Monday, November 21, 2011

Your Voice May Save the Country

It seems that every Presidential election is important. Looking back, some were more important than others. For instance, the election of Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter was important. It corrected, at least in some respects, the mistake of electing a weak and indecisive President.

This coming election will be a similar election, and it is very likely that the incumbent President will have so much fraudulent control over the election process, so much money (most likely obtained illegally) and a bully pulpit in the media, that he will be able to tell the most outrageous lies and wind up the winner by default.

This President will be able to make the issue whatever he wants. He will say that the Republicans represent big business (when it is he who represents crony capitalism), or he will say that the Republicans are fascists (when it is he who has enabled fascism), or he will say that the Republicans want to dismantle entitlements for seniors, Veterans and the poor. He could, and likely, will get away with this because many people already believe that the Republicans are cruel and inconsiderate of a large numbers of voters.

Yet, the real issue in this coming election should be that the President is a communist who is instituting fascism in America. He is destroying the economy by looting productive citizens and stealing their wealth. Not only has the President handed the middle east to radical Muslims, he has virtually set up the next war in the region which could mean the destruction of Israel and the next holocaust. This is bad enough, but he has also weakened America to such a degree that the hordes of communists in league with him could bring revolution, destruction and Marshall Law to our cities.

Our situation is really more like that in 1968 when Nixon ran against Humphrey. During that election, the American people, including myself, saw the rise of the new left, a group of young people who wanted to destroy America and turn it into a colony of the Soviet Communists. This group exposed themselves as destroyers, haters and anti-Americans. The American people saw it and reacted appropriately. The result was a victory for Richard Nixon. The American people had had enough in 1968 and the “silent majority” spoke loudly. When McGovern came along in 1972, expressing a similar agenda, he was defeated in a landslide.

We are back in the '60s again and the silent majority has become the Tea Party movement. It is time that the American people make their convictions clear once and for all. Capitalism, limited government individual rights and pro-Americanism can never be defeated by liars, freeloaders, cheaters, crony capitalists and phony protest movements. This next election must make the principles of America clear; not sacrifice, not re-distribution, not government entitlement programs, not freeloading and theft of taxpayer money, not some people living off of others. The next election should be a vote for limited government. It should be about having a government that protects rights and liberties - not one that violates them routinely.

We must make sure that we drown out the media and make Obama run on his record. We want him to run the most negative campaign in history and to spend billions in lying and deceiving and insulting. We need to defeat progressivism under the worst circumstances...or else we will never get rid of it. We have to have a bi-partisan citizens' campaign made up of individual truth-tellers who are willing to take on the lies and deceptions of the left, and, once and for all, rid the world of government coercion. We must defeat progressivism as a philosophy of government. We must expose the immorality and the failure of this philosophy. We must expose, not the failure of capitalism, but the failure of socialism/fascism. We have to purge, through the vote, the dishonesty and corruption of the progressive movement, crony capitalism and the idea that one man owes a living to another.

Please make sure you make yourself heard by voting in 2012. And if you can, join the citizen army of truth-tellers. Speak your mind, wear t-shirts that express your views, talk, write blogs and letters to the editors and be part of a movement that intends to put the government back into the hands of the people. Your vote and your voice may be the one that saves our country.

Thursday, April 7, 2011


By Robert Villegas, Jr.

If the world releases swelling bombs,
if the world succumbs to whining qualms
about how man should live.

If our nation turns to stone
and rules the freedoms we have sown.
If a Hitler walks the land
and says, "I am peaceful man."

If these things of which I say
come about some cloudy day,
I will have to go,
and shrug my shoulders on my way.

And I'm sure the things I write
will be buried by the trite
who think they know what's best for man,
who think they have the power and
whose heads you'll find among the sand
of an ocean full of lies.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011


By Robert Villegas, Jr.

He stood there, red-eyed on the street,
among the smoke and dust.
His wrinkles cried within his smile.
He asked me to be just;
to give him just a small compense.
He'd been a man of trust,
but victimized by dog-eat-dog,
betrayed by men of lust.

His blood-eyes searched within my face.
He hoped for fool and friend.
He said that I looked hard as stone.
He asked me to extend
my mind to other peoples' minds,
and then to comprehend
the way that small men feel inside,
then surely I would bend.

The wrinkled rivers in his face
began a flood of tears.
He asked me to have pity now.
He had no sly veneers.
He asked me then to look at him.
His face held many fears.
Then surely I would give to him.
He was a man of years.

I said, "I cannot give to you
the pity you desire.
For men who blame on other men
are men who will require
that pity is their legal right,
because they've lost the fire
that other men still seem to have,
and this I can't admire.

And I can give you no reward,
no matter what you say.
No matter what your life has been,
I never will betray
the standards I require of man:
to seek not to allay
the efforts that assume from life
in parasitic way.

He looked at me, and then he said,
“I've known men just like you.
You're always seeking honesty,
and that is nothing new.
But I have been around awhile,
and I know this is true.
You must cheat all you can, my friend,
for honest men are few."

I looked at him, and then I said,
"And I've heard that before.
You want to justify your ways
by claiming life is war.
But men who think like you, my friend,
are always very poor.
For I am here and you are there.
I need not argue more."

Saturday, March 19, 2011

The Altruism Card

Former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi recently ascended to the level of God. She transformed from a mere human into a moral authority. A recent statement she made regarding Republican spending cuts was intended to set us straight and keep us on the “moral” path. Here is her statement:

“I think this debate is on a higher ground of our values. It’s not about money. It’s about the morality of what we’re doing.”

