largest entitlement program in our history at a time when the government borrows almost half of all the money it spends?

Are the people in power at the moment trying to fix things.... or are they trying to break them? Have they reasoned that first they must break the system and then we the people will beg them to fix it? Good question. It is, after all, the socialist and communist way of gaining power and then keeping it.

By: Jerry




(

A Fair Trial?

Ironically, after the Station Master of Treblinka, Adolph Eichman, was kidnapped in South America by Israeli agents, he was tried in an Israeli civilian court (tribunal), convicted, sentenced to death and hanged. No venire of twelve citizens of "average ignorance"!

I think Holder is a worthless piece of excrement for bringing those Islamic pigs here when we spent hundreds of millions engineering the Military Commissions and constructing a special court house at GITMO. If Military Commissions were good enough for the Germans and Japanese, they're certainly good enough for Islamic pigs! We both know this wasn't Holder's decision. Obama and Axelrod made this decision. BO is still grandstanding and campaigning --- for 2012.

I will never vote for a President who hasn't served in the military! This is week 12 of Barack's mulling-over a troop increase in Afghanistan. Like Jimmy Carter, he can't make a meaningful decision about anything.

We're still under attack! Case-in-point: Major Hassan. No doubt another excellent candidate for a "civilian" trial notwithstanding the fact he's active duty Army. BO's 2012 campaign is in full-swing.

Alan I7 Nov. 09

Quote for the day

“There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."

General George S. Patton

S.P.I.N.E.

“Why is it getting so hot, and what are we doing in this handbasket?”

That is the question Americans will be asking if the U.S. Senate follows the lockstep insanity exhibited by the House of Representatives.

Yes – there is still time to reign in the headlong rush to a government-run health care system and all the woes that come with such a monster. It will take several decisive events to stop it, including:

· The first step: Growth of actual spines by several Senators. This includes not only RINOs such as Olympia Snowe, but several so-called “Moderates” and even (hopefully) a few less liberal Democrats who have not fallen mindlessly into this lockstep rush to socialism.
· The second step: With backbones in place, this band must join committed conservative Republicans in blocking the Pelosi/Ried agenda and then offering up real, constructive reform such as interstate portability, tort reform and other changes that will help increase competition and reduce cost without handing the whole thing to the government.
· The Third step: Assuming step two can be achieved, the House and Senate bills brought to conference will be radically different. These Senators will then need all of the spine grown in step one to resist the inevitable arm-twisting, threats and wheedling that will take place as Pelosi and Ried try to force government-run health care down our collective throats. They must INSIST that the so-called “government option” be dropped; that portability and tort reform be left in place; and that any so-called “triggers” that would allow a government run plan to be brought in the back door be eliminated.

The thing we must do now is contact our Senators, forcefully and often, urging them to dig in for us and prevent the looming catastrophe. The movement needs a name. How about “SPINE?” (Senators Preventing Insane New Enactments)

Tom Wells
10 November 09

Quote for the day

"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."

2009 Judge Alex Kozinski

(Don't) Let Them Eat Bananas

The bizarre banana boycott

I have just read that some virtuous liberals have now decided to save the world by refusing to buy or eat bananas. Their argument follows the lines that the transportation of bananas from Central and South America is too expensive in terms of fuel consumed. They hope, it seems, to do their part to prevent global warming by buying only locally grown produce. What next?

I’m sure they feel righteous in sacrificing to save the world from global warming in this manner (think globally, act locally, after all). What a shame they’re jousting with fearful phantoms that have no basis in science (but then what does science have to do with it -- it’s really about who has the most persuasive lawyers and the largest checkbooks, isn’t it?).

Misguided as they are on the problem, how can their solution (a bizarre boycott of bananas) save the world? That’s the question that kept me awake last night. Did they remember to tell the banana growers that demand will be shrinking? Do the transportation companies have plans to reduce their fleets? Or will the banana growers just keep right on growing and shipping, using the same amount of fuel to send every last banana on their trees to the grocery stores for those who are less enlightened and not nearly as righteous?

Isn’t this latest greatest idea for world salvation the equivalent of a boycott against someone’s national economy . . . the same economy they tried to save by eating only South American nuts in their Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in order to save the rain forests? Will bananas alone do it, or must they also boycott all chocolate, coffee, and sugar? Now we’re moving into the realm of true personal sacrifice.

But wait! Transportation costs being what they are, it seems to me that they also should buy only manufactured products produced in local factories. That means nothing more from China. Depending upon where they live, this could be a real hardship. I’m not certain that anything is manufactured in the continental U.S. anymore. Not even our flags.

Now that they’re eating only locally grown food, they’d better quit their jobs (commuting probably requires too much fuel anyway) so they can devote their springs, summers, and falls to growing and putting away crops for the winter. With all the canned and preserved food as their core meals, they’ll no doubt need to put in root cellars and they could then get rid of their energy-hungry refrigerators.

Now that they’ve a bit more time on their hands, they could save a lot of fuel by doing their wash in oaken buckets with washboards and using hand-powered wringers and the clothesline drying method. They could even haul their own water. They could get rid of their family automobiles (never mind what will happen to the landfills if they all decide to dump the family cars at once).

If we are all to get back to basics in this way, we’ll each need a much larger plot of land than most suburban dwellers own. That could be a complication, since there are so many of us and so little land left. But don’t worry. If some zealots decide this is a good idea for them, they’ll no doubt try to legislate it for the rest of us. Maybe they’ll need a czar and a federal bureaucracy to oversee the allotment of farmland, seeds for crops, how often we could water those crops, our use of pesticides, payment for not planting . . . just think of the additional government jobs that could be created!

After some reflection, it doesn’t seem as if we can easily revert to the 1800s after all. My conclusion is that we may as well eat bananas. We’ll need the energy they provide to fight the real problems we face today. In fact, the biggest problem we face may very well be the well-meaning zealots who would like to change their lives and ours too.

KTL

Disaffected Leftist Relocation Fund

Let’s face it leftists, collectivists, Marxists, and all manner of socialist minded folks just don’t like it here. They don’t like my favorite form of government a classical constitutional democratic republic. They don’t like market capitalism. They find the United States Constitution so constraining that they want to turn it into an endlessly changing “living” document, i.e. a scrap of paper with no real meaning. They want to march everyone in this nation off to their wonderful utopian dream under the control of one or more of their philosopher kings. How dismal would that be?

