Revolution: Broden vs Jefferson

It has always fascinated me how the Media never seems to go after Leftists that have used violence to start a "revolution" within this country, but any time a person on the "Right" shows up for an interview, you can bet the Media will ask those simple questions to make a person look radical. The Drudge Report has linked to a Dallas News story that did just that. Here is the story.

Now in this story "congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership." But notice what was actually said according to the story,

"We have a constitutional remedy," Broden said then. "And the Framers say if that don't work, revolution."

Watson asked if his definition of revolution included violent overthrow of the government. In a prolonged back-and-forth, Broden at first declined to explicitly address insurrection, saying the first way to deal with a repressive government is to "alter it or abolish it."

"If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary," Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain's King George III.

Now notice the silly question in the middle paragraph. It is obvious that Broden is being set up. Obviously the Media wants to paint Broden as a radical looney tune. Yet isn't what Broden saying something that should sound familiar to us all? Let me offer you this quote from Thomas Jefferson. Yes, the same Thomas Jefferson the Left loves to quote in other areas.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."

But perhaps you have read this in a more famous document.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Of course, that which follows are the obvious charges against Liberty that the King of England was guilty.

Now I doubt Broden would really be advocating violent revolution. He is simply making an obvious connection and observation about a despotic government. I wonder if Brad Watson would be shocked at Jefferson's answer?

Union Funding of Dems

I figured I would share this little do dad with you - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/22/public-employees-union-spends-big-save-dems/

I used to belong to the IAMW years ago. The one thing that drove me completely nuts was how my union donated money to the democrats campaign funds. Imagine yourself in this situation. Your a union worker (not by choice). Every week struggling to make ends meet (At the time my union got us the healthy contract of 0%, 0%, 3% for the next 3 years, which is unusual for unions, but we were a relatively weak branch with weak and corrupt leadership), and every month a nice bite of cash came out of my check to pay my union fees. Then you find out that they are donating millions of dollars to the Dems. I didn't vote who's campaign we should donate to? I wasn't asked? That money is supposed to be for lawyers for bargaining agreements and pension plans
Apparently I misunderstood. I thought they were supposed to represent me? I was a conservative. So were many of my co-workers. So apparently we don't know what is good for us and need our union leaders to figure out which candidates are better for us.
But I thought they were all about democracy? Representing their people? Yet there was no debate. There was no vote. I am sure they would tell you that their members are mostly Democrats. How do they know? Did they even ask? It is yet another example of the elitist, I know whats best for you attitude.

Read this story and keep in mind the amount of money they are putting into this unjustified cause. Stealing from their members for to lone the campaign pockets of the most liberal politicians. All this while their retirement funds are bankrupt. They do it because they know the liberals will steal yours and my money in the form of tax dollars to bail out their mismanaged retirement funds.

As I said in my earlier post the fact that unions destroy their very own companies is why they are dissapearing from the private sector and migrating into the public sector. This sotry is just further proof of that,

O'Donnell On the First Amendment

Everyone is making a big deal out of Christine O'Donnell's statement about the separation of church and state. YahooNews is reporting/editorializing about her comments.

Keeping government out of religion and religion out of government is a core principle of the First Amendment. The first 16 words say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means government can't limit our personal faith or favor one religion over others. It also means that creationism cannot be taught in America's public schools.

The fact that they wrote this paragraph shows their ignorance about the point that she made and their willingness to try to help the Democrat running against her and say and do anything to fulfill that agenda.

There is nothing in the Firsts Amendment that says creationism can not be taught in schools. The Left's assumption at this point is that creationism is a religion that would be established if it were permitted to be taught. If that were the case, then the Declaration of Independence could not be taught in our schools either. Wouldn't that be just a little insane?

But notice the clause that is overlooked.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

What is so difficult about this clause? But again, the political Left gets to define what science is and thereby make creationism a religion. How do they do this. Well, they simply define science from a purely naturalistic perspective. How are they able to do so? They just assert that is the case, and don't you dare question their ultimate authority.

It is true the the Framers wanted to keep the institution of the church separate from the state, but they believed both institutions were ordained by God as, again, can be seen from the Declaration.

So in conclusion, they proceed to lecture us all, not just O'Donnell, about the Constitution in the rest of their editorial. But the fact is, they haven't the slightest idea of what they are saying. For example, they say,

The separation of church and state means that teachers in public schools can't teach their faith to their students.

