I never thought I would be tempted to leave America. But, with the developments of the past 5 years, the Progressivization of America, the election–and re-election–of a man who has no business being anywhere near the White House for any reason, much less for the fact that his election was secured simply because skin is black, and the prospect of being weighed down by debts impossible to bear or pay off, I have begun to think some place of refuge may be in order.
Continue reading »
Continue reading »
The ever erudite conservative commentator P.J. O’Rourke wrote,
“Collectivism doesn’t work because it’s based on a faulty economic premise. There is no such thing as a person’s ‘fair share’ of wealth. The gross national product is not a pizza that must be carefully divided because if I get too many slices, you have to eat the box. The economy is expandable and, in any practical sense, limitless.” — P. J. O’Rourke
O’Rourke’s comment is right on. The primary difference between collectivists of any stripe and those who favor a free market is whether they believe (or admit) that the economy can be expanded.
The collectivist belief that the economy is a zero-sum game always leads to some form of deprivation. At first, it may be only deprivation of a given commodity; if there are 1,000 loaves of bread available, but 1,500 people who want it, obviously some are going to have to go without. This is a microcosm of the larger economy, e.g. where there is a limited amount of resources, some people may get more than others.
Continue reading »
Continue reading »
The Tea Party Protesters are ritualistically labeled as “angry,” “racist,” “hateful,” or “violent.” Here is some video of these “dangerous” tea partiers being interviewed by a liberal blogger. Not only does the blogger have no problem navigating his way through the conservative crowd, he is treated respectfully and without rancor.
Continue reading »
Continue reading »
Not according to Rep. John Dingle (D-MI):
“Let me remind you this [Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal health care] has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 [million] American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”
If the Left were ever honest about their aims, they wouldn’t be enjoying the “success” they now are. The way to successfully deal with them is to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt. Wise Conservatives will be best served by thinking the worst of their Liberal and Progressive opponents–they always want control, they always will renege on deals, they always will be dishonest, they always will not care what Conservatives think, and they will never allow themselves to be constrained by laws, rules or agreements. Don’t believe me? Read “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. If you have read it and you still don’t believe me, you haven’t been paying attention.
If Conservatives will consistently deal with Progressives with these assumptions in mind, they will be better able to proactively counter Progressive weaseling and prevent the damage caused by Progressive policies.
Sunday’s socialist uprising was only possible because of 100 years of steady Progressive plotting and conspiring. If the Republicans and Conservatives had recognized the truth about their opponents and acted on Reagan’s instincts 20 years ago, we would not now be looking at 10 years of repeal attempts just to get back 40 percent of what was lost on Sunday.
h/t Peter Barry Chowka at AmericanThinker
Remember how irresponsible the Liberals said George W. Bush was for spending money on Iraq when the economy was in such bad shape, by their reckoning?
Well, he doesn’t hold a candle to Obama’s spendfest in the face of the single largest one-year drop in tax revenues since the Great Depression.
At this rate, Social Security is on track to collapse by 2037, earlier than previous estimates.
I originally wrote this in July of 2004, but as gay marriage was adopted in New Hampshire this week, I thought it appropriate to update it.
In New Hampshire’s case, the law was created by the state legislature. In California, the issue was a little different. Proposition 22 prevented the state from recognizing gay marriages. But the California State Supreme Court overturned the initiative on the grounds that marriage is a “fundamental right,” and the people can not abrogate a right through a ballot initiative. The result was Proposition 8, which amended the California State Constitution:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.
The passage of Proposition 8 was followed by immediate legal challenges in the California Supreme Court, which ultimately overturned its own position on gay marriage.
Massachusetts is yet a different story. The Supreme Court of Massachusetts created law out of whole cloth, and then ordered the state legislature to pass the law, recognizing gay marriage in that state, and completely dismantling any semblance of the balance of powers.
