Author Archive
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Viewing Options List View Grid View

THE DRUNKEN SAILOR

When historians sift through the economic destruction of America, they will likely trace it back to the early 1900′s. However, they will absolutely recoil in evaluating the past six years. In that time, government has been so reckless in both its expenditures as well as its incursions into the marketplace. The following non-exhaustive list is the poster-child for this problem and its unprecedented, and calamitous escalation.

1. The “Stimulus” ($825 billion-only 6% of which was ever assigned to the “shovel-ready” infrastructure projects promised by President Obama);
2. ObamaCare ($2.8 Trillion after its fourth re-evaluation by the Congressional Budget Office);
3. Department of Energy Subsidies ($50 billion in wind, solar and biofuel subsidies in just two years including $19 billion to companies started by Obama campaign money-bundlers most of which were defunct and bankrupt within 12 months such as $535 million to Solyndra, $1.2 billion to Sun Power, $465 million to Tesla Motor Co., $529 million to Fisker Auto and numerous others);
4. General Motors acquisition by government (approximately $68 billion in taxpayer money — according to the federal government, its recent sale left taxpayers with a $10 billion loss);
5. The purchase of $14 million in taxpayer-subsidized biofuel (i.e. algae secretions) by the United States Navy from . . . wait for it . . . the United States Government at the cost of approximately $14 per gallon (up from a few dollars a gallon for petroleum-based fuel);
6. Keystone Oil Pipeline from Canada to the United States (after being approved by the EPA) (the oil was being transported by a cargo train, but the announcement of the Pipeline severely diminished the train’s value. Fortunately, Warren Buffett then purchased it cheaply, and coincidentally, the Pipeline project was cancelled by President Obama, a friend of Mr. Buffett who now earns a huge amount of money with the train);
7. Quantitative Easing (the digitizing or printing of $85 billion per month out of thin air). This is the one that will end the dollar. No country in known history has ever survived this, but President Obama has been doing it for years. In fact, it is the third round of it. A google-search of the Weimar Republic spells out exactly how this destroys a currency.
8. Rehypothication is a word that might never have entered our vocabulary, but the circumstances of the Federal Reserve will soon make it a household word. Essentially, it means that the Federal Reserve has repeatedly borrowed against the same collateral (gold) over and over again. Realistically, there may be no gold left there anyway, but this is the one that will end our gold and anger most of the nations of Europe who have over the years deposited huge sums of gold with us. Ask Germany what we told them when they asked for their gold last year.
9. Cash For Clunkers – No that’s not a slogan from the local used car lot, that is the name of the multi-billion dollar boondoggle that added many tons of scrap to our landfills, and forced American taxpayers (and their children) to pay for their neighbors’ new cars.
10. Expansion of the Welfare state, and corporate welfare programs such as the $1.3 billion “Path To Justice Program” which pays money to female and Hispanic farmers who feel that the Department Of Agriculture has discriminated against them by denying them a loan (which requires no proof).
11. Student Loans – the outstanding student loans exceed the total of ALL credit card debt in the entire United States. It now tops $1 trillion and will likely be our next bubble to burst.

The foregoing list may seem exorbitant. It is, but there are other record highs. They are as follows:
1. Federal spending is $7 million per minute.
2. Federal deficit = $17 trillion (not including unfunded liabilities). For reference, a billion seconds ago, it was the year 1981.
3. Unemployment is at an all-time high. Although the Obama administration touts a single-digit number, it is because they stop counting you after you indicate you are no longer looking for work. You go on welfare, and “poof,” you don’t count as unemployed. Neat, huh? You should see how the administration “re-defined” the term long-term unemployment.
4. Gross Domestic Product (the measure of economic activity in America) is not a high, but it is still a new record. Last quarter, GDP contracted by 3% for the first time in America. Worse yet, the Obama administration re-defined the way GDP is calculated which economists predicted would artificially ADD 3% to GDP calculation. That’s right, even with the new fuzzy calculation, it still contracted by a record amount. This is scary.
5. Gas prices have never been this high for this long . . .EVER!
6. Poverty is at an all-time high.
7. Work Force Participation Rate is the percentage of people working in America. Statistics show this number at an all-time high, or just the highest in half a century depending upon who you ask . . . and who is re-defining how it’s measured.
8. Energy exploration on federal lands (the only places Obama actually has the power to stop it) is down dramatically. Again, the Obama administration touts the increase in production on state and private lands as though he can take any credit for that, but he has no say there. The next time you hear him take credit for any energy exploration, you will know he doesn’t think you know the difference. To illustrate how much he has reduced energy on federal lands, in 2011, the federal government received $36 million in lease money (down from $4 billion). Only 31.8 percent of domestic oil production came from federal lands/off-shore.

The foregoing is designed to be a bullet-point fact reference that illustrates federal spending like a drunken sailor, and policies that ensure economic disaster. The difference with a drunken sailor is that when he’s broke, he goes home. When the United States is broke, Obama just borrows more money from you, your children, and at this point, your grandchildren too! We’ve got one hell of a hangover coming!!!

WHAT OBAMA THINKS OF OUR MILITARY

In an effort to make our military uniforms more “unisex,” the Obama administration is considering changing the hats worn by the United States Marines. The government estimates that this will cost more than $8 million! Consider this: three weeks ago, the Pentagon was asked to make “nonessential” cuts in the wake of the government slimdown. Unbelievably, they cut one of the smallest budget items that the military has; death benefits for military members killed in action. Does that bother you?

In the same month that the military cut benefits to military families whose loved ones were killed in action, they announce that they are actually considering spending $8 million on new unisex hats for the Marines. They are not proposing new bullet-proof helmets, or some other rational thing. No. They are mulling over a new, smaller version of the white-brimmed dress cap in the name of unisexuality at a cost of over $8 million?!?!?! Worse yet, approximately 94% of the Marine Corps (pronounced like “corpse” according to Mr. Obama) is made up of men. So, we are going to spend $8 million to “neuter” their hats?!?!?! For what . . . a kinder, gentler Marine Corps?!?!

What does that say about our government? What does that say about us? Well, it says our government is either insane, or more interested in the sexual appearance of the military, than it is in our military personnel and their families!!! If you think that’s over the top, then let’s agree for the sake of argument, that there is no ill intent here. Now, can we at least agree that government is simply so big, that it wouldn’t otherwise ever even delve into this politically correct minutiae?