I have a better idea. Rather than continually trying to change this nation into their idea of a socialist utopia they should just move to some place in the eastern hemisphere. There are lots of places to choose from and I am sure they all could find a nice country with a socialist ambiance much more to their liking than the USA. Why suggest the eastern hemisphere? Well, I don’t want to make it too easy for them to sneak back over the border with the other illegal immigrants.

Why don’t they just pick up and move then? Well, maybe they need a nudge. How about a financial incentive from those of us who like all the things they hate.

To that end I suggest that we establish the “Disaffected Leftist Relocation Fund”. I know it will cost us money and it seems like bribery or protection money but think about it for a moment.

We could avoid endless political battles over trillion dollar stimulus packages, bailouts and other government largess. We could reestablish a real constitutional republic. We could have a reasonable tax system, a stable dollar, and an end to leftist politicians and bureaucrats constantly undermining the Constitution, the dollar, and the economic structure of the country.

We could attract talented folks from other countries that think a democratic republic and economic freedom are capital (pun intended) ideas. California would become the Golden State again. Massachusetts would be the Bay State again instead of Taxachusetts. I could stop calling this state the People’s Republic of Minnesota. Last but not least we could avoid any nasty stuff like armed conflict.

In the end I am guessing it would save us trillions. Isn’t it worth an annual contribution to this fund to get that result? Isn’t it an attractive nonviolent market oriented way to solve our intractable political differences with these fools, oops I mean folks?

How would it work? I propose that we establish the fund as a nonprofit organization and solicit donations. Maybe some folks at Cato, Heritage, or Hoover could help us with the legal stuff and paper work and we could hire a good PR firm to create some snappy ads that your typical leftist just couldn’t resist.

The rules? Well each disaffected leftist would have to sign a document in triplicate renouncing his or her citizenship and agreeing to leave this country and hemisphere permanently. They would have to agree to a photo, fingerprints, and DNA sample and their information would go into the Disaffected Leftist Database (DLD) so a new and highly effective United States Border Patrol could at least keep them out of this country if not out of the hemisphere. I am sure we could develop some incentives for other countries on this half of the planet to refuse them entry and perhaps even get rid of their own leftists.

In consideration for this renunciation of citizenship and immediate departure for the east each leftist would get the following:

• A ticket to any country in the eastern hemisphere that would permit them entry.
  
• A tax free $100,000 dollars in cash or in some other major currency like Euros, Yen, etc.
  
• A tax free $25,000 moving expense allowance to transport their belongings like copies of Mao’s little red book and Marx’s Das Kapital. If they want to settle in the Middle East, we could supply them a complementary copy of the Quran which they will need for acculturation and Mein Kampf a very popular western book in places like Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
  
• A tax free cash settlement for any real estate they own in this hemisphere equal to the average of the appraisal amounts of three independent appraisers. They could keep their assets like securities and private pensions but would have to give up Social Security and Medicare. But I am sure they would be more than happy with the “free” medical care and vast array of social programs in their new socialist digs.

What if they have underage kids? They can take them along or leave them with relatives. That might be too bad for the kids but you know you can’t solve every problem.

Too generous? Maybe but after about 20% are gone the rest might panic and we could reduce the price. And when 50% are gone just think how much more pleasant life would start to be here in the USA! Now, 20% of say 10,000,000 hard core leftists is 2,000,000 so not counting real estate purchases that would be $250 billion. But as we got rid of more and more leftists our taxes would go down and our economy would markedly improve so some of that real estate could be sold off to defray the cost of the program.

Of course there would be some rich folks like Barbra Streisand and George Soros that wouldn’t take the bait but as time wore on they would become afraid of being left behind with a bunch of rabid conservatives and libertarians. The pressure would cause them to bail eventually.

The big issue would be getting donors and getting a law for tax free payouts. But maybe if we showed some headway in eliminating leftists we could eventually get say 50 million folks with an average donation of $6000 per year. That would be $300 billion per year not counting investment income and real estate sales. We would need some wealthy conservatives and libertarians to help with a sizable chunk of startup money and a commitment to a sizable annual donation.

Now I know there might be some legal and logistical problems with this but hey, you have to think outside of the box!

I just had another out of the box thought. I know they are understandably attached to their little piece of desert for religious, cultural, and historic reasons but maybe a lot of non socialist Israelis might want to trade places with our disaffected leftists.

I know Israelis had a socialist bent for a time but I read a few years ago that they were becoming disenchanted with the whole idea. That could solve much of our Middle East problem. And it would be another selling point since leftists here so desperately want to help the Palestinians. Maybe each disaffected leftist would want to share some of their $100K stipend with a new Palestinian friend. I think that would be just precious don’t you?

The Lesson of the Pomegranate

Today I peeled a pomegranate that was past its prime. As I separated the good seeds from the bad ones, I thought to myself that I had better be "liberal" in the use of what is left, since none of it will last long.

That's when I was struck by a second meaning of "liberal." In the common usage, it also means to spend, waste, or use up quickly.

Here's what one dictionary says:
a liberal coating of paint: abundant, copious, ample, plentiful, generous, lavish, luxuriant, profuse, considerable, prolific, rich; literary plenteous. antonym scant.

Come to think of it, why does that alternative meaning surprise me?

--KTL 10/29/09

A Call For More Co-Authors

I converse on a number of private email groups wherein we discuss matters that deserve much wider dissemination than is possible among the few members of those groups. My attempts to drive the discussions to this blog, where there is at least the potential for wide exposure, have been unsuccessful. Does anyone have any suggestions as to how we might encourage others to come out from under their rocks and give everyone the benefit of their wisdom?

Perhaps one of the problems is that only co-authors can post new topics (anyone may post comments). At present there are only two co-authors: gxm and myself. I am hereby issuing a call for more co-authors. Post a comment if you are interested. This is a way to get your ideas far beyond the confines of your circle of cronies.

This Is the Problem!

While taking a break from software bug hunting I read this article by Walter Williams - American Idea. I recommend it highly. For my money Walter has pretty much identified our main problem. Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell are two of the best constitutional scholars and libertarian economists I know of.

Birther Idiocy

I say, people, we must get off this "birther" idiocy.  This is right up there with Holocaust deniers, those who posit 9/11 as an "inside job", and OJ didn't do it.

