Trump's China Policies

The following material is from a forthcoming book.

In 1972, Richard Nixon went to China to inaugurate a new China Policy. His goal was to create an economic bridge between China and the world, and turn the communist country into a more peaceful player. This was certainly a laudable goal, but Nixon missed one important detail: A violent dictatorship cannot change overnight without rethinking its policies. Nixon was a pragmatist (by admission) who thought he could develop an open-door policy with China through inducements that influenced China to become more like the USA.

Under Nixon’s initiative, no longer would America try to cajole the communist party to be kinder and more respectful toward its people, at least not at first. A new day had dawned, thought Nixon, when the U.S.A. offered to help China come into the 20th century by opening up U.S. markets to Chinese companies and facilitating lucrative trade deals with China on behalf American companies that wanted to move production facilities there (to counter union high wages in the USA). Nixon hoped that these new policies would influence the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) (that had been fascistically controlling the winners and losers in China) to desist from its violent revolutionary and anti-capitalist policies. (What Nixon had accomplished, however, was opening the door for China to exploit American economic freedoms and intellectual property for its own sake while remaining a brutal dictatorship bent on dominating the world)

The strategy of Nixon’s outreach in 1972 was to make China so rich and dependent upon trade with the world that they would modernize Chinese society and eventually treat its people better. The communists would eventually understand, thought Nixon, the actual value of capitalism and realize that protecting individual rights was the better policy when compared to concentration camps and communist purges of Chinese citizens.

Such a change, thought Nixon, would create a better and more peaceful world. We know that did not happen and the Chinese saw these trade policies as a way to undermine America and continue its goal of Chinese pre-eminence in the world.

Nixon’s mistake was his pragmatism. His desire to appease the Chinese and to assume that they could be “turned” toward capitalism through massive “bribes” and “favorable policies” meant he was willing to deal only with a short-term benefit (for him and his administration) while he ignored (or thought he could later deal with) the long-term consequences (that included the possibility that China would eventually turn the tables on us).

Do not believe that American Republicans were against this change in policy toward China. In the past, America’s anti-communists would have caused them to beware of any deal with a dictatorship like China. Certainly, many of the more vocal defenders of Taiwanese and Hong Kong capitalism looked aghast when they saw these trade policies become reality; and, indeed, many of them thought of Nixon as a traitor to capitalism. Indeed, many previously pro-capitalist politicians among the right were also pragmatists who believed that selling out America to China was not traitorous at all. Eventually, they were wrong about that too.

Now, after forty-five years of China policy, our entire society is based upon trade with China, while China has not changed its desire to overcome the U.S.A. They still have concentration camps, and they still jail and/or kill dissidents. Even worse, China has embedded itself in our universities, turned American college professors into spies and dupes, infiltrated American corporations bought American journalists who present the party line, and turn politicians into spies. Using bribery, and political scandal, they have corrupted our capitalist system and turned it into a fascist dictatorship. If only Trump had been a more eloquent thinker and speaker, he could truly have exposed this cabal that includes virtually every prominent Democrat and many prominent Republicans.

The worst aspect of American China policy is that major pragmatists (CEOs) in the corporate world want to be part of the China deals. In many cases, they preferred to close down their American factories in return for production facilities in China. In other cases, praised China policies and implied that the Chinese nation treated its people well. This was because the philosophy of pragmatism (that came out of Ivy League colleges) had been teaching CEOs to swim with the current, even if the “current” meant dealing with murderous dictatorships, racist radicals, and especially, even if it meant less popularity for these corporations in America.

Even today, many of America’s most important CEOs have no problem instituting “woke” philosophy in order to establish the surveillance state that will eventually keep Americans in line. Their tactic is to favor the progressive left as a way of continuing their drive to expand markets at the expense of political freedom. They think they can retain their near monopoly status in the USA by playing ball with the government’s desire to accommodate the Chinese state. They have no problem with the business/government alliance (fascism) as long as people do not get wise to what the left is doing on behalf of Communist China.

If we want to fight the tyranny of the Chinese communists and the threat they pose to our system of government, we must fight tyranny on principle – the principle that tyranny is force and it is evil. But, more importantly, we fight tyranny by defending and establishing a proper society based on the principles of freedom and individual rights that do not compromise with evil.

Today’s Republicans have traveled so far on the road toward liberalism that only a compromise with evil can keep them relevant. They can thank John Dewey (the pragmatist philosopher) and Richard Nixon for this current state of affairs. Despite Trump’s attitude toward China’s exploitation of America, during his Presidency, he seemed oblivious to what fighting for principles meant, and to the extent that he does not verbalize what it means to oppose China on principle, we are going to lose to China. The battle against China should be for individual rights – that are fast becoming irrelevant in America today.