The key to our nation’s survival is that we must decide honestly whether an $8 million hat expenditure is that important to us. Does anyone out there actually demand that we change the Marines’ headwear? I think that group — if it exists — could fit into my living room (it’s not a huge living room). Even some of those would jump ship if you told them it will cost $8 million!

That leaves the rest of us (about 99.9% of all Americans). We have two options: 1) We can either pretend that changing hats is critical because we love Obama and we are devoted to the Democratic Party, or we can be disgusted by this initiative because the Republicans told us to, or because we heard about it on Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/24/obama-wants-marines-to-wear-girly-hats/?intcmp=trending.

But, there is another choice. We can just ask whether we think spending $8 million that we don’t have on freaking hats is just ridiculous, particularly when three weeks ago, our Pentagon cut off death benefits to these same heroes killed in action!!! See how that works? We actually excised the Party crap from our decision-making and now we can think for ourselves. Once we decontaminate our minds, the vast majority of us can be friends again; democrats, republicans, independents, etc.. More importantly, we can take power back from the very ruling class that has us bickering with each other over non-issues while they burn the nation and indebt our children!

Cue the acoustic guitars: “Michael row the boat ashore hallelujah . . .” Every body now . . . !

YELLEN WILL INCREASE QUANTITATIVE EASING AND THE DOLLAR WILL DIE

President Obama’s new Federal Reserve (“the Fed”) appointee is a Keynesian. There has been a lot of talk about when the Fed will stop printing/digitizing money, but the salient question is when will they increase the printing of money. You see, there are no examples in known history where a country who begins massive money-printing ever stops. It cannot be stopped. We are now in round three of Obama’s quantitative easing (i.e. money printing). Such reckless printing of money is designed to prop up an economy that is stalled. That is the cold, hard truth. The printing of money serves one goal; to stop the nation’s economy from falling flat on its face. Because, all of the policies coming out of Washington, D.C. are stifling the economy, printing money can serve as a surrogate . . . but not for long. Money-printing is to a nation’s currency, what heroin is to a heroin addict. It is addictive, and difficult to stop. Indeed, after a while, a heroin addict will reach a point in his addiction at which he will die if he stops using. Likewise, our nation will fall into a depression if we stop printing money. Flooding the system with money is like a shot of adrenaline to the stock market, but if market gains are based upon funny money instead of actual market productivity how can our government stop printing? Our money is not tied to anything of value. Franklin Roosevelt took us off of gold-based currency many years ago. Since then, the dollar’s only value derives from confidence in the economic power of the world’s freest economy. But, we are no longer that country. In fact, America ranks 10th in the world in market freedom. Singapore is number one!?!?! Singapore has lower taxes, less restrictive regulations, etc. than the United States!?!?! Consequently, Singapore is flourishing, and America is foundering. Yet every day, the President introduces new job-killing regulations in the name of the middle class that he is killing.

The problems in Washington are endemic and are endorsed by BOTH parties. Democrats seek to help the middle class by regulating their jobs out of existence, and moderate Republicans simply go along with it, or curtail it just enough to appear conservative. During the 2008 presidential election, Mr. Obama promised socialistic transformation, and Mr. McCain promised a smaller version of the same. If Americans do not see that Progressive policies are to blame, and that both parties are infected with them, then we will not survive the collapse of the dollar.

The alternative economic theory would be freedom; to do what Ronald Reagan did and unleash the American entrepreneur. If we did everything we could right now (go great guns on energy production, sell federally held lands to private American citizens to pay down the debt, take the cuffs off of the oil and gas industry, and repeal most — if not all — of Obama’s 100,000+ federal regulations, dramatically shrink the federal government now (restrict or dissolve the EPA, the Department of Education, the Department of Energy and its grant program, lift restrictions on refineries, build the Keystone XL pipeline, and aggressively remove state and federal impediments to new businesses including ObamaCare)). Obama will never do these things proven by Reagan to rescue an economy. That is a guarantee. Even in the face of having to increase money-printing, the man raised by Frank Marshall Davis , and further inculcated by Saul Alinsky will never concede to free-market principles. That leaves only one choice; money-printing.

Mark my words, the Obama presidency will not only preside over the largest money-printing experiment in American history, he will dramatically increase his money-printing. That will be the thing that ends our dollar, and our nation as we know it. From this point on, we will follow the same road as the Weimar Republic. To be sure, that is what Progressives know as “[t}he Road We [Are] Travel[ing].”

UPDATE DECEMBER 15, 2016:
Yellen just announced an increase in the interest rate one month before Obama leaves office. This is designed to further depress the economy so that president-elect Trump can be blamed by the media. Be prepared, America! For the first time in 8 years, you are going to be treated to wall-to-wall coverage about the terrible condition of the American economy. Low-information voters (i.e. Democrats and other statists) will for the first time in 8 years hear the torrent of bad news that is Obama’s economy. This will be a true test of whether Trump’s completely unexpected victory was truly a rejection of Left-wing bias in the media (which has done everything it could to propagandize for Obama, and his legacy candidate, Hillary Clinton).

Will they drink the Kool-Aid that Obama’s economy was great (even though he is the only President ever to suffer no GDP growth in 8 years — even though, his administration redefined how GDP is calculated which experts at the time opined would artificially add 3% to the annual GDP calculation). Worse yet, Obama has presided over the lowest labor participation rate in more than 70 years! Shockingly, however, CNN reported today that Obama’s real unemployment rate today is 9.3%. Notwithstanding that rare instance of impartial news on CNN, I predict that the mainstream media will suddenly discover that the economy sucks in America, but it will be reported as a newsflash for which President Trump will be entirely responsible.

Obama has printed/digitized 4 times more dollars than there were in the world when he took office. Obama more than doubled our present national debt which is now $20 trillion! This does not even include unfunded future liabilities like social security, Medicare, and Medicaid. The printing of money (Quantitative Easing) has resulted in cheap money, and has predictably been VERY lucrative for large investors in the stock market like the reserve banks, but even that has come at a cost to the masses of average American investors.

Recall that even Reagan had to suffer through two years before his economic policies caught fire in the economy and began to take off. Obama’s damage exceeds even Carter’s. At this point, the dollar seems dead. I fully expect the world to continue its push to completely eliminate physical currency, and replace it with digital currency which will kill our privacy, and leave us beholden to banks even during periods of negative interest rates. India is finding that out now.