It truly doesn't matter if He was born on the left side of the Moon He is the president and will be for the next three years.  Bend your best efforts toward making sure He isn't president for the next seven.  It is a monumental waste of time, talent, and money to pursue the "birth" issue.

Matt

Comrades in arms

I have been in contact with “Moose” who is the administrator of :

theunrepentantpatriots@googlegroups.com.

 This is a group of patriots much larger than this nascent blog.  They have graciously agreed to mention “Conversations” on their site.  In return I agreed to mention theirs.  Please take the time to check it out.

I believe it is of utmost importance that a lot of the intelligence that passes among members of small email groups be given wider distribution.  Therefore I ask that all who are interested in promulgating Conservative principles use public forums instead of keeping their wisdom hidden in small email groups.
Matt

A Democratic Republic Not A Democracy

Progressives are always harping about democracy. Me thinks they protest too much. Much of what they propose smacks of authoritarianism mixed with mob rule.

The Founders were suspicious of democracy which often ends up as mob rule. They were concerned with preserving individual liberty. With pure democracy the majority can often violate the rights and trample the individual liberty of the minority. The Greek city states were historical examples of why they were concerned.

This is why they opted for a constitutional democratic republic with the Constitution as the highest law of the land. They viewed this form of government as the best way to allow a democratic process to control the representatives of the people but also maximize the preservation of individual liberty for all citizens. We often refer to it as the rule of law.

In my view calling the U. S. a democracy has subtly shifted the perception of our governmental system away from what the Founders envisioned. They managed to create the best form of government yet devised a classical constitutional democratic republic. It’s not perfect but it beats all the alternatives.

Progressives want you to believe that perfection and utopia are possible. They suffer from what I call philosopher king(s) syndrome. They think they can find a godlike leader or group of leaders to guide them to collectivist utopia. The historical record is that they always lead to dystopia. H. L. Mencken who I think could arguably be thought of as the first modern libertarian made this observation:

"Liberty, at bottom, is a simple thing, whatever its outward forms. It is common faith in man, common good will, common tolerance and charity, common decency, no less and no more. Translated into political terms, it is the doctrine that the normal citizen of a civilized state is actually normal – that the decency which belongs naturally to homo sapiens, as an animal above the brutes, is really in him. It holds that this normal citizen may be trusted, one day with another, to do the decent thing. It relies upon his natural impulses, and assumes them to be sound. Finally, it is the doctrine that if these assumptions are false, then nothing can be done about it – and if human beings are actually so bad, then none is good enough to police the rest.”

Women power?

The media is now recognizing the trend that I have previously identified. I would ask that all interested in the future of Conservatism, get on board with this phenomena and support the efforts of Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman and all charismatic female candidates that have the star power to be elected. Sallie Krawcheck is one that I identified in a previous post although her political views are unknown. Another is Meredith Whitney. (Google them)

The Conservatives should also be looking for other charismatic females who may join our cause. Most of the potential candidates will come from the business world but there must be others in the military, law, judiciary and even in politics .

While I love Huckabee, Gingrich, McCain and others, the old white men are simply not electable in the present day of Social Networking (300 million on Facebook),  media hype and frenzy. I speak as an old white man. 

--Stone from Texas

Women power?

 

Notice how woman have all the star power today? The mere mention of an important opening and woman get all the publicity. The same applies to minorities but I think the electorate is going to be sick of BO soon. The repubs had better get on board with this phenomenon.

Again I don’t think Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina, or Meg Whitman are the entire answer but the Republicans better be thinking of charismatic woman rather than old white men or we are doomed.

 Stone from Texas

A Challenge to Progressives

Progressives or liberals or whatever the collectivists are calling themselves these days are always touting their plans as good for the “general welfare”. It ties right into their “living” document make it up as you go along constitutional philosophy. OK, let’s give them a challenge. They want national healthcare while conservatives and libertarians would like a change in the tax system and fiscal sanity with of course no national healthcare. How about this challenge:

• They get a constitutional amendment establishing national healthcare for as long as it is deemed more effective than the private sector health system by the American public as determined by referendum each year or two.
  
• We get repeal of the 16th Amendment which would be replaced by a new balanced budget amendment that limits government taxation and borrowing to no more than 20% of GDP for as long as it is deemed more effective than the old tax and spend system by the American public as determined by referendum each year or two. Federal income taxes and payroll taxes would be replaced by some sort of consumption tax like maybe the FairTax. The folks in the IRS get transferred to the border patrol or can look for new jobs in the private sector.

Note being a person who believes in strict adherence to the Constitution this can’t be done without amendments. Government run healthcare is blatantly unconstitutional, Medicare notwithstanding. Medicare like Social Security was instituted under the bogus make it up as you go along policy. Humor me. In order to stick to the Constitution the referendums would not be the last word. They would just give the U. S. Congress and state legislatures a straightforward clue as to the public’s preferences. Final resolution would have to be real amendments to the document to repeal what the public rejected.

I would bet serious money that after a few years we would end up with the tax changes as permanent policy but government healthcare would be rejected. Here is a bonus. If government healthcare gets voted down and the tax changes do not we get to reduce the 20% to 15%. If the reverse happens, they get to add dental care. If both are unacceptable, it’s back to Go.

We all have a good idea what government healthcare would bring cost and quality wise. Just look at some of the state health plans like the one in Massachusetts or consider Medicare. The fact is they are unsustainable. That’s why all government managed healthcare systems practice rationing. Some rationing also takes place in a completely private system but is less than in state systems because the profit motive brings cost savings and technological improvements just like any other market driven system. Note that once all computers cost millions of dollars each now they cost mere hundreds (or thousands for high end servers) and are much more powerful. This dynamic has proven to work countless times.

As for a consumption tax my belief is that it would reduce the manipulative power of Congress substantially and would result in a massive increase in economic growth. There would be a time lag greater than one would anticipate under normal circumstances before really significant growth. That’s because of all the structural damage to our economy done by the booms and busts created by the foolish third world banana republic fiscal and monetary policies that have been followed by the federal government and Federal Reserve. But I think noticeable real growth would start within a year. There is an estimated 12+ trillion dollars in offshore investments held by American citizens and organizations. Huge amounts of that capital would return to the United States. U.S. and foreign companies would engage in a mad rush to build facilities here. Unemployment would drop to record low levels and growth would increase to record high levels possibly approaching levels seen in high growth Asia-Pacific countries. Note for example that China officially still a communist country has no capital gains tax!