People are frustrated at being dictated to by a handful of social engineers in black robes. Many arguments have been put forward opposing gay marriage. The consequences of legalization are the focus of this column.
Gay marriage will have consequences that may or may not be expected. We have not even begun to discuss all the potentialities that will spring from it. Wisdom requires any possibility be addressed and resolved to prevent rushing to action unprepared for the results.
While studying Rights, Social Justice and Equality, I ran across a column by Dr. Stephen Baskerville entitled, “Could your kids be given to gay parents?” It catalyzed everything that I was thinking and inspired this column. Dr. Baskerville has since expanded on his initial idea in an essay called The Real Danger of Same-Sex Marriage, which is included in Preserving Sacred Ground, published by Utah’s Sutherland Institute.
I believe that gay marriage is a direct threat to traditional families, in that, the children of traditional families may be in danger of government seizure in the name of fairness, and redistributed to same-sex couples.
Nonsense, right? Wrong. The current trend toward a society based on Social Justice is rapidly becoming a reality. The ideas of self-government and responsibility are fading, and independence is seen as anti-social. Our system of government will soon be so radically different from that established by the Constitution as to earn classification as a new species of government.
What is Social Justice? The idea comes from the slogan of the French Revolution of 1789, “Égalité, Liberté, Fraternité.” Égalité is what concerns me, because it is the principle behind Social Justice.
“Égalité” is often defined as equality, but the English word “egality” also appears in the dictionary. Not only are the two words different, they mean different things. Balint Vazsonyi writes in his book America’s 30 Years War,
“Note that I translate the French slogan ‘Égalité’ as ‘Egality,’ and not as ‘Equality.’ Webster’s Dictionary tells us that egality is ‘an extreme social and political leveling.’ Our word ‘egalitarian’ confirms that definition. The process of leveling is worlds apart from equality in the affairs of man, which was the aspiration of the Round Table….
“Egality is the elimination of differences. Since people are different, only force can cover up the differences, and then only temporarily. Once force is no longer applied, the differences reappear….”
Equality comprehends the natural differences between people, and creates laws designed to protect people from harm arising out of their differences. Equality means that everyone has equal claims on the government for the protection of their rights.
Social Justice is the application of the principle of “Egality” to society. The natural differences between people are stark; yet some insist there should be no differences at all. Mr. Vazsonyi correctly says that the only way to achieve social equality is by force. The elimination of differences will not arise out of a voluntary motion of the people. Laws designed to eliminate differences are enacted to coerce the desired result.
An example of this principle in our society is Affirmative Action. The law tries to eliminate racial differences between applicants for jobs, college entrance, etc., but has now created a new target for discrimination, white males. Other examples are Social Security, and welfare benefits including food stamps, subsidized housing, and health care.
How do these laws resolve economic differences? The force of government is applied to take from those who appear to have and give to those who appear to have not. This redistribution has generally resulted in an economic reshuffling of wealth, but laws like Affirmative Action have social consequences as well.
Social Justice demands not only equal rights, but also equal things. The rich are taxed to feed the poor, provide housing and health care, and a host of other statist welfare benefits. No person should have any rights or possessions that exceed that of another person. The final solution of Social Justice is to distribute the enjoyment of rights and wealth to everyone equally. Any perception of inequality among individuals must be eliminated.
Which brings us back to gay marriage. Gay unions are, by nature, childless unions. It is physically impossible for two men or two women to produce a child through sexual contact. While most of us say, “of course,” there are those who find inequality in it. And inequality must be eliminated.
Dr. Baskerville’s column quotes Massachusetts State Senator Therese Murphy as saying, “Forty percent of the children adopted have gone to gay and lesbian families” despite the fact that gays are only about 3 percent of the population. Does 40% reflect the percentage of adoption applications filed in Massachusetts by same-sex couples, or are same-sex couples favored for adoption?
Studies show that children reared by same-sex couples are three to four times as likely to become gay or lesbian themselves, as compared to their counterparts raised in traditional families1. There is no rationale for placing 40% of adoptive children with less than 3% of the population, unless there is another agenda being played out.