This is a tactic used by the Left to get religious people to keep God out of the public sphere. It assumes that because someone uses God the Creator as the basis of their arguments for a political policy, say..."thou shalt not murder", then they are forcing their private religious views on the rest of us. But by doing this, they undercut the foundation for any laws. Laws simply become rules to govern society by the elite. The State becomes the ultimate authority and the measly little citizens should just bow down to the Emperor.

Hidden within the article is a passing sentence in which YahooNews defends Coons in passing. Making it no big deal that he was clueless as to the rights of the First Amendment.

Later in the debate, O'Donnell challenged Coons to name the five freedoms of the First Amendment. He came up four freedoms short. It seems to me, if she knew the other 4, then perhaps she understands the first one better than they do? I think so.

Raise Taxes So That Gov Saves Money

As I was perusing through the Huffington Post, I noticed Robert Naiman's article, A Robin Hood Tax To Pay For the Wars. In it he states,

Instead of just saying that the Bush tax cuts for the richest Americans should be allowed to expire, let's say that they should be allowed to expire and that the money saved shall be earmarked for the veterans trust fund. Note from the point of view of the public interest, it's no loss to earmark the money, because we have to pay for veterans' benefits no matter what we do. By dedicating the money from the super-rich, we free up other resources for use elsewhere.

Now I must say, this sounds good, even though Robin Hood was not stealing from the Rich free market guy but was in fact stealing from the government that stood against private property rights. Yet I have a stupid question. If the Bush tax cuts have generated more revenue for the Federal government, and allowing them to expire would cause revenue to go downward, then is this really about "saving money?

In a prior paragraph the article states as evidence against the obvious,

As good fortune would have it, the Stiglitz/Bilmes estimate for the cost of caring for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars is roughly the same order of magnitude as the savings to the government of allowing the Bush tax cuts on the richest Americans to expire: "deficits and debt will be about $1 trillion higher over the next ten years if the high-income tax cuts remain in place," the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports.

So in the mind of Liberals, raising taxes on the rich will "save us money". Us = Big Government of course. Now I am 40 years old. It is my experience that when the tax and spenders tell us something, you better watch your wallet. Remember what they told us about Obama Care and how much money "We" were going to save. As usual, the facts over time demonstrate something all together different.

In conclusion, the real issue is that if we may target one group of men and go after their private property on this contrived and emotionally driven reason, then what is to stop the government from going after anyone? This kind of thinking is scary because it is not about helping veterans. It is about empowering government bureacrats to take Robin Hood's money back.

NYTimes Editorial On Global Warming

In this New York Times article, In Climate Denial, Again, the NYTimes actually still thinks that Climate Deniers are just ignoring the mountain of evidence against them.

The candidates are not simply rejecting solutions, like putting a price on carbon, though these, too, are demonized. They are re-running the strategy of denial perfected by Mr. Cheney a decade ago, repudiating years of peer-reviewed findings about global warming and creating an alternative reality in which climate change is a hoax or conspiracy.

Peer-reviewed? We now know that is a big lie. We now know that certain scientists fooled the entire world with the help of Big-government. We now know that science is on the verge of losing all credibility. Yet this editorialist acts as if nothing has recently rocked the scientific world with the leaking of e-mails that prove beyond the shadow of any doubt that science has been corrupted by millions of dollars.

The editorial goes on to say,

In one way or another, though, all are custodians of a strategy whose guiding principle has been to avoid debate about solutions to climate change by denying its existence — or at least by diminishing its importance.

Avoid debate? Global Warming deniers have been shut out of the debate as the previous paragraph so mockingly demonstrates. It really is a shame that one can cite Former Brittish Prime minister Tony Blair as one being in favor of Global Warming when the overwhelming information about the Global Warming Fraud comes from the Brittish press. Perhaps the NYTimes needs to read some news papers.