What are Ms. Pelosi’s values? From all indications, they are based upon the idea that a moral society is one that takes care of the poor, the aged, the downtrodden, the worker, the ethnic minority, leftist intellectuals and bureaucrats, and the CEO who pays the most in campaign contributions. Her values require that hard working people part with their money so those who do not work hard have an equal standard of living. These "values" were stated by Karl Marx, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” This is the morality that she is “doing”.

But are her values really our values? Do all Americans agree that re-distribution of earnings represents our highest values? Do they also think that it is more important to solve our so-called problems today with money that has yet to be earned? Do we really believe that we can make things better today by ensuring that our children and grandchildren are unable to live normal affluent lives? Is our good more important than their starvation and poverty? What generation can call itself moral that pushes the coming catastrophe far off into the future?

Ms. Pelosi has just played the altruism card and the stakes of her gambit are high. In the balance is whether we will continue toward bigger government and eventual collapse or make the needed changes that will get our country back on track toward freedom, individual rights and prosperity.

But she is correct in a sense; government spending is about morality; but not in the way she means it. Anything the government does is subject to moral evaluation; and the correct evaluation of her actions is simply this: what she is doing is immoral.

Ms. Pelosi apparently does not see the connection between her ideas and the very economic circumstances in which we find ourselves. She does not realize that every borrowed dollar government spends is a dollar taken from the private economy and contributes to our economic decline. It violates the individual rights of producers and destroys the incentive to produce more. It reduces the amount of money available to businesses and individuals. It gives this money to government under the false assumption that government spending will produce better results. What she does not realize is that government cannot effectively invest money in the private economy that originally came from the private economy. This merely moves money around allowing the government to rake off a big part for administrative costs (on non-productive jobs) with the rest of it going to boondoggles and deliberate government waste. This includes projects like cars no one will buy, energy that costs more to produce than government subsidized prices and non-productive leftist agendas with no real outcome. Spending does not spur production - only capital accumulation (private savings) can do that. If the myth of government spending isn’t immoral, I don’t know what is. If this isn’t a failure of “socialist morality”, then please tell me what socialist success looks like.

What does she count on when she uses the altruism card? What does she think should happen when she reminds us of our “duty” to sacrifice for others? She hopes that we will feel too guilty to stop government spending. She counts on us being too morally paralyzed to challenge the morality of sacrifice. Why shouldn't she? The altruism card has worked before and generations of teachers have been teaching sacrifice since progressives took over education; the kids are brainwashed and few adults have the moral courage to say...enough. She knows that all she has to do is call the Republicans cruel, heartless, evil, in the pay of corporations, unconcerned about the plight of the poor...and they'll fold like a tazed college student...every single time.

In fact, the altruism card has been used successfully by entire generations of progressive politicians. It is the tactic behind every measure that the progressives have advocated since they came to prominence. It starts when they create a victim of some type and demand that charity be extended to him. Then they blame a scapegoat for the victim’s suffering. They inform us that neither private charity nor the free market can take care of this victim; that private means have failed to solve the “problem”; that laissez faire ideas have, in fact, created the problem. Then they use the force of government to re-distribute money to the government (not the victim). This is forced altruism, the goal of the altruism card. This is Nancy Pelosi's morality.

But the problem of the invented victim is never solved. The altruism card merely creates the pretext for using it again. If it works today, then they will try it again tomorrow…until forever. By their view, there can never be enough sacrificing, not for moralists like Nancy Pelosi and progressives. Remember, the people who pay the money never see where the money goes. They only see protestations of “doing good”; they only see the victims and trust that some type of “good” will actually be accomplished by their giving. This is what she defends, a moral shell game fueled by sleight of hand with your money going into their pockets in more ways than you can imagine.

For centuries we have been brainwashed about altruism as a moral virtue. But let’s look at the history of some of the most common forms of altruism:

• For centuries, Kings pretended to be gods in order to justify their enslavement of citizens who were forced to give up their lives and work because it was considered good. The result was countless wars and dead bodies, fuedalism, famine and plague, subsistence farming and ignorance.

• Governments have engaged in endless propaganda campaigns intended to convince citizens that they have a duty to sacrifice for the good of the whole, whether that whole is a nation, a tribe, an ethnic group or a city. The result was the rise and fall of civilizations slowly robbed of their substance, culture and rights by thieving Emperors and politicians.

• Philosophers have developed deceptive arguments intended to convince people that they cannot rely on their own senses or their own minds. The goal of these schemes (such as the analytic-synthetic dichotomy) was to ensure that people never discovered reason and that they were too ignorant and “faithful” to think for themselves. The only thing men could rely on, under these schemes, is that government knew best and that their only moral act was to give up their minds to “strong and powerful” leaders who forced men to sacrifice for the sake of society. The result was institutional plunder of countless populations of confused citizens. The result was pragmatism (real politik), psuedo-science and a call for “Open Societies” which were nothing more than fascist dictatorships with their attendant anti-capitalism, genocide, racism and bankruptcy.

• Progressives for over 100 years have told us that capitalism has failed, that freedom has failed, that individual rights are a myth, that the Constitution was a document of negative rights. They touted the “civilized” and “practical” nature of societies dedicated to sacrifice for the collective. They swooned over swaggering chauvinistic leaders (dictators) with the will to "make the trains run on time" and they idealized citizens enthusiastically dedicated to the "good of society". This resulted in fascism, socialism, communism and other coercive governments run by murderous brutes who started major wars and created the bloodiest century in the history of man, the century of our parents and grandparents.

So today, when Nancy Pelosi tells you that we should spend the future income of our children for the sake of her view of what is moral, she is not talking about a morality that has created any good on this earth. Throughout history, altruism has only created economic depression and hunger. It has created more plunder and murder than any other system; it is based upon the morality of thieves, murderers, liars, gangsters and runaway politicians. It was imposed on our ancestors and today, it is being imposed on you and your posterity. You are part of the ages-old scheme of plunder.

