Where are the Clowns?

Today, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided that Al Franken deserves to sit in the Senate as the singular vote that gives to the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority. In their infinite wisdom, the American people, educated by progressives and brainwashed in the ideology of sacrifice, too afraid to stand up for freedom, have turned over our futures to the proponents of altruism.

I think it is fitting. The selection of Franken, a clown, has provided a new theme for the future. Where are the clowns? They’re in the government.

We are now in an age when the ruling philosophy holds that man is his brother’s keeper, from each according to his ability to each according to his need. We are now in the age where all the problems created by government will supposedly be solved by doing more of what caused the problems; as they’ve always said, it will work if we each sacrifice for the sake of others. We are now in a society based on sacrifice, not the "outdated" idea of freedom.

One of our first experiments in sacrificial living was in New Harmony, Indiana. There, after months of trying to make a utopian society work, disillusioned and frustrated true believers gave up. The failed experiment proved that the hope of making man into a worker bee was not possible, that man was "not good enough" to sacrifice for his fellow men; that he was "too selfish" to make the altruist philosophy work.

In spite of this failure, an entire continent (Asia) later became consumed by sacrifice. After several decades of murder, concentration camps and slave labor, these people too became disappointed in the idea of man the worker bee. Their image of a society where all sacrificed for all was crushed in the realization that man was "not good enough" to help his fellow men; that he was "too selfish" to make the altruist philosophy work.

Today, we are told that we must all work together and contribute to the betterment of society, that we can make sacrifice work. Somehow, we think, we will not become disappointed. We think that somehow our idea of a society where all work for the sake of all can succeed. The smiling faces, the bureaucrats who tell half-truths and half-lies, the proponents of parasitism, don’t know whether they are fooling us or fooling themselves. As I said, they are a bunch of clowns.

We are in a new age; the progressives are in charge. They've used altruism to get into power and now they'll make good on their promise; you will sacrifice. Even better for them, they no longer have to hide the fact that they've always wanted to take over the means of production. Now that they've done it, they are free to re-distribute the rotting machines and declining production to themselves; they are free to make themselves rich while they throw cookie crumbs to you, the starving masses. This has always been the goal of the new age. Of course you didn't know that; you've been educated in their schools.

But reality can’t be repealed. And facts can’t be legislated out of existence or eliminated by a Presidential Order. They don't know how to run businesses, let alone a whole industrial economy...so they will impoverish themselves in the process of impoverishing you.

As for me, well, I no longer have to worry about whether my dissent can stop them from accomplishing slavery. I know they will do it. So it is up to you. My generation will die soon, you'll have to live with them for the rest of your lives...unless you stop them now.

There is only one way to get rid of a human parasite. Don't feed him.

Cap and Trade or Capping Individual Rights?

You are either for freedom or you are for slavery. There is no middle position. You can't live with a little bit of poison and an equal amount of healthy food in your system. You cannot compromise with a person who wants a little bit of your freedom. You can only compromise with a person who wants to leave you free. If you think you can live with a little bit of government force in your life, you don't understand that those who favor coercion will not be satisfied with just a little bit of your freedom. Once you grant the principle, they can take it all the way and you have no argument against them.

No good comes from coercion. Good is only possible with freedom. That is because freedom means the freedom of your mind to think and to create your survival. Anything that denies this freedom is evil; not just a little evil but fully evil. The forcible denial of your freedom is based on a hatred of your mind and of your life. This has been proven by history. The principle of coercion is what animated the 20th century which was one of the most deadly and destructive centuries in mankind's history. We are now repeating the mistakes of that century by glorifying state power. We will suffer a like destruction if we do not change our course. The lies about America, the Constitution, Capitalism and freedom are all intended to diminish these values in your mind so you will accept the moral authority of people who want to take your freedoms away from you. On this issue, the issue of freedom vs. slavery, you must take a firm stand for freedom and allow no compromise. Otherwise, you will be a slave.

Whoever wants a peaceful, civil society has to fight against the principle of statism. Statism is the idea that the government has the authority to interfere in the lives of citizens by means of force. Both the left and the right in our government today are representatives of statism; and the only principle that stands opposed to it is laissez faire capitalism. If you are going to fight lawlessness and barbarism you must fight for laissez faire capitalism.

The forces of statism have deceptively established themselves as fighters for the “good.” They claim to represent the elements in society that have been somehow oppressed and exploited. They arrogate to themselves the principle of a caring government that is trying to establish “justice” and “fairness.” They even put a tenous concept known as "the planet" ahead of the rights of real life individuals. These are the methods of charlatans and crooks.

You can always tell a statist because he never claims to represent what he actually represents. Decades ago he and his predecessors learned that they could not gain power by standing against freedom. So they advanced their principles by means of deceptive semantics, claiming that their policies improved capitalism. They even promised that their methods of government interference would create more affluence, bring more jobs and stimulate innovation. They talked the language of capitalism but with regulations “designed” to “improve” the system. This is the essence of fascism. This is the principle represented by the Waxman/Markey Cap and Trade Bill.

Fascism is an endless manipulation of the economy that advances the power of government piecemeal by slowly chipping away at the freedom of people to make their own decisions. Fascists pose as “practical” people who merely want to make the system better; oblivious to the fact that every move they make accomplishes the opposite of their stated goals. Every move they make only advances their hidden goal of central planning. Fascists don’t care about individual rights…though they may claim to do so.

The most common principle used by statists of all varieties is the principle of sacrifice. All statists operate according to the collectivist lie that people must get together in order to solve the problems created by capitalism. Capitalism is a symbol for freedom and it must be lied about relentlessly by the statists in order to develop programs that result in political success and election victories. For the statist, the collective is the ideal, it is the principle that people must accept. If you criticize a statist he merely claims to be helping the poor, the defenseless, the victimized, the children, the uneducated, etc. This is the lie; they tie their programs to a moral issue so they can obtain the moral high ground and manipulate their opponents to the moral low ground.

The principle of individual rights is the highest moral/political principle of all. To violate individual rights is to be evil. Individual rights is the principle that protects the freedoms of people and enables them to advance their lives peacefully and without exploitation. Individual rights are the basis of civil society and without individual rights a society will devolve into barbarism, plunder and group warfare. If people do not fight for their individual rights, not only will they lose those rights, they will suffer the consequences: authoritarian government along with economic and social decline. History has proven this.

Yesterday, the House of Representatives voted for the most massive destruction of individual rights in our nation's history through the Waxman/Markey Bill. They have taken us further than ever toward the establishment of full totalitarianism. They have allowed the government to use a phony argument on the environment to destroy entire industries, reduce our standard of living and violate our individual rights. They have created a phony new currency (carbon credits) that will make them rich at the expense of citizens who rely upon energy. They have created a new money laundering scheme bigger and more destructive than their money laundering scheme that created our sub-prime economic meltdown. And almost as bad, they have created a mechanism that destroys jobs in America and sends those jobs to foreign countries…something they claim to be against.

Below is a list of Republicans who voted for the bill. The question for them is: What deals were made to buy their votes? What principle was so important that they had to trade away our lives for their own short-term gain? I am told that it is still possible for them to change their votes. Here are their phone numbers:

Bono Mack (CA) (202) 225-5330
Castle (DE) (202) 225-4165
Kirk (IL) (202) 225-4385 (And he’s seriously considering running for Senate!)
Lance (NJ) (202) 225-5361
LoBiondo (NJ) (202) 225-6572
McHugh (NY) (202) 225-4611
Reichert (WA) (202) 225-7761
Smith (NJ) (202) 225-3765

Here is how Indiana Representatives voted:
(5-4 Democratic)
• 1. Pete Visclosky (D) No
• 2. Joe Donnelly (D) No
• 3. Mark Souder (R) No
• 4. Steve Buyer (R) No
• 5. Dan Burton (R) No
• 6. Mike Pence (R) No
• 7. André Carson (D) Yes
• 8. Brad Ellsworth (D) No
• 9. Baron Hill (D) Yes

If you have not expressed your opinion on this bill, now is the time to fight for your rights. Those who voted for this bill should receive the highest measure of criticism and wrath. They are the enemies of freedom. They are immoral.

What Should the Iranian People do now?

The Green Revolution in Iran may be losing its ability to communicate its message to the world. Harsh and cruel crackdowns that include beatings, decapitations and murder may have finally silenced the aspirations of the Iranian people for freedom of speech and other personal freedoms. What can they do now? How can they advance their prospects for self-sufficiency and self-determination? I suggest a Green Revolution of Silence.