Be Counted

If your like myself you probably have felt powerless to effect the outcome of our degrading Republic. You now feel something has changed but are not quite sure how to help or get involved. I just wanted to write a quick post on some of the things you can do to effect the outcome. The most obvious is vote. If your not sure who to vote for, find the liberal candidate (usually marked with a D) and vote for the other guy. If you want to really join in, the easiest way to do so is to join your local Tea Party. This is as simple as going to the Tea Party Patriots site -http://www.teapartypatriots.org/index.html

From this site you can easily find your local Tea Party site and sign up. They are everywhere. If you do this you will get many e mails on how to support local Tea Party candidates. It can be as simple as putting a sign in your yard, donating 20 bucks or making some phone calls. I work late everyday and don't have much time to give. But every little bit helps. Even just joining will get you counted. On most of these sites they have a tally of existing members posted on the home page. Mine only has about 650 members (but it is just the Cape Cod and Plymouth), there are hundreds of these in each state. We have grabbed their attention. They are calling us racists and red necks because they are scared to heck. They know it is the Tea Party movement that will shut the door to their agenda. None of us have seen such a organic movement in our life times. We have literally changed the outcome already, races that were thought to be slam dunks were turned 180 degrees. And we're just getting started! Being a member does not define your beliefs. To be a member you really only need to share 3 common beliefs:

1 Reduce the size of central government

2 Reduce spending

3 Adhere to the constitution

If you feel strongly about each of these items, what are you waiting for. Join Or Die!

Labour

Today I got an e mail from my company assuring me of my safety. I am sure you must be wondering what dangers lies before me. No I am not a stunt man. Nor do I work in a rough district. What dangers lurk around the corner?


There are union workers picketing around our facility. Perhaps that doesn't make me a fire man on a call, but I understand the need for the communication. My company has hired a contractor to completely gut one floor and refurbish it with a new cafe and meeting rooms etc. Well apparently this contractor had the nerve to hire non union dry wall installers. Imagine that! They didn't want to pay 2X the cost to dry wall the building! Whats this country coming to!



I used to think that unions had their purpose in America. That they helped us through a time when the greedy business owners were abusing their workers. Making them work 24/7 for a penny a week. The people organized through unions and fought the man!. Then I learned a little about union history. What they did to the Chinese. What they did to blacks. How they burned down businesses to the ground. Murder, destruction, theft, you name the crime, there is a good chance the unions have done it



More importantly, I learned from Milton Friedman how a free market really works. Most of us have the impression that in the turn of the 20th century that unions were the reason the average wage increased significantly in respect to business. Wages increased significantly. Working conditions improved tremendously. Hours were shorter. Vacations and benefits increased significantly. But the fact is that during that period less than 3 percent of Americans were union. are we then saying that 3% of the work force influenced the market with such force? Even today far less than 1 out of 4 Americans works in a union. Yet somehow we have managed to attribute all of our advances in the American (and other economic developed countries) standard of living to the mighty stride of the Union. Why is that?



Well, one thing we need to understand is through our healthy dose of media, we hear often of union bargaining disagreements. "GM workers threaten strike" or "Teachers may not be coming back to school in the town of east B.F.". While what you do not hear about in the news is each individual leaving his job for one with better pay or better benefits. I am not sure that "Jim Fisher leaves Gillette to get better medical insurance for his family" is really too interesting a headline for CNN news. What most people don't realize that these individual negotiations have massive effect. Sure, the fact that I did leave Gillette didn't make them shut down the mach 3 department, but when 30 others followed me out the door, don't think they didn't evaluate if their compensation package was sufficient. millions of people change their jobs each year. And its effects are the reason for our current standard of living today.

Despite what you may or may not believe about unions, their over all effect of our economy is very negative. But their reach for negativity is far more than just the economy. It decreases the number of doctors and the average standard of health care. It decreases the quality of education. It has added to the massive corruption in government. The list of negative effects goes on. Problem is that it does significantly improve the standard of living of the union member for today. Despite the fact that worker is destroying his company for his children (and his children's economy). Take a minute to evaluate how a union really gets their member wage increased. What is the intrinsic value of the union. They have the power to shut down their company, or at least seriously hinder its operation. Their power stretches beyond that. Companies know that if they do try and replace the union with non-union members, there are many consequences. Some legal and some not legal. Bad publicity, harassment of the new workers and very likely some form of criminal action against them.

