Thursday, July 16, 2009

The Solution to Galloping Socialism

We’ve talked about it for decades. We’ve warned about the hidden strategy of progressives to tinker piecemeal with our choices until they arrive at full socialism, without our knowledge or consent. We have seen the creeping socialism of "liberal" advocates over the decades who claimed they only wanted to “improve” things. We have now arrived at Galloping Socialism. Things are moving so fast with so many 1000 page bills full of who knows what, that we can't keep up with it. It is mind boggling by design. President Obama and the progressives that he leads have decided to just get it over with and move us full-scale into complete government control of our lives. It is as simple as that.

Oh, they will continue to say they are merely trying to make things better, to reduce costs, to clean the environment, to improve our health care system; but the truth is that none of their programs is making things better and something has to be done to stop this idiotic full-speed-ahead dash into dictatorship.

Over the last few days we’ve been told that the Republicans in Congress are refusing to collaborate with the Democrats; that the Republicans have become the “party of ‘No’”; intent on just sitting by the sidelines while the Democrats make all the moves that will presumably make society better.

The Democrats control the government and they can do virtually anything they want. Why do they need the help of the Republicans? They want to establish the principle that statism, government intervention in the economy, is something we all want and that the only differences are among minor issues. They are trying to cash in on the fact that the Democrats won the election and that means, to them, that the Republicans should just “me too” the Democrats' move to dictatorship.

The truth is that this galloping socialism will destroy the fabric of our society; a society built up on the foundations of individual rights and capitalism. The Democrats think that if they can obtain bi-partisan support for their boondoggles this support will give them the cover they need to proceed roughshod over our freedoms. But here’s the secret to their need for bi-partisanship: If the Republican opposition participates in the destruction of freedom, that means the Democrats will blame the Republicans for destroying our freedoms. This will give them the cover they need to slip out from under the responsibility they hold for the coming destruction.

There is only one way to stop this galloping socialism. We must become the country of "No." I am calling for a complete rejection of the Democrat’s agenda, a full refusal by the American people and the political opposition to participate in the socialization of our society – a refusal by Republicans, Independents and any Democrat who has a semblance of common sense. The entire society must rise up to reject any legislation, any program, any package and any regulation that is advanced by Democrats – without debate – just a full rejection of anything they want to do. The entire nation must say, “Enough.” We must say that we do not want socialism, we don’t want socialized medicine, cap and trade, government control of Wall Street, Main Street, government motors or anything else that reeks of Corporatism and control over our individual decisions. It is time to say “No” to everything.

Of course, I know what they’ll do; they’ll tell us they are just trying to help people and they will act as if they’ve been misunderstood. As long as you believe that, you are part of the problem.

It is much easier to tell your elected officials to stop all the tinkering; to just say “No” than it is to evaluate each bill, dissect each bill or even read each bill. We know that these people will only bring us more misery, higher taxes and more control over our lives. It is time to stop writing to your representatives about this bill or that bill; just write to them once a day to remind them to say "No" to every bill that comes up in Congress. That's it. What more is needed?

Want to guess how fast the economy will improve if we do this?

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Tea Party Protesters: America's Only Hope?

I’m sure my readers wonder when I will finish this book that is providing me with inspiration about our nation’s problems. Now Professor Mises has convinced me that the Tea Parties are more than a protest; they are a revolution…and possibly the only hope for a bright future for America.

To see this we need to understand fascism and how it has influenced our past and how it can destroy our future. To start, Professor Mises, writing of the time before World War II, implies that there is one view of political and economic policy that would have prevented this war and that is a policy based upon the “individual” which is Mises’ way of saying free market capitalism.

“For Nazism was not the only conceivable means of dealing with the problems that concern present-day Germany. There was and there is another solution; free trade. Of course, the adoption of free-trade principles would require the abandonment of interventionism and socialism and the establishment of an unhampered market economy. But why should this be brushed aside as out of the question? Why did the Germans fail to realize the futility of interventionism and the impracticability of socialism?”(1)

The professor reminds us what might have happened had Germany gone to free trade rather than embarked on statism some years before.

“If forty to sixty years ago Germany had adopted, unconditional free trade, Great Britain, its crown colonies, British India, and some smaller European nations would not have abandoned free trade either. The cause of free trade would have received a mighty propulsion. The course of world affairs would have been different. The further progress of protectionism, monetary particularism, and discrimination against foreign labor and foreign capital would have been checked. The tide would have been stemmed. It is not unlikely that other countries would have imitated the example set by Germany. At any rate, Germany’s prosperity would not have been menaced by the further advance of other nations toward autarky.”(2)

But the political climate in Europe was not conducive to free markets and this very fact is why they went into war.

“But the Germans did not even consider this alternative. The handful of men advocating unconditional freedom both in foreign and in domestic trade were laughed at as fools, despised as reactionaries, silenced by threats. In the ‘nineties of the past century Germany was already almost unanimous in its support of policies which were designed as the preparation for the impending war for more space, the war for world hegemony.”(3)

According to Mises, the rest of Europe was also part of the problem, and their policies left them too weak to fight Germany.