To the Iranian people, I’d like to suggest that you starve your government, go on strike, and slowly take from the government the very things it needs in order to oppress you. It may require some short-term suffering but certainly not as much suffering as you have been experiencing for decades. Here is how it can be done:

1. Stay in your homes and refuse to enjoy your free time until the government falls. If you have free time or vacation time available, take it. This keeps you out of trouble, reduces commerce and yet is a form of protest.
2. Hoard your money, hide it and do not put it in a bank; temporarily remove it from circulation. The government needs a working economy in order to pay for operations. If you save your money and refuse to buy anything, there will be fewer taxes to collect.
3. Reduce or stop your production if possible. The government can only collect taxes when surplus wealth is created. If there is no surplus wealth then the government will begin to suffer from budget deficits.
4. Keep silent and do only what you are told and nothing more. Volunteer no new ideas and play ignorant when you are asked for an opinion or idea.
5. If you can, do only enough to achieve bare subsistence. This should also be done by merchants and factory owners whose taxes feed the economy. If you can sabotage production without being caught, do so.
6. Do not start new businesses or borrow money for major purchases. This will slow the economy and start the process of economic decline that is necessary for the government to fall.
7. If you are a student, learn your lessons and get good grades, but take no position of leadership and show only the support of silence. The entire society should walk around in silence without smiles.
8. If you are an employee of the government or even a police officer, do everything you can to help the people without being noticed and, if you can, refuse to follow orders. Never ask a citizen to provide you with information. If you can get away with it provide false information to the government. This will be important because the new government, once it is formed, will need good people.
9. Whenever possible, grow your own food and make your own energy but do nothing to improve your standard of living until you are free.
10. If you trade with others, trade in such a way that it is out of sight of the government and without reporting. Barter, create your own private currencies and make only verbal agreements that are out of sight of the government. Trust each other and deal only with people who do not support the government.
11. If possible, take advantage of every benefit the government provides so it is spending money on you that it cannot spend on weapons and oppression. Only take a government job if you can sabotage the government without being noticed. Take but never give back.

With a protest of this kind, a silent protest, the government cannot last long and it will either have to capitulate or fall. Governments need money in order to function and if you can starve them of money, you can win.

After all, you are the highest value in your society; they are the parasites.

ABC and ObamaCare

One thing about the truth; someone has to tell it. Otherwise, the lie wins the day, and destruction ensues.

Had Barack Obama told us explicitly during his election campaign that he was going to turn the government toward fascism, the election might have had another outcome. Yet it is fascism to which he is turning. Exposing a disdain for straight talk while pretending to be talking straight, Mr. Obama would never have been elected if he told us that his intention was to expropriate huge industries and turn them into departments of the government. He was able to accomplish this political coup through the aid of a media that did not want to translate the candidate’s vague poetic allusions and romantic promises into their true meaning.

I don’t know about the content of ABC’s Special program on HealthCare tonight. I do not plan to watch. The reason is because I’m already convinced that President Obama is lying when says he does not intend to take over our country's medical industry. And I'm certain that such a takeover is a bad thing for the country. All I need to know is that government involvement in the private economy is not going to produce promised benefits. It never has done so in the past. All it accomplishes is the destruction of individual rights and the elimination of our economic choices. On this issue, it will produce the opposite of health. You can read about it in my blog post below entitled “Health Care Slavery.”

Every dictatorship needs willing appeasers in order accomplish its goals. Yet, it was once held that a free press and media were necessary for the preservation of freedom. The media was supposed to be a bulwark against the growth of tyranny and statism. By exposing corruption and lies, by telling the truth, the media was supposed to ensure that the public could make informed decisions. This is not the case today.

Today, the media has become a propagandist for the government seeking to advance the goals of President Obama as he pursues the fastest destruction of the private economy in history. We are watching a political coup engaged by radical elements intent on destroying our freedoms and turning us into slaves. These radical elements think they can merely smile, ask for blind trust and tell the same worn out lies they have told for decades. They cynically tell us that their intentions are good, that they only want to help people, that their methods are pure and that we should all go along as dutiful participants in building a new age of utopian dreams; a beautiful society that never comes. These are the same lies told by communists, fascists, trade unionists, progressives and liberals since the beginning of the last century. Few in the media are proclaiming that behind the smiles and lies are rotted vampires who want to suck the blood from our veins, demagogues who want to steal our wealth and force us to build legislative monuments that glorify their powerlust.

Any media network that thinks it can save itself by attaching its message to a popular leader has abrogated the right to be called a free institution. When the government takes full control, as this government appears intent on doing, such a network is counting on being left standing; the only network not shut down by the government. As an agent of the government, ABC has become a proponent of lies and deception. It will never be able to regain its freedom speech; it is useless for the people

We should boycott ABC and starve the company of its lifeblood; advertising dollars and viewers.

Health Care Slavery

The Medical Services industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the USA. You'd think that with so much tinkering by government in the past that it would be perfect. Unless you know that regulation is what breaks industries, not fixes them. In fact, those who favor government intervention forget that government is the cause of the very problems it seeks to fix. Worse than this, politicians don't know that the solution for our health care problems is that the government stop doing what created them.

The New Health Insurance reform that the Obama administration is attempting to install is another example of the government trying to fix a problem by doing the same things that created the problem.

“Contrary to claims that government-imposed “universal health care” would solve America’s health care problems, it would in fact destroy American medicine and countless lives along with it. The goal of “universal health care” (a euphemism for socialized medicine) is both immoral and impractical; it violates the rights of businessmen, doctors, and patients to act on their own judgment—which, in turn, throttles their ability to produce, administer, or purchase the goods and services in question.”(1)

“The current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is a catastrophe, and it is a result of government intervention in the free market. Such intervention violates the rights of insurance companies, employers, and consumers by granting special government favors to certain insurance companies or plans, by forcibly eliminating options that would exist in a free market, and by forcibly seizing money from insurers and the insured. It artificially places employers and insurers between doctors and patients and leads to innumerable economic distortions. Employers and insurers dictate everything from which doctors and specialists employees will be permitted to visit under the plan, to the kinds of benefits that will and will not be provided, to the co-payments and deductibles that will be paid. Because third parties are paying for both insurance and health care, the employee-patient-customer has little choice in what kind of insurance or who provides the health care he receives—and plenty of incentive to visit a doctor anytime he has a runny nose. The fact that third parties pay for all health care increases the administrative costs for doctors as well as insurers, and those costs are passed on to consumers.”(2)

The media today seldom exposes the government as the culprit in our present circumstance. Instead they prefer to get into bed with the government; they prefer to be dutiful propagandists, complicit in helping the government promote the lie that medical insurance reform will actually reduce costs and improve services. They refuse to report to the people that government intervention in the medical services industry has caused the very problems it claims to be fixing.

Yet…“The American Medical Association warns physicians that, due to the lack of affordable health insurance (because of government rules), “more patients will delay treatment and . . . doctors will likely see more uncompensated care.” Hence, each year doctors are working harder and harder but making less and less money, resulting in a “critical level” of stress and burnout. According to a recent survey of doctors, “30 to 40 percent of practicing physicians would not choose to enter the medical profession if they were deciding on a career again, and an even higher percentage would not encourage their children to pursue a medical career.””(3)

President Obama’s new health care plan is nothing but more stress and burnout for the doctors. It is more re-distribution. The stated intentions of this plan are to ensure that people have medical insurance and that health care costs go down. But re-distribution of medical expenses requires intervention; intervention requires that the doctors be made into slaves who must pay for the growing costs created by government. The method of redistribution is to force all doctors into the system and then reduce payments to them below cost. In this scheme, the government is the authority on what doctors and hospitals should be doing and it will determine who lives or dies based upon considerations not necessarily in the best interest of the patients or doctors.

No one stops to ask the question. Why does the government violate the rights of virtually the entire medical services industry in order to fix problems that it created? Once again, we arrive at the basic premise of the Obama administration: sacrifice. For every problem the government creates, someone has to sacrifice. This is discrimination.

In order to reduce health care costs the government must routinely pay doctors less than cost for necessary services and treatments. In addition, the government will decide who warrants expensive treatments and it will seek to limit the range of options that would normally be available to a patient in a free market. This will not only reduce the level of care, but it will also reduce research and development for better treatments and medicines. It will create a brain drain in the medical services industry.

The government can’t legislate a right to health care. Any such “right” must be paid for by someone else. The government can’t induce doctors to participate in a program that loses money for them. And, more importantly, we cannot simply appeal to a doctor’s sense of charity (sacrifice) if, in the process, he won’t be able to pay his electric bill. For men and women who have spent significant portions of their lives preparing for the demanding work of caring for sick patients, what kind of future do you think doctors will have under a single-payer system? Who would want to be under the knife of someone who resents being robbed by the President's program? Who would want to be cared for by someone who must do it out of civic duty with no reward or compensation?

Why should a doctor work hard to save lives when he or she has been made into a slave? Doctors have a right to work in this society freely. They have the right to trade their skills for a reasonable price. Doctors, of all people, should be left alone to function without the interference of government. The same goes for nurses, hospitals, insurance companies, medical products manufacturers and drug companies.

Further, I hope your life (or mine) is not one that the government decides is too expensive to save. As Charles Krauthammer has said, "Death is cheaper." Will the government now insist that we have a moral obligation to die so the government can lower our medical expenses?

(1)
Moral Health Care vs. "Universal Health Care"
(2) Ibid
(3) Ibid (parentheses mine)

Meddling

President Obama today warned us about “meddling” in Iran's affairs due to the past history of Iran and the U.S. I would suggest that the President should meddle some more…lest those freedom loving Iranians accuse him of being irrelevant. In fact, I think he is rationalizing his fear of taking a stand and is looking for a way to avoid making a mistake. In the process, he has made the biggest mistake of all; he is broadcasting to the world that he has no backbone.

What is it that has the Iranian protestors so upset? Is it because an election has been stolen from them? Do you think they do not know that their country is run by a religious council that makes all the decisions? Do you think they do not know that the position of the President of Iran is meaningless?