Ms. Pelosi thinks she can get away with using the altruism card. She thinks we will deny reality and follow her leadership, not to solve problems, but to adhere to the “values” that have been so beautifully sung to us all our lives. It is a haunting melody based upon a lie. All you need is love. She knows that the altruism card has been played for centuries and, with the exception of one shining moment of enlightenment, it has wrought destruction every time. She knows that if she keeps playing the music of sacrifice, she will be able to keep spending us into oblivion. She knows that altruism is the one idea that destroys your ability to use reason. She knows it but you don’t. Don’t feel alone, the morality of plunder has exploited your ancestors. What makes you different? It's up to you to answer that question.

But what is true morality? What makes a person good? Is it the amount of money you can give away to support Nazi concentration camps, or Johnson’s Great Society or the Roman Empire or Obama’s Health Care program? The truth is that having your earnings confiscated by government does not make you moral; it destroys your ability to be moral. Having your money taken from you by force makes you a victim of crime. It destroys your ability to positively affect your life because it has removed from your life the value which you could have used to improve or enjoy it. This is why theft is immoral - it steals value - value gives you freedom of action - it violates rights - rights are about freedom of action - theft destroys your freedom of action. It doesn't matter if the theft is done by a criminal or Nancy Pelosi, you will suffer in exactly the same way regardless of who the thief might be. You lose; the criminal wins and lives to steal another day.

Morality begins with human choice, with confronting reality in order to create survival. It is about using your mind and making the right decisions about what advances your values. It is about having the self-esteem that never feels guilty for thinking. It is about trading your best product, your skill and your time for the best products of others. It is about an ever improving life made possible by a whole society of people seeking to be moral. Morality cannot exist without free trade, without the freedom that gives people the opportunity to produce their own happiness and to enjoy their own lives. Morality is not about giving things away or paying taxes; it is about creating value and keeping that value, it is about living without fear of government. Morality is not about guilt, it is about enjoyment and pride. That makes you a good person, not Nancy Pelosi’s re-distributionist “values”.

The altruism card is an attack on your happiness. It does not make your life better. Just look at the state of our economy. Every regulation, every tax dollar taken from you, every massive government program, every unneccessary war, would not have been possible were it not for their using the altruism card.

They convinced you that sacrifice would mean a better life. But the altruism card is not about a better life. Pelosi’s morality is about destroying your ability to be moral. It is about destroying your values.

I think the best answer to Ms. Pelosi is a Tea Party tsunami in 2012. Imagine a world without sacrifice. Your productive life would be better. You know that. What makes you think your neighbor's life wouldn't also be better?

Let's irradicate the scourge of slavery.

Thursday, February 24, 2011


I have been a member of two labor unions during my long career. The first, when I was very young, decided to strike for higher pay for its members. Eventually, after many months on strike, the union won the labor rates for which it held out. Once we got back to work, the company engaged in massive layoffs because, during the strike, competitors of the company had managed to take away most of the customers.

I was in another union for about 11 years at a major transportation company. In this case, the company, many decades before, had decided it wanted to avoid union agitation and, rather than fight unionization, invited the union to represent its employees. Many fellow union members did not like the union. The union “bosses” acted like thugs and the company, over the years, endured several strikes. This left room for Federal Express to start up without paying union wages.

It seems that everyone is saying “unions can be good for the workers” but I think it is time we question the roles unions have played in society. One of the most eloquent critics of unions was the little-known economist Ludwig von Mises from Austria. Below, I list some of the “problems” of unions and inject some of his most prescient criticisms:

1. Unions can gain no improvements in wages, benefits or working conditions that companies would not already be able to provide. If the business was not already successful and earning a significant profit, there would be no interest among union bosses to unionize the employees. In other words, unions would not exist without a strong capitalist system from which to derive dues.
a. Ludwig von Mises: “The union members are not conscious of the fact that their fate is tied up with the flowering of their employers’ enterprises.” – Planning for Freedom p. 91

2. Unions tend to agitate in order to justify their existence.
a. Ludwig von Mises: “Strikes, sabotage, violent action and terrorism of every kind are not economic means. They are destructive means, designed to interrupt the movement of economic life. They are weapons of war which must inevitably lead to the destruction of society.” – Socialism p. 307

3. Unions are a defacto government regulation of businesses.
a. Ludwig von Mises: “The labor unions aim at a monopolistic position on the labor market. But once they have attained it, their policies are restrictive and not monopoly price policies. They are intent upon restricting the supply of labor in their field without bothering about the fate of those excluded.” – Human Action p. 374 - 377

4. Unions put companies out of business. They force employers to raise wages that often put the company in an uncompetitive position. The company has no choice but to close the factory, move to another state or move overseas to remain profitable.

5. Unions support socialist/progressive platforms because progressive politicans want union votes. In return for votes, politicians allow unions the power to coerce businesses. Unions also tend to support bills and legislative measures that raise taxes, give them more power in negotiations and remove consent from employees and business owners. In the case of government unions, the government enables unions to demand benefits and pay raises that are paid by less affluent taxpayers. These “advances” for the working man are merely excuses to launder those tax increases to the union bosses by means of increased union dues. This is re-distribution disguised as a contractual benefit.

6. Unions destroy worker/company relations because they create a “we versus them” attitude. Unions must be collectivist in nature. They need to create a “group think” where union members consider themselves part of a fight or struggle to gain more power over time and skim more profits. Union members are often discouraged from having a stake in the success of the company.

7. Unions often say that they favor the little guy. This is not true; in many cases Big Unions favor Big Business and Big Government. They create crony capitalism where government is used to benefit all parties and restrict competition from non-union companies.