“Etatism (statism) not only brought about a situation from which the German nationalists saw no way out but conquest, but also rendered futile all attempts to stop Germany in time. While the Germans were busy arming for the “day,” Great Britain’s main concern was to injure the interests of the French and of all other nations by barring their exports to Great Britain. Every nation was eager to use its sovereignty for the establishment of government control of business. This attitude necessarily implied a policy of insulation and economic nationalism.”(4)

We had in Europe a political and philosophical context that, considering the possibilities, thought the only way forward for each country was statism and government control of the economy. Clearly, of the two possible options, the one option that would have brought a more peaceful world, a world of free trade and respect for the individual, was not even considered as a viable possibility. The one country that followed statist ideas more consistently was Germany, a nation that saw in statism an opportunity, not for a better world, but to establish its own dominance and control.

In the view of Professor Mises:

“It did not seem to occur to anyone (in Europe) that free trade begins at home. For nearly everyone favored government control of business within his own country.”(5)

I think we are in a similar position today. Few in government will consider free trade as a viable option. In fact, they’ve already decided that the day for free trade is over, that, once again (in their view) capitalism has failed and it is time for a new world of government regulation of the economy. In short, it is time for statism, the very system that characterized Europe before it thrust the world into destruction.

As it was for Mises,

“Faced with a serious problem, the nations chose the way to disaster.”(6)

Indeed they did. Hidden beneath the rubble outside of Munich is one lesson that was never learned in the war and it involves a mistake that we are repeating today. It is that with the defeat of the German fascists, fascism was not destroyed; the method of government, the idea that the government has a right to regulate business and the lives of individuals, prevailed. It was not “living space” that Germany needed, it was free markets. It was not a bad Versailles treaty that caused Germany’s economic problems and racism, it was statism that made the lives of the entire continent miserable.

Once again, in the U.S.A, we have chosen the way to disaster. The policies of the Obama administration are at base fascist. They involve a control of businesses by the government and a so-called “cooperation” between government and corporations, precisely the same type of government that existed in Germany and the rest of Europe over 70 years ago; the method of government that led to a great conflagration. And as with Europe before the war, the ideas that could save us, the ideas of free markets and individual rights, are not options.

There is one difference today, between pre-war Europe and the United States, and it involves a situation that did not exist in Europe. Today, there is a group of people that refuses to be "laughed at as fools, despised as reactionaries, silenced by threats"; it is a group of people who understands that our country was founded on the idea of individual rights and free markets and that these are the greatest, most advanced and most intelligent ideas mankind has ever created. Contrary to the Europeans, they have seen with their own eyes what a free market can create in terms of affluence, leisure and capital accumulation. They know that we cannot have a vibrant economy through a system that virtually blocks economic progress at every turn and makes citizens into slaves sacrificing for the collective. These people know that government intervention in the economy will not create a better world. They know that statism is a threat to their lives and futures. They know their government is taking us down the road to disaster. Who are they? They are certainly not the Republicans or the Democrats. They are the Tea Party protestors.

They may be our only hope.

(1)Omnipotent Government, Ludwig von Mises, Libertarian Press Page 234
(3)Ibid, Page 235
(4)Ibid, Page 236
(5)Ibid, Page 237

Sunday, July 12, 2009

Anti-"Rules for Radicals"

These Anti-rules are not about strategy; they are about how you can fight the tactics of gangsters and radicals in the communities in which you run your business. A real strategy has to take a broader look beyond tactics and find the principles that must be fought for in order to create a viable society. A real strategy involves a specific set of ideas that you advance on a consistent basis; it is not about defending yourself against the dogma of your attackers. These suggested tactics below are about fighting small-time chiselers and defending your business against their control.

I’ve always hesitated to buy books by my philosophical enemies because I don’t want to support the publishers who bring us lies. This applies especially to progressives who publish books and produce movies. I won’t buy anything by Michael Moore or Nancy Pelosi for instance because I don’t want to create the illusion that their materials are even worthy of an honest man’s attention. In addition, I know enough about what they think to see that they are liars and propagandists for a philosophy that I abhor.

So when the decision came to buying a copy of “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky, I knew that I needed to understand his methods and learn why his ideas were wrong; but I realized that he is a Marxist and most of the “Rules” he created have been practiced by social progressives for decades. So I settled for an Adobe Acrobat document that I found on the Internet. I found it to provide the exact information that I sought. It is called “Alinsky's Rules for Radicals” By Craig Miyamoto. The following is an extensive quote from the document, but I’m going to provide what I consider to be the best antidote for each rule, the Anti-Rules for Radicals, so to speak. You will find these “Anti-rules” following the words “My comment” after each Alinsky rule.

“Known as the "father of modern American radicalism," Saul D. Alinsky (1909-1972) developed strategies and tactics that take the enormous, unfocused emotional energy of grassroots groups and transform it into effective anti-government and anti-corporate activism. Activist organizations teach his ideas widely taught today as a set of model behaviors, and they use these principles to create an emotional commitment to victory - no matter what.

Grassroots pressure on large organizations is reality, and there is every indication that it will grow. Because the conflicts manifest in high-profile public debate and often-panicked decision-making, studying Alinsky's rules will help organizations develop counteractive strategies that can level the playing field.

Governments and corporations have inherent weaknesses. And, time and again, they repeat mistakes that other large organizations have made, even repeating their OWN mistakes. Alinsky's out-of-print book - "Rules for Radicals" - illustrates why opposition groups take on large organizations with utter glee, and why these governments and corporations fail to win.