If gay couples have the right to marry, then they also have the right to have children. Artificial insemination, or IUI, is one of the methods used by lesbian couples, but its success rate is still only 5 to 25 percent. And it will never work for men.
The passage of the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 allows for financial incentives for state social workers to remove children from homes, and provides additional bonuses for adoptions. This Act has created an official adoption market of children, legally stolen from their families by Child Protective Service agents, with or without just cause. It also provides a perfect vehicle for child redistribution.
Government has attempted to equalize people economically through redistribution of income. It has attempted to equalize people socially through race-based legislation. The next step is to equalize sexuality by legalizing gay marriage. Following that, I believe there will be an attempt to equalize families and eliminate any natural inequality between gay and heterosexual marriages.
Most of the necessary pieces are already in place to pave the way for Child Redistribution and the destruction of the traditional family. All that remains is national acceptance and broad legalization of gay marriage.
1 F. L. Tasker and S. Golombok, “Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families,” American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 65, 2 (1995): 213
From my friend, David Kirkham:
Why I Organized Utah’s First Tea Party on March 6, 2009.
14 years ago the world was an exciting place–the Berlin Wall had fallen; Russia was imploding; and her satellite countries were throwing off the bonds of long, dark years of political and economic oppression. My brother and I found ourselves looking at a relic of the Cold War–an old fighter airplane made at a factory in Poland that was desperate for work. My brother turned to me and said, “These guys could make an aluminum-bodied Cobra!” Captivated by this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, I packed my bags and left BYU and my dreams of medical school behind. I landed in Poland, with a toy model of a 1965 Ford Cobra, a Polish-English dictionary, and a new dream.
There, I wandered through an enormous aircraft factory which produced 3 MiG’s/day at the height of the Cold War. Times were tough and where 60,000 men and women once worked, only 24,000 remained. Day after day I walked past somber lathe and mill operators who stood motionless behind a thousand silent machines–waiting for someone, anyone, to give them work. The lights were turned off–because the Polish government could no longer afford to keep them on, even in their own defense industries.
I saw the worry of an uncertain future etched across the countenances of those craftsmen–whose faces were worn with far more years than they had passed on this earth. In time, my mother joined me on trips to Poland–only to be routinely mistaken as my wife. What a startling condemnation of the trials of life women in Poland endured under socialist rule.
We were at the factory in Poland the day over 20,000 of those remaining 24,000 men and women were turned out into the cold–in a city of 100,000. We watched as displaced workers haltingly mounted their bikes and wearily pedaled home–only to be greeted by anxious families and haunting memories of the not-distant-enough specter of food rationing. The bailouts were bankrupt. The once thunderous skies over the “People’s Aircraft Factory” were still.
Under these conditions, workers at the factory regularly stuffed their pockets with anything they dared. When you inevitably saw them stealing, they would simply laugh, point to the sign on the door, and exclaim, “People’s Aircraft Factory; I’m ‘People’ too.” Even today, doctors are routinely bribed to treat the simplest of conditions or to “certify” a worker is sick so they can defraud their employers and the government of social benefits. Bureaucrats endlessly blackmail companies with threats of lengthy audits in exchange for hefty bribes. Socialism breeds an egalitarian society of misery by debasing everyone to the lowest common denominator–criminal.
To get out of their hole, the Poles booted Socialism and set up a Special Economic Zone at that old MiG factory. They slashed taxes and offered land and buildings for sale. We bought some buildings, we bought some silent machinery, we bought some land; but, most importantly, we hired some of those anxious men and women.