8. Labor unions tend to oppose the introduction of new technologies and more productive machinery. They look for opportunities to create unproductive jobs, duplicate jobs and patronage jobs in order to swell membership and collect more money in dues and pension plans. These actions lower production, raise product prices and harm the competitive position of businesses. Sometimes, in order to use the new highly productive technologies, companies move to “right to work” states or out of the country which reduces local employment.

9. Labor unions take the credit for higher wages and this tends to justify violence and otherwise illegal practices.
a. Ludwig von Mises: “As people think that they owe to unionism their high standard of living, they condone violence, coercion, and intimidation on the part of unionized labor and are indifferent to the curtailment of personal freedom inherent in the union-shop and closed-shop clauses.” – Planning for Freedom p. 153

10. Unions restrict the division of labor. Any improved business process which requires new higher skills from employees is resisted and the company is often forced to provide unproductive jobs for those displaced by division of labor improvements.
a. Ludwig von Mises: “No social cooperation under the division of labor is possible when some people or unions of people are granted the right to prevent by violence and the threat of violence other people from working.” – Planned Chaos p. 127

11. Unions seek the power, through government, to require union membership which is monopolistic.
a. Ludwig von Mises: “The cornerstone of trade unionism is compulsory membership.” – Socialism p. 435

12. The power of unions comes from their government-protected ability to strike which is a method of stopping production and harming businesses and jobs.
a. Ludwig von Mises: “The weapon of the trade union is the strike. It must be borne in mind that every strike is an act of coercion, a form of extortion, a measure of violence directed against all who might act in opposition to the strikers’ intentions.” – Socialism p. 435
b. Ludwig von Mises: “The policy of strike, violence, and sabotage can claim no merit whatever for any improvement in the workers position.” – Socialism p. 437

13. Unions are tied to capitalism and the success of capitalist organizations, yet union bosses routinely propagandize against capitalism. They express false Marxist views of capitalism and use the moral argument against capitalist profits and production improvements. They prejudice union members against their capitalist employers and create discord even in situations where the employers are trying to improve the strength and profitability of the company.

14. When possible or necessary, unions have no problem compelling membership through practices like card check. This puts a union thug behind each voter to ensure that he/she votes the "right" way.

15. Unions have less regard for member rights than they do for maintaining their situation. In many cases grievances are settled in complete disregard for the merits of the case. Union bosses sometimes trade grievance settlements for other “considerations”.

16. Unions have an incentive to keep poor employees on the job and many unions have little regard for whether the member actually does a good job. This destroys productivity, encourages a cynical work ethic and undermines the ability of management to engineer a productive enterprise.

17. Unions tend to squander the money they collect in dues and pension plan payments. This forces them to "buy" politicians who will request bailouts from government to make up shortfalls. The taxpayer is rewarding them for their loss of trust among their members.

18. Union leaders (and many politicians) demand that you never question their motives but always question the motives of the people whose productive and organizational abilities provide the union dues and pension payments. They tell you that their motives are to help people and bring about "social justice" while the motives of corporate managers is to steal money that would not exist but for those very corporate managers. Yet, it is the corporate managers, not the union leaders, who provide the jobs, industrial plants and capital investments that make possible the magnificent products that make our lives better. They tell you that it is proper for them to use force against those corporate managers but improper for anyone to question them about what they do with the billions of dollars they, the union leaders, "earn".

I think that most people who work in a union shop will recognize many of these “problems” with unions.

I’m certain many of them are Tea Party protesters.


Saturday, February 19, 2011

Lessons of the Wisconsin Riots

Today, in Wisconsin, the Tea Party protesters will respond to the riots engaged in by the Democratic National Committee and President Obama’s personal shakedown squad - who are imitating the riots started in Tunisia and Egypt.

Part of the response involves recall efforts of two of the fourteen Democratic state senators who have left the state to avoid a vote on Wisconsin Governor Walker’s budget repair bill which seeks to increase contributions by teachers to their own pension plans and to negate the union’s hold on their membership…this would be a good thing.

The unions have put the targets on their own backs and many union members have noticed the inflamatory language that corrupt national-level union officials have expressed. In Wisconsin, they are attempting to paint themselves as saviors of the middle class…but this is not the full picture. Americans are fully aware of statements made by prominent union officials about the “persuasion of power” (the threat of violence) and “workers of the world unite” (a clearly communist sentiment that threatens to undermine our capitalistic system). Americans are aware that the unions are using member dues to “buy” elections for Democrats in order to strongarm the legislatures to pass measures that would force people to join unions. Americans have witnessed the many comings and goings of corrupt union officials in special private meetings with the President. They know that many unions have squandered pension funds and need taxpayer bailouts in order to make up shortfalls. They’ve witnessed the thuggery and demagoguery of people like Richard Trumka and they are not impressed when they see such people getting wealthy using methods reminiscent of gangsters.

But the real issue, in my opinion, is not that the unions are corrupt and being assisted by a renegade President who cares more about political payback than about the taxpayer. The real issue is what the teachers in Wisconsin are teaching the children.

The first lesson they are teaching is that correct political action is dependent upon a dubious concept known as collective bargaining rights. Because of these so-called rights, the rights of taxpayers to their own money are unimportant. This view implies that principles are fluid and subjective rather than universal and all-inclusive.

What this means, according to this lesson, is that politics is a matter of which group appears to have the most protesters in the street; which group can block the streets, fill up the halls, hold up government institutions and invade the privacy of people in their homes. This is the principle of political expediency. Yesterday, paid protesters were sent to Wisconsin to protest on behalf of teachers; and tomorrow, they may be in another state protesting against a bank or a corporation, going to the homes of corporate executives or protesting on Wall Street to raise taxes on the rich. The only principle that unites these professional protesters is the principle of re-distribution, from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.