Large organizations have learned to stonewall and not empower activists. In other words, they try to ignore radical activists and are never as committed to victory as their opposition is committed to defeating them. Result? They are unprepared for the hailstorm of brutal tactics that severely damage their reputation and send them running with their tails between their legs.

Some of these rules are ruthless, but they work. Here are the rules to be aware of:

RULE 1: "Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have." Power is derived from 2 main sources - money and people. "Have-Nots" must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)”

My comment: Anti-rule 1. Realize that radicals attack your business because you have economic power that they want to steal from you.

Never appease a radical by agreeing that he is correct. Find out where he is wrong and take a firm stand based on the facts. If they lie about your company, correct the lie. If they picket you, picket them back. If they come to your organization, send volunteers to their organizations. Don’t use economic arguments; argue on the basis of the fundamental individual rights of the company, the employees and the management. Never argue that you have a fundamental obligation to make bad business decisions based upon their demands. Defend your business decisions based on sound business practices. Refuse to grant them the power to harm your organization and do not capitulate by donating to them. If they scream they are just trying to help the poor, argue that you help your customers by bringing them good products and services at a reasonable price and that is your only obligation. Defend your right to make a profit and don’t give in to their demands.

You must recognize that these radical groups seek power for power’s sake, not to make things better. The flesh and blood that has to pay for that power consists of corporations and their employees that are forced, through bad publicity imposed upon them, to deal with and appease the radicals. The idea that the corporation has an obligation to accommodate the demands of radicals, for fear of bad publicity, is the source of their push for power.

They want you to pay for their meal ticket out of the prices you charge your customers and that means you will not be able to compete effectively against other companies. If you did not have economic power, they would have no desire to shake you down. Use your economic power by insisting that you have a right to exist as a profit-making company. If they violate your property rights, tell them that they are on private property, ask them to leave if they are not there to conduct business, take pictures, get video, identify the individuals and press charges.

“RULE 2: "Never go outside the expertise of your people." It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don't address the "real" issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)”

My comment: Anti-rule 2. Embarrass them by forcing them outside their expertise.

Ask them how much they know about the reasons for their protests and tape the answers they give. Expose the ignorance of the protestors, not the organizers. Most of these people do not know what they are doing which means you must be competent to spell out the issues, criticize the coercive tactics and put them on the defensive in a quiet dispassionate way. Here you can use video to tape these people. If you can ask these people questions and get answers from them you can use these videos with the media to show that they have no idea what it takes to run a business and that they are phonies.

The purpose of this rule is give their protesters the confidence to take a stand against you. If the people show confidence in their protests, it appears that they know that they are right and this instills fear in you. Remember all they want is for you to be afraid of them and for the public to be ignorant about their lies. Show them to be incapable of discussing the real issues.

“RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy." Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)”

My comment: Anti-rule #3. Be prepared to defend against spurious attacks based on bogus information.

When they tell lies or use spurious accusations and bogus studies, you must be sure that you are ready with the correct responses that will discredit their statements. If they are telling lies, then call them lies. Remember, they are prepared to accomplish a singular goal in the protest and that is to make you capitulate.

This approach was used by ACORN successfully in the 90s when some studies purported to “prove” that banks were discriminating against minorities in their lending practices. The study was bogus but it gained so much traction and got so much national attention that many banks bent over backwards to prove they were not discriminating by giving minorities more loans. This harmed the banks and eventually led to the sub-prime catastrophe. The goal of these tactics is to re-distribute your profits to people who do not qualify for them otherwise. Do not allow them to force you to violate sound business practices and be prepared to defend that policy with clear argument.

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity's very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)

My comment: Anti-rule #4. Never apologize for making a profit and put out a position statement that you can repeat whenever necessary. The only way to fight this is to assert the value and importance of making a profit and insist that you and your stockholders be able to keep those profits without having them extorted under threat of protest.

“RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)”

My comment: Anti-radical Rule #5. If they ridicule you, point out that ridicule is not an argument and insist that they provide a clear statement that explains their goals. If they continue to ridicule you, expose that ridicule as being illogical and unclear.

Ad hominem attacks are not valid forms of argument and they violate clear thinking. Ridicule is what charlatans do in order to imply that the opponent does not deserve to be dealt with in a civil way. Ridicule is the barbarian’s way of winning an argument. It only reveals the utter bankruptcy of the radical movement. They can be defeated by a large dose of what they can’t argue against: logic and reason.

“RULE 6: "A good tactic is one your people enjoy." They'll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They're doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid "un-fun" activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)”

My comment: Anti-radical Rule #6. Tell the truth and you will fight successfully against any tactic of deception.

This tactic essentially says that there is no content to their arguments except worn out saws used by Marxists of the past about capitalism and the profit motive. It says they are not able to justify the protest except to say they are “fighting against corporate greed”. So, in order to ensure that people continue to protest, the organizers must make it fun, perhaps feed the people, take them to a park, have a party, etc. This rule can be easily mitigated by a simple explanation to these people that they are really not accomplishing their goals of helping anyone and are in fact hurting the very people they claim to represent.

“RULE 7: "A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag." Don't become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)”

My comment: Anti-rule #7. Radical tactics can be easily defeated by a strong philosophical argument that refutes the basis of the tactic.