So the union uses this power to artificially inflate their compensation. The reason I use the word "artificial", is because their wage or compensation is almost always far above the actual worth to the company. believe it or not, this is just as bad for the worker as it is for the company. Lets say you were a small business man that hired 4 plumbers. You organize all their work by advertising and buying supplies and trucks and everything that goes into it. After all is said and done and you have paid the insurance and the advertisers and the truck payments, etc... If the 4 guys do an honest days work they can make you $100 per day. Lets say the 8 hour day you charge $150 per man, but after all is said and done (bills are paid) you actually make $100 per man per day. You know what the plumbers out there are making and figure you could pay the 4 guys $60 each per day and then you can now keep $40 each. So you now make $160 per day profit. If one of the plumbers says he wont work for less than $80 (but the other 3 will), no big deal, you just tell him see you later and find one that will work for $60. Or perhaps this particular plumber wants the $80 because he kicks butt every day and actually makes you $150 instead of $100. In that case it makes sense to give him what he wants.
But lets say all 4 guys get together with every other plumber in your state and decide no one is getting out of bed for less than $85 a day. Now your left running a company for a total of $60 a day profit (you would be better off being a plumber than a small business owner). But the point is that the original $60 was a natural price that was decided by the market. If the price was less people coming of age would steer towards other industries. If the price was more, it would attract more people coming of age to become plumbers. The wage is a natural price that is decided by market forces. Such as how many people would become plumbers, or how much someone is willing to pay to repair their leaky pipe (charge too much and the person will either leave it leaking or figure out how to fix it himself). Regardless, that $60 is a natural wage that no 1 person or group of people got to decide. It is a natural figure decided by market forces. Now the union decides to inflate the natural wage or price. Do you just say screw it, I guess I will make $60 ($15 dollars from each guy X4) a day running my business. Of course not, you inflate your prices. But then what happens to the market? Does everyone just decide "OK I will pay more to fix the leaky pipe"? Or do people find alternate ways to accomplish what they need accomplished, eventually hurting the plumbing business overall? Perhaps they outsource their plumbing to India (just poking fun at the IT industry). Perhaps this leads someone to invent plumbing supplies that can be assembled without a torch (which did indeed happen) The most important thing someone can understand about a healthy economy is that every transaction should benefit both parties. If it does not, it is unhealthy for the overall economy and unhealthy for that particular industry.
We have many many examples of union destruction of their companies. GM is the one glaring example that not only effected GM, but because of our current leaders, it effected you and me to the tune of 57 billion dollars. Artificial inflation of wage eventually hurts the very position that is getting the wage. Although in the case of GM, it does not hurt them, instead the cost got shifted to the American tax payer. GM has indeed been affected as has America. Plants have moved to Canada and Mexico. Sales have suffered tremendously. To say that GM is unsuccessful would be a severe understatement. The correct thing would to have been to let it fail and then something else could have popped up in its place without a union. It is no coincidence that unions have migrated from the private sector to the public sector. They eventually destroy their companies or their companies figure out how to loose them. But in the public sector, their damage is absorbed by the tax payer. They hurt the very taxpayers that fund their artificially inflated wage. Take for example the teachers union. Do they help us provide a better education for our children? Do they improve any part of the education system whatsoever? I can remember a teacher when I was young celebrating the day he received tenure. In what industry does a person have the right to not be fired for his/her own mistakes. At what point does a person deserve to receive that right?
In summary, unions are very damaging to our economy. Danger is just one issue when talking about the mafia style tactics of the union. If your like most of us, you have to offer some value to your employer. Your in a constant state where both parties are receiving value from the transaction. Your making money and your company is making money off of you. Once you find yourself in a situation where there is more value somewhere else, you go to it. If your in a situation where you don't offer value to your company then they do what they must. People have this idea that we are supposed to spend our entire lives at one company, but the truth is that the economy being in a constant state of flux is what brought us the standard of living we now enjoy, not the unions. It is those millions of personal job negotiations that happen every day that brought us here. Why would we ever want to trade that for the socialist state where negotiation happens for the mass rather than the individual. It is indeed the free market that brought this standard of living to the American people. The unions have only served to remove jobs from America. GM has given us proof of this. do you think they will open new plants here in the U.S. where they must pay inflated prices for labor? All of Detroit was union at one time. Hows that working for ya Detroit? Yeah lets keep forcing unions into companies, cause I know if I were starting a new widget company, I would much rather have 1/3 my work force making full salary in retirement than have the Chinese make my widgets for 10 cents a day. Perhaps the one mistake the unions made in the 20th Century was they didnt kill all the Chinese, cause they sure are paying you back now! Or is it us that need to pay them back? Workers of the world unite huh?"