The antidote to this lesson is to teach children that proper political principles matter, specifically that rights connote freedom of action for the individual not freedom to plunder for a designated priveliged group. Rights are dependent upon the nature of man not some man's whim or decree or Executive Order. Proper political principles derive from reality and they specify freedom from government control, not the freedom of government to control. There is no right to a blank check to be paid by the taxpayer.

The second lesson that teachers are passing to children is the idea that it is proper for government to re-distribute wealth from the productive to the non-productive. Today the teachers get the wealth; tomorrow, the poor, the next day, homeowners, the next day, another union; the next day a bank owned by a contributor to the President’s campaign fund. The only rights they fight for are the “rights” of people to keep their government benefits. This is a statement of plunder, not a statement of rights.

The antidote to this lesson is to teach that people have a right to their property and no one should cavalierly decide what is “right” to do with the money of defenseless citizens. Teach children respect for the property and rights of others and you’ll not have to worry about an unruly mob threatening the children of politicans or executives in their homes.

The third lesson is that it is acceptable that children ignore the consequences of their actions. According to this lesson, taxpayers will always pay taxes; what is important, is how we spend those taxes to help people who need assistance. But is that really how to promote domestic tranquility or does it create conflict, favoritism, nepotism, bribery and theft? Today, government employees in Wisconsin are the designated "good" people whose suffering we should alleviate regardless of what it does to the citizens who must pay for the teachers' pensions. That middle class parents will become poor because of government overspending is ignored. To insist that students join the teachers in their protest is more than a travesty; it is an effort to create more protesters who don’t understand what they are protesting. To consider this a lesson in civics is more than a bad lesson; it is a crime.

In some circles, ignoring consequences is called evasion or denial. On this issue, the denier is always rationalizing that the problems of government spending are someone else’s fault; the Republicans who are in the pay of the CEOs, or the rich who are conspiring to steal their corporate profits; or the super-rich who throw extravagant parties and pay big bonuses…someone is always stealing the peoples’ money, not the unions or the teachers or the welfare parasites.

The antidote to this lesson is to teach children to weigh all government (collective) actions against a principle called individual rights. If any action taken by government violates the individual rights of one citizen, you must be against it. Sooner or later, that citizen will be you.

The fourth lesson is the use of the "altruism shakedown" scam. This is the Alynsky tactic of wrapping your actions in a “moral blanket”. This tactic teaches children that claiming to be “doing good” is a perfect way to get your opponent to freeze morally. In fact, many of us do not realize that this scam is a deliberate tactic that has been drummed into us since childhood.

The antidote to the altruism shakedown is to focus on the Bill of Rights and refuse to violate the sanctity of individual rights. Fight for the individual and his/her freedom and you fight for yourself. When someone shakes his fist at you or gestures that he will cut off your head if you don’t allow him to bully you, that's the time to stand for your rights. It is time to stand up to the bullies of altruism, the professional parasites paid for and bought by the unions and the President.

Yet, the real travesty is what they are not teaching our children. They are not teaching them that freedom matters. They don't teach them about the joys of anticipating a clean road ahead, unencumbered by government ties and dependency, unencumbered by the oppressive duty to sacrifice for the group. This crime leaves school children with a cognitive gap, the inability to see life and its possibilities as a wonderful adventure made up of clear skys and clear minds full of accomplishment and happiness. For these teachers, the pursuit of happiness is a crime and the only thing their students have to look forward to is supporting these teachers. For this crime, they should be fired from their jobs.

It is time we reckon with the fact that the real victims here are not the teachers who can afford to pay a little more for their own pension plans; the real victims are the students who don’t even know that they are being used in an immoral scheme to fill the pockets of politicians and other parasites. That the people who are paid to teach Wisconsin youth should act in such an irresponsible, shameful, undemocratic and deceptive way only proves how much work remains to be done to rid our nation of the scourge that is progressivism.

If we want that bright clear day for our children, we must do that work. Morality is on the side of the Tea Party protesters. Thanks for being there.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

We Need a Tea Party Senator, Not Lugar

Recently, a group of Indiana Tea Party leaders wrote a letter to Indiana Senator Dick Lugar asking him not to run for Senate in 2012. He replied with a letter mailed to Indiana voters:

“I am running for reelection because I believe America’s best years are ahead of us. The United States is blessed with God-given advantages that are the envy of the world. We have the benefit of two oceans, a temperate climate, abundant natural resources, and the most productive land.

We also possess numerous advantages that have stemmed from our deep traditions of freedom that are embedded in the Constitution. No other country has benefited more from a devotion to personal achievement, entrepreneurial energy or scientific advancement. Our country has succeeded because Americans have enjoyed the freedom to unleash their personal energy and ingenuity to create a robust economy and a resilient society grounded in liberty.”

These lines remind me of something the Senator might have written before terrorists crossed one of those oceans and killed about 3000 Americans in protest over our personal achievements, entrepreneurial energy and scientific advancement. Is he living in the past; has he forgotten that those advantages have been slowly undermined by the policies of a President that he has done very little to oppose; a President that he boasts of having worked with on a variety of matters? He seems to think that these principles still hold when, in fact, our President is doing everything he can to diminish those values and turn this once-great nation into a “utopia” of re-distribution.

The Senator is telling us is that we should vote for him because he believes that America’s best years are ahead of us. I too believe that America’s best years are ahead of us but I don’t see people beating a path to my door. I’m sure you believe it too but is that a reason that people should vote on an important position such as Senate of the United States?