This is a philosophical struggle and the best term for it is “the individual versus the collective.” It is a battle that seeks to destroy an economic system based upon rational self-interest in favor of collective solutions for individual problems. If you focus on the fact that individual problems cannot be solved by collectives, that collectives wipe out the individual and leave him without a solution; that individual problems can only be solved by individual action; such as education, hard work, good life planning and good decision-making, you can actually be helpful to people where the radicals are harmful.

“RULE 8: "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)”

My comment: Anti-radical Rule #8. Keep the pressure on the radicals. Never let up and never capitulate. Disagree with and fight their coercive tactics.

This rule for radicals assumes that you are wrong and they are right. Do not allow them to get away with this view. Insist that you are right and that you refuse to be coerced. Never grant a semblance of credit to them for thinking that they are doing good. Insist that they are doing wrong to your company and this country. Give them no quarter that they can use to further attack you.

The best way to disagree is to make a statement of principles to support your economic activities. Ensure that these principles are based on Constitutional freedoms and fight for the right to exist as a businessman, an employee or as a private citizen. Find ways to express your statement of principles through advertising, pamphleteering, speeches and other public appearances and stand your ground.

“RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself." Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists' minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)”

My comment: Anti-radical Rule #9. Remember you are not guilty of anything immoral and you must fight for the moral high ground.

As a businessman, you are the moral agent who has taken an idea and made it work. You offer services and products that people need and you have earned the business of your customers. Your best argument is your competence. Their best argument is that you are not sure of yourself against their assertion of moral authority. Do not be morally intimidated; be morally certain.

The radicals are trying to muscle in on your hard work. Never allow them an opportunity to declare moral equivalency with you. They are immoral and you should treat them that way.

“RULE 10: "If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive." Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management's wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)”

My comment: Anti-Rule #10. Never respond in kind to a provocation.

Stand up for property rights and the rights of individuals to do business with you. Speak out only against their real goals, their methods and their unfair tactics but do so with the highest language and base your speech on enduring principles.

Remember, they are always going to try to provoke a response in order to gin up public support. The media will help them. This tactic is vicious and they have no moral compunction against creating incidents that they can use against you. Never react emotionally but when the law is violated by them obtain the help of law enforcement and prosecute. For them, prosecution means having to defend themselves in court and being labeled a criminal. The more businesses fight back legally against them; better, the more businesses take the legal initiative against them, the fewer people will they be able to enlist as protestors. Who wants to go to jail?

“RULE 11: "The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative." Never let the enemy score points because you're caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)”

My comment: Anti-rule #11. Never compromise with gangster tactics. Do not give them a seat at the table. Don’t invite them to your meetings, don’t pay protection money and do use the law to fight them at every opportunity.

If you are being extorted, say so openly and fight in the name of your rights first and in the name of civilized behavior second. Finally, fight in the name of the people they claim to be helping and point out that they are not helping. Also, fight in the name of the neighborhood that is being corrupted by gangster tactics, and speak out about the harm it is doing by scaring away other businesses.

“RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)”

My comment: Anti-rule #12. Let their tactics of polarization work against them by pointing them out. Be ready to defend yourself against unearned attacks that seek to paint you into a moral corner. You can also pick a target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. You can stand for civility and reason while they stand for shakedown and extortion. Don’t be afraid to polarize them for what they are doing.

They need to make you into the bad guy so they can obtain the moral high ground. This has been the tactic of Marxists and fascists for decades. They claim that they are the true defenders of the people and they use this idea to paint themselves as the good guys. Take the moral high ground away from them by fighting for your individual rights to property, good business practices, the profit motive and mutual trade to mutual benefit. These are the proper moral principles in a proper society. Do not let them turn this into a re-distribution of guilt where you give in to them because they say you are a corrupt capitalist. You have to defend your legal and moral rights. You cannot allow them to take the moral high ground.

Other points:

These radicals are not about making communities better; they are about gaining control of your business and forcing it to pay money to them. They are gangsters operating under the cover of charitable organizations looking to extort money from you; they are trying to find ways to launder money through legitimate organizations. If you capitulate to them, your business cannot thrive and neither can the community.

Some of these people will stop at nothing in order to get their way. Some are fully capable of violence and murder. If your business or your life is threatened, these people are poisoning your community and trying to turn it into a territory where they control. If you feel that you cannot do business in a community without living in fear, it is time to close the business and find a better community.

Educate yourself on proper government and proper community relations. Fight against the idea that you have an obligation to accept the moral authority of an extortion gang in a community. Learn to defend your rights by reading the history of our nation, understand the principles of free trade, the pursuit of happiness and civilized behavior and recognize that we must either have a society that defends individual rights or we have no society at all. You may have to become a philosopher to defend yourself but these radicals count on you not knowing how to fight for your rights. They need for you to be weak in order to control you.

I would appreciate any comments or other suggestions on how to fight the tactics of Marxist community organizers.

Friday, July 10, 2009

Altruism and Pitchforks

Over the decades, Marxists and social progressives have become astute at using what are thought to be valid ideas in order to fool the people.

For instance, in Honduras, President Obama claimed that the ousting of President Zelaya was a violation of the Democratic process in that country. The argument goes, “Don’t you advocate democracy? Don’t you want a country to be run according to the will of the people?” What is ignored is that Zelaya was destroying the democratic process in Honduras. In fact, he was removed from power by a Supreme Court that realized he was trying to subvert the Constitution and establish a dictatorship.