The Republic

In my first post on my brothers new blog, I wanted to talk about the Republic. In light of not so recent events and recent events, like so many Americans I have recently been awakened. Awakened to a new calling. That is, how to best serve the Republic. Something is wrong. I know that we have a Republic and I know it needs restoration, but I needed to define what that meant. My whole life I had little to no concern about government. I,. . . like most, took up sides with D or R and defended my beliefs on occasion, but for the most part felt relatively powerless to effect the outcome, and so as long as I could provide I was fine. Then came Obama. He put the green light on the progressive movement that I didn't really know much about. Fast forward a 18 months and now I realize that both parties are really progressive and have lost any sense of a value system. So I will write a Series of posts to define what I believe the issues are and how we the people need to resolve this or Restore the Republic.

What is a Republic? Its not much more that a government with Representatives of the people. That is the most basic definition. Our Republic however, has a bit more to it than that. Our founding fathers having been fresh from the monarchy of the Kings England, did something that had never been done before. They did not just draft a Declaration of Independence, where they wrote all their grievances for setting apart from their mother land. They set out to design a Republic that would address each of those grievances and give no man or sect of men the power to accomplish them. This may sound simple, but given how complex humans can be, it was indeed the greatest accomplishment ever. The Israelite's accomplished it, but they had something that the founders did not. True religious uniformity with a populace that feared their maker above all else. Not that they were not without evil or corruption, they did have an excellent system for justice (which our founders drew from). The Anglo-Saxons had something similar. But our founders were taking the next step in government. A free people that could live under the same system without sharing the same religious beliefs. Our founders understood the perils that would eventually coincide with religious uniformity. Not to mention, they had seen how a uniformed religious state was almost always the governing body itself (Kings were first in the eyes of God and thus derived their authority from him). They set out to create a government that operated completely separate from religion while borrowing the morality that all religions shared. There were certain constants that were derived from all religions equally. These constants became the foundation rather than the religion itself. It was a nobel idea. One that had never been tried. One that made so much sense, that one could forward the idea as common sense.In summary, if I had to summarize the American idea, it would be the idea to utilize the constant morality that all religions shared as a basis for law to protect the liberties of its people.
Many people say that if our founding fathers could see us now they would be appalled. I think the fact of the matter is that they would hail a victory that the Republic they created was indeed so robust that it has lasted beyond a hundred years. It is indeed a miracle that we still have Democracy, let alone anything left of their Republic. They all knew how fragile it is, and I think we would actually take them by surprise. The founders knew that a Republic was so delicate, that many expected to outlive it. So what has happened to our dear Republic over the last 200 years? Well, many things, but one of the most influential that effects the result comes from good o'l Ben Franklin's quote -"When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic". But I think the most important thing that has happened to our Republic is unavoidable. TIME! Entropy is not just in nature, but has its effects on social organization as well. We are now many many generations removed from the revolution. Even a few generations removed from the last danger of Fascism. Our last great danger was in the 1940's and those great men that saw the face of Fascism are now dying out. The generation now in power having no danger in sight (so they think) are now the greatest danger of all. They are the elitist and self serving we now elect on a regular basis and have no outside fears to contend with. They are now free to impose their ideas on the masses with no fear of interruption from a greater power than their own. And so they follow the footsteps of history to repeat the mistake that has been made over and over. Their intentions should not be doubted. As any of us with strong belief, they believe their doing the right thing. Social Justice sounds like something that should be implemented. They believe this mainly with cause to a great disease they have caught. It is the disease that plagues many politicians and scientists and professors. It is called Elitism. Elitism is the opposite of Democracy. They know you don't want it, but they also know that you are not as intelligent as they are, therefore they are acting on your behalf (whether you want it or not). They are not imposing their ideology on the people who know better. They are giving their ideology to people of less intellectual capability than they have. They view it as necessary to tell you what you really need, not what you think you need. After all, they know better, they are the educated.The means???? No worry, the end justifies the means. They will use your children. They will defy your constitution. They will create your misfortune then use it to help you. They will use the tools they have, and they are indeed patient. I have felt like I have been awakened. I have been learning about my founding fathers. I have been learning about true heroism and honor. The forfeiture of personal life for the liberty of a nation. The greatest thinkers of before our time. I used to be so impressed by the thinking of Einstein, that he could manage to imagine a world where time, space and mass were not constant, only now to be rivaled by our founders. Men that truly understood human nature and knew how to create a system to give liberty without self destruction. Einstein never had to fear his ideas, they brought him fame and fortune. The founders ideas were not only far more powerful than the atomic bomb, but personally put them in danger, their families in danger! They not only had to come up with the ideas, but they had to lead a nation through hell to incorporate them. And so I owe my life and liberty to those men. The very least I can do is make a fleeting attempt at preservation of their (and our) constitution. Until the first amendment no longer applies I will speak out. There are men in power that think they are bringing us social justice. They are in fact bringing a storm of tyranny. They are unwittingly carrying Fascism concealed in the name of distributive equality. I do believe they started out with good intentions, but as the Fascism grows from their seed of socialism, they will not admit their mistake. No, they will finish the job. In that Process they will awaken true Americans. Patriots will soon be teaming. When faced with the loss of liberty, men will do the most heroic acts. Just as any good man would push their offspring from in front of the speeding car and replace the position with their own body, so will free men risk themselves for the future liberties of their children. I for one am awake. Asleep far too long. I fully understand many are not yet awake. The loss of liberty has not been hard enough felt yet. It needs to get worse before it can get better. The free market is only stressed and not yet collapsed. The liberties only inconvenienced, and not yet removed. But it is coming. Don't believe me? Think its all going to be alright?Lets follow it together. Tell me I am wrong. I will welcome the news!