According to the Senator from Indiana, we should also vote for him because the United States is blessed with God-given advantages. Perhaps that might be a good reason to vote for God but He won't be running. We need men of principle who understand what it takes to create great government and a great economy, men who do not sell their principles to the highest bidder and do not ask for people to vote for them because of America’s natural advantages. We need to vote for good government not natural advantages.

Senator Lugar continues:
“But as we enter 2011, we know that in many critical areas, the country is off course in ways that threaten our security and prosperity. This divergence has grown during the last two years. The Obama administration and the large Democrat majorities in Congress have increased our national debt, multiplied regulations, imposed a disasterous health care bill on the country, and threatened to raise taxes.

Hoosiers and the entire country have struggled with a national economy that is failing to create sufficient jobs and is encumbered by debt. As one of the few federal elected officials who has managed both a small business and a family farm, I can say with certainty that the stated desires of many Democrats to eliminat the Bush era tax cuts would be especially damaging to job creation because raising these taxes would undercut rewards for productive investments and risk taking.

I stood with Republicans in voting against all amendments and final passage of President Obama’s health care bill. I voted against all amendments and final passage of the Obama financial regulation bill. And I opposed the Obama stimulus package.”

Notice, he didn’t say he voted against the Obama stimulus package. You will recall that Senator Lugar voted for the $192B additional "anti-recession" "stimulus" spending bill in July of 2009. You have to ask him why he thought that this bill, in particular, would provide stimulus to our economy when he voted against virtually every other such bill of the administration. Is this a contradiction or a vote that had a specific “reason” such as an earmark? In other words, is the Senator a man of principle or is he a man of expediency? Is he willing to increase government spending if it will help him get re-elected? Could it have something to do with earmarks set aside about that time to help fund the production of lithium-ion batteries in Indiana? Did Senator Lugar sell his vote? Did he not realize that this spending bill would be just as ineffective as all the others and that the long-term damage to Indiana jobs would be the result? Or was he just giving us smoke and mirrors, sliding through his words, hoping that no one would notice the hypocrisy?

I think anyone in the Indiana Tea Party Movement understands that this is not the kind of person we need as a Senater. We need people who will take a stand against government spending and “investment” of the taxpayer’s dollars. We need someone who will not finesse his language by calling his favorite earmark an “investment” in jobs while at the same time calling the administration’s massive spending bills job killers. We need someone who will say “No” to government boondoggles and insist that investors in Indiana companies, even if they are from Russia, invest their own money. We need a Tea Party Senator not an establishment Republican.

We are still waiting for a candidate who understands the basic principles of republican government, who knows the value of the Constitution; a person who can articulate individual rights in such a way that his or her arguments are clear, principled and can be contrasted to the ideas of the coercive, spend-happy progressives. We don’t need a progressive Republican as Indiana Senator.

Certainly, Senator Lugar is a highly intelligent and skilled politician. And that’s the problem. He has no principles. If what you are rebelling against is a generation of smug, out-of-touch professional politicians, then it is time to vote for an amatuer who will not sell us down the river in return for a few precarious jobs that may last a few months...and who then complains about the administration destroying jobs.

We must reduce spending, cut the budget and get rid of massive waste. Lugar’s business-as-usual bi-partisanship will not accomplish these goals. The progressives want compromise, they want the Republicans to give in on the principles that are at the heart of the Tea Parties; the insistence that coercive government must stop, that re-distribution must stop, that inflationary borrowing and spending must stop.

That is how to increase jobs.

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Are Western Radicals Manipulating Egypt?

Yesterday, the world waited for President Mubarak of Egypt to resign only to have him disappoint the Obama administration and refuse to step down. In fact, Mubarak told the Egyptian people that he resents being dictated to by foreign powers (meaning President Obama). I think we are in for some more “wise” statements by Mr. Obama about the importance of Americans supporting democratic movements, fundamental transformation and change…as long as that change is wanted by the people.

Notice how he is trying to rally all Americans to the cause of freedom and secular government in Egypt. Should we rally around our President and the youth of Egypt? Should we support their aspirations for American-style democracy? Doesn’t it sound so all-American? Certainly, we know that the President supports democratic reforms, true American style democracy and freedom of speech, freedom of association…all that good stuff we can agree about. Right? The opposite is the truth; there is a scam going on here. When the President says “democracy” he means rule by majority and re-distribution, not republican government. And the "majority" in Egypt will eventually become the Muslim Brotherhood who cares not a whit about American style democracy. What they care about is destroying Israel, brutalizing their women and killing “infidels”.

I don’t find it strange that the President is using the same language to describe the Egyptian situation that he used to describe his own election. And I’m not surprised that the President is ignoring the “old people” in the Tea Parties and talking only to the youth of Egypt and America. And it is not surprising that the rioters are expressing hatred toward American capitalism and the West in general. Does this mean that the President is the leader of the rioters? Isn’t he an anti-capitalist cheerleader here in the states? Doesn't he prefer to rule by Executive Order and agency regulation rather than subjecting his policy recommendations to the consent of the people? Isn't he a leader who routinely violates the Constitution and the sanctity of contract which are hallmarks of republican government? Isn’t he the leader who apologized to the world for America’s “arrogance”? One has to wonder how many other riots in the Middle East and Europe the President and his money man George Soros have lined up for us to watch on Fox News?

What do most of the rioters have in common? It is certainly not religion; it is an abiding desire to destroy capitalism. All of the violent jesturing, the loud chants, the anger and vitriol, the threats to cut off peoples’ heads (that means your head and mine) and the beatings are intended to express violent anger at capitalists and what they have done to the people. All of these stupid jestures of anger and playing to the cameras are intended for American capitalist audiences watching from across the Atlantic. They are a threat aimed at America, telling us that they don’t like us for what we have done to the Middle East, which is to provide them with a deep and abiding interest in Egyptian culture and history, Western products, American styles of clothing, computers, cell phones, twitter and Facebook. They have a lot to hate us for.