Of course they know this. This election in Iran is about eliminating or at the very least diminishing the power of the mullahs. It is about getting a foothold for secularism in a country run by religious fanatics. It is a cry for freedom and President Obama does not want to support them because the oppressors of Iran might consider that we are meddling.

Does this mean that President Obama is hedging his bets in the event that the mullahs wind up imposing their system once more on the people? If so, well, I’d have to say I’d rather be back in the Cold War when we had the courage to help resistance movements against dictators under the Soviet thumb.

The truth is that we will be accused by the Mullahs of meddling whether we like it or not. They certainly understand that a secular society like that desired by the Iranian protestors is similar to that found in the United States. They will consider us to be meddling merely because we exist.

Our openness is a symbol for freedom fighters around the world; and that means we are the perfect scapegoat for oppressors who seek to prosecute “spies” sent from America. Why do you think they imprisoned the young Iranian-American journalist? They want to accuse America of meddling in their affairs. Why do you think they rail about “the Great Satan”? That's because we are a secular society where people are free to choose their religion or choose no religion at all. A secular society, for them, is like an evil seductress, constantly offering freedom, self-determination and immorality. They would rather destroy the bringer of freedom because, in their twisted moral chaos, freedom is immoral, not the liberator of people who can decide for themselves how they will be moral.

Why does President Obama want to appease these dictators when the secularism of the people in Iran would be the very thing we need to help bring peace to the region? In fact, Iranian secularism would strengthen the position of another secular country nearby called Israel.

Of course the people of Iran are slaves to the Mullahs…but they don’t want to be…and a whiff of even some freedom, some accommodation of secularism in the society, could have major repercussions around the world. And a U.S. President who stands by their side and supports their struggle would do more to change the region than anything. Certainly, appeasement of the Mullahs would do nothing but strengthen dictatorship and provide a justification for killing dissenters. Haven't we, since the late '70s, appeased these Mullahs enough? Don't you think it is amazing that a large segment of the population of Iran is still yearning for freedom in spite of the fact that we have been too cowardly to support them during all those years?

I don't agree with the idea that helping the Iranian people become free would be meddling. You cannot impose freedom on people, you cannot impose liberty...not if you understand what freedom and liberty are. Freedom means no tanks and guns killing people in the streets. Liberty means living as you see fit without a moralizing Mullah telling women that they have to cover their heads or they can't wear make up. Any society that dominates people like that deserves to be meddled with. And it is moral to do this kind of meddling. No, we don't need to send troops into the street or sacrifice our young lives and millions of dollars; but providing moral support is the right kind of meddling in a situation where people are being killed for not towing the line.

But, according to President Obama, we don’t want to meddle; we don't want to impose our views on how people should live. If a government is murderous that's their culture and we have to respect that (Well, you know what I think of that idea). Obama has no problem dealing with murderous dictators. It is this view, this pacifist, failed idea, that will cause Obama’s foreign policy failures. We should have elected a President who understood what evil is and who was prepared on day 1 to give it no quarter. Instead, we got a mealy-mouthed compromiser who thinks you can negotiate with people who have sworn to destroy you. That is a major blunder and we will now have to live with the destruction that is to come from this failed, naïve foreign policy default.

Obama is not a man who understands freedom and its unique position in history. In fact, he would prefer that the people of Iran do their own work for freedom so he can take credit for it; like the politician he is; who, like a modern day Chamberlain, has no sense of cause and effect. He wants the credit for Iranian aspirations while he does everything he can to destroy freedom in his own country; and while he is asking the enemies of freedom to love him. This is a man who is unwilling and ideologically incapable of taking a stand for freedom. You have to know how rare it is before you are willing to put your life on the line for it. The people of Iran, who are getting beaten on the streets today could teach him a few things about meddling.

Is Fox News Fair and Balanced?

I remember when the only television news stations in Indianapolis were CBS, ABC and NBC. There was little questioning of the news that these pioneering talking heads gave; but I remember also some frustration from conservatives that their viewpoints were not being represented. What’s new? My family was made up of Kennedy Democrats and we didn’t really want to hear what the Republicans were saying (Before Kennedy, we did like Eisenhower as President but remember more his golf playing than any opinion he espoused. Those were times of economic growth and as long as Eisenhower was playing golf, we knew he was not doing any harm).

I admired Kennedy for his youth and strength. He seemed to be a man of action and he inspired me to pay attention to what was going on in the world. He elevated politics in this country, at least in my lifetime; but now, I don’t think that was a good thing. Because of Kennedy, politics has become a sport of propaganda and demagoguery, where the only important thing is who wins by any means necessary. The way politics is played today has nothing to do with good government and more to do with money laundering and power politics…racketeering to be precise.

I’d prefer a politics to which we don’t have to pay attention on a regular basis; a politics that leaves the people alone and doesn’t have to be constantly fixing crises; a politics that supports society by making sure it is free rather than constantly seeking to expand its own power over people. It is possible to have such a politics that allows us to live our lives and make our own decisions, over which we don’t have to constantly worry. If people aren’t constantly wondering what government will do to them next, they can live much happier lives.

I think that is the way it was intended to be. I think our founders established the rights of man, individual rights, in order to keep government from constantly meddling in our lives. In fact, for many decades we did not even have a national income tax. Once we did, politicians began spending their time vying for power so they could control the money pit and turn its benefits toward themselves and their friends. It is not about doing good for the people, it is about the cynical use of “good intentions” to launder money.

The public today clamors for honesty and freedom while the demagogues clamor for more power. They lie to us that they are really on our sides, we vote for them, then all the promises dissolve…on to the next election. I find it ironic that during the last election Congress’ approval ratings were in the low double digits while 95% of them were re-elected. Something is wrong and it appears that those who have power have learned how to keep it in spite of low popularity, huge and embarrassing scandals and outright corruption. The scam is pretty simple; smile a lot, lie a lot, ask people to trust you and brag about how much of the taxpayers’ money you brought back to your district. Get people to say, “I like that guy; he’s a straight shooter,” and you can get elected time after time. It doesn’t hurt to also get control of the election machinery. The result: the most corrupt of our politicians, those caught in heinous acts of theft and fraud, are the ones re-elected with the highest margins of victory.

The media is part of the problem. I believe that the role of the media should be to present the facts of any story without ideological or political distortion. It should also select for publication all stories that expose corruption and graft. Instead it selects stories that only make one party look bad while the other party engages in massive fraud and money laundering.

There is a clear bias in the mainstream media and they are losing viewership due to it. It is not that the public has swung to the right. It is that the public is more educated and they are demanding more balanced reporting. People can tell a slanted story when they see one. Hence the welcomed ascendance of Fox News, a network dedicated toward a more open and fair presentation of both liberal and conservative views. Fox has leveled the platform politically and given voice to many people shut out of the mainstream media. But all networks should be “fair and balanced” should they not? Shouldn’t they all present news without bias? Why should there even be such a question as which network is fair and balanced?

Yet, I question whether Fox News is really fair and balanced. Are they doing us a great favor by presenting all sides of an argument? More to the point, are the leftists and the rightists really opposites?

I remember from my Introduction to Logic course that arguments fall into two categories: (1) arguments between contradictories and (2) arguments between contraries. A contradictory represents two opposite points of view. Using the principle of “excluded middle” you are either for a given point or you are against it. The key in such argumentation is for the news network to make sure the two opposing views are true contradictories, that is, fundamental divisions rather than just two opposing views among many. In argument, and in reality, two contradictory propositions cannot both be true.

Yet, with contraries, two propositions can both be false. An argument between two contraries is based, not on opposite principles, but on disagreements over like principles. A contrary might include a liberal and a conservative view on forced charity or welfare. Both parties favor it so there is no real disagreement except how to do it. This is not a fundamental argument. The real fundamental is whether to do it or not. An argument among contraries on this issue does no service to the truth since it leaves the door open to polarization over non-essentials and assumes that all people agree on the fundamental. On this question Fox News may as well be CBS or MSNBC.

Yet there may be millions of people who do not favor re-distribution of income if the choice is properly presented. Society is not improved when we argue for a point that enables politicians to re-distribute without question. On this issue and many others, the question should not be how much or how fast but whether the government should re-distribute wealth at all. This applies to every major government boondoggle; especially government bailouts, government forced bankruptcies, stimulus bills and socialized medicine to name a few. The Tea Parties demonstrate that there is still considerable disagreement on these programs and Fox News and other news networks would do well to take note.

I submit that most Fox News reporting, though a welcome departure from propaganda media, is still not fair and balanced because it assumes, most often, that we all favor a mixed economy; an economy in which there is a great deal of government force and some political freedom. The Fox News talking heads are arguing about contraries, not contradictories.

For instance, what does it mean to be on the left and on the right? Do you know that these divisions were invented in Germany during a time when statism was in full swing, where the only real opposition was among two views of statism? These divisions, left vs. right, were among two contraries, not two contradictories. Commenting on the divisions in pre-Nazi Germany, Ludwig von Mises said the following:

“The mere fact that these two groups (left versus right) are fighting each other does not necessarily prove that they differ in their philosophies and first principles. There have always been wars between people who adhered to the same creeds and philosophies. The parties of the Left and of the Right are in conflict because they both aim at supreme power.”(1)

One thing that can be said of the left (communists) and the right (fascists) in Germany was that at least they both called their systems socialism. Yet, they agreed on one fundamental issue: the government has the right to impose its will on the people...whether they like it or not. "Left versus Right" in Germany was a division among fellow-travelers...not fundamental enemies. These parties were allies vying against each other for power with the basic question, whether the government should engage in coercion, already settled.