In fact, if productivity increases under Trump, it will still likely force us through a period of inflation because we will still have too many dollars chasing too few goods. The media will pounce on this, not as an indictment of Obama’s wreckage, but to crucify conservative economic policies. Unfortunately like so many Leftist propaganda stories, many Americans (especially recent college graduates and those too young to remember Reaganomics), are too ignorant about economics to know better. Buckle up America! You will not be able to turn on a TV without being inundated by news about our suddenly horrible Trump economy. The Left-wing media will similarly discover that the world is far more dangerous after Obama’s abysmal foreign policy, but that, too, will be erroneously blamed on Trump. None of our economic problems will be blamed on Obama; their purposeful architect. For 8 years, the networks have performed in a way that would embarrass even the Soviet TASS news service to hide or explain away the harsh economic realities wrought by Obama.

After Trump’s election, will America continue to resist our mainstream media’s propaganda? On January 20, 2017, we shall see . . .

GREED

We hear a lot of criticism about capitalism and frequently it centers around greed. The question is: Does greed have a master? Is there some system by which greed can be kept in check? If so, how can that be accomplished? First, we’ll look at free-market capitalism.

In order to do that, let’s remember the character, Gordon Gecko, from the movie, Wall Street. He was the purported pinnacle of greed. He would take over companies and their fate would depend upon whatever was best for Mr. Gecko’s bottom line. He was greedy. Greed is one of many human frailties that will always be present.

If it made him more money, Mr. Gecko would restructure the company so that it could continue to function and pay him profits. If, on the other hand, its profitability could not be achieved, he would simply cannibalize the company; carving it up and selling its assets to the highest bidder.

So, in a free-market system, people like Gordon Gecko will always do whatever lines their pockets the most. Let’s examine that. If the company can be made profitable, it will persist. In so doing, salaries will be paid to the employees, the company’s service will still be available to its customers, and Mr. Gecko will make his profit. Each employee will continue to shop and otherwise spend their paychecks which will help countless other businesses. What about taxes? Well, each employee will continue to pay taxes, the corporation will pay taxes (under the IRS fiction that it is a person), and Mr. Gecko will pay taxes on his precious profit.

Occasionally, the company will have to purchase goods, and services from other businesses such as office supply stores, consultants, tax professionals, plumbers, A/C repair people, carpet layers, painters, etc. (to do necessary repairs as needed on the building(s)), computer systems personnel, and countless others. Thus, Mr. Gecko’s greed pays dividends to countless others. Surely a greedy bastard such as he cannot stomach the notion that his quest for greed enriches others. So, what if he decides he is going to double the prices he charges? What if he triples them, or quadruples them so that he can further maximize his precious profits and satisfy his insatiable greed? Well, to simplify this question, let’s assume Mr. Gecko runs a Wal-Mart. If he increases his prices beyond those of his competitors, then his business will likely fail. Is it possible for him to market his store as the new Saks Fifth Avenue of grocery stores, and that might find a niche, but he will no longer be competitive with other low-price-based grocery stores. Thus, the free market will keep even Gordon Gecko’s infamous greed in check.

What if he cannibalizes the company? Well, because of his greed, he will only do that if it earns him more money than simply keeping the company open. But, if he does that, some other company will be able to purchase used goods they need. Hopefully, their acquisition of low-cost machinery, inventory, etc. can be used to keep them profitable. if so, they may need to hire additional employees. Perhaps the buyer of Mr. Gecko’s building(s) will establish new businesses therein.

By contrast, is greed also held in check by government? Well, government has no duty to please with its services. Its services are compelled by force. For example, the IRS does not exist for customer service. It exists to take money from American individuals and businesses under penalty of imprisonment. Even taxpayers who find money in an old garage-sale purchase are required by law to pay taxes on it. How about public (government) schools? When you go to the school to complain about the new policy which teaches young children to put condoms on bananas, no one gets fired. No one even gets sent home without pay. You are free to go to a private school, but you must continue to pay property taxes to the public school. If you do not have the money to pay for private school, you must continue to send your child to the condom school. There are indeed differences between government and private business. One of those differences is choice, but what about greed?

Well, when Jimmy Stewart’s character, “Mr. Smith,” went to Washington, he was idealistic. He trusted the congressman that helped get him elected, because that man was his father’s long-time friend. As it turned out, the congressman’s greed ultimately led him to deceive Mr. Smith, and to try to destroy him. Greed in government leads to corruption because no price is paid for it. Rather, it enriches him to be greedy and immoral. If a politician is greedy, he will sponsor legislation that enriches and empowers him.

For example, the prohibition on Insider Trading under the Securities Exchange Act (S.E.A.) exempts Congress. Congress can use inside information it learns to make money in the markets, and you can’t! Worse yet, Congress can enact laws specifically designed to earn their stocks money. Why would it do that? Well, Congress wrote the law, and congressmen are not immune from human frailties such as greed. In fact, they are great utilizers of it. The whole purpose of the S.E.A. was to ensure to individual investors like you and me that the rich, powerful, and connected could not exploit us by using “insider” information which is unavailable to the rest of us. The rationale was that there should be a level playing field to foster confidence in the integrity of the stock market. Then, why would anyone in a position of power be exempted? Again, because Congress gets to write the laws, and greed is very rewarding in government.

There are innumerable government powers to illustrate this point far beyond the S.E.A. For example, did you ever notice how many politicians enter Congress as middle-class people, but leave as multi-millionaires? Did you ever notice how many politicians just happen to buy worthless farm land just before a brand new interstate road project is announced to go through it? We had a local congressman who owned property for 45 minutes, and then sold it for millions more than he paid for it! Imagine that! As Ms. Piggy would say, “what an unbelievable coincidence!”

Locally, in order to open a business, you need a permit (among other things). Assuming you don’t have to “grease” the local politician, the permit can still come with strings attached. The municipality in which you seek to start, build, and grow your business can lawfully extract things from you in exchange for permission to open the doors. You might think that local politicians would clear the way for you to bring a new business complete with new tax revenue, new employment opportunities for citizens, etc. to their town. Usually, however, they ask what you can do for them. So, a new store might have to build, improve, or widen roads, or other public expenses. Politicians vested with the power to decide whether you can start a new business, have a great deal of power over you. In this example, their greed benefits them while it restricts your ability to enter the “free” market. Along with restricting you, it may restrict all of the potential employees you would have hired. Even where your business permit was lawfully conditioned upon things like building a new park, the politician will be the one at the ribbon-cutting ceremony. He will receive accolades for the park that he required you to pay for.

To be sure, government does not hold greed in check. To the contrary, it is the most fertile ground for greed to flourish.

GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN SHOWCASES OBAMA THUGGERY

Within hours of the government’s partial shutdown, Obama acted to exacerbate the otherwise insignificant impact. For a President who notoriously refuses to lead, Obama really gets moving when he sees an Alinskian opportunity to “never let a good crisis go to waste.” The World War II Memorial is a microcosm of Saul Alinsky’s theory of human cattle-prodding to elicit desired behavior.

For example, how did the federal government print up thousands of shutdown signs and distribute them to hundreds of federal locations across the country over the course of one night? The signs read: “Because of the Federal Government SHUTDOWN, All National Parks are CLOSED.” Moreover, after the government shut down, how was it able to transport and install thousands of large, steel barricades all over the United States? If there is no money to keep the parks open, how do we have the money to load, transport, off-load, and install thousands of barricades at federal parks? The barricades appeared the first morning following the shutdown; many of which are simply open-air parks! You just stand there and LOOK at the memorial. Each morning, the barricades are removed by visiting WWII veterans (under Obama’s threat of arrest), and each night they are replaced — BY WORKERS WHO REFUSE TO WORK THE PARK DURING REGULAR DAYLIGHT HOURS!?!?!? Starting to get the picture?

The WWII Memorial is a great example by which we can reveal what is really going on by our dictator-in-chief. To illustrate the point, you must know only three things: 1) the WWII vets were told in advance that they would be arrested if they entered the memorial, 2) when the vets arrived, they were blocked from entering by large, steel barricades, and 3) they moved the barricades, and entered the memorial under threat of arrest, but for three days they have come (moving the barricades themselves each time), only to find the memorial re-barricaded when they arrive each morning.

WWII vets frequently travel to the WWII memorial in Washington, D.C. Many are taken there by “Honor Flights,” a group funded by private donations. It is part of a program that seeks to unite these elderly heroes at their Memorial before they leave this earth. They are regularly transported here from all over the United States. Upon calling the National Park Service to request entry to the Memorial (given the shutdown, and in light of the fact that these trips are scheduled a year in advance at a cost of $80,000-$100,000), they were told that they would be arrested if they entered. http://theburningtruth.us/2013/10/02/obama-denied-wwii-vets-request-to-visit-memorial-now-threatens-them-with-arrest/

If we had an honest media — or if a Republican President were in office — this would be the lead story on every major news network in America. This thuggish mistreatment has gone on for days! It is the methodology of cattle-herding. Socialists like Obama must convince you that you NEED more and more government. Obama fears that Americans will realize the shutdown has virtually no impact on their lives; so much so, that the decision to bully 80 and 90 year-old WWII heroes is an easy one. In fact, he has repeatedly re-barricaded the memorial for three days now (even though we do not have the money to let veterans visit the outdoor, open-air memorial — which costs nothing). Who is paying to place the barricades? If they’re doing that, can’t they just stand there during the day like they usually do and let people walk around? Fortunately, these heroes have more testosterone at 90 years of age than most of us have at 18! With the help of at least three Republican legislators, they have stormed and overwhelmed the barricades every day since the shutdown; just like they did on D-Day!

Still not convinced of Obama’s sinister intent to shove you around and create pain where there doesn’t have to be any? Consider the fact that he also shut down Mount Vernon. Problem is, it’s not owned by the government. That’s right, he barricaded access to George Washington’s home even though it is not even owned by the government!!!

Still need more convincing? Today, it is being reported that according to a National Parks employee, they are being ordered to make things as painful as possible regarding closures and other measures. Try calling the White House. A recording states that due to the government shutdown, no calls are being taken?!?! The system is automated!!! Similarly. the National Parks Service has closed its web pages?!?!

Why is the ObamaCare enrollment website still open? It doesn’t work, but at least it’s open! Funny how that works . . . the site that Obama likes is staying open (complete with live assistants), but everything else is closed to the very citizens who pay for it. The same thing is true of other Obama positions. The TEA Party is “dangerous,” but the Occupy Protestors who rape each other and burn down cities — when they’re not breaking store windows, defecating on police cars, vandalizing churches, or blowing up bridges in Cleveland — are just peachy! The Muslim Brotherhood terrorist protestors in Egypt are freedom -lovers who need our support and money, but the Iranian protestors who are pro-Western get Obama’s silence and apathy as they are murdered by their evil government. The lesson: authoritarian radicals and terrorists good; freedom-loving TEA Party grandparents, and foreign freedom-lovers bad.

Obama’s shutdown message is: “How dare you lowly veterans and citizens try to enter the parks you fund!” That is Obama thuggery, and it has become the theme of his presidency. Well, at least he’s not targeting people with the IRS. That would be really bad!

1.6 GPF TOILETS: OH CRAP!

Let it never be forgotten that it was President Clinton who imposed a 1.6 gallon-per-flush (GPF) limit on Americans. His mandate grandfathered in pre-installed 3.0 GPF toilets (traditional toliets), but it became illegal to sell or install a toilet greater than 1.6 GPF after the rule took effect. My prediction is this: we will suffer a nationwide crisis in our nation’s sewer system.

While President Clinton may be an expert in crap, he has no experience whatsoever in plumbing or sewers. In fact, he has the same amount of expertise in plumbing that President Obama has in medicine. Yet, King Clinton issued a national edict about toilet flush capacity, and King Obama has enacted a draconian rule which will forever compromise patient care. In American politics, unfortunately, this is a frequent occurrence.

Just as ObamaCare will generate the exact opposite of its stated intent, so will the 1.6 GPF rule. The rule has been in effect for years, but only now is it starting to cause major sewer problems. Something tells me that when this crap hits the fan, the federal government will be right there to fix it! That’s how it works: the fed creates the problem, and then we give them the “okay” to fix it. That’s how it works in your everyday life, right? You call a plumber, he floods your house with feces and the captivating aroma that comes with it. and then you have him back to fix all of your problems. Oh, I guess not. Actually, that only happens in government. They screw it up, and we sign them up to fix it; usually at a huge, additional cost.

Examples of this are innumerable. FEMA, started by the Carter administration has been GREAT! After Hurricane Sandy obliterated New Jersey, and New York leaving thousands homeless and outside, a frigid snowstorm hit. The FEMA office upon which the people’s lives depended promptly rushed to action and . . . closed its office, placing a homemade sign on the door that said, “Closed due to storm.” That’s not a success story. It’s a punch-line! Hurricane Katrina went MUCH better, except for the poisonous trailers. You see, it was imperative that we move storm victims out of their flooded homes and into the poisonous FEMA trailers.