For some reason, that doesn’t seem to bother Obama. Where he refused to meddle in Iran, he is clearly meddling in Honduras so that an apparent “fellow traveler” can exploit the people.

Likewise, the Democrats in Congress proclaim that since they won the election, they have a right to disregard checks and balances, separation of powers, the Constitution, even contract law in order to rule. "Don't you respect the rule of law?" they ask. "Don't you respect the will of the people?" "We won," they say. Few remind them that the idea of disregarding the Constitution was not an election issue and no one voted for it.

One of the most expensive bait and switch ideas was invented by the Republicans and Obama has appropriated it with relish. This is the idea that a business or an industry is too big to fail. "If we don't act now to save this company, then the entire economy will collapse" is the argument. Later, when the bailout is found not to have worked, few remind the politicians that they had lied. And few notice that the companies being bailed out were among the biggest contributors to the Democrats.

Organizations like ACORN and its sundry offshoots use the same tactic when they send red shirted protesters onto the streets against corporations they are attempting to shakedown. “The people are rising up against corporate interests who are keeping the people poor,” they might say. “Don’t you see we’re only trying to help those people that are ignored and exploited by big corporations? We’re only trying to do good for the people.”

What they don’t tell you is that they are often being paid by another corporation, in many cases, a competitor who wants to muscle in on the market. Also, they do not tell you that these protests are not about helping the poor. In fact, the neighborhoods that have been infiltrated by these “community organizers” most often become blighted. The presence of ACORN in the neighborhood is a clear signal to other companies to stay out. The only way you can do business in this neighborhood is to donate to ACORN. Al Capone would be proud.

The tactic is very simple: force people to live up to ideas in which they believe, not in order to advance those ideas and make things better, but to gain power.

Altruism is the perfect gimmick for Marxists, ACORN and Obama. All you have to do is say you are trying to help people and you can pretty much get away with anything. No one would be against that, right? Look at what has been accomplished so far. It is as if altruism is an open road with no speed limit.

The entire sub-prime mortgage crisis was created by precisely this method and few have realized that the real culprit in the crisis was the very person that we elected as President and the organization that supported him. ACORN, SEIU, the labor unions; they are nothing more than Obama’s pitch forks, ready to swing into action whenever he needs a bill passed or a corporation taken over by government.

In fact, the supporters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two organizations at the center of the crisis, are still attempting to keep lending standards low and they are trying to cover up the damage they have done by getting their pet Barney Frank to pass legislation that will send millions more dollars to the very people who could not make payments on their loans...again. As long as you are trying to promote home ownership, how can any one disagree with that? You are just trying to help people.

Really, there is no end to all the good things government can do to help people. Don't you want free health care? Don't you want a cleaner planet? Don't you want a government job? Don't you want a free education? Don't you want a "green" car? Don't you want to be in a union and make higher wages? Don't you want to get rid of Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin? Hurry, hurry, hurry, all you have to do is wish it and your government can make it happen!

If you wonder how Obama got elected; this gimmick is the reason. Today, many people, particularly those educated in our public schools, have swallowed this gimmick whole…without thought. The government has told them it is trying to help people and no one has the ability to see through the deception; and fewer still have the courage to question it; in fact, many of them would feel guilty for being so selfish as to question the government that is only "trying to make things better".

The fact that trillions of dollars are being spent by government to “help people” while the economy keeps getting worse does not concern them. The fact that trillion dollar deficits represent the savings taken from the average man...or the next generation, does not concern them. That these savings, now gone, have robbed us of our futures has not occured to them. The fact that the government cannot create wealth, nor can it spend us into prosperity, is irrelevant when we have a smooth talking medicine man running our country. His "magic words" sound so good when he tells us sacrifice is good and it made our country strong...until they realize it is they who will be sacrificing...their standard of living and ability to care for their children. And the poor will still be poor...while the people with the pitchforks protest for more. They don’t seem to be able to see that there is a direct connection between these massive expenditures and the plunging economy.

Our educational system is enough to make Bill Ayers proud.(1) Our children have been taught that altruism, helping people, is what the government should do, and so they vote for altruists and pitchforks, while they get poorer every day waiting for the government to help them. The chickens are coming home to roost, so they say.

(1)For those of you educated in our public schools, Bill Ayers is a 60s anti-war protester who once threw a few bombs trying to start a communist revolution. After he was acquited of these crimes (on a technicality), he got into the field of education and worked with Obama to get grants from the government and other foundations in order to change school curricula and make you more socially responsible...which is the point of this blog post...he taught you to let the government spend all your money.

Reading the Prophets

The Obama administration appears to have an ideological bent that it tries to hide. Based upon some of the things that President Obama does not say, this bent is clearly Marxist. Obama hides this by claiming his views are based upon the advice of the best thinkers. This is a cover story. Look at what he does, not what he says.

As I wrote in a previous blog, Obama is clearly guided by the same premises that animated the social progressives and fascists during the last century. To repeat, here are the premises as described by Ludwig von Mises:

1.“Capitalism is an unfair system of exploitation.”
2.“It is therefore the foremost duty of popular government to substitute government control of business for the management of capitalists and entrepreneurs.”
3.“Price ceilings and minimum wage rates, whether directly enforced by the administration or indirectly by giving a free hand to trade unions, are an adequate means for improving the lot of the consumers and permanently raising the standard of living of all wage earners.”
4.“Easy money policy, i.e., credit expansion, is a useful method of lightening the burdens imposed by capital upon the masses and making a country more prosperous.”
5.“All those who deny the foregoing statements and assert that capitalism best serves the masses and that the only effective method of permanently improving the economic conditions of all strata of society is progressive accumulation of new capital are ill-intentioned and narrow-minded apologists of the selfish class interest of the exploiters.”
6.“The advantage derived from foreign trade lies exclusively in exporting.”(1)

Clearly Obama is advancing a fascist agenda. How can it be defeated? What are the best arguments about it and how can those arguments become known by many people?