The Republic as defined by the founders is a separation of powers with checks and balances installed. It is impossible to write a better constitution. But entropy has taken its toll. The added ingredients of progressive agendas mixed with time has eroded all 3 branches. The current balance of power is shifted to the executive branch and most checks and balances have broken down. As Jefferson said to Adams "The people will restore it". WE ARE THERE. It has completely broken down. The chains of the constitution have finally rusted. The last line of defense is the people. You are now living in the 3rd great awakening. The Tea Party is the answer. We will restore our constitution. You have 3 choices. You can be part of the problem and join the progressives. You can be part of 1/3rd of the population that will sit idly by and watch and wait. Or you can be part of the Tea Party and help us fix this damn thing!

Global Warming Hoax

This article by the Telegraph UK is just too juicy to pass up. The closing paragraph of a letter by Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, says what we all know. Basically, if I may add my comment, "Follow the money".

I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.

May Cap n Trade never be.

What Is Fair?

A good friend of mine asked me a simple question. My answer was quickly written since I needed to get some other things done, but hopefully it sheds some light on the discussion. His question was,

If the Rich control 42 percent of the wealth - wouldn't you think it would be "FAIR" if they paid 42% of the taxes?

My response:

No. That is just some kind of altruistic idea that has no basis. It is just a means of stealing and empowering one group over another. Instead of the mob, its "government" that has the right to steal private property. Just as the Mob produces nothing, neither does the government. On what sound philosophical basis does the government get the right to make everyone "Even"?

For instance, take out the government of the picture just for a moment. The idea that my neighbor has more money and that's not fair, he should be forced against his will to give it to someone else so that life is supposedly more fair, is absurd on its face. It is just some moral argument based in thin air.

Now obviously there is a sound basis for government, and I would add a necessary one. But that is only true in a Christian worldview. In an atheist worldview (at least from debates with atheists that I have had), government is the ultimate authority. But when I ask "why?", there simply is no sound answer. It is because "they" say so.

Obviously there is a role for government. We all see that even if our worldviews account for that properly or not. Then we need to debate the extent of its role. As a Baptist, I see the government's role as mainly for military purposes and to maintain peace and Justice between citizens. Of course, by peace and justice, I do not mean what the Left means (they love to redefine words to be meaningless, such as economic justice, which is a contradiction in terms). I simply mean the historic definition. For instance, the Ten Commandments pretty much sums it up.

Again, though, what that may mean in foreign policy or how we use tariffs or free trade, or interstate trade, or the stopping of monopolies to prevent capitalism from self-destructing, etc etc etc is a matter of public debate.

Also, I fully understand that capitalism is not the only way to run an economy. We could follow communism as a model. But everybody ought to know that Capitalism (not to be confused with crony capitalism) provides the most opportunities for everybody and is fully compatible with Liberty. Liberals whine at this point because there will be some that fail or due to something out of the control of an individual (born blind?), will cause to some to fail. "It is just not fair" seems to be the motto. But as far as I am concerned, Capitalism is far more consistent with human nature and the way we were created (man was made in a covenant of works therefore...). But due to sin, we must see where restraint must be placed to prevent self-destruction. But though Liberals want to place these restraints, they do so not because they want Capitalism to work, but because they hate it. They want a Command and Control economy. In short they want power.