How about the NSA? Well, they knew nothing whatsoever about the planned 9/11 attacks which was the worst attack on American soil; rivaled only by Pearl Harbor. So, what did NSA do? Naturally, they set about spending billions of taxpayer dollars building a one-million square foot building (surface footage only) where every single email, phone call, text message, etc. is stored on a government hard-drive! See how that works? Unfortunately, it hasn’t stopped any subsequent terrorist attack . . .like the Boston Marathon bombing (even though Russia . . . yes, Russia warned us about the Tamerlan brothers being terrorists). In fact, the only NSA database success story is the discovery of General Petraeus’s affair with a former student. The database yielded the emails that ended his career. If you ask me, that was worth the billions of dollars to build the greatest transgression against the Fourth Amendment in American history. While it will never make us safer, at least it will eliminate our privacy and most of our wealth (’cause it’s a little pricey).

The only thing that will save us from our impending sewer explosion is prayer. Holy crap!

NAVY YARD SHOOTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTITUTIONALIZED

Another mass shooting, and as usual, the liberal media spins the tragic story into a gun control narrative. In fact, one of them even went so far as to invent a new gun called an AR-15 shotgun.

It is hard to overlook the fact that in the early 1970′s, we made a decision that institutionalization was a bad thing for the mentally infirm. This decision was not based on science, but on politics. Since that time, mass shootings by unstable people like Mr. Alexis, Gabby Gifford’s shooter, the Colorado movie theater shooter, the Sandy Hook shooter (and almost every other mass shooter), have increased exponentially. During the same period, non-mass shootings have dropped dramatically (1983 to present, in particular).

Homelessness has increased dramatically over the same period with the 1970′s anti-institutionalization movement initiating the spike.

The problem is that society has decided that institutionalizing the mentally unstable is almost never appropriate. This view sees those people as victims instead of patients in need of help. The irony is that that view can be harmful to society AND to those who are in need of the controlled, treatment-based environments in which many of them flourish.

Like C.S. Lewis said: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the ‘good’ of its victims may be the most oppressive.” Society feels great about itself having “liberated” the mentally unstable from institutional living. Unfortunately, while we do-gooders are patting each other on the back, these people are suffering a misery far greater than many of them would experience in an institutional setting. Again, the decision to “liberate” them was not based upon science or medicine. It was part of the leftist political movement of the late 1960′s. At the same time, homosexuality was removed from the American Psychiatric Association’s list of mental disorders. This movement sought to remove certain patients/disorders that had been treated as mental conditions.

Mr. Alexis announced to medical professionals that he was hearing voices, and that he was suffering from numerous other problems such as severe insomnia, most of which could have been treated. Ultimately, Mr. Alexis could no longer refrain from doing what he did. He carved an inscription into his murder weapon (shotgun) which read, “Better this way.” He and the other mass shooters mentioned were crying out, but we refused to help because we have decided that the help they need is unpalatable TO US.

It would be great if we could stop pretending this is a firearms issue, and that we can solve it through anything having to do with gun control. Does anyone believe that a person who is driven to kill will change his mind if it exposes him to additional punishment for using a gun? If you believe that, then how can Chicago be the murder capitol of the U.S.A.? It has the most stringent gun control, and the most gun-free zones of any city in America. But, most murders are committed by people who will never be restrained by any gun control; criminals, and the mentally unstable. Both of those groups will always have access to killing instruments, but even if they didn’t, are we supposed to believe that they would simply change their minds about killing people? “Well, I was going to kill people today, but since I can’t do it with a legally acquired gun, I might as well just catch up on my soap opera’s instead.” What!?!? It could happen!

Recently, there has been a string of particularly grotesque murders around the country that involved blunt instruments such as hammers, baseball bats, knives, and the like. Haven’t heard of them? Interesting . . . I wonder if the liberal media doesn’t cover those stories so they can continue the fairytale that all killings would stop if we confiscated guns. Naah! That would be like saying that the media purposely fails to cover the hundreds of incidents each year where lives are saved by guns in the hands of would-be victims, or third parties who — except for the gun — would have been added to the ever-growing list of violent-crime victims. Oh boy! That’s just paranoid crazy talk . . . right?

PEOPLE ARE THE SAME WHEREVER THEY GO

Do you ever think about how throughout history, people never really change? Contrary to those in progressive media and politics, we are not more enlightened than our forefathers. We are certainly not more intelligent. We no longer even understand human nature. In fact, we reject the notion that humans have an immutable “nature.” We are far to smart to subscribe to the belief that we are tethered to reality. We eschew reality because it interferes with our self-hypnosis that we have risen above fixed rules like reality. We talk of free lunches, and human “rights” to free stuff.

The advent of Smartphones doesn’t make us, as human beings, any different from our parents, or grandparents. An argument could be made that it makes us more impotent, but it certainly doesn’t make us immune to human instincts and frailties. Humans cannot transcend their human attributes. We possess attributes which are beautiful and admirable, but also horrible and evil. Only complete arrogance and total ignorance can delude one into believing that humans can “rise above” their humanness. Moreover, only those who think lowly of humans could ever conceive of such a thing.

Despite being centuries old, Shakespeare’s works are still appealing to us. This is precisely because we can still relate to the characters therein. It is wholly irrelevant that these stories were written in a time which was never experienced by any of us. They were good then, and they are good now. King Henry’s St. Crispin Day speech to his men gives us goose-bumps because humans have always prized bravery and perseverance in the face of overwhelming odds. Isn’t that the same thing that is so appealing about movies like, “Rocky” which came centuries later? Similarly, we have all known young love, so our hearts race with excitement until Romeo and Juliet meet secretly again and we anguish over the prospect that their time together is at all times perilous. We recoil at the unbridled ambition of Macbeth, and we laugh at the nothing-based, Jerry Seinfeld-like scenes in “Much Ado About Nothing.”

Timeless axioms like those found in childhood copybooks apply to people irrespective of the time in which they live. Shakespeare’s “As You Like It” for example, produced the phrase “too much of a good thing.” Is that axiom still true today? Of course. It is still applicable today because human beings do not change their fundamental attributes. Humans will always contain ingredients such as anger, love, pain, hope, humility, good, evil, temptation, and the innate desire to be free. This does not mean that we have no control over these “ingredients.” It only means that they are what makes us human. What makes us feel so good when we fall in love? There is only one such feeling and it is the same now as it was during the dawn of man. Once we get past the perpetual progressive pursuit of hypnotized human purification (“Who has deceived thee as oft as thyself?”), the celestial beauty of humankind is there as plain as the smile on a young mother’s face when she gazes upon her newborn baby with heavenly wonder. That is real and beautiful, and it does not change with time. There have always been mothers who love their children, because that is human. (“Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.”).