In our country, since the advent of the progressive movement, the left has led the country further and deeper into fascism while the right has merely argued about how far and how fast we should go. When Fox News presents two “opposing” views on many political topics it is not really presenting opposing views; it is presenting two parties with essentially the same fundamental views. How can we make a real choice when the only choices presented on the news are among parties with the same opinion; that the government should grow? How can we make real change, let alone have a real debate, when the debate is rigged?

The proper division of opinions, the two contradictories today, are statism versus limited government; not Democrat versus Republican, not progressive versus conservative, not left versus right. Yet, nowhere does Fox News attempt to be truly fair and balanced in politics. There are still many viable positions that are locked out of the debate, even on Fox News, and this is a disservice. Where are the advocates of a truly limited constitutional government that Fox News has elevated into the debate? They are barely heard. If they do promote such people, it is not in debate but in individual interviews (Thanks, Glenn Beck). We should see more of these people taking on both Republicans and Democrats. Then, perhaps, we can get back to a society where we don’t have to worry what government is going to do to us next.

(1) Ludwig von Mises, Omnipotent Government, Libertarian Press, Paperback P 177

The Future

I think Barack Obama knows his Presidency will fail. Certainly, by now, someone has told him that his actions will cause serious problems for the nation. If he does not know by now, then he is delusional.

In order to prove that Obama’s policies will fail, I’d like to take you down memory lane; perhaps not your memory but that of other citizens whose government embarked on massive deficit spending. The government I have in mind was one that owed large amounts of money and sought to find a way to pay off huge debts without losing power.

At first, the politicians were ambivalent about the idea of printing extra currency to pay those debts but slowly the politicians convinced themselves and the people that issuing more paper currency was a way toward prosperity and abundance. They promised that the new issue would be limited and, by law, would not go over a certain amount of money. I’ll let an eyewitness take the story from here. Below is a summary of the events that took place in a country that tried money expansion. I have edited some terms to remove the country and specific names:

“And, first, in the economic department. From the early reluctant and careful issues of paper we saw, as an immediate result, improvement and activity in business. Then arose the clamor for more paper money. At first, new issues were made with great difficulty; but, the dyke once broken, the current of irredeemable currency poured through; and, the breach thus enlarging, this currency was soon swollen beyond control. It was urged on by speculators for a rise in values; by demagogues who persuaded the mob that a nation, by its simple fiat, could stamp real value to any amount upon valueless objects. As a natural consequence a great debtor class grew rapidly, and this class gave its influence to depreciate more and more the currency in which its debts were to be paid.

The government now began, and continued by spasms to grind out still more paper; commerce was at first stimulated by the difference in exchange; but this cause soon ceased to operate, and commerce, having been stimulated unhealthfully wasted away.

Manufactures at first received a great impulse; but, ere long, this overproduction and overstimulus proved as fatal to them as to commerce. From time to time there was a revival of hope caused by an apparent revival of business; but 'this revival of business was at last seen to be caused more and more by the desire of far-seeing and cunning men of affairs to exchange paper money for objects of permanent value. As to the people at large, the classes living on fixed incomes and small salaries felt the pressure first, as soon as the purchasing power of their fixed incomes was reduced. Soon the great class living on wages felt it even more sadly.

Prices of the necessities of life increased: merchants were obliged to increase them, not only to cover depreciation of their merchandise, but also to cover their risk of loss from fluctuation; and, while the prices of products thus rose, wages, which had at first gone up, under the general stimulus, lagged behind. Under the universal doubt and discouragement, commerce and manufactures were checked or destroyed. As a consequence the demand for labor was diminished; laboring men were thrown out of employment, and, under the operation of the simplest law of supply and demand, the price of labor-the daily wages of the laboring class-went down until, at a time when price's of food, clothing and various articles of consumption were enormous, wages were nearly as low as at the time preceding the first issue of irredeemable currency.

The (merchant) classes at first thought themselves exempt from the general misfortune. They were delighted at the apparent advance in the value of the goods upon their shelves. But they soon found that, as they increased prices to cover the inflation of currency and the risk from fluctuation and uncertainty, purchases became less in amount (in other words, people bought less of their products)and payments less sure; a feeling of insecurity spread throughout the country; enterprise was deadened and stagnation followed.

New issues of paper were then clamored for as more, (drink is) demanded by a drunkard. New issues only increased the evil; capitalists were all the more reluctant to embark their money on such a sea of doubt. Workmen of all sorts were more and more thrown out of employment. Issue after issue of currency came; but no relief resulted save a momentary stimulus, which aggravated the disease. The most ingenious evasions of natural laws in finance which the most subtle theorists could contrive were tried-all in vain; the most brilliant substitutes for those laws were tried; "self-regulating" schemes, "interconverting" (mutual conversion into like denominations before a trade) schemes -all equally vain. All thoughtful men had lost confidence. All men were waiting; stagnation became worse and worse. At last came the collapse and then a return, by a fearful shock, to a state of things which presented something like certainty of remuneration to capital and labor. Then, and not till then, came the beginning of a new era of prosperity.

Just as dependent on the law of cause and effect was the moral development. Out of the inflation of prices grew a speculating class; and, in the complete uncertainty as to the future, all business became a game of chance, and all business men, gamblers. In city centers came a quick growth of stock-jobbers (those who deal only with brokers or other jobbers) and speculators; and these set a debasing fashion in business which spread to the remotest parts of the country. Instead of satisfaction with legitimate profits, came a passion for inordinate gains. Then, too, as values became more and more uncertain, there was no longer any motive for care or economy, but every motive for immediate expenditure and present enjoyment. So came upon the nation the obliteration of thrift. In this mania for yielding to present enjoyment rather than providing for future comfort were the seeds of new growths of wretchedness: luxury, senseless and extravagant, set in: this, too, spread as a fashion. To feed it, there came cheatery in the nation at large and corruption among officials and persons holding trusts. While men set such fashions in private and official business, women set fashions of extravagance in dress and living that added to the incentives to corruption. Faith in moral considerations, or even in good impulses, yielded to general distrust. National honor was thought a fiction cherished only by hypocrites. Patriotism was eaten out by cynicism.

Thus was the history of (country) logically developed in obedience to natural laws; such has, to a greater or less degree, always been the result of irredeemable paper, created according to the whim or interest of legislative assemblies rather than based upon standards of value permanent in their nature and agreed upon throughout the entire world. Such, we may fairly expect, will always be the result of them until the fiat of the Almighty shall evolve laws in the universe radically different from those which at present obtain.

And, finally, as to the general development of the theory and practice which all this history records: my subject has been Fiat Money in (country); How it came; What it brought; and How it ended.

It came by seeking a remedy for a comparatively small evil in an evil infinitely more dangerous. To cure a disease temporary in its character, a corrosive poison was administered, which ate out the vitals of (country’s) prosperity.

It progressed according to a law in social physics which we may call the "law of accelerating issue and depreciation." It was comparatively easy to refrain from the first issue; it was exceedingly difficult to refrain from the second; to refrain from the third and those- following, was practically impossible.

It brought, as we have seen, commerce and manufactures, the mercantile interest, the agricultural interest, to ruin. It brought on these the same destruction which would come to a Hollander opening the dykes of the sea to irrigate his garden in a dry summer.

It ended in the complete financial, moral and political prostration of (country)-a prostration from which only a (dictator) could raise it.

But this history would be incomplete without a brief sequel, showing how that great genius profited by all his experience. When (the dictator) took the consulship the condition of fiscal affairs was appalling. The government was bankrupt; an immense debt was unpaid. The further collection of taxes seemed impossible; the assessments were in hopeless confusion. War was going on (several fronts). All the armies had long been unpaid, and the largest loan that could for the moment be effected was for a sum, hardly meeting the expenses of the government for a single day. At the first cabinet council (dictator) was asked what he intended to do. He replied, "I will pay cash (meaning gold and silver) or pay nothing." From this time he conducted all his operations on this basis. He arranged the assessments, funded the debt, and made payments in cash; and from this time-during all the campaigns of (the war)-there was but one suspension of specie payment, and this only for a few days. When the first great (deleted word) coalition was formed against the (country), (dictator) was hard pressed financially, and it was proposed to resort to paper money; but he wrote to his minister, "While I live I will never resort to irredeemable paper." He never did, and (country), under this determination commanded all the gold she needed. When (military defeat) came, with the invasion of the Allies, with war on her own soil, with a change of dynasty, and with heavy expenses for war and indemnities, (country), on a specie (gold and silver) basis, experienced no severe financial distress.

If we glance at the financial history of France during the Franco-Prussian War and the Communist struggle, in which a far more serious pressure was brought upon French finances than our own recent Civil War put upon American finance, and yet with no national stagnation or distress, but with a steady progress in prosperity, we shall see still more clearly the advantage of meeting a financial crisis in an honest and straightforward way, and by methods sanctioned by the world's most costly experience, rather than by yielding to dreamers, theorists, phrase-mongers, declaimers, schemers, speculators or to that sort of "Reform" which is "the last refuge of a scoundrel."