If you have any doubt, just look at what the TARP law has empowered the government to have authority to do. It is absolutely sickening and just plain frightening. I am thankful that some day this evil age will pass and this struggle for liberty and freedom will be fully consummated by a power totally outside of ourselves.

Who Does the Trashin?

This blog post demonstrates that the Left says they want a clean country, while the Right actually picks up after themselves.

Rush Defends Tea Party Hobos

I have heard it said that Sarah Palin is stupid. Yet she isn't the one ruining our country. She is not running up the debt that our Great-grand-kids won't be able to pay. She isn't centralizing all bureaucratic power. She isn't centralizing healthcare. She isn't taking over car companies or banks. She isn't following all of the models that have caused liberty to die.

Rush defends the hobos willing to get out and run for office.

RUSH: I want to speak to those of you who are embarrassed of Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell and the Tea Party in general, Sharron Angle, maybe Carl Paladino rubs you the wrong way. You think they're nuts, they embarrass you. I mean they're conservatives and they're Republicans and so are you, but you think they're a little kooky. You don't even think they can win. They don't come off well on TV. I hear from people who think this a lot. I'll tell you what I've started doing when people start -- because when they tell me they're incredulous, "Are you just saying this on the radio or do you really think Sarah Palin's got it all together? Are you really not bothered by Carl? I mean, Rush, this Paladino guy has a ten-year-old daughter from an illegitimate sexual relationship. Come on, Christine O'Donnell, Rush, I mean the IRS, you really --" the people come to me with this, wondering if I'm being genuine and serious here on the radio. What I've started doing, I'm going to do it right here, what would happen to you because this is the point that I was making yesterday talking about the dustup that Paladino had with Fred Dicker and Nathan Deal in Georgia and a number of others, Christine O'Donnell.

All of you -- and I don't know how many it is, but you know who you are -- all of you who sit out there acting holier-than-thou, saying that these Tea Party people are kooks, how would you do if suddenly your life was uncovered and plastered all over television? How would you do if cameras were following you and the express purpose was to catch you in embarrassing moments? How would you do if the media was giving you an anal exam for the express purpose of making you look like an idiot? How many of you would look like Albert Einstein? How many of you would look like Winston Churchill? How many of you would look like paragons of virtue? How many of you would look like brilliant Mensa members? How would you feel if an army of motivated people looking to destroy you was following you every moment of the day examining everything you've ever done, trying to find every event in your life, from junior high to the present? How many of you could withstand what these people are having done to them? And then when it was happening to you, how many of you would say to yourself, "Well, I hope people understand everybody's got skeletons in their closet? I hope people understand the media is trying to make us look bad."

How many of you would be hoping and praying that normal people would understand that what's going on is not quite fair? How about you? You've had a couple divorces. Do you want Katie Couric talking about that on TV? Do you want Katie Couric going to your ex-spouses, finding out why your ex-spouses don't like you? You want it all over People magazine? You want it all over the New York Times; the New York Post; the Washington Post? How about all the speeding tickets you got? You ever knocked anybody up? You got any illegitimate kids running around that you know of or don't know of? What's going to happen if you don't but some woman pops up and says that you do and the media following you around can't wait to put that out there as a possibility? What if you happen to be somebody who had to get married 30 years ago, you're living in a loveless marriage, you had to get married because you had some little accident take place, what happens if the media following you around found out about it and everybody in your neighborhood and everybody in your town and everybody in your church found out about it? Would you not be saying, "Come on, that's a long time ago, doesn't say who I am today, and look, I did the right thing back then anyway."

How many of you could withstand the Democrat Party from the White House on down going through all of your tax returns, every job that you've ever had? How many of you would look clean and pure as the wind-driven snow if the start looking into everything your kids have gotten into and have done? How many of you took seven years or eight years to pay off a $10,000 medical bill? How many of you have been audited by the IRS? How many of you have had it said that you tried to cheat the government? How many of you could withstand this kind of treatment yourselves? I mean it's one thing to sit here and say that all these people are embarrassing and they're kooks and they don't come off well on TV and they're unelectable. Well, how about you? 'Cause these people are just like you, they're just like us. How many of you have had the electricity turned off at your house because you didn't make a payment or how many of you had the phone turned off? How many of you have gone to psychics to have your future predicted? How many of you have done any kind of thing that if anybody found out about it you'd be embarrassed as hell?