People possess negative attributes as well. For example, we can be seduced by corruption, hence the cautionary axiom, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” By the way, this article does not seek to advance the notion that all people are susceptible to all axioms. For example, George Washington is the earth’s greatest exception to the notion that power corrupts. He was uncorruptible. America begged him to be king, and he declined. Then, America begged him to run for President a third time, and he declined.

Rather this article seeks only to examine the reality that most human beings are the same in that they are susceptible to the same frailties. Not all people are adulterous, but very many are. Most people have lied, but some do not.

It seems to me that axioms which reflect human tendencies have more to do with mapping those tendencies throughout time as wisdom for the next generations. (“Wise men learn from others’ harms, fools by their own.”) They are an ever-growing encyclopedia of lessons on the human condition. “Waste not, want not.” “A penny saved is a penny earned.” Are these phrases limited in their wisdom to times gone by? If you think so, you haven’t seen our national debt. The “wanting” part is soon to come I assure you.

If the foregoing supposition is correct, then it must also be true that man’s less admirable tendencies are girded by these axiomatic rules of wisdom. They are guard-rails of wisdom that border a virtuous life. (“Know thyself.”) They alert us that some paths of conduct are meritless, or risky, and frequently, they spell out exactly what that risk is. Take for example, the Ten Commandments. Aren’t these also rules designed to guard against man’s less than admirable tendencies? Thou shalt not commit adultery. Who could argue with the wisdom of that? How about, “thou shalt not steal”? “Thou shalt not commit murder” is a shoe-in among axioms, and no one could argue with its wisdom, except perhaps the murderer. Another favorite is the Commandment which orders us to keep the Sabbath Holy. Often forgotten, however, is the rest of that Commandment which requires that we work the other six days. Many of my fellow members of the criminal defense bar know that I believe most crimes would not have been committed if the perpetrator endeavored to work six (or even five) days per week. At least we can all agree that those who do not work are far more likely to commit crimes. Wow! That invokes the axiom about “idle hands,” and one of the seven deadly sins; sloth.

To the unwise, working may appear difficult, unpleasant, and therefore unattractive. Without context provided by wisdom, the choice between working, and not working, seems like a slam dunk for the lazy. Picture the highschooler or college student faced with this dilemma. College is frequently where the word procrastination is personified. Worse yet, picture the modern-day welfare recipient who is able-bodied, but has no intention of working. He will never achieve the high virtues of knowing what he is capable of, or of developing a reputation for being dependable for his wife, friends, co-workers, or employer. He will long endure, but he will not thrive. To understand this, he must first understand the bigger picture. If he does not, he will elect the path of least resistance. If he does, he will understand all of the blessings that come from hard work. He will learn to strive, to feel proud of his abilities, to be happy. He may then seek to instill this understanding in his children, so that they may know the virtues that may otherwise seem hidden behind work, and the miseries that are concealed behind sloth. How is it that the Commandments would include a commandment to work — and to work a lot — among things like murder, and adultery? Yet, my life experience as a criminal defense attorney has taught me that man is meant to work; to strive. Conversely, most crimes and social ills are covered with the fingerprints of idle hands. These are immutable truths for all mankind no matter where man happens to be on the time-space continuum.

As I write this, my 13-year-old is trying to extort an iPod from me. He has put a lot of thought into his pitch, and has convinced himself that he is impartially formulating a plan from which the entire family would benefit. It is complete mularkey, of course. I’m sure there is some axiom out there for this, because kids will always try to manipulate their parents to get stuff. Whether it is the boy in “Old Yeller,” who wants a puppy, or whether it is my child who wants an iPod, children will, on occasion, endeavor to manipulate their parents, even though their motives may be innocuous, and quite humorous. After all, that is my point. Isn’t it likely that this is the way all of these words of wisdom began? They are simply observations of human predispositions which someone puts into a catchy phrase like, “kids shalt take advantage of thine parents . . . uhh when they want stuff.” Okay, so it’s not so catchy, but it does serve the same purpose. Incidentally, this paragraph is brought to you by the saying, “Take time to stop and smell the roses.”

Perhaps it would be a good idea for us to pay close attention to words of wisdom that have stood the test of time about human nature. The Constitution is one of those documents that understands human nature very well. Our Founders believed that man was made to be free. Freedom permits man to achieve his highest potential, or to fall prey to his most base and horrible capabilities. If we only had a book that told stories about human nature from the perspective of someone who understood it. It would have to be a book that was really old, and contained these immutable truths about humanity. That way, if we recognized the same traits and frailties exhibited thousands of years ago, it would be apparent that some things never change. It would be great if this book had real characters who did some of these things that embody humanity’s less admirable traits. If it could talk about the first murder, for example, that would be illuminating while providing lessons of caution to future generations. It should contain parables from long ago with which we could identify. It should also list proverbs that are immutable words of wisdom so that we may know our frailties and guard against them. Better yet, it would give guidance that would apply to problems we are experiencing today. Likewise, it should provide bright-line rules for how to treat our parents, and our fellow man. Maybe it would even tout humility and virtue over subjugation and greed. It should give man a standard to which he might aspire, and it should give him a reason to do so. It should encourage truth. Amen.

OBAMA WILL INTERVENE IN SYRIA

Remember Libya? Intervention in a conflict that bore no rational relationship to US interests. In Iraq and Afghanistan, 7 out of 10 foreign fighters killed or captured were LIBYANS. They were passionately involved in killing Americans and willing to travel to Afghanistan and Iraq to do it. Why, then, would the US help those same Libyan fighters who had American blood on their hands wage a civil war in their own country? One reason might be President Obama’s preference for Islamists. In all instances where the Obama administration has chosen whether to side with an existing government of a middle-eastern nation, or its revolutionaries, he has almost always chosen the latter over the former. The notable exception was the Green Revolution in Iran, but that is not really an exception because in that event, the existing government was the radical Islamist body, and its citizens were actually pro-western, educated people who sought a democratic government instead of the existing Mullah theocracy. In Iran, protesting is punishable by death. Yet, tens of thousands of pro-freedom revolutionaries protested in the streets of Iran for nine days while President Obama remained vacant and silent. What if Obama’s preference is really dictated by which group embodies Islamic extremism?