We have been here before. During the Carter years there was a groundswell of dissent that was based on the ideas of a number of scholars and authors from the past. Many of these ideas influenced the Republicans and, in particular, Ronald Reagan who was able to articulate a positive message of American renewal.

Unfortunately, the principles of free market economics were co-opted by the Bushes who were willing to take conservative support but who were not really conservatives. They were liberals, neo-cons who felt you had to out-liberal the liberals in order to win political power. They certainly gained power, but look at the condition in which they left the country.

Now, even more, we need to get back to those prophets who provided the foundation for the renewal that Reagan brought and we need to make sure that, this time, we honor the enduring principles that they represent.(2)

Here’s my book list:

(1) Omnipotent Government, Lugwig von Mises, Libertarian Press
(2) Please note: I've added a couple of new Prophets

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

Senator Lugar

Each Democratic Presidential candidate during the last three elections was asked if he has ever worked with Republicans in a bi-partisan fashion. The answer was the same in each case. All three candidates mentioned working with Senator Richard Lugar. In fact, during the 2004 campaign, Senator Lugar had to hold a press conference begging the Democrats to stop using his name to advance their bi-partisan credentials.

Certainly, Senator Lugar has lots of old friends among the Democrats; Gore, Kerry, Obama are just a few of them. But did you know he has a new group of best friends in Russia? The Russian people call them "oligarchs"; and that is not a term of endearment. Look it up on Wikipedia for the sense of it.

Lugar's new friends are a clear indication of why he should not be re-elected and it is a very simple one. He cannot protect you against the massive encroachment of government into our lives. In fact, he supports those encroachments.

There have been several studies done about the rise of the Nazis in pre-World War II Germany. One of the most perceptive was the analysis made by Classical Economist Ludwig von Mises. What his analysis revealed was the reason why the Nazis had so little opposition during the late stages of the Weimar Republic. In his book, “Omnipotent Government”, Mises wrote:

“We need only emphasize that whoever lacks the courage or the insight to attack these (national socialist) premises is not in a position to find fault with the conclusions drawn from them by the Nazis.”(Parentheses mine)(1)

According to Mises, the Nazi opposition lost because they agreed with the basic premises held by the Nazis.

What were these premises? According to Mises:

1.“Capitalism is an unfair system of exploitation.”
2.“It is therefore the foremost duty of popular government to substitute government control of business for the management of capitalists and entrepreneurs.”
3.“Price ceilings and minimum wage rates, whether directly enforced by the administration or indirectly by giving a free hand to trade unions, are an adequate means for improving the lot of the consumers and permanently raising the standard of living of all wage earners.”
4.“Easy money policy, i.e., credit expansion, is a useful method of lightening the burdens imposed by capital upon the masses and making a country more prosperous.”
5.“All those who deny the foregoing statements and assert that capitalism best serves the masses and that the only effective method of permanently improving the economic conditions of all strata of society is progressive accumulation of new capital are ill-intentioned and narrow-minded apologists of the selfish class interest of the exploiters.”
6.“The advantage derived from foreign trade lies exclusively in exporting.”

In spite of the fact, that each of these six points is wrong, it is worth noting that, with the exception of point 6, the Obama administration holds all of them. In fact, they are central tenets of Obama's world view. And you have to wonder about Senator Lugar. Is he strong enough to disagree with the Obama administration on these points? Does he have the courage to fight a President who may well do to our country what the Nazis did to Germany? Or will the Senator fall by the wayside on Obama's road to tyranny...a weak apologist who barely rated an asterisk in the history books?

I'm certainly no Rhodes Scholar, but you don't have to have an Ivy League education to know that thugs and gangsters are taking over the country. Who's man enough to say it? Do you really think Senator Lugar has the courage to take on the Democrats as they destroy the energy industry in Indiana?

I think Lugar is sleepwalking. While President Obama is violating the Constitution at will, every day, Senator Lugar is still trying to be bi-partisan; he still thinks he can work with the Democrats and bring jobs to Indiana...while the economy is virtually crumbling around him. Does he even notice that it is crumbling? I think not.

It was recently announced that Senator Lugar has “been working with Senator Evan Bayh…to secure federal money for a company that wants to build the next generation of advanced lithium-ion batteries.

The Indiana lawmakers have secured $6.5 million in congressional earmarks for Ener1, Inc., and have talked up the company's efforts to secure a slice of nearly $3 billion in two Energy Department programs offering grants and loans as part of President Obama's stimulus package. “(3)(5)

The factory will be situated in Noblesville, Indiana and it is thought that we’d be gaining 3000 jobs, but “there's one detail they don't mention.

Ener1 has substantial financial ties to Russian industrialist Boris Zingarevich, a wealthy timber magnate and longtime business associate of Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. Mr. Zingarevich is frequently listed among the powerful and influential businessmen known in Russia as oligarchs.