There is a lesson in all this which it behooves every thinking man to ponder.”(1)

"But though there soon came a degree of prosperity-as compared with the distress during the paper-money orgy,-convalescence was slow. The acute suffering from the wreck and ruin brought by (money inflation) in process of repudiation lasted nearly ten years, but the period of recovery lasted longer than the generation which followed. It required fully forty years to bring capital, industry, commerce and credit up to their condition when the Revolution began,..."(2)

If you agree that what happened in France before Napoleon can indeed happen here, please let people know about this article. We need “thinking men” who can recognize the folly of the Obama administration and stop it.

If you'd like to read the full pamphlet, you can find it at http://mises.org/books/inflationinfrance.pdf. Also note that the rich, the very people that France needed to invest in the future, left the country during this period of inflation in France. You must understand, Obama is not trying to make things better. His actions are known by competent economists around the world to be the very kinds of actions that make things worse; we are talking here of massive unemployment, decline of our standard of living, food lines, starvation, rampant crime and corruption in our future. We are arriving at a point in our history where prison, possibly even capital punishment, may well be meted out to people who are merely trying to survive the government's insanity. It happened in France and it can happen here. You are being lied to, you are being bamboozled, you are being made into the fool of history if you do not protest the ignorant and destructive economic policies of the Obama administration.

(1)Fiat Money Inflation In France, Andrew Dickson White, Pamphleteers 1945 - A paper read before a meeting of Senators and Members of the House of Representatives of both political parties, at Washington, April 12, 1876 and revised and extended in 1914.
(2)Ibid

Obama Parrots Communist Propaganda

The tactic of repeating old lies is seldom noticed when it is engaged by the average citizen. When it is done by the President of the United States over an issue of life or death, it must be noticed.

President Obama’s words, as revealed by his speeches, have the sense of an angry child who wants the world to conform to his own pet fantasies. He has swallowed so many far-left lies that he thinks the world really works that way; and he insists that his conclusions are true. He is the first politician who is decidedly not a pragmatist; he is a true believer.

As Ayn Rand wrote:
“The process of forming, integrating and using concepts is not an automatic, but a volitional process—i.e., a process which uses both new and automatized material, but which is directed volitionally. It is not an innate, but an acquired skill; it has to be learned—it is the most crucially important part of learning—and all of man's other capacities depend on how well or how badly he learns it.

This skill does not pertain to the particular content of a man's knowledge at any given age, but to the method by which he acquires and organizes knowledge—the method by which his mind deals with its content. The method programs his subconscious computer, determining how efficiently, lamely or disastrously his cognitive processes will function. The programming of a man's subconscious consists of the kind of cognitive habits he acquires,…"(1)

How does Barack Obama use concepts? How does his mind work? He appears to be a person who does not know the difference between fantasy and reality. Where many intellectuals of the past knew that Marxist ideology was a lie intended to dupe the unsuspecting, Obama appears to be duped by it himself.

On June 4, 2009, Barack Obama gave a speech to the Muslim world; and he declared in so many words that there is a moral equivalence between murderous terrorists and people seeking to be free. He did not say it explicitly; he said it through the ideology that he believes to be true. Here is what he said:

“We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.”(2)

The comment that President Obama made about colonialism is standard and oft-repeated cold war propaganda; the stuff spewed during the cold war by Pravda and American college professors on a continuous basis. It represents lies accepted by mostly leftist and anti-American intellectuals (and especially terrorists) around the world. It has nothing to do with the United States. Our country has never established a colony in the region. Colonialism was engaged by European countries. The only thing our country has done in the region is trade (and more recently, send soldiers numerous times to liberate Muslims from despots and terrorists - with many of those soldiers killed). Yet, Obama has chosen to include the U.S.A. as a colonialist and oppressor which is a smear about his own country, a lie.

In fact, U.S. companies have significantly benefited the average Middle Eastern Muslim by taking part in building the oil industry there through business contracts that were later violated by local dictators. These dictators accused us of stealing their oil so they (the dictators) could take over the equipment we paid for and keep the oil profits for themselves - profits that were ours under contract. It is these tyrants who have oppressed the Muslim people, not the U.S.A. It is our rights that were violated in the Middle East.

In fact, he assumes that the majority of Muslims wanted nothing to do with the technology and advances that the West brought to the region. He disenfrancises the millions of Muslims who wanted a better life and standard of living and who saw no contradiction between that better life and their religious beliefs. These Muslims, some of whom today clamor for democracy and trade with the West, are now being swept under the rug by a President who has decided it is time to "turn the tables" and support the ideas and views of the most "traditional" of Muslims, the terrorists. The Soviet communists could not have hoped for more. Al Queda recruiters can now use the President to validate their claim that America is "the great Satan".

We have here a President of the United States, on an international stage, being listened to fervently by those that hate us, repeating loudly the lies told about the very country that he is charged with defending. How can he defend us when he considers our nation to be a pariah?

You’d think that Obama would at least have read about the history of the region rather than swallow Russian propaganda. You’d also think that he’d know that the Palestinian crisis of today was for decades fanned by the Soviets using that same propaganda against the United States, in order, not to help the Palestinians, but to fabricate discontent and weaken the economic and military power of the U.S. It was a game of politics and global subversion the Soviets were playing and Obama is now fighting the cold war for the Russians…now he and the murderous terrorists are on the same side.

Further, there is even a more recent history that has created tension between the United States and Muslim radicals in the Middle East. It is called 9/11 and represents an attack on innocent civilians by people who do not represent Muslims at all. The United States has never been at war with Muslims - so why does the President seek to assure Muslims that we are not? Even the "evil" George Bush said as much...though in Obama's fantasy world that could not possibly be the case. Listening to the President, it gets weirder and weirder.

You’d think that Ayn Rand was describing Barack Obama when she wrote:

“Make-believe is a dangerous luxury, which only those who have grasped the distinction between the real and the imaginary can afford. Cut off from reality, which he has not learned fully to grasp, he is plunged into a world of fantasy playing. He may feel a dim uneasiness, at first: to him, it is not imagining, it is lying. But he loses that distinction and gets into the swing.”(3)

Of course, we know what President Obama has said in what has been termed his “apology tour” and this merely proves the point. We are being represented around the world by a light weight intellect; a man who listens only to those fellow travelers who have never led this country…ever…and who do not know the difference between fantasy and reality. If you don’t see the danger of this, well, then you’ve been listening to your college professors too. About the President, we can only conclude:

“When he uses words, his mental operations are closer to those of a parrot than of a human being. In the strict sense of the word, he has not learned to speak.”(4) Perhaps it really is his teleprompter.

(1) Ayn Rand, The Comprachicos, The Return of the Primitive
(2) Barack Obama, Speech in Cairo
(3) Ayn Rand, The Comprachicos, The Return of the Primitive
(4) Ayn Rand, The Comprachicos, The Return of the Primitive

Is Sacrifice Destroying America?

"It can't happen without you, without a new spirit of service, a new spirit of sacrifice. So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other."(1)

"Freedom is not only a gift, but also a summons to personal responsibility. . . . The preservation of freedom calls for the cultivation of virtue, self-discipline, sacrifice for the common good, and a sense of responsibility towards the less fortunate.”(2)

In the opinion of our most powerful leaders, sacrifice is the most fundamental virtue, the very virtue that makes us special, human, concerned and partakers in the acts of God. For the leader of the free world, sacrifice is what we need to improve the economy, improve the lives of others and make this a better planet. For the Leader of the Universe, sacrifice will get us to heavenly bliss. Yet, have we asked whether sacrifice actually produces any good at all? A virtue that is practiced by so many, so often and so fervently must surely have resulted in a better world. Has it? Well, look at it.

If we consider what these two men have said about the value and importance of sacrifice, I think the most important question is “what does sacrifice mean in practice?” If we develop a new spirit of sacrifice, what does that say about our past spirit of sacrifice? Does it mean that we haven’t sacrificed enough and that we should work harder for others than we have? Just what is enough sacrifice and who is the authority on that? When is it time for a person to stop sacrificing and start being concerned about his own well-being? Just who should be the beneficiary of sacrifice, a person who has no choice about his problems, who is trying to be self-sufficient or the professional parasites dredged up by politicians?

What about the person struggling to send three children to college? Or the person who is wondering how he will get the money to buy a new tire for his car that might save the lives of his children? Maybe after working 70 hour weeks, each of these people should join ACORN and agitate in bank lobbies for more loans for the poor. Or should they drag their tired and worn bodies to a local soup kitchen to feed homeless people while they wonder when they will have their next meal.

I don’t know how Obama or God would answer these questions but I suspect that there are many millions of people already working hard and doing their best to take care of their families – who are now being asked by these smiling faces to work harder and give more for the sake of the “less fortunate”. Perhaps they might say that the new spirit of sacrifice should extend only toward people that have too much money and that rich people should allow the government to raise their taxes so it can help the poor. Yet, who has the moral authority to decide how much money is “too much”? Which “mere man” has the moral authority to point the government’s gun at an individual and insist that he pay this percent or that percent from his income? And what are the consequences for the economy of the use of that money?