Contrast President Obama’s conduct during the Iranian uprising with say . . . the “Arab Spring.” During that revolution, President Obama suffered from an acute bout of diarrhea of the mouth. At any moment, he was likely to break out his old ACORN bullhorn. During these daily cheerleading sessions, the President and his minions would not only cheer, they would continuously characterize the revolutionaries as Jefferson-like freedom lovers. Oddly enough, even the likes of Bill and Bernadine Ayers made their way to Egypt to echo the President’s cheers. Richard Trumka was also there throwing his union support behind the “Arab Spring.” At home in the US, Progressives crawled out of the woodwork demanding that we have our own Arab Spring here. That was a frequent cry by the Occupier Movement when they weren’t raping each other, blowing up bridges in Cleveland, or defecating on . . . the sidewalk, a nearby police cruiser, the street, a church, etc. Wouldn’t it be weird if some day, it is discovered that Occupiers really just suffer from porcelainaphobia? But I digress . . .

What can we learn from a President who cheers on revolutions by Islamic Extremists, yet offers only silence to revolutions by pro-western Iranians (who risk death to protest against an Islamist regime)? President Obama’s conduct provides the answer (and its record on veracity dwarfs that of his mouth). Every middle eastern uprising has two players. President Obama is consistently behind the Islamic Extremists. The President backed the Islamic Extremist, Muslim Brotherhood during the “Arab Spring,” and worked tirelessly to convince the world that it was a freedom movement. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded by devoted followers of Adolph Hitler during the period of the second World War (their charter expressly calls for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people; although, you will never hear that from NBC, ABC, CBS, MSNBC, or CNN).

When the Muslim Brotherhood captured 62% of the Egypt’s new parliament, Obama cheered again and celebrated their victory. When Muhammed Morsi, himself a Muslim Brotherhood member (from the more radical Salafist wing), won the presidency, Obama broke out the pom poms once more. However, when he conferred dictatorial powers upon himself to oppress his own people — in a freedom loving way, of course — Obama disappeared again. If he really believed this was a freedom movement, it’s certainly odd that he would choose the dictatorship moment to shelve the bullhorn. Well, the Egyptian people took a different tact, and revolted against their new Islamist dictator. When the “anti Muslim Brotherhood” revolution broke out earlier this year, President Obama again traded his kaopectate for pom poms and threw his support behind Morsi, the soon-to-be-deposed Muslim Brotherhood dictator. Fortunately, the Egyptian people ignored him. Nonetheless, the Egyptian events are quite revealing on Obama’s middle east “policy.” Morsi, an Islamist dictator = good. Mubarrak, a non-Islamist dicator = bad. Islamist revolutionaries rising up against non-Islamist governments in Egypt and Libya = good. Non-Islamist revolutionaries rising up against the extreme Islamist government in Iran = bad. Worse yet, the Iranian government was kidnapping, torturing, and murdering its young, pro-western protesters who truly sought freedom.

In Syria, a potpourri of Islamic extremists are revolting against a non-Islamist dictator, Bashar Assad. Here’s the twist: both sides are Islamic Extremists! Assad is armed with his own forces, but when it looked as though he would fall, Iran sent in Hezbollah, a terrorist group of Islamic Extremists. For months, they have been battling the Muslim Brotherhood-backed revolutionaries in Syria. Uh oh. This is a tough one for Obama. On one hand, you have Assad, a non-Islamist dictator. But, he can’t be all bad, he’s being defended by Al Queda and Hezbollah fighters, all of whom are Islamic Extremists. On the other hand, the Muslim Brotherhood has always been Obama’s “home team.” My bet is that Obama has been looking to intervene publicly for a long time. I say, “publicly,” because he has been running guns and other weapons through the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria for years. That is the ugly truth behind the Benghazi attacks on our consulate almost one year ago. Obama has been desperate to intervene publicly in Syria before the good old mainstream media finds out that he has been covertly running weapons to the revolutionaries there. My theory is that he thinks it won’t look so bad that he was doing all of that illegal, covert gun-running, after the US intervenes on behalf of those to whom we were running guns. Of course this is dependent upon our making Assad look like a merciless murder of women, children, and civilian goats. Assad, of course, is an evil bastard, but so are the revolutionaries. Recall that this is the second time there has been an allegation of chemical weapons use. The first time, that was proved to be false. Darn it says Obama. This time, the chemical weapons just happen to have been deployed right down the road from where the United Nations chemical team had recently arrived. To quote Ms. Piggy, “What an unbelievable coincidence!”

The only thing saving Assad right now is that he’s a self-avowed socialist. Imagine that; another dictator who just happens to be a socialist. But, personal affinity didn’t stop Obama when he helped Libyan terrorists murder Muammar Khadafi, a man Obama had actually traveled to meet at least twice before he was even a US Senator. Likewise, this revolution differs slightly from the others in the sense that there are Islamist Extremists on both sides. At the end of the day, however, Obama is a politician first (the traitor and Marxist parts are close seconds). His need to cover his Benghazi tracks are critical. Also, by intervening, he can wag the dog with a war that will distract an already sycophant media away from his numerous — and serious — domestic scandals. As noted above, he has sided with the Muslim Brotherhood without exception, and probably intended this eventually anyway, but feared the political consequences. Thus, Obama will improve his Islamist record to 3-0, and intervene in Syria. Can you say, “Caliphate”? If not, you better look it up . . . fast!

ATTENTION LOW INFORMATION VOTERS

ARE YOU A DONKEY OR AN ELEPHANT?

Attention low information voters (LIV’s), now is your chance to wake up! Wait a minute, if you were actually paying attention, you wouldn’t be LIV’s. Notwithstanding that the title of this Post is an oxymoron, I still have hope that some of you can be saved. Remember, the scene in The Matrix where Neo is offered a chance to awaken, but he must first choose to take the pill. I offer you the first dose.

For those of you LIV’s bold enough to question everything you think you know about political theory, and America, you will begin to recognize that you have been led around by the nose; brainwashed. This is the first in what I hope will be a series of questions and answers which will force you to choose. Are you a committed liberal, or one who has reached your political conclusions by propaganda or programmed default. Thomas Jefferson told us we must question everything with boldness if we are to know the truth. Can you muster up that courage? Let’s see.

QUESTION #1: Are you a donkey or an elephant (Democrat or Republican)?

Well, that question is meaningless because it is too broad, and it changes with time. How about this . . . do you believe in “individual rights,” or “collective rights?” That is, do you have rights, or are your rights dependent upon the collective?