Yes, I know it’s risky. Our health care could get screwed up for a year or two. But isn’t it worth it to show the entire country unequivocally that the ideas of these “progressive” fools are total nonsense? Besides, there are a whole series of other challenges we can present to progressives until they give up and all move to France!

Quote for the day

Who is the author of this quote:

"Talk is cheap, it takes money to buy whiskey."

Light my fire

Now that Fall has arrived we have lit the fire in the woodstove.  Pull up a chair and we'll pass the jug.

Congress is the Key

We must find good people who are willing to run for Congress, but having them go to Washington to be either corrupted or castrated by the present system won’t accomplish anything. They must run on a coherent plan to clean up the systemic problems that encourage corruption and attract those who are all too willing to be corrupted.   Such a plan will attract the vast majority of voters who are disgusted by what the Congress has become.

What follows are the steps necessary to get Congress under the control of We The People by making it a place where  decent people are once more willing to serve.

1.  The Congressional Ethics Committee (Johnny Saks investigating Tony Soprano and vice versa) will be abolished and replaced with a Grand Jury Panel selected from the tax lists of the States by the random methods normally used by the States to chose grand jurors (perhaps 2 or 3 per state).  From the resulting panel a grand jury will be chosen by lot for each case.  While serving, jurors shall be paid reasonable expenses and one dollar per day more than Congresspersons.

2.  Congressional pay will be frozen at its present level.  All special allowances, such as those now given to committee chairmen and others in leadership positions shall be abolished.  Congressional salaries or other benefits will only be raised if the reasons for such increase are explained and justified in writing and made public 90 days before a vote on the increase.  A two thirds majority of the total membership, not just those attending the session, shall be required for passage.  Any member not present and voting on an increase shall not receive it.

3.  Congressional expense accounts will be subject to audits by an accounting firm selected by lot from a list of  nationally accredited CPA firms.  There shall be no flat and automatic expense allowances.  All claims for reasonable expenses shall be backed by receipts.  All travel shall be on commercial carriers in economy class. (This is the system most employees in the general economy live under.)  There shall be no travel in government aircraft.  Those aircraft now used exclusively to fly congresspersons shall be sold (probably on Ebay).  All foreign or domestic travel, other than between Washington and the Congressperson’s or Senator’s home district shall require detailed written  justification publicly posted on the internet one month before the date of such proposed travel.  All travel and any other expenses paid by private persons, corporations, or labor unions shall be referred to a Congressional Grand Jury for investigation and possible action.

4.  Congressional pensions shall be limited to $1000 per month served, for a maximum of 72 months.  This shall be  paid as a lump sum when a member leaves Congress honorably.  Conviction of a felony will cause forfeiture of all pay, pensions and benefits. 

5.  The present obscene pensions will be paid to all present members who elect to leave at the end of their current  term.  (As huge as they are, it will be worth it to get rid of them.)  If they stay they will get the maximum $72,000 when they leave.

6.  While serving, Congresspersons and their families will get the same medical benefits provided to retired military.  These will end when they leave Congress.  However, upon leaving Congress, members shall be eligible to purchase interim health insurance through COBRA like anyone else who leaves an employer.

7.  Congress shall pass no law applicable to the People at large from which they, themselves, are exempted.

8.  No bill that has not been posted on the internet, in its entirety, seven days before being brought to the floor for a vote shall be voted upon.

There are other issues that will have to be addressed: for example those bloated, overpaid and under qualified staffs now used as a place to reward cronies, relatives and concubines, and the committee system that allows chairman far too much power to control the agenda and silence reasoned opposition to it.  But these eight changes will go a long way toward giving us a Congress that will understand that they are the servants and not the masters of WE THE PEOPLE.
   
--Jule Miller 10/2/09

Quote for the day

Who is the author of this quote:

"There is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but those times have passed away. There is a time to fight, and that time has now come."

The last (and best) word on health care

On the current topic of health insurance, conspicuous in its absence is any discussion of the actuarial numbers.  Seems those in charge just want to get to the end game, with no public discussion on what it will cost.  Not so fast.

Among other things in my checkered past was a short stint as an insurance underwriter.  From that I learned the concept of insurance, at least as far as the insurance industry is concerned, is that insurance is a social mechanism for the transfer of the risk of monetary loss from the individual to a larger group.  The concept is that risk of loss fits a random pattern of probability.  It works very well for things like lightning strikes, hail, wind, etc.  Risk and the premiums charged for insurance vary directly with the probability of loss.  Hurricane insurance premiums are greater for folks living in Pensacola than for those in Minneapolis.  Car insurance premiums for a guy with 3 DWI's and two at-fault accidents are higher than for grandma, who only drives to church on Sunday.  Life insurance premiums for an aging rodeo clown who smokes and has a bottle hidden behind chute #9 are higher than for a young (straight) desk clerk. You get the idea.

Insurance doesn't work when the pool is exposed to catastrophic losses (exclusions for acts of war, earthquakes, etc), or when the pool as a whole is exposed to a high probability of loss.  Assuming a guy with 3 DWI's still has his license to drive, he isn't going to be able to buy insurance from a commercial company.  It will have to be a low limit, state fund that sells him insurance. How about $1,500 a quarter for $10,000 liability only coverage? That is the way it works.

Enter health insurance, where the industry has attempted to do the same thing, except in this case, the risk rules are not supposed to apply.  Insurance companies do deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.  Not to do so would be like asking a property insurance company to sell insurance on a car that's already been wrecked.  The same thing applies for seniors.  It is a fact of life that as one ages, health related issues, and the costs to pay for health care, increase.  As a group, seniors would be considered high risk for claims, so the concept of insurance isn't workable at any reasonable premium.  Because the insurance industry couldn't make it work, the government assumed the risk. To pay for it the government created the pyramid scheme known as Medicare, with a supposed larger pool of workers paying for the health care of our seniors.