Republicans and Democrats, like the Roman Senate of old, promise bread and circuses as they loot the productive by taxing our children without representation. The recent bailouts and spending bills–polluted by the toxic brew of arrogance and lard–extinguish hope and change our economic freedom for a pot of porridge. Personal responsibility is humiliated in exchange for the pompous promise the government will pay our defaulted mortgages and fill our empty gas tanks. I utterly reject these arguments. I have seen the disease of wealth destruction–masquerading as wealth redistribution–metastasize into trickle-down despair. Private investment pried open doors governments had long shielded from the sanitizing light of day and triumphed where untold billions in bailouts had long been lavished on the rat-hole of squander. As we created jobs in Poland and Utah, a factory of war was beaten into plowshares.
Why did I organize Utah’s first Tea Party? My brother and I have navigated the ashes of socialism for 14 years at our factory in Poland. We know the predictable consequences of callous governmental control–along with its cruel effects on every day workers and their families. When I read about the nascent Tea Parties on www.instapundit.com I resolved to leave my dream of building cars behind to stand against the madness–long before “right-wing billionaires and Fox News” were interested. I have seen the end of the dark road of socialism. I do not want my children to grow up in a society which tatters the moral fabric of the soul into the impoverished rags of a beggar–or to labor in a world where the only profitable investment is a campaign contribution.
Will our children struggle from a hole with the odious chains of financial bondage Congress yokes upon them, or will our children be free to dream as I did with my brother? How much longer can Congress borrow money before we too are forced to turn out the lights? Who then will walk into our own darkened factories? What dreams will they bring?
The first thing you do when you find yourself in a hole is quit digging. Mr. Obama–put down that shovel.
David Kirkham is the organizer behind most of Utah’s Tea Parties. He sent this in an email today.
“At a moment like this, the last thing we can afford is four more years of the tired, worn-out, old theory that…prosperity trickles down…” –Barak Obama
Sadly, we now know President Obama meant it when he embarked on the path of the greatest wealth destruction in history.
I have witnessed the cruel consequences of callous governmental control across the world and its devastating effects on every day workers and their families. As a young missionary for the Mormon Church in Peru I witnessed many things I care not to remember…only now I feel I must recount them to serve as a warning to the ever increasing governmental intrusion into our lives.
Peru is a desperately poor country. I served among the poorest people who lived in crowded slums which smelled like a mixture of the sewer and the dump–because there were no facilities for either. Living conditions were abysmal. Day after day throngs of desperate men waited in the town square hoping someone would give them a dollar or two for a day of back-breaking labor. To “control” food prices, the government instituted price controls–snitching neighbors ensured compliance.
I vividly remember walking through the Peruvian market places and seeing the bright blue and red labeling on bags of rice, “USDA, For Food Assistance Programs Only, Not for Sale.” The poor built their homes by mixing adobe bricks with their bare feet in the stifling heat–with water carried in from town on their backs. Many sold a day’s toil for a day’s worth of USDA donated rice and oil. Astonishingly, I witnessed entire containers of donated USDA Food Aid left to rot on the docks as no one would pay the required bribes to the local officials to unload the containers–all while children nearby went hungry.
One day we met a man who was ecstatic he had been able to purchase some empty 5 gallon USDA oil cans to make a door for his home. Seeing his plight, I offered to help him build his door. We gathered the ubiquitous beer bottle caps from the ground, then drove a used nail through the bottle cap. The bottle cap then served as a crude washer–to help prevent the can from tearing off the nail as ever present thieves tried to steal what meager belongings were inside the home. I pried open those USDA oil cans, flattened them out, and used a rock to nail those cans to a crude wooden frame so that man could have a door on his home. I will never forget the welcome sign on that humble man’s door: “USDA, For Food Assistance Programs Only…Not For Sale.”
Did fixed prices and massive governmental intrusion lift those destitute people from their despair? No, it didn’t. I know, for I lived and worked among those suffering people. I came to realize the government was not the answer to our problems. I came to believe, we don’t need the government to take care of us; we need to take care of each other.