What does a person with “too much” money do with that money when he is allowed to keep it? Most of the time, he invests it in a bank. The bank then loans it to people who buy homes, cars, start businesses, etc., all of which have the result of creating jobs for people. Isn’t the government’s forced sacrifice then hurting the very people it claims to be helping? Isn’t it true that every dollar taken for charity to feed a poor person today is a dollar that would make it possible, through a job, to feed that person indefinitely? Isn’t it true that a new job created by government costs more than a job created by the private economy? And isn’t it also true that in order to have that new job created by government, you are destroying one or more other jobs in the private economy?

But sacrifice is our most fundamental virtue according to Obama and God. How could it be that it hurts people? If one dollar can have this kind of effect on the life of one poor person, how much harm could be done by trillions of dollars taken from the rich to help the poor? How many millions of jobs are being lost down the abyss of sacrifice? Worse, how many professional parasites are merely living off of the dole because they don’t want to earn their keep?

What do these job losses that we are seeing today make of this “new spirit” that our President exhorts us to have? What do they make of government corruption, government grants and government programs that are nothing more than excuses for politicians to skim money from the treasury in order to enrich themselves and their friends? Certainly, he would say that these trillions represent an “investment” in the future. He, in his singular wisdom, will decide how this money is to be spent; such as in jobs fixing bridges that do not need fixed, building new bridges where they are not necessary, laying fiber optic cable where profit-making businesses would not lay them, creating jobs for people who have never been productive and giving a tax reduction to people who do not pay taxes. There is no end to the “good” that President Obama can do with the money of the people who have too much of it.

The “new jobs” being created by President Obama have a high cost. They are created at the sacrifice of about two jobs in the private industry. Have you wondered why unemployment is getting worse? This is the reason. Further, money taken from tax payers to create new jobs is money that the taxpayers could have used creating productive jobs through their spending. Instead, it creates non-productive jobs whose product no one buys. This sacrifice further harms the economy and the taxpayer’s standard of living. It means fewer products, fewer jobs, fewer thriving businesses and a lowering of expectations.

Yet, is all this sacrificing merely politics as usual? Not really, we have now a new situation that threatens to destroy America. I call it “philosophy as usual.” It is a technique of deception for which most Americans do not have an answer. Firstly, they cannot refuse to ‘help people’ because they have been taught that helping people is good. The politicians take advantage of this and create programs of forced charity, high taxes and special interest programs that claim to help people. Today, Americans are exhorted to get together, stick together, work harder, think of others, help others and ensure that everyone has a chance for a meal, a home, an education, health care; all provided by government through taxes, all examples of community service, all “good intentions.” They claim to be establishing a world of fairness, where everyone has a level playing field and greedy capitalists are prevented from exploiting them. How could Americans disagree with that? How can they say ‘No!” to this orgy of spending that does so much good?

Some prominent people who are complaining about this orgy of spending are wondering if there is something wrong, not with government, but with themselves. They are paralyzed by their own premises and feel guilty for complaining. Why do they dissent against a government that wants to do so much good? They have no answer because they also believe in charity towards others. Question Obama and they will tell you self-righteously that he is merely asking people to work together to solve common problems, that we are in a crisis that can only be solved by Americans in a new spirit of sacrifice. We should be offended that someone would disagree with that. In fact, anyone who disagrees must certainly be an evil capitalist out to exploit the victims of our common crisis. How can you argue with that?

Aren't the arguments in favor of Obama’s actions, like those mentioned above, so irrefutable that no one can refuse? You may think so but I dissent. I say, it is time to stop this orgy of sacrifice and waste and plunder. This ‘change’ that America supposedly voted for is about stealing from productive citizens, their savings, their futures, their standard of living and their retirement. It is about exploiting the working people of this country for the sake of a bottomless pit where no good is being done, where the only benefit goes toward those who want to rule a nation of slaves.

In fact, it is not a better world that Obama and the Pope want – even with all this sacrificing going on – or should I say, because of all this sacrificing going on. What they are missing is that this new ‘philosophy as usual’ is not about helping people; it is a con game practiced by professional parasites who know that they’ve got America by the throat and there is nothing to stop them. Whenever you hear calls for sacrifice, you invariably are never told that sacrificing is working. In fact, you are told that even more sacrificing is necessary.

Is it possible that sacrifice is destroying America rather than making it a better world? Is it possible that America is paralyzed and can do nothing about the mass looting that is going on today because it has accepted the principle of sacrifice, and that it cannot fight back until it rejects the notion of sacrifice as good?

An example of how sacrifice has harmed our nation is the sub-prime crisis which is at the heart of our economic meltdown. After telling us in 1995 that the Clinton Administration’s new policy to broaden home ownership would not cost the taxpayers a single penny, you must wonder what the government’s largesse, its use of lower credit standards to redistribute income, will eventually cost us. Look at where our economy is today and you will see the handiwork of people who believe in sacrifice. The authors of this mess, including and especially Barack Obama, have escaped scrutiny.

In short, the sub-prime crisis has shown that sacrifice is a failure at taking care of people. A turkey dinner, a block of cheese or an adjustable rate mortgage won’t get it. A check comprised of constantly devalued money won’t take care of anyone’s future. In fact, the sub-prime crisis is more than a failure of sacrifice; it is an example of how poor economic policy can destroy a society. Few saw the sacrifice at work in giving mortgages to people who could not afford them; some called it redistribution and others called it socialism.

Likewise, when Hitler proclaimed the superiority of the Aryan race and preached that Germans should sacrifice themselves to the “Volk” he was not just preaching National Socialism or fascism; he was preaching sacrifice. When Marx said “From each according to his ability to each according to his need” he wasn’t just preaching communism, he was preaching sacrifice. And when Obama declares that redistributing the production of the rich to the poor is the right thing to do, he is not just preaching socialism or fascism, he is preaching sacrifice. When the conservatives seek to answer Obama with Jesus, they will lose the political fight because they are not just preaching theocracy, they are preaching sacrifice. Whether you call Obama’s pet projects spending programs, pork or ear marks, what they are is sacrifice. And the reason that Obama gets away with his atrocities and violations of individual rights is because there is no one on the horizon with the courage to challenge sacrifice; to say “Enough.”

To continue the scheme, all Obama has to do is give the liberals in Congress a free hand to spend as much as they want and the conservatives will say “if you are going to spend all that money, we might was well do it too.” People argue against “socialism” while Obama declares that he is merely doing the right thing; because we are on the edge of disaster, his good intentions justify his pushing us over the edge. Obama’s advancing of the principles of sacrifice, no matter what political system you call it, no matter how "new" you think it is, is the sure way to destroy progress, create poverty and collapse economies.

And, yes, the economy did collapsed as a result of the sub-prime debacle. The first to be blamed for the collapse were not the quasi-governmental organizations that created and managed this scam but the old standby “greed” and “lack of oversight.” But is this true or are we being bamboozled by the very people whose philosophies have created the situation?

The principle of sacrifice is still Obama’s guiding principle and he has promised more of the same that created the present situation. In the guise of a program to “stimulate” the economy, he has created the biggest altruistic “giveaway” of money to radical and socialist leaning organizations in the history of our nation. You don't really think that giving money away to people who have never earned a dollar in their lives will actually stimulate the economy do you?

President Obama’s first “stimulus program” will redistribute even more money from the productive by creating unproductive jobs, windfalls, boondoggles and probably outright fraud by the many organizations waiting in the wings for their political payback from Obama. Under Obama, tax policy is being written that will give checks to people who do not pay taxes. Jobs programs intended to stimulate our economy take money from productive citizens in order to provide make-shift jobs for people who will probably not be very productive.

Barack Obama's entire election campaign was based on the idea of income redistribution and one can be certain that sacrifice will guide virtually every policy of his administration from domestic to foreign. This is because he has accepted the notion that sacrifice works, that it is moral and that it can be used to gain power.

We need to understand that sacrifice is not about helping the helpless; sacrifice is about harming the productive and violating their individual rights. If you don’t believe this, observe the hatred with which many altruists criticize people who are self-sufficient. This vitriol shows the pleasure that such people derive from the denigration of individual accomplishment and excellence. Notice government officials whose jobs it is to redistribute money when they scream that government benefits should only go to those who have no skills and “have never had a chance.” Seldom, in the pronouncements of these people, do you find a defense of the individual, his accomplishments or even of his right to keep what he has earned.

Professional parasites, who make outrageous demands on our society (from our productive citizens), are the altruistic storm troopers, the practitioners of plunder that Obama has turned loose on society. They, and other groups, along with leftist politicians, will become ever more demanding about the “need” of our society to move ever faster toward bigger and bigger redistribution programs. The tipping point for the decline of our civilization was the sub-prime crisis and you can be sure that Obama will add some huge weights to the scale.

Certainly Obama will give speeches about the value of hard work and self-sufficiency in a cynical effort to make us think he is a normal President who admires the Constitution – while he designates “Czars” to take over and manage our economy and our personal lives. While the nation sinks further under the demands of sacrifice and while lawlessness, joblessness and starvation become the order of the day, Obama will try to win the next election on the backs of the productive who won’t vote for him. Obama thinks that every unemployed person represents a vote. You don't think he wants employment do you? For every big problem caused by Obama’s policies, Executive Orders and legislative initiatives, you can be sure that every “solution” offered will be more of the same…sacrifice and theft. What can you expect from a plunderer?