For example, you will recall the rapes that took place among the Occupy protest groups last year. Remember how the groups tried to get the victims to adjudicate the rapes in-house without bringing in the police or the courts? That is, perhaps, the clearest example of putting the group rights over those of the individual. The individual’s pursuit of justice outside the collective would jeopardize the group’s movement because if Americans (non-Occupiers) found out that rapes, murders, batteries, and thefts were being committed, they would have demanded that the police break up the group. Because the advancement of the group’s legitimacy and purpose were more important than a rape victim seeking justice through actual criminal prosecution (which could threaten the continued existence of the group), she was encouraged to seek a make-shift in-house punishment (which wound up resulting in the group giving the rapist a good talking-to).

Most of us have never seen a better example of the rights of the collective being elevated above those of the individual, so I use it here as an example. By contrast, in a society of individual rights, the individual victim’s rights form the foundation of the justice system. The society apprehends the suspect, investigates the case, and prosecutes the accused rapist, but it is the individual’s rights that are advanced. The latter society prides itself upon the vidication of the individual’s rights, while the former trumps, squelches, and forecloses them for the good of the group.

Now that we understand the difference between “individual rights,” and “collective rights,” tell me: are you equal to me, or am I better than you? Am I entitled to more rights than you? Are you entitled to more rights than me? Before you answer this question, it is important to ask what a “right” is. Here’s a simple test. State the “right”, and then ask the question, “at whose expense?”.

For example, do I have a right to healthcare? If healthcare is my right, then at whose expense is it provided? If it is provided at your expense, then my right is your bondage. If it is truly my right, but I am forcing you to pay for it, then my right enslaves you because I may take your money in the name of my right. Perhaps a more effective populist example of this would be slavery. Did cotton farmers in the pre-Civil War South have a right to grow cotton? Of course, but they did not have a right to enslave others to accomplish it.

So, when the pre-Civil War cotton farmer states that he has a right to grow and harvest cotton, ask our “test” question of the cotton farmer: At whose expense? Certainly he has the freedom to grow and harvest his crop, but he may not enslave another to accomplish that right. This simple test should clarify the distinction of true rights, like the right against unlawful search and seizure, from the frequently asserted “rights” in modern political parlance which are actually the polar opposite of rights. Such a bastardization of plain language can only be found in two places: irony, and politics.

Okay. Now that we understand rights and are able to distinguish them from their diametric opposite — involuntary servitude — we can move on to our discussion about them. A moment ago, I referenced the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure. That right is embodied in the Fourth Amendment. Because it is a right which protects you and I and does not enslave another in so doing, it passes our test as an actual right.

Do you believe that your right to be secure from unlawful search and seizure protects you individually? That is, do you believe that the government should be able to enter your home at their will just to look around, or to spend the night? If that actually happened to you, would you protest? Incidentally, we are not talking about your being suspected of a crime. Rather, I am simply asking whether you believe that you have the right to decide who enters your home. If you do, then you must believe such a right exists and that it may be asserted individually.

Tonight, after you get home, would you be shocked to find a total stranger was there eating a smorgasbord of goodies he had prepared from your kitchen? Would it allay your concerns if he were a government official? If any of this happened to you, should you have some redress with the courts? Well, if your right to be free from unlawful search and seizure is an individual right, then the answer is yes. You would be able to seek a remedy in the courts, and it would be enforcable. If, however, that right is not an individual right, you could not seek redress from the courts, because you did not possess the right, and therefore, your rights were not violated.

Do you belive owning property is a right? At whose expense? Yours. Thus, property ownership is a right. Do you believe that you have the right to own property individually? If not, then please mail your — excuse me, I meant my– smartphone, money, computer, and game system to me immediately. Of course, under your beliefs, I suppose I could just come and take it, but I better hurry, because without property rights, the first one to take it, gets it (until someone takes it from them). Without the right to own property, only he who is strong enough to protect property from all comers can possess anything. Good luck living in a country without property rights. There is a word for such a place where you live and possess only that which you are strong enough to defend. Where lawless pandamonium and constant threat — not law — dictate “ownership,” that must surely be hell on earth. Yes, I’m talking to you Occupiers, collectivists, Marxists, Leninists, communists, and statists by any other name!

Do you have a right to defend yourself? At whose expense? Yours. It is you whose safety is in jeopardy. You don’t have the right to force me to defend you. Voila, we have found another true right. Because we are all equal, you may not attack me at will. I may not attack you at will. If I attack you, you may procure necessary accouterments of self-defense — at your expense. Likewise, you may employ them against me, because we are equal under the law according to the Constitution of the United States, and I had no right to attack you.

If I attack you with a group of my murderous friends and marauders, how will you defend yourself? Do you have the right to employ an equalizing force such as a firearm? At whose expense? Yours! You may not force me to buy it for you; although, it is your constitutional right as an individual. Ta-da! Another actual right is revealed! Like the rights discussed above (all of which are inalienable rights), you would be forced to pray for the quick arrival of government forces to save you if you did not have the individual right to protect yourself. In fact, if you were still alive when they arrived, they would likely prosecute you if they found a firearm!

Congratulations! If you believe that rights are held by the individual, you are not a marxist, a socialist, a communist, or a Leninist! In fact, you are probably not a statist or collectivist of any type, because Karl Marx believed that the critical distinction between collectivism and individual freedom is the abolition of private property rights. Leninism is virtually identical except for its mechanism of enactment. Lenin believed that you must grab power at any cost. Only then, could you implement collectivism. Lenin was the quintessential wolf in sheep’s clothing. He believed you acquire power by presenting yourself as the establishment; invoking the traditions and sentiments that are popular. Then, you go for the throat after you are in power and fundamentally change the government into a collectivist state; a state in which you have no individual rights. Sound familiar? This approach was perfected by Saul Alinsky, an American Leninist.

As far as you Occupiers go, all bets are off! Most of you sound like confused communists and anarchists, but I couldn’t help notice that in between protests, you were fond of whipping out your smartphones, and laptops which were manufactured by those evil corporations, and financed by those evil banks. I even noticed how upset many of you were by the rash of thefts of those possessions by your fellow Occupiers. Terrible! Don’t they respect your individual right to own property?!?! Maybe the collective will give them a good talking-to! After all, those tech devices were never really your property anyway . . . right?

In the next article, we’ll focus on where rights come from. There are only two choices: government, or God. Guess which one outlaws individual rights.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
Viewing Options List View Grid View