My thoughts on this piece were triggered by a recent op-ed in our local paper in which the author set forth his list of "demands".  To address the problems he sees in the health cost dilemma it included a host of things; insisting that insurance companies provide coverage for pre-existing conditions, portability of coverage (meaning you get to keep the policy if you change jobs or lose your job), no limits on coverage, cheap drug benefits, etc.   Of course he wanted it for little to no cost to him. In short, he wanted to be able to transfer liabilities of potentially hundreds of thousands (billions?) of dollars to someone else.  The author didn't say what he would be willing to pay for these benefits, but my guess is probably no more than a few hundred a month.  Is this realistic?  No, but when these same folks are presented with the facts, the general reply is they don't care, they just want it.  But if you put the numbers to it (and I suspect those up to their neck in this have), the per capita cost for all this as an insurance product is unworkable.  If not, it would have already been done.

Once the cost to do this becomes reality, it will not be acceptable to the market.  Private insurance is still risk rated.  Most private health plans are weighted to younger, working force age employees, not seniors.  These pools are exposed to child rearing costs, but once you get past the first few weeks, most children are healthy and health care costs, while frequent, are not large.  In contrast, government pools are intended to assume all risk, so costs will blow through the roof.  Just as the bank bailouts took all the bad credit off the bank's books and put it on the government, this will take all the major health care costs away from those who can't afford it and put it on all of us.

But back to our opiner's list of demands, it's unlikely he sells his product for a huge loss, or if he works for wages, unlikely he works for free, but somehow expects the health care industry to do just that.  Bottom line is they couldn't do it if they wanted to.  In no time at all they would pay out more in claims than they could collect in premiums and the checks would bounce. At least it would if it were being operated on a straight up basis.  Medicare is broke, paying out more than it takes in and that's with all workers paying into a fund to pay for only part of the health care costs of seniors.  But Uncle has had a big credit limit on their charge card, so they have covered it for now.  But throw in everyone, and it is an unworkable system. You often see Medicare being touted as a model government program everyone is happy with. Yes they are because they get a huge amount of something for nothing.  It is unsustainable and if you could get an honest assessment from the Dems, they know this.  The "House Plan" being discussed does roll seniors into the total plan, where it will run head first into reality.  Talk of "Death Panels" is a little over the top and makes for good theatrics in rebuttal, but the fact is if you throw Seniors into a pool, it gets top heavy in a hurry.  Rationing care, or better, having a senior die is a good way of balancing the books.

Make no mistake, this is going to be expensive.  Once the sticker shock sets in, government plans will have to find a way to spread the costs.  Enter MANDATORY participation.  If you object to getting in the pool, they throw you in.  They need you to help spread the costs.  First it will be how much you are going to pay.  Later, they will start telling you how to live to control costs.  And this time they will have to. This is shaping up to be the mother of all pyramids, dwarfing Medicare and Social Security.

So to cut to the chase, we are no longer talking about "health insurance" that is a mechanism to insure against the risk of large medical costs that might wipe a person out with the insurance industry assessing risk.  Instead this will be another system of put and take, with the total risk pool thrown into one large hopper. So the question is, “After throwing everyone into the same pool, what is the cost?”

Lets assume that a unit of standard care (use Medicare as the base line) the industry offers to the general healthy public costs some amount of money.  Say $1 per unit. The industry and government both know what it costs by occupation, by age group, or collectively as a whole.  OK, that is the standard unit.  Now include all the extras, like pre-existing conditions, etc.   Is it now $4 or $5 per unit? So be it.  It is what it is. Are you going to include illegals?  You can say they will have to pay to participate but if you put a low earnings threshold, that is tantamount to free health care for illegals and anyone else.

So be honest about it. Put the numbers out there for all to see and then make the call.

Howard Audsley

WANT TO RUMBLE?

Let us take a short break from politics and speak of something more pleasant.

Last June three old friends and I took an eight day motorcycle tour of the Oregon Coast.  To say we had fun is a gross understatement.  I am organizing a run next year through a little traveled portion of Northern California. This will be a leisurely putt for no more than seven or eight old (ancient?) farts sixty and older.

The run will consist of easy 2-300 mile days over well maintained “Blue” highways with short stretches on the superslab no dirt or gravel. Each day we are in the saddle around 0730-0800, breakfast and lunch on the road.  After a scenic and gentle run we park the bikes around 1600-1700 at an upscale accommodation and walk to a fine dinner at a restaurant with a full bar.   This is no “Iron Butt” event.  No, this is tailored to the “geezer glide” set.  All bikes and trikes are welcome.  (I ride a 2004 Road King Classic.)

This will be a stag event so send the wife or girlfriend (or both) to the spa for a week.

We will stay at comfortable, upscale hotels or motels within walking distance of good restaurants with full bars.  There will be no camping or sleeping on picnic tables.

Now, I know what most of you guys are thinking, “Man that sure would be a hoot and I have the money and health but I’m too old, the wife, kids, grandkids, would never let me.”  In reality even if you are healthy 60+ and have never even ridden a bike it is more than possible to take MSF course, buy a bike and be perfectly comfortable on this adventure.

I have a very tentative itinerary that is guaranteed to change before we leave.  Anyone interested?  Leave a comment. 

 

Let them drink tea

I emailed the following to teaparty@centralvalleyteaparty.com today about noon eastern time:
Watched Sean Hannity’s TV show last week from Huron, California.  He’s been beating YOUR drum about the gum’mint’s shutting off YOUR water to the San Joaquin Valley.  As I watched, I kept growing more and more angry.  I was angry at YOUR congressmen who talked about all their efforts to turn on the pumps.  I was angry at YOUR governor who talked about all his efforts to turn on the pumps. Didn’t he play tough guys in the movies?  Wasn’t he once called Europe’s strongest man? Didn’t he win something like 900 Mr. Olympia titles?  Or is he more like the characters he played in such forgettable films as ‘Twins’?  But I was most upset at the sight of thousands of healthy men whining to the gum’mint to please, please, please, be nice to us.

The current gum’mint of OUR nation cares nothing about YOUR plight other than to exploit it for their own self-interests: subjecting WE the people and forcing us all to suck on them for our nourishment, that and caving to foreign dictators and terrorists. I was hollering at the TV for you all to FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!  When a rapist attacks should we just lie back and enjoy it hoping he won’t kill us, or should we do all we can to scratch his eyes out?  Are we to go gently into the good night of what was once the greatest nation in the history of the world until it caught a bad case of the kommie flu?  Come on folks, the gum’mint has you exactly where it wants you and you act like a herd of mewing sheep following the judas goats you elected into the slaughter pens.  Remember what happened to Christ on the Cross when He told gum'mint that He was thirsty?