Is sacrifice destroying our country? The answer is “You bet it is.”

(1) Barack Obama
(2) Pope Benedict

The Roosevelt Myth by John T. Flynn

I wrote this review in the 1970s. I have not edited it for this blog.

A specter haunts the American political system, a specter whose ultimate potential is the destruction of the world, and whose goal is totalitarian rule over the United States of America.

This specter has one basic cause: unconstitutional control of American economic power by government. This control is potentially dangerous because the availability of this control could and inevitably must attract those who, through the political system, might seek to assume it for the sake of their own advantage rather than that of the nation.

Imagine the following scenario. A small group of fascistically oriented men meet and agree to begin steps toward taking over the United States government. Instead of doing this through the destructive means of military takeover, they decide to run a candidate for President, one whom they can control and one that has the personal charm to win election. The candidate, once found, runs, using all the available media tools, promising continued government spending (capturing the special interests), and new programs (capturing the envious).

Once in power, this group works to expand and maintain its hold on the government by bringing its own type of people into government, thereby becoming the establishment. By controlling education and the mass media, and by handing out larger and larger doles they are able to paint themselves as heroes and lovers of mankind, making the opposition look like haters and opponents of the good. By setting the terms of all debate, they effectively become the pacemakers, delegating the opposition to the roles of followers and me-tooers. Eventually, by means of scandal and propaganda, they hope to disenfranchise opposition totally and thereby keep control indefinitely.

After they settle into their positions, secure in their control, they can then proceed with the lawlessness which was their goal in the first place. Should they be caught, they need only cover-up, presenting to the public the image of honesty and problem solvers, looking to their opponents as the cause of anything that has gone wrong. Cover-ups would not be difficult since all involved are friends.

Actually, this scenario has happened. The U. S. has been in the grasp of such a group for over forty years. The group is the American Liberals.

Are they really as guilty and conniving as all that? Perhaps not. But it is true that Liberals have a feel for one another, a mindless way of knowing what's next. But this feel has a central focus, and that focus is based in hero-worship for any Liberal who has made it to the top. Each Liberal leader is a sort of god, a warrior whose cause is supposedly freedom and equality. But above all these warriors stands the chief, the super-Liberal of history, the wise and wonderful man known as Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

F.D.R. is the model whom the smaller chiefs hope to emulate, the man who set all the standards and established all the rules, he was the greatest Liberal the world has ever known. And it is by looking at him that we get an understanding of just how the Liberals operate.

John T. Flynn was an active journalist during the Roosevelt era. His book, THE ROOSEVELT MYTH, is a far different account of the New Deal than we have read in the countless other volumes about those years. It does not treat Roosevelt and his Liberals as if they had come down from Mount Olympus to save the world from itself, but as a small, conniving group of men whose only goal was to get and extend political power. To Flynn, Roosevelt was a myth, a man built all out of proportion to his actual size. Throughout the book, he demolishes this myth, systematically, in a manner that makes Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon look like small-time chiselers by comparison.

SECRET AGREEMENTS

On August 15, 1941, before the U.S.’s involvement in World War II, and four months before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill in Placenta Bay off the coast of Newfoundland. The result of the meeting was THE ATLANTIC CHARTER. It proclaimed to the world that Britain and the U.S. should seek no aggrandizement, territorial or otherwise, that they wanted to see no territorial changes that were not wanted by the people of the countries involved in the Second World War, and that they respected the rights of all people to choose their own form of government.

But the Atlantic Charter was not, as the world has been led to believe, the full story. Roosevelt, in fact, made two monumental secret agreements with Churchill, one to send American troops to defend the Azores where an attack by Germany was expected, and the other to issue an ultimatum to Japan regarding the Pacific, both agreements of which were contrary to American foreign policy at the time and a violation of our neutrality. Roosevelt told Congressional leaders, upon his return home, that he had made no commitments to Churchill.

TEHERAN

The Great Conferences were among Roosevelt's major achievements. At Tehran the world saw Roosevelt as a man among men, as a man who set his own terms. Certainly the U.S., a mighty power, could afford to set its own terms. Indeed, this is how Roosevelt was pictured, strong, in control and steadfast in his principles. At Tehran, in conference with Churchill and Stalin, Roosevelt was considered "the great figure."

But was he? Mr. Flynn paints a different picture.

"...Stalin got everything he wanted--everything without any exceptions. Churchill did not, because Roosevelt, in pursuit of his vain policy, sided with Stalin against Churchill. Roosevelt got nothing, as we shall see. He got, of course, the United Nations. But this had already been settled on before he went to Teheran. And what is more this was no victory because Stalin got the United Nations precisely on his own term and in a form that has enabled him to put his finger into every problem in the world and to completely frustrate the British and Americans in every effort to introduce order, peace and security. Roosevelt did not get what he believed to be his objective because he made it clear he had to have Stalin's free and wholehearted support in the United Nations or it would be a failure from the start. Forrest Davis commented that Stalin acted with dash, Roosevelt with tardy improvisation. Stalin layed his "great design" to control those sectors of eastern Europe which he wanted in his orbit. Roosevelt put all his eggs in one basket--his world organization scheme for which apparently he was prepared to sacrifice everything else, including the very things a world organization was expected to ensure. Meantime Stalin and Molotov did not shrink from lying or indulging in double talk and Roosevelt was foolish enough to believe them. At home Roosevelt's Red and pink collaborators and his closest consultants were busy pouring out Soviet propaganda. Harry Hopkins never tired of plugging for his friend Stalin. Henry Wallace, then Vice-President, was talking about encouraging a people's revolution in Europe to advance the cause of the common man. Tito was being glorified in American magazines by Red and pink writers and others who were just plain dupes. Stalin himself and the Soviet government were offered to the American people in new and happy colors until, as James F. Byrnes conceded, as the war neared its end Russia occupied a place in the good will of the American people exceeding that of any other ally. All this had been instigated and urged by Roosevelt himself. And no one knew it better than Stalin." (P. 354-5)

"Once again Churchill brought up the question of shifting the invasion effort from the west coast of France to the Balkans. He wanted to hurry the Italian invasion by amphibious landings in the North and on the Northeast Adriatic aimed at the Danube Valley, an operation in the Aegean aimed at Rhodes or the Dodecanese and operations in and from Turkey if she would come into the war. General Deane says that Churchill wanted the Anglo-American forces in the Balkans as well as the Russians and he suggests that Churchill's foresight was later approved by our hindsight. There can be no doubt that the Invasion of the French coast was a less formidable undertaking then an invasion of the Balkans when the subject was first considered. Our opportunity to get into France in 1943 had been thrown away by Roosevelt's agreement to yield to Churchill against all his military advisers. But the African invasion had gone more swiftly than was hoped for when launched, though the Italian operation had been troublesome. Now, however, that Italy was successfully invaded and the guerilla forces in Yugoslavia were so strong the question of the Balkan invasion took on added significance. Churchill urged it now with fresh vigor. But Stalin was adamant against it and this was enough reason for Roosevelt to object. Moreover, time was now running heavily against Roosevelt and Churchill Stalin's armies were winging their way toward his territorial objectives." (P. 355-6)

"There was still something more to be settled. Stalin had engineered Roosevelt into living in the Soviet embassy although the American embassy was available. He had done this by exploiting the danger to the President from German spies. Roosevelt was, of course, in no greater danger than the British Prime Minister. The success of Stalin's maneuver in this matter was soon to become clear. Later Roosevelt told his son Elliot that "in between times Uncle Joe and I had a few words, too--just the two of us." As Stalin's guest in the Russian embassy, Roosevelt was accessible for a secret talk or two without Churchill's knowledge. One of these dealt with the Chinese Communist issue. Roosevelt told Elliott we couldn't do much about that "while Winnie was around." He brought up the question of a common front against the British on the matter of Hong Kong, Shanghai and Canton. Chaing, Roosevelt told Stalin, was worried about what Russia would do in Manchuria. Roosevelt and Stalin agreed that Manchuria would remain with China and that Stalin and he would back Chiang against the British. Referring to this, Roosevelt confided to Elliott that "the biggest thing was in making clear to Stalin that the United States and Great Britain were not in one common block against the Soviet Union" After that the way must have seemed wide open to Stalin for all his plans. Here was Roosevelt suggesting a secret deal between himself and Stalin against Churchill, just as he had suggested a secret deal between himself and Chiang against Churchill and as he was later to make another secret deal between himself and Stalin against Chiang. (P. 358-9)

OPEN DECEPTIONS

There is considerable evidence that Roosevelt deliberately deceived the American people about his intentions concerning war with Japan. In speeches he echoed his conviction that Americans would not be sent to war. Yet, in order to stimulate the economy, he spent large amounts on military expansion in open preparation for war. Flynn quotes Professor Thomas A. Baily, a Roosevelt apologist:

"Roosevelt repeatedly deceived the American people during the period before Pearl Harbor...He was faced with a terrible dilemma. If he let the people slumber in a fog of isolation, they might well fall prey to Hitler. If he came out unequivocally for intervention, he would be defeated in 1940." (P. 297)

And Arthur M. Schlesinger. Jr. said this,

"If he (Roosevelt) was going to induce the people to move at all, Professor Belly concludes, he (Roosevelt) had no choice but to trick them into acting for what he conceived to be their best interests."