Yet, I can’t help but think that what is going on in Egypt is partly a response to the Tea Party protests in the USA that have “transformed” politics and thrown the leftists off their stride. Radical groups who thought that Obama could put them over the top in America are now demoralized by the power and capitalist principles of the Tea Party protests. The demonstrations (not riots) of the Tea Party Movement are a direct threat to the left’s plans for a takeover of the capitalist system. The Egyptian rioters want to send a message to the Tea Party Movement in America that they can change any government at any time through their trained and paid riot organizers. These organizers, once they finish turning Egypt into a Muslim theocracy will hop from country to country until they finish off America...their goal is not only to overthrow capitalism but to gain power...consequences be damned. The Muslim radicals get to kill off Israel then they and the leftists can feast on the carcass of America.

And I don’t find it strange that the administration today told Congress that the Muslim Brotherhood was a secular organization with no ideology, just a bunch of nice guys who want to feed the poor and hungry. Does this mean that the American government supports the Muslim Brotherhood? You have to wonder why they are trying to lull us to sleep about Muslim radicals. At the very least, you can’t help but wonder at the involvement of the Open Society Institute and American Unions. They have all felt the sting of the pressure coming from the Tea Parties. Put it all together and it is clear that the administration is pursuing a policy that will destroy Israel while at the same time setting up the structure that will eventually kill off the capitalists in America - and I mean "kill" in the literal sense. I'm not surprised, are you?

The organizers of the Egyptian riots are sending the Tea Parties a message that evil can win in the world if it is organized, morally brutish and violent. Why did they have to go overseas to do this? They can’t complain about us here because we’ll answer them with reason…so they’ve gone overseas in order to scare us with the chaos they can create. They know we're watching. I wonder what the honest people in Egypt think about the manipulation of their country by American and British radicals?

If anyone understands the game being played, it must be the Tea Party Revolutionaries.

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

Open Letter to Senator Lugar of Indiana

Dear Senator Lugar,
After reading reports that the administration gave to Russia previously top secret information about the size of Britain's nuclear arsenal as a condition of Russia's signing the START treaty, I wonder if you have changed your position that favored of the treaty.

  • Did you know about this betrayal?
  • Did you approve of it?
  • And if you did not know of it, what is your position on it?
  • Can you please evaluate for Indiana voters the impact that this betrayal will have on our highly important relations with Britain and how this impacts their strategic position as well as their safety?
  • Is this something you would have approved of?
  • If you did not know this, why didn't you?

    Your voters want to know.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Beneath "The Big Lie" of the Tucson Shootings

Leftist politicians and media are doing everything they can to silence political opposition. They are telling “The Big Lie” that so-called “right wing” criticisms of the left are responsible for the assassination attempt on Arizona Congresswoman Jeffords in Tucson.

“The Big Lie” is a journalistic principle whose tactic is to repeat a lie often enough that it becomes the truth. Tyrannical regimes throughout history, and especially in modern times, are known for using this tactic to control opinion and justify draconian measures against political opposition. It is being used today by revolutionaries like Hugo Chavez in Venezuela to cover up the damage he is doing to his country. And it is being used here by progressives to cover up the influence and importance of the Tea Party Movement.

Some are even saying that the mere use of graphic images such as targets and crosshairs by Sarah Palin are suggestive of violence against politicians. This is being said about a person who has never advocated violence of any type, at a time when Frances Fox Piven (a well-known architect of the “stressing the system” political strategy) is calling for violent revolution against the rise of Tea Party influence.

“The Big Lie”, of course, is a lie. You can say something as often as you’d like but if it isn’t true, it is a deliberate mis-identification of reality. The consequences are misunderstanding and ineffective action. It is a harbinger of a defeated society blindly walking the path toward oblivion.

With all this lying going, there are a few truths that are being ignored. These truths are being buried under “The Big Lie” story line - but if they saw the light of day, they’d help us realize what is really going on in our country. Let’s take a look.

Liberalism/progressivism is violence to the American system. This philosophy advocates government coercion against individuals...a forcible taking of the peoples’ money for the sake of "solving" non-problems created by stoked up rhetoric and altruistic demands that something be done immediately. It is this violence to the lives and futures of Americans that the Tea Party Movement has been attempting to bring to light. They are answered by progressives with sexual slurs, lies and charges of violent behavior that have never been substantiated. If the only thing the left can do about the Tea Party is lie, this tells us something about the low intellectual level in our progressive leadership.

Productive people are always the most civil. They are peaceful in their dealings yet today face the violation of their rights by legal means. Violence today is institutional because of massive stimulus and re-distribution programs. When average citizens protest what they see as legalized plunder and defend their rights through protests and blogs, they are ridiculed and accused of wanting to do violence to the system that is really the source of violence.

The Tucson Safeway shootings, on the other hand, were engaged by what appears to be a young man confused by the public schools and possibly his parents. His example is now being used to do additional violence on our freedoms; against our right to bear arms and the right to make our own medical decisions.

This young man was not a rights-respecting, law-abiding citizen. He was a violence-prone young man who absorbed some very bad ideas. He loved the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. Undoubtedly, there were teachers in his past who introduced him to those ideas, especially the idea that it was proper to do violence to other people or to the system. They also taught him that his goal in life was to join a group and become part of a political community. That he chose to join a community that fostered violent revolution should not be a surprise. These groups litter our educational system. Imagine being expelled from such groups and you've got a young person at the end of his rope. His only hope, he thought, was to lash out at the system.