Cass Sunstein currently is the Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  His appointment was confirmed by the senate.  He believes that animals should have court appointed attorneys and be allowed to sue people in OUR courts.  Do you really think that a gum'mint which has placed this clown in any position of responsibility cares one twit about mere human beings when a pizza topping is at risk?

The policies of out-of-control gum’mint are pretty much raping YOUR incredibly fertile valley, which only needs water to thrive.  A quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin is, "God helps those who help themselves." In order to help ourselves, we must take this matter into our own hands.  You all should have a Tea Party at the Pumps.

Use Hannity to get the word out and invite tea partiers from throughout OUR nation to gather.  Ask us to bring chain cutters and welding torches.  If the gum’mint has not restored YOUR water by a given deadline, we must do so ourselves.  Party at the pumps!  Dare the gum’mint to stop us.  Turn the water back on ourselves if need be.  The time for yackity-yack is over.  We must take back OUR country from the kommie-czars determined to enslave us and our posterity.

I suggest you hold this party on November 4 as that is the anniversary of the worst mistake OUR nation ever made; however, I do not live there, so I am open to whatever date you all choose.  But we do have to draw a line in the dust and the time for words was yesterday.

Invite us and we will come!

Gill O'Teen

Indoctrination in Our Schools

Maybe you thought I put too much emphasis on conservatives and libertarians cooperating on some sort of education initiative at the end of my recent seemingly endless treatise. Well check this article out - Elementary School Students Reportedly Taught Songs Praising President Obama. There was a similar incident in a private home in California. As far as I know they aren’t yet calling Obama the Dear Leader but that is the only upside. This sort of indoctrination is going on to a greater or lesser degree all over the country.

I can honestly say that when I was in grade school and high school I had no idea what the political beliefs or affiliations of my teachers were. That’s how it should be. Even in college it was less obvious than it is now where even technical courses are politicized. This nonsense has got to stop or this Republic is doomed! We are running out of daylight!

Quote for the day

 Who is the very famous author of this quote:

"No morn ever dawned more favorable than ours did; and no day was every more clouded than the present! Wisdom, and good examples are necessary at this time to rescue the political machine from the impending storm."

Can Conservatives and Libertarians Form a Coalition to Save the Constitution? – Part VI

A Libertarian Conservative Coalition?

Before I end this series with some practical bottom line suggestions for cooperation between libertarians and conservatives I thought I would provide some thoughts from a conservative friend I often correspond with.

Part of the problem libertarians face in working with conservatives comes from our legitimate idea that civil society needs to handle many of the things that government now purports to control, maintain, and underwrite. Libertarians usually wish to go a little further in that direction than conservatives. But unfortunately for libertarians civil society is on shaky ground these days.

This particular conservative friend of mine has a theory about what made the U.S. a great country and powerful defender of constitutional government. He calls it the Four Pillars theory. "They are Our Republican Democracy, Our Capitalist system, Our historical reliance on Christian Principles, and the physical safety afforded by our Ocean Borders."

He contends that civil society as we know it and more importantly my ideal governmental institution, i.e. classical constitutional democratic republican government cannot function without all of them interacting in a reinforcing manner. I tend to agree although our ocean borders will have to be replaced by military high technology.

He had a comment about the scope and reflections of this series of posts and suggested that I add something about the special nature of the Constitution which I tried to do in Part II.

He also indicated that liberals and many others think that just because something is a “good idea” the Federal Government somehow needs to pass a law about it with little thought as to whether the Constitution would actually allow it without an amendment and with even less thought about the true purpose and nature of the document. This of course is a pernicious result of the “living” document concept.

He pointed out that people like Hamilton didn’t want a bill of rights. Not because Hamilton didn’t believe in rights but because our rights were in effect axiomatic and a legitimate government could only be instituted by people with rights, i.e. rights came first and then government. His specific observations were:

They actually are righteous in their belief that the way to ensure that
everyone behaves properly is to legislate it, forgetting that it was the people
(i.e. founders) that defined the extent of the government duties and
obligations, not the other way around.

Hamilton was emphatic about that. In effect, he recognized that if we were to have a “contractual” relationship with our government; that is that we agree to allow the government to “manage” our lives in exchange for certain rights and privileges, then (like in all contracts) there would need to be a negotiation, or an arbitration to settle arguments over which rights the people actually have or to make changes. Instead, he proffered that it was necessary that we keep the Constitution as a document that only defines the obligations of the Federal government, all else being left to the
people.

It was the people; he said that gave the government rights specifically formulated and defined by the various states. He wanted no Bill of Rights, considering them unnecessary since, in the Constitution, “the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations." He likened them to political arrangements between sovereigns and subjects, where the people would wind up depending on the government to define their rights. He wanted it kept the other way around and warned against stipulations defining the people’s rights like those between kings and their subjects. The arguments between the federalists and the anti-federalists are legendary and make and interesting study, especially as we
now look back on 225 years of subsequent practice.

Whether you agree on the exact number of "pillars" one thing should be clear the social, economic, and moral strengths that supported our democratic republican constitutional system have been under attack for many years.

It seems to me that only a very few citizens have any concept at all regarding issues like the above that were debated when the Constitution was written. Yet this and other important issues were central to the reason the document was created in the first place.

What is important to understand is that in the view of the Founders legitimate governments protect the rights of their citizens but they are not the source of those rights which are natural or God given. This is the founding principle and philosophy behind our republic. Just because we haven’t always lived up to that principle does not change the fact that no other nation on earth was founded on such a profound and radical idea.

I have to believe that both libertarians and conservatives would agree that it is very important for our education system to cover these ideas in an unbiased manner. We allow all sorts of people inside and outside of our education system to offer their “considered” opinions on the Constitution and its meaning while providing almost no information on the ideas of the people who wrote it.