Ironically, the “tired, worn-out, old theory” of trickle-down-economics is actually quite new. It was born when 56 men signed the Declaration of Independence and then defended it with their blood. They boldly proclaimed to the world they were free to produce, free to give, free to pursue their own happiness, and free from the confiscation of their wealth by looters and tyrants.
The old, bankrupt theory here is Obama’s. For thousands of years kings and rulers have looted their subjects. Then, the productive hid their greatest wealth–their minds–from the asphyxiating greed of those in power; thus, impoverishing all and creating a stagnate world of despair. Poverty will never be banished by turning everyone into beggars. I have seen the disease of wealth destruction–masquerading as wealth redistribution; it inevitably metastasizes into trickle-down despair.
Socialism is argued by some to be a means for providing for everyone. How’s that working out for the people of Peru? In a recent debate, questions like this were answered with, “That’s not Socialism.” Yeah, it’s only Socialism if it works. Since it hasn’t ever worked, we can keep holding out the idyllic, Utopian vision without ever having to account for any failures.
Steve Milloy’s Green Hell Blog has this post today, on the recently revised policies of the World Health Organization (WHO) regarding the use of DDT.
The WHO Summary Document seems to be self-contradicting. The document states that Malaria causes 1 million deaths per year, and children are 3/4 of those cases. Malaria also imposes heavy economic burdens in terms of costs of treatment and prevention and lost productivity.
Then the WHO document says that spraying with DDT is “highly effective” at controlling Malaria. So if it is highly effective at controlling Malaria, why discontinue its use?
According to WHO, DDT “is potentially harmful to wildlife and to humans, if not applied in accordance with WHO guidelines and recommendations.” In other words, it isn’t harmful. The guidelines of the WHO for the use of DDT are basic common sense.
The document lists as potential effects of DDT as “childhood neurodevelopment, breast cancer in women, male reproductive health (reduced sperm counts and quality) and to diabetes.” At least some of these claims have already been debunked (e.g., sperm count and breast cancer claims).
Remember, these claims deal with potential harm–not documented, conclusive proof of harm. On the other hand, Malaria is a proven killer, and DDT is proven to control Malaria. Why is this even being debated?
I’ll address this question in a later post.
The Wall Street Journal published this story today:
In 2006, after 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, the World Health Organization reversed course and endorsed widespread use of the insecticide DDT to combat malaria. So much for that. Earlier this month, the U.N. agency quietly reverted to promoting less effective methods for attacking the disease. The result is a victory for politics over public health, and millions of the world’s poor will suffer as a result.
The U.N. now plans to advocate for drastic reductions in the use of DDT, which kills or repels the mosquitoes that spread malaria. The aim “is to achieve a 30% cut in the application of DDT worldwide by 2014 and its total phase-out by the early 2020s, if not sooner,” said WHO and the U.N. Environment Program in a statement on May 6.
The impact of the ban on DDT on the world’s poorest people will be terrible. The Leftist environmental movement, which sees humans as a disease to be eradicated, has pressured the World Health Organization to reconsider its use of DDT to combat Malaria.
The ultimate purpose of the Left is not so much to limit the use of DDT in the world, as it is to reduce the human population around the world, mostly in underdeveloped nations. Their genocidal agenda is evident in several statements from prominent Leftists:
Should we eliminate suffering, diseases? The idea is beautiful, but perhaps not a benefit for long term. We should not allow our dread of diseases to endanger the future of our species… In order to stabilize world population, we need to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.
Guess who? Jacques Cousteau, in an interview in the UNESCO Courier, November 1991. There’s more.
When questioned on the propriety of banning DDT, with a view to the possible unintended consequences, Dr. Charles Wurster replied,
So what? People are the cause of all the problems. We have too many of them. We need to get rid of some of them and this is as good a way as any.
There are many other quotes from people like Ted Turner, who once said in an interview with Audubon Magazine,
A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.
Why are we not running these people off the edge of the Continent? It’s time power for these anti-human elitists was brought to an abrupt and complete end.