How many of you can sit there and say that not one thing has ever gone wrong in your life? How many of you can say you never wrecked a car? I don't mean all of you. I'm talking about those of you or the people that you know who are sitting there from their lofty perch of perfection saying they're embarrassed by Sarah Palin. And why, by the way, are you embarrassed about Sarah Palin? What do you actually know about her? And then at the end of the day, even with all that, would you say, "Yeah, I'd rather have Obama for four more years. I really would rather have Harry Reid. I really would rather have Pelosi, yeah, because I'm so embarrassed of Palin and O'Donnell and Carl Paladino. I can't vote for 'em, they embarrass me, if anybody found out I voted for 'em, I couldn't live with myself. People would be laughing at me. I'd have to say how stupid they are so people think I'm not stupid." Okay, fine. Then I assume this means you want four more years of an assault on the American private sector and the economy. You want four or six more years of wild spending, dooming your own kids and grandkids to having any opportunity for prosperity, all because Paladino or Palin or somebody embarrasses you, they're not electable, they're kooks?

How many of you would even have the guts to run for office? How many of you would have the guts to go do what they're doing rather than sit on the sideline and complain about how those who are doing it aren't doing it the right way? You can tell I'm getting a little ticked off more and more each time I describe it because I run into these people. I don't know what they expect my reaction to be when they tell me this. I'm supposed to agree, yeah, privately, "I know they're a little kooky but they're all we've got." I mean I don't like arrogance wherever I find it. Is it not the professional politician that has created this mess? Is it not the people who look good on TV and who sound good on TV and sound smart on TV and look like Ken dolls and buy hair spray and Botox by the case, is it not those people that have created the problems that we're in? So when average, ordinary life happens people decide they don't want to put up with the pros anymore and they want to roll their sleeves up and get involved and try to fix it, why do we demand of them standards that we do not demand of even Obama or Dingy Harry or Robert Byrd? I mean can somebody tell me what Ku Klux Klan group Carl Paladino ever belonged to? Can somebody tell me what shifty land deal Harry Reid made gazillions of dollars on exists in the Republican Party? Somebody give one.

Can you tell me where the equivalent to Harry Reid is in the Tea Party? Where is it? Where is the equivalent to Pelosi? Where is the equivalent to Barack Obama? Where is it? See, what doesn't compute for me is the vitriol I hear from people describing Democrats destroying the country. People say this to me: "Rush, they're ruining the country, they're destroying the country." Right, but we prefer that to Sarah Palin or Christine O'Donnell 'cause they just embarrass us, they're kooky. Where's the equivalent to either of the Clintons in the Tea Party? I thought we wanted people in Washington who look like everybody else in America. I thought we want people in Washington who have had negative encounters with the government, the bureaucracy, the oppressive elements of this regime so they can relate to it and stop it. I thought we want people in Washington who really want a flat tax or a FairTax and are not concerned with the power they'd be giving up in getting rid of the current progressive tax. I thought that's what we wanted. If you couple this, what I'm saying now, with the monologue of yesterday, folks, it's serious.

If you think the Republicans winning the House in November ends Obama, I beg you, think again. It only just begins. The real battle just begins. Because if you think the things they're saying about Christine O'Donnell and Sarah Palin and Carl Paladino, et al, if you think the things they're saying about 'em now embarrass you, you wait until they're elected, if they are, see what they say about them and then see how touch it's going to be for you and your perfection, your flawless life to sit there and continue to stand with them and support them. People who have never made wrong decisions have never made a decision. People who have never made mistakes have not lived. I want people who have lived lives, who have made mistakes, don't care who knows it, they've learned from them, they've made amends, and they have moved on with their lives. I'm tired, frankly, of Republicans throwing candidates under the bus for not being the political equivalent of Mother Teresa or not being professional enough to get elected. I really lose my patience with abject neophytes who don't understand the first thing about politics, criticizing people for getting involved and trying to improve what is a terrible situation in this country, people who wouldn't lift a finger to do it themselves.