One of our key problems is that the moral integrity and the willingness to defend our socioeconomic system that was underwritten by our Judeo-Christian heritage are in massive disrepair and are constantly assaulted by the mainstream media and our education system which has become nothing more than a socialist propaganda mechanism for leftists. Yes, there were secular philosophers that contributed much and informed citizens should know about them but there is no denying the importance of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

Although I was raised as a Christian, today I probably would best be described as a deist not an atheist but not a devout follower of any organized religion either. Yet I acknowledge this moral heritage because it is an important fact and is part of the moral underpinnings of our laws. The idea that we are on the verge of becoming a theocracy is cultural Marxist propaganda. The only theocracies today are Islamic states.

Furthermore it is important to teach the truth. The U.S. is not a perfect nation but on balance it has done many more good things than bad. It is important that all citizens understand this especially the young ones. In U.S. schools today it seems to me that what is taught is not American history but negative American history. This will be a long difficult fight and the outcome is decidedly uncertain.

Two Sets of Suggestions:

Now here are my suggestions for practical cooperation between libertarians and conservatives in two critical areas.

Direct Political Cooperation:

1. We should support only those politicians who show a clear understanding of constitutional issues and who are against the “living” document concept and the misuse of the phrase “general welfare”. In fact it might be a good idea to demand an amendment to the Constitution that requires every elected federal official to make a statement in writing describing his understanding of the Constitution and its purpose. That means they would actually have to read it!
   
2. We should support only politicians who show a clear understanding of economic issues and are against profligate government spending and understand that we need a strong and stable currency backed by more than hot air from folks like Timothy Geithner and Ben Bernanke.
   
3. We should support only politicians who indicate a genuine commitment to reducing the size of the federal government and who will demand that any new initiatives introduced in Congress be specifically authorized by the Constitution.
   
   Any such new initiatives not authorized must be implemented only by an amendment to the document. That also means ending actual departments and moving back toward what is actually allowed by the Constitution. The departments of Education and Commerce come to mind immediately. They are just not needed. Other things will either be phased out or we will agree on an amendment. This will be a very long and contentious process.
   
4. We should support only those politicians who are willing to scrap our current Byzantine tax system, and add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Whether you favor consumption taxes like the FairTax or a flat income tax let’s make it clear the status quo won’t cut it any longer.
   
5. We should endeavor to convince all libertarians and conservatives to work together at all levels to strengthen the Constitution and to agree to leave contentious issues between them in abeyance until we have restored the Republic.

Here is an example of what I am talking about. Consider a conservative who meets all the constitutional philosophy criteria but is in favor of strict drug laws. If he has the best chance to beat a collectivist in an election, libertarians should vote for him and support his campaign. Another example would be a Libertarian or libertarian Republican who is not happy with our large oversees military commitment. Ron Paul and Peter Schiff come to mind. Conservatives should vote for them and support them because they are committed to limited constitutional government.

Educational Cooperation:

1. We should support school vouchers. It isn’t a panacea but it will help break the hold of the cultural Marxists on our education system.
   
2. We should support the right of parents to home school their children and demand reasonable rules for this activity. We can’t let the unions, politicians and government bureaucrats throw up unreasonable roadblocks.
   
3. Knowing that we will get no help from the education establishment we should encourage all conservative and libertarian institutes like Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, etc. via e-mails and other means to launch a joint educational effort to teach as many citizens as possible about the Constitution and its founding principles and about basic market economics.
   
   All of these institutes have some educational outreach programs but we need an all out coordinated effort to reach lots of folks. Maybe it should take the form of a joint foundation. We should make sure that we indicate that we will financially support such an effort. How this is done is best left to the experts. Maybe it can be done by a combination of TV, Internet, town hall type meetings, free formal classes, etc. Maybe 30 minute TV ads every day for the next 3 years is the answer! Maybe prizes or scholarships for students that write the best explanations of documents like the Federalist Papers would help. I just don’t know.
   
4. We should write, call and e-mail your representatives in Congress to introduce a bill that would require every person entering government service to complete a course on the Constitution and the Founders basic view of this document as part of their training. If they are going to swear to support and defend this document against all enemies foreign and domestic, they should at least know what it says and have some understanding of the basic ideas behind its creation.

When it comes to the area of education we have to break the stranglehold of the cultural Marxists. That will take money and a long term commitment. I believe that if we don’t do that any political gains will only be brief holding actions. People will not support ideas they do not understand or have been indoctrinated to believe come from 18th century tedious treatises of no value in the modern world. The Constitution and the philosophy of the Founders must to be part of the education of American youth either in the regular educational system or outside of it.

Let's Agree to Disagree on Certain Issues

Disagreements between libertarians and conservatives are important but surely a commitment to make real progress on limited government defined by the Constitution and the principles upon which it is based has to be the highest priority. If we cannot make progress toward that goal, how can we expect any progress on other less important issues? I am convinced that if we don’t do this the collectivists will win.

Conservatives may not always agree with libertarians. But there is one thing they can count on from all libertarians (large or small L). If there is something libertarians really think the federal government should take on or some change is required in our government that isn’t explicitly allowed by the Constitution they will try to convince 2/3rds of the Congress and 3/4ths of the state legislatures to support it. If they can’t do that then they will accept the fact that as Mick Jagger said in 1969: “You can’t always get what you want.” They won’t try some weasel like maneuver to circumvent the Constitution a la the collectivists and their “living” document make it up as you go along strategy.

The “living” document concept has caused incalculable harm to this republic. It has in effect without the consent of the governed transferred the power that the Constitution declared as being automatically in the hands of the citizens of this country (see my conservative friend’s comments on Alexander Hamilton above) to its politicians and government bureaucrats. I think the “living” document concept is a canard and unmitigated sophistry. Think hard about it and see if you agree.

So what would be the best outcome of all this verbiage? I can’t speak for anyone else but for me it would be this. Someone will read this series of posts or just some of them and pass some ideas along or just talk to others about these issues. More people will think about the issues, come up with more or better ideas and just maybe somebody like Newt Gingrich will say: “Yeah, I can do something about this political situation and this education problem. I’ll just sit down with guys like Dick Armey, Bob Barr, Ron Paul, John Cornyn, Mike Pence, Jim DeMint, some folks at Heritage, Cato, NRO, Townhall.com, etc. and get things rolling.”

Then I can go back to being a techie, building web sites and web stores and burying myself in database and software manuals secure in the knowledge that the Constitution will be safe at least for a while anyway.

Respected Friends?