SPENDING

Few people today know that Roosevelt ran for President as a conservative. His first run for the office took place in the midst of a depression which Roosevelt promised to end. His cure was fiscal restraint and a balanced budget. Roosevelt decried the fiscal extravagance of the Hoover administration that was in office during the crash of 1929.

Yet it was Roosevelt who extended government power and spending. He subverted the policies of a government that heretofore had little intervention in business. He promoted the idea that government should take an active part in redistributing the wealth. He created massive government debt and, before his administration ended, spent more money than all previous Presidents combined.

OPEN MORAL DEFAULTS

The Banking crisis

Mr. Flynn's discussion of the U.S. Banking crisis of 1933 presents a startling view of the man who had just been elected to his first term as President. The crisis took place previous to and continued after Roosevelt's inauguration. After Roosevelt had won the election against Hoover, sensing that many people could be harmed by the crisis, President Hoover urged President-elect Roosevelt to support publicly a solution drafted by members of the Hoover administration. The matter was simply too urgent to be put off. Roosevelt, however, refused to act. He ignored Hoover's letters, and, when he did speak on the matter, put it off as a problem of the Hoover administration. This display of cheap partisan politics, revealed by a man who is today hailed as a great President is hard to believe. Yet, it seems, according to Flynn, that Roosevelt wanted as much blame put upon Hoover and the Republicans as was possible. To allow the banking crisis to ruin many businessmen would bury the Republicans in the eyes of the American public. The irony is that once Roosevelt took office he inaugurated a plan constructed largely by Hoover's staff; a plan which he explained to the American people in a fireside chat written, not by Roosevelt, but by Arthur Ballentine, Under-Secretary of the Treasury under Hoover.

THE COMMUNISTS

Flynn characterizes Roosevelt as a man with little in the way of political philosophy. Indeed, Roosevelt was more a political opportunist, in a word, a pragmatist. His main concern was the obtaining of as many votes as possible. By his own admission, Roosevelt was "a Christian and a Democrat--that's all." If getting votes required an N.R.A., he would promote N.R.A. If it meant pandering to communists, he would pander to communists.

And indeed, he did.

Roosevelt's dabbling with Communists began in his first administration as an outgrowth of administration efforts to mobilize organized labor as a political force behind the new candidate. The union leaders who cooperated with Roosevelt in pursuit of expanded power and membership, brought communist organizers into their fold. This worked to the interest of Moscow who gave orders to their union agents in the U.S. to work in the A.F. of L. Their goal was to infiltrate the Labor Unions, to work within the system of labor organization in order to carry "out the policy of the class struggle in the trade unions..." After a split between the C.I.O. and the A.F. of L., the communists moved to the C.I.O., since it was the organization working to mobilize labor for Roosevelt.

After a time, John L. Lewis of the C.I.O. realized the danger of revolution in the labor movement and moved to eliminate communist influence in the unions. But Roosevelt, in his zeal for votes, saw no such danger.

The bulk of Roosevelt New Dealers, during his first years were not communists. They believed that the capitalist system was done for, but they did not advocate violent overthrow of the government. Primarily, they believed in a planned economy. Therefore, those communists who came in under the Roosevelt banner came in by way of the growing trend toward a planned economy. In fact, the planned economy was the idea that all statists united under. They soon discovered that Roosevelt was quite receptive to the idea.

Mrs. Roosevelt, of course, figures into the schemes of the communists, for it was she, as will be remembered, who frequented those circles where communists dwelt. It was she who fraternized with communists while Mr. Roosevelt stayed an easy distance away. It was she who held them in line under Mr. Roosevelt, inviting them to the White House, going to their meetings, and endorsing their front organizations.

In Mr. Roosevelt's first run for the Presidency, it was the communist voting blocks that put him over the top in New York, Illinois, Now Jersey, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Because Mr. Roosevelt was a pragmatic politician he felt it expedient to use the communists to his advantage. But the real question is: How did they use him?

When the Dies Committee began investigating the American Youth Congress, a communist group that had been befriended by Mrs. Roosevelt, Mr. Roosevelt sent for Martin Dies and told him to stop his investigation.

When the Un-American Activities Committee was investigating the American Youth Congress, a group of these adolescents marched into the committee room headed by none other than Mrs. Roosevelt. With Mrs. Roosevelt's approval, they made a general nuisance of themselves. The next day, Mrs. Roosevelt harshly criticized the Dies Committee and sent for one member of the committee. He was told to see to it that the American Youth Congress was not branded a Communist front organization.

Joe Lash was a guest of Mrs. Roosevelt's at the White House. Lash was the leader of the movement in the American Student Union inspired by the Communists to keep America on the pacifist side before the war. He was leading a group that did not want war against Russia or between Britain, France, and Germany. When Hitler invaded Russia this group repudiated their position and worked for American support of Russia. Later, Lash was secretary of the International Students Service under the sponsorship of Mrs. Roosevelt This man slept in Abraham Lincoln's bed at the White House.

The War was the main issue over which the communists took advantage of Roosevelt. They came in "droves" to Washington to advance their goals of assistance to Russia. They infiltrated the bureaucracy and were protected by the New Deal. They worked for the goals of Stalin. These communists, many of them foreign born, began waging their war, not only against Hitler, but also against anticommunists in the U.S. They deliberately sought to discredit, as pro-fascists, many who were merely anti-communists.

"All this was possible for one reason and one reason only- because the President of the United States countenanced these things, encourage them and in many cases sponsored them, not because he was a Communist or fascist or held definitely to any political system, but because at the moment they contributed to his own ambitions." (P. 331)

THE COURT PACKING PLAN

One of the vital pillars of our society is the system of checks and balances. It is designed to establish a political situation where in no one can get hold of power without being held in check by others in government. It is a system which enables us to fight the growth of tyranny.

That a President should make an open assault on this vital institution is itself an issue of moral default. Roosevelt, it seems, in total contempt for American institutions, tried to bring the court under his control by means of a bill that gave him the power to appoint a Supreme Court Justice for every member of the Court who had reached the age of 70 and refused to retire. This plan, "the boldest and most revolutionary any president had ever suggested..." was aimed at packing the Supreme Court with Roosevelt sympathizers who would stand behind him on many of his bills, the likes of which the N.R.A. and the A.A.A. had already been invalidated by the present court.

This plan was seen almost unanimously as a vile scheme, one without the slightest evidence of moral content. The President and his bill were soundly defeated in this mad attempt to set the seeds for dictatorship.

If what has been discussed in this report is shocking, it is nothing compared to the whole perspective on Roosevelt and his policies as presented by John T. Flynn in this brilliant analysis of a man whose image in the American memory is quite different from the man himself.

THE ROOSEVELT MYTH by John T. Flynn is published by Devin-Adair Co., New York. Out of print. Posted on 7/9/04

Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt

Henry Hazlitt may never be hailed as one of the world's greatest economists, but judging from today's dominant theories, neither would Ludwig Von Mises. Indeed, these disciples of Adam Smith hold little that would appeal to today's economists except for one disturbing fact: they have been predominantly right in exposing the fallacies and consequences of socialism and central planning.

Henry Hazlitt's short book, ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON may never be hailed as a classic, but neither would Mises’ HUMAN ACTION. Galbreath s THE NEW INDUSTRIAL STATE would grab all the honors, even though it is predominantly wrong.

If you want to find a book that gives a quick view of what economics is about, don't look in your local book store. The book needed most by today's thinking American is not going to be there. Yet, Hazlitt's ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON is truly a classic of economic literature.

Hazlitt expounds on one example, the broken window that brings business to the glazier and consequently to others who deal with him. Hazlitt uses this example to show how people can convince themselves that the vandal who breaks the window is providing a service by making countless transactions necessary. But the broken window analysts neglect the fact that the owner of the window is out the cost of the repair, so that the gain for the glazier is a genuine loss to the owner.

Hazlitt takes the broken-window fallacy and shows how it applies to economic principles, and he shows how many economic analysts use the fallacy in justifying their own pet schemes. "...the broken-window fallacy, under a hundred disguises, is the most persistent in the history of economics." says Hazlitt.

For instance:

-Wars do not spur economic activity by making replacement of the goods destroyed necessary.

-Government spending does not cure economic ills but diverts funds to generally non-productive activities.

-New machinery introduced into industry does not create unemployment.

-Full employment schemes launched by government end in more unemployment.

-Minimum wage laws assure that those they are designed to help do not get jobs.

Hazlitt's style is so much to the point that he has managed, in a minimum number of pages, to destroy virtually every fallacy adhered to by John Kenneth Galbreath in all of his voluminous writings. In fact, Hazlitt refutes Galbreath in one breath: "Economics, as we have now seen again and again, is a science of recognizing secondary consequences. It is also a science of seeing general consequences. It is the science of tracing the effects of some proposed or existing policy not only on some special interest in the short run, but on the general interest in the long run." (The Lesson Restated, Page 135)

ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON is a defense of reason in economics. As a consequence of his approach Hazlitt defends "the Forgotten Man ... He is the man who is never thought of. He is the victim of the reformer, social speculator and philanthropist (Quotation from William Graham Sumner.)"

The reader of ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON will quickly learn that he is that Forgotten Man.