According to federal records, Mr. Zingarevich is the "provider of substantially all of the funding" for Ener1 and its wholly-owned subsidiaries. The companies he owns, controls or is associated with - including Bzinfin SA, an off-shore firm that holds 66 percent of the shares of Ener1's parent company - have the potential to exercise substantial sway over Ener1's operations, documents filed with U.S. securities regulators state.”(4)

Considering the above, do you really think Senator Lugar is going to do anything to kill this Russian/Noblesville deal, by, for instance, voting against the Cap and Trade Bill? Is this deal a payoff that buys Lugar’s vote for the bill? Is it intended to help Lugar save his job when so many are opposed to the various stimulus packages for which he has voted? What other quid pro quo deals are in the works to help Lugar keep his job?

More than this, why don’t the Russians really put up all the money for this project? Since when did it become common practice for a Russian business man (or any business person for that matter) to get money from the U.S. government in order to build a factory? Is this money a pay off to the Russians to bring their factory to Indiana? How do we know the deal is not another money laundering scheme that will skim tax payer money through grants and send it to an off-shore account? If this factory is such a good idea, why don't we let private entrepreneurs make their own decisions about it using their own money?

Furthermore, how do we know that the American public is going to buy battery operated cars, or that these batteries will be sufficient for our military? How is the government going to overcome the negatives of battery-operated cars when the American public is already sick and tired of these tax payer financed deals? Does Lugar think that we will just look the other way, vote him into power again, and say, “Thanks, Dick, for bringing jobs to Indiana” when we know that this money was taken from us and that millions of jobs have already been lost because of this theft?

What will happen if this business goes bust? The government will have to expend billions of dollars in advertising expenditures just to get us to change our minds about the technology…and if the cars are too expensive, the government will have to subsidize these costs to lower the prices. And since these jobs will probably be union jobs, who is going to lay these people off? Certainly not Obama or Lugar or Bayh; those laid off people are voters. They’ll probably come up with another scheme to steal more of our money…if there is anything left by then.

The fallacy of all these boondoggles is that the government thinks it can use tax payer money to “stimulate” trade and make things better. What Lugar and Obama ignore is that the money comes from us in the first place and we have to produce something in order for them to have money to take from us. For every dollar they take out of our pockets, there is one less dollar that we can spend on the things the government wants us to buy. For every job their deal creates, there are two or more jobs lost in the marketplace. And every job they create will be less productive than the old job they destroyed. When they steal the investment capital of the nation, there will be no money left to invest in future production. Then the factory they built in Noblesville will rot in the clean air.

Put another way, when they take a trillion dollars to invest in new government-approved businesses, where will they get the next trillion dollars once the first round of money has been squandered? You cannot assume that the public will just accept the new products and provide the government with an immediate profit...especially since consumers today have less money to spend. Statistics show that even new private businesses take as long as ten years to become profitable. And, most Americans don't trust government-financed projects. This is the problem with centrally planned business ventures; the government is not good at planning profitable enterprises and the result is a constantly growing drain on the government's budget. In other words, we'll pay dearly to make sure the new factory can stay in business.

You cannot create a vibrant economy through Central Planning. It did not work in Soviet Russia, it did not work in Communist China and it did not work in Nazi Germany. It won’t work here. By the time these factories are built the economy will be so bad no one will be able to afford a car.

Perhaps they will be able to afford a golf cart. I know Dick is good at driving golf carts. But he's not good enough to represent a state that needs leadership.

(1) Omnipotent Government, Ludwig von Mises, Libertarian Press
(2) Ibid
(3) Washington Times
(4) Ibid
(5) I'd like to remind you that this is the stimulus package that President Obama said had no earmarks.

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Indy Tea Party 1, Rain 0

I have spent many days in the rain; I remember a time in Korea sitting on the back of an Army vehicle under my olive drab poncho while equally green frogs jumped all around me; I remember waiting for the rain to stop before several great Indy 500s. My children and I once slept in the car through a night of rain and lightening while trying to camp in the hills of Michigan. I can't forget living through three hurricanes in Florida. Again and again, it seemed like the rain, when it came, always won; but not on July 4, 2009. On that day the Indy Tea Party won.

There was an impressive march of people down the streets of Indy toward the park where the Indy Tea Party was held. There were hundreds of rain coats and ponchos and many signs with streaked messages proclaiming the attendees’ desire for freedom. There were young people, middle aged people and senior citizens. There were tents selling Tea Party paraphernalia and others for signing petitions against government boondoggles. There were speeches that got the crowd excited and there were hot dogs and lawn chairs.

The crowd was smaller than on April 15, but who wants to stand in the rain? Those who attended proved they were not fair weather patriots. And like thousands of others across the country they were part of a protest that will continue to grow. I was impressed by the thoughtfulness of the signs and by the friendliness of the people. The rain was not a problem.

Richard and Laura Behney and their staff of volunteers are to be congratulated for their hard work and organizational skills. If you haven’t donated to help defray costs, please do so, even if it is only a small amount. This is a grass roots organization. It does not get grant money like ACORN and they don’t have the backing of a political organization. It only has your backing.

Contrast these patriots who stood in the rain with a leader who utters the Presidential oath as if it were a punch line; who then fires executives of private companies and destroys the sanctity of contract – after 233 years of freedom – in only a few short days. To fight this cynical hatred of freedom, we must continue the Tea Parties. They may be our only hope.