On a recent broadcast of MSNBC’s Hardball, host Chris Matthews was chatting with historian Douglas Brinkley. He noted that Brinkley’s book ,"Teddy Roosevelt: the Wilderness Warrior", was #21 on the New York Times best seller list, and then he could not resist getting in this dig:  "There’s so much right-wing crap on the best seller list these days. It’s great to see a book that you might want to put on your shelf and let your respected friends see you actually reading."

By Matthews’ definition, a "respected friend" is obviously someone who has swallowed the liberal bait and doesn’t want to even consider that there might be another view. He fails to grasp an important fact: The reason that his so-called "right-wing crap" tops the list is that many more people are buying it. In harder times, people tend to vote with their wallet; they buy those things they really believe are necessary. It’s a fact that far more literature from the conservative side is being sold in these difficult days, and that seems to defy the percentages seen in last year’s election. It may mean that many people are regretting their vote in light of the Obama administration’s hard left turn in policy and huge increases in spending.

Chris - The tingle you feel running down your leg might just be a spasm of guilt.

--Tom Wells 9/20/09

Can Conservatives and Libertarians Form a Coalition to Save the Constitution? – Part V

Another Difficult Issue – Immigration

First let’s talk about immigration in general. Most people think it should be handled in an orderly way via reasonable laws. I think the radical open border folks are a small minority. They are people who essentially don’t believe in nation states and favor some sort of world government. BTW that is a typical Marxist view of the world.

Libertarians do view immigration favorably, maybe too much so now that we have over 300 million inhabitants in the U. S. They are often accused of being open border supporters by conservatives who are more likely to be concerned about immigration. I can assure you, however, libertarians do believe in the concept of nation states. Unless the U. N. adopted wholeheartedly the limited government philosophy of the Founders of this country and a carbon copy of the U. S. Constitution libertarians would not be remotely interested in even contemplating world government. That isn’t likely with an institution as corrupt as the U. N. with its plethora of factions that do not believe in democracy let alone limited democratic republics.

Immigration is one area where I personally disagree with the Libertarian Party. They are too cavalier regarding this issue. Milton Friedman a libertarian economist pointed out that you can't have a liberal immigration policy and a welfare state. The welfare state has to be dismantled first. Libertarians sometimes forget that Friedman admonishment.

There are of course business people who see immigrants as cheap labor and helpful to their bottom line. Many of these business people hold mostly conservative views on other issues. The collectivists see them as potential voters who will support socialist policies. It’s a complex issue with many viewpoints some of which are very dangerous to the survival of this nation state.

I think we all understand that unrestricted immigration is a national security, economic, and cultural (assimilation) problem. All of us need to understand the practical limits of immigration.

It is also a problem of sheer numbers. Yes, the ideas of Thomas Malthus did not play out as he envisioned them due to the march of technology. However, there really is a practical upper limit on the number of people in a given geographic area. Because it is something that doesn’t get talked about very much let’s now consider that one issue in detail.

Immigration Has Mathematical Limits

There is the matter of the exponential mathematics involved with large influxes of people many of whom have high birth rates at least in the first few generations. Growth and decline in the population of any species is an exponential function. The U.S. now has 300 million plus human inhabitants. Is 500 million OK? 700 million? More?

The problem with exponential growth is that it can sneak up on you. If Pn = P0 * (1 + r)**n where P0 is some starting population, Pn is the population after n years, and r is the growth rate you can creep up on the “knee” of the curve and then suddenly be overwhelmed. This is possible even if r isn’t particularly large. It just takes longer to reach the “knee”. Here is an example of an exponential curve.

Here is a numerical example. If you assume that the growth rate r is 0.02 (2%) and you start with 300 million folks in 25 years you will have 492 million, an increase of 192 million between year 1 and 25. However after 50 years you will have 807 million, an increase of 315 million between year 25 and 50. Between year 50 and 75 the population would jump by 518 million to over 1.3 billion! It just continues to get exponentially worse until something bad happens.

It strikes me as ironic that maybe current economic policies will be that something. No one will want to come to a bankrupt United States. If our current third world banana republic economic policies result in much lower immigration or the opposite emigration it’s a hell of a price to pay to attain manageable population growth! Or as Dirty Harry said “That’s a hell of a price to pay for being stylish.”

If we disregard emigration, the only way this constant increase can change for a given indigenous population is if your growth rate is negative, i.e. there are more deaths than births. You then have a population decreasing exponentially. Emigration of course would accelerate the decline especially if the émigrés were mostly young. This by the way is what is happening with the indigenous populations of Europe and Russia which brings its own set of problems.

There seems to be one possible exception to an increase vs. decrease scenario. Some societies that have a robust economy where the middle class is pretty large seem to be able to stabilize around replacement, i.e. zero growth (r = 0). Our native born population in the U. S. is at about replacement. Japan on the other hand doesn’t seem to have been able to achieve this. The only reason the U.S. and European populations are increasing is because of immigration. In the U. S. the influx comes mostly from south of the border. In Europe it comes from North Africa, the Middle East and Asian countries like Pakistan.

The manner in which populations grow or contract is simple irrefutable mathematics.
Because we have an advanced high tech economic system which includes a high tech agricultural system we have avoided the dire Malthusian predictions. But the objective of this little exercise is to show that at some point we will still reach limits. Those limits are not unimportant.

Yes, we like to think of our country as welcoming immigrants but there are these damn facts that can’t be ignored. You can’t stuff everyone on the planet into North America. Some folks from certain cultures may not assimilate well. Some folks coming into this country may be terrorists. Some immigrants may not have the skill to live and work in an advanced economic system without financial support from the state.

The Bottom Line

OK, why did I bother to explain these points of contention in detail in posts III through V? I think they are the main reasons why cooperation between libertarians and conservatives is often lacking. I wanted to be honest and not ignore the contentious issues. If we gloss over the differences between conservatives and libertarians we will have at best only temporary cooperation and the collectivists will win with their main weapon, cultural Marxism. Keep reminding yourself that collectivists control most of the media, most of the education system and now most of the state and federal governments. Get complacent and you are done and they win.

Conservatives should not underestimate the number of people who are outright libertarians or hold at least some libertarian ideas. A coalition is worth pursuing. My last post in this series will be on the two areas where long term cooperation is vital. One is obviously political cooperation. The other is in the area of education. That’s a tough one since that is a game where the collectivists especially the cultural Marxist variety now hold almost all the high value cards.