Today, many college-aged individuals love the Communist Manifesto. Karl Marx preached violent revolution against the capitalist system. Once you decide that only communism can save society you join a larger group of “smarter” people who seek to make society better by eliminating profit and “exploitation” by any means necessary. This combination of confusions justifies any act that advances the revolution. Add drugs and social problems and you have a spokesperson, not for freedom and individual rights but for anarchy and discord. If you have a little restraint and intelligence, after a period of youthful violence, like Bill Ayers, you decide to stop killing and join the establishment to kill it from within - you become a college professor who believes that only communism can save society. Our Tucson shooter is nothing more than a poorly assimilated Bill Ayers. Perhaps someday, he might have become a college professor. We may never know.

I’ve always believed that the missing ingredient here, the one premise that creates killers like this young man is the absence of reason in our educational system. Some would say that this explains nothing but they don’t understand what reason is and they don’t realize why its absence in society and education today is a critical, life and death problem. Bill Ayers and Frances Fox Piven care nothing about reason; and unfortunately so do many parents. And because they would rather have children who adjust to the group, who operate according to feelings rather than clear thinking, they teach young people that it is society that must adjust to them regardless of how irrational they are.

Simply put, reason is clear thinking. A person who routinely uses reason in his life becomes adept at understanding reality and identifying the proper context for using knowledge. He can make decisions, plan a future, use money, get a degree and become a productive citizen. He can fall in love, get married, raise children, become a good example and inspire others to accomplishment. But beyond this, the formal, advanced study of reason done properly in a university establishes a foundation that enables the individual and the society to question and understand the deeper aspects of life such as what is reality (metaphysics), how can man understand it (epistemology) and how does he use this knowledge to build a better life (ethics) and society (politics).

But when society teaches young people that all they need are their feelings, they are killing hope and possibility before young minds can develop. American teachers are destroying human minds before they become aware of the importance of such questions and this leads to people whose level of knowledge is so low that they can't possibly imagine that other people are smarter than they are, more studied, more self-assured and more self-confident. They swallow the Marxist swill and see productive people as thieves and charlatans. They develop huge cognitive blind spots that make them incapable of adequately evaluating moral issues and how such issues relate to their individual lives. They are taught that their own confused state of mind must be that of the entire society...which must therefore be stupid and desperately corrupt - worthy of being smashed. Into this void walk like-minded revolutionaries eager to smash the system and solve all the world's problems through a government that will force people to sacrifice for the group.

If we want our children to live happy successful lives, we can’t revere the irrational teachings of Karl Marx. We have to stop saying that Marx had a noble ideal that doesn’t work in practice. This merely encourages our kids to try to make it work “next time” with the same deadly consequences. The idea of stealing the production of working people and using it for “social” goals is not a noble ideal; it is a deadly idea that justifies plunder and murder…it is the essence of Soviet brutality and the justification for it. It is an evil idea. And whether we realize it or not, the idea of vilifying people, especially successful people, for being rich, is the reason why, in virtually every socialist system in history, we had genocide and mass murder.

College professors like Bill Ayers and Frances Fox Piven who teach Karl Marx and socialism are responsible for the Tucson shooter. This young man was not born deranged; he was twisted by haters of men and his body was turned into a killing machine. Ayers and Fox Piven are creating the little Hitlers, Stalins and Che Guevaras of tomorrow who are eager to right all the invented wrongs of the world through firing squads and political purges. These leftists teach our young people to openly hate their parents and especially the capitalist system that is based on property and individual rights. They teach young people a cynical hatred of productivity, learning, science and success which gives them a false sense of self-esteem, a false pride over the fact that they are not partaking in a "race for mere profit." This destroys their ability to survive and sends them on a quest for re-distributed money and grants - not to help them get an education, but to help them survive.

These cynical lies about profit and accomplishment under capitalism send millions of young people on a downward slide toward unproductive lives, confusion, social alienation and unhappiness. Ayers and Fox Piven undoubtedly tell these kids that they are really just mis-understood offbeat romantics with tender feelings when, in fact, their "noble" ideas lead to brutal murder. Who wouldn't be confused in an educational environment where the teachers offer only poison? And to make it worse, Hume, Kant, Hegel, Marx and Dewey are revered by parents who pay teachers a lot of money to destroy the lives of their children – using those ideas.

The Tea Party Movement is not the cause of murder; we are the cause of our self-defense and since our property is being taken from us by "legal" means, we seek legal means to protect it...we criticize government and send representatives to voice our opinions. When the government calls us the source of violent acts, they are creating a ruse that helps them protect their system of plunder. For the left, speech, dissent and disagreement must be made into sources of violence so they can continue their violence against defenseless citizens.

The truth is that, in order to enable the possibility of human survival, every American has a moral obligation to himself and his family to admit that the unprecedented level of spending being done by the administration is grossly irresponsible and immoral; the people responsible for this spending have no right to be re-elected to any office above the position of dog catcher. The left's blatant lies about the Tea Party Movement, the critics of their irresponsibility, are nothing more than an effort to silence their own consciences.

I’m going to state this as clearly as I can; any politician who thinks that the role of government is to confiscate, tax or inflate the money of the American citizen without his/her consent has no right to be in office. He should be ridiculed, vilified, criticized and voted out. The entire liberal/progressive faction of our society has been at war against prosperity and happiness for decades and it is time we realized that they have no intention of leading us to freedom or prosperity - and they certainly have no intention of telling us the truth. Their goal is slavery and they should be removed from power wholesale through the ballot (which they are trying to rig).

The sooner we realize that the result of liberal/progressive philosophy is the destruction of America, the sooner we can return to a country that respects freedom and property.