I feel like Confucius today. The following lines are distilled from past blogs. I hope you can digest them.

The thing about the truth is that someone has to tell it. If not told, the lie wins the day and destruction ensues. We need more truth tellers.

Beware of the person who criticizes selfishness and greed. He’s picking your pocket.

Beware the person who says he only wants to help people. He’s helping himself.

Beware the person who asks for your blind trust. Notice how nervous he is.

Listen to the little bird that constantly shows up on your window sill. He’s trying to tell you something.

Politicians always hide from you what they are doing with their left hand by showing you an empty right hand.

They keep saying they inherited a bad economy; but Bush's bad economy was created by Obama's socialist principles. It was a failure of socialism, not a failure of capitalism, that got us here.

You can't get a good result by doing more of what caused the bad result.

Economic principles are real principles. They are not just opinions. You can’t get a bad result by doing something in 1934 and then a good result by doing it in 2009. The result will be bad both times.

Beware of broken windows that you must pay to fix. There is a vandal afoot; usually the government.

The savages will whine about their need without the sense to save the seed.

We may marvel at the image of leadership but do we notice that we are becoming poor?

When the value of your money is diminishing, someone is stealing from you.

The impulse of our leaders to “do something” is a clue to the fact that they are doing the wrong thing. Sometimes doing nothing is better.

If you do something and it doesn’t work, this is a sign that you should stop doing it.

It is always better to just leave people alone rather than meddle in their lives.

If you want to help the poor, don’t help them.

It is thought that if a person "cares" for others, it means he is a good person. I beg to differ. Care for yourself and you are a good person.

In order for the government to be empathetic towards one person, it must do harm to the person who pays for the empathy.

Sacrifice has two sides…the giver and the taker. To accomplish sacrifice, you must make the giver feel guilty for having to much and this necessarily makes the taker feel guilty for taking it. This is why there is so little gratitude today.

The slave gets the lash; the master gets the gold. There is a lesson here.

Beware of professional parasites at your door. Don’t let them in; they are casing the joint.

Beware of fence builders. Fences keep people out; but they also keep people in.

The man who claims the moral authority to tell you what to do is a self-exalted petty chiseler.

All dictators demand sacrifice. That is how they destroy continents.

Beware a leader who asks for sacrifice. It is you who will sacrifice.

It isn’t the poor that the politicians want to help; it is the rich they want to destroy.

We should educate our youth about how to identify the truth rather than uncritically accept the lies. It would be cheaper since you'd only have to teach them once; rather than constantly repeat the lies.

Freedom is the gateway to accomplishment, to cooperation, to reason and to happiness. Anything else is slavery.

What is freedom? Freedom is the ability to make a decision with your own mind to do something that benefits you and only you. If you lose this freedom, you are a slave who must wait for the commands of your master. You will be fed when he wants to feed you and you will die when he wants you to die.

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 create jobs for people. Now you know why our government’s stimulus programs aren’t working.

What are your weak spots? Quite simply they are your beliefs that sacrifice for the common good is proper and that your government is trying to help people. As long as you believe these lies, they have a blank check to draw out the value of everything you produce.

The idea of altruism, of sacrifice, makes it possible for people to declare that it is moral to re-distribute wealth - but no one has bothered to look at history to see if wealth is ever created in a society based upon that principle.

The only thing that fascism destroys is the people.

The only thing a government can do is coerce the people.

All re-distribution schemes equalize results. Once re-distribution takes hold, productive people will slow down because they know their product will be given to others. And the less productive people will slow down because they know they'll get more anyway. This is why no socialist system ever works. This is not an opinion. It is a historically proven fact. We are proving it again today.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Let's Hit the Streets

"The Boston Tea Party arose from two issues confronting the British Empire in 1773: the financial problems of the British East India Company, and an ongoing dispute about the extent of Parliament's authority, if any, over the British American colonies without seating any elected representation. The North ministry's attempt to resolve these issues produced a showdown that would eventually result in revolution."

There are parallels to the Boston Tea Party today: 1) The British East India Company was being given an assist by the empire when it forced colonists to pay a tax on tea (today: TARP, Cap and Trade, etc.), and 2) taxation without representation (today: voting for bills without reading them and amending them in the middle of the night). If you agree that the government should not be using your tax dollars to help corrupt corporations and that it should not be taxing you without listening to your opinion, then you should be part of the modern Tea Party protests.

If you have opinions about other issues that aren't related to these issues, you have a right to those positions because you are a free person. But these other issues are not what the Tea Party protests are about in my opinion. If we are going to stop this government that is destroying our rights under the Constitution, we have to fill the streets with lots of people. The government has to know that we've reached our limit. They have to know that our rights are unalienable. If you agree, then it is time to hit the streets and express your opinion. We can talk about theocracy and abortion, immigration and smoking rights later. Let's get our freedoms back first. Then we can disagree in peace and express our opinions without fear.

I appreciate all the hard work of Richard and Laura and the people who are organizing what I think is one of the best Tea Party groups in the country. Indiana has some of the most articulate, educated and principled members anywhere. This group is a fine example for the nation. But we are all still learning about organizing at a grass roots level. Let's have an incredible protest on Saturday and show Washington that we are serious about keeping our Constitutional rights. Let's make them stop all this spending.