We must ask the question, “What should Trump have done about the position of favoritism that past trade agreements gave to the Chinese?” The answer would have been simple. He should have negotiated fair deals with the Chinese without tariffs and he should have forced Chinese companies to compete with the world on a fair playing field. We should have been willing to cancel trade agreements that were unfavorable toward America.

This may have been difficult because the Chinese are brutal dictators who expect to win over Americans. Our inability to get fair trading terms from the Chinese would, therefore, have resulted in less trade between the two countries which would have led to new American competitors against the Chinese. This is because our country would have been able to resume manufacturing here as well as make good trade deals with other countries.

Overall, Trump’s policies were ineffective because he mimicked liberal policies and did not know he was doing it. His tariffs, in particular, did not work because his pragmatist anti-Chinese policies distorted his conservatism and gave the Chinese a reason to interfere in our elections, media and educational systems. They forced the Chinese to call in their deals with the many American politicians they had bribed over the years. Trump’s policies had the correct goal, but with incorrect means. His efforts to lower the regulatory impact of the left’s policies was effective in thwarting the negative economic impact of the Obama administration; but Trump’s policy of liberating the economy was thwarted by his very own covid policies. Eventually, he realized his goals were being destroyed by the left, especially Fauci and Birx. It was not until he was out of office that he questioned the shutdowns but by then it was too late.

To learn more about Mr. Villegas' written materials go to Robert Villegas on Amazon

Book Review: Coolidge by Amity Shlaes

Coolidge" is one of those books the political establishment would prefer you not read. Amity Shlaes does a masterful job of demonstrating the fundamental issues that consumed America during Coolidge's time and she shows Coolidge to be one of the few men whose ideas would have prevented or mitigated the damage done by the "Great Depression". In a time when most politicians clamored for spending as a solution to economic problems, Coolidge averred that austerity was the solution. By the time of his death the "spenders" had won the day and the defenders of economic freedom stood virtually silent. This book should be read by every high school or college student to remind him or her that there were times when men actually believed in not spending the people's money.

Book Review: The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure

The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure By John A. Allison

This is one of the most enjoyable new books I have read in some time.  You might find this hard to believe since it is about the financial crisis of 2007 – 2009.  Yet, it does more than dissect the financial crisis; it provides optimism and hope for the future.

John Allison knows what he is writing about.  As the former CEO of a successful bank (BB&T), he has the knowledge and experience that enable him to isolate the key causes of the financial crisis and explain them in simple, direct prose. 

As a business person who worked his way up the ranks at BB&T, Mr. Allison created a new American success story.  The result is over 40 years of active participation in the American economy and first-hand experience with the causes of the crisis.  Throughout those years, he participated in the decisions that helped BB&T survive and thrive.

Mr. Allison does an excellent job of identifying the various factors that created the financial crisis and he squarely places the blame on government regulations and policies.  This assessment provides some excellent principled observations based upon his unique vantage point as an actor in the American economy.  He clearly explains the roles of the Federal Reserve, the Clinton administration and Congress as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, not to mention crony capitalism, which he aptly calls “crony socialism”.  Mr. Allison goes into detail on the role of each of these parties and even discusses how these factors influenced decisions he had to make at BB&T.

Mr. Allison’s explanation of the crisis details the damage done by the government as it sought to increase home ownership.  He doesn’t put stated intentions ahead of results.  He doesn’t argue that the end justifies the means.  On the contrary, he lets no one off the hook, clearly identifying the coercive actions and policies that caused the recession.  He explains how the principles of the free market could have prevented the crisis – had we been in a free market.  He even points out the irony of having the two men most responsible for the crisis write the legislation (Dodd/Frank) that would ensure it did not happen again.  Not likely, according to John Allison.

After thoroughly explaining the causes of the crisis, Mr. Allison proceeds to offer free market solutions.  His explanation of the principle of supply and demand is excellent and more broadly explained than I’ve read before; and he clearly shows how the various actions of government violated this principle and caused serious harm to both rich and poor.  As he states:

“The reason the United States entered the recession was not a lack of demand; it was because our resources had been misallocated, so we could not continue to consume (demand) at the same level.  Trillions of dollars of capital had been misallocated to housing, and millions of workers had learned the wrong skills.  However, we did not have the resources (capital and labor) to meet the demand—that is the demand was illegitimate because of the lack of productivity of our economic system.”[1]

I found that this particular discussion coincided well with similar explanations made by classical economists such as Henry Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises and others.  Henry Hazlitt tells us:

“If we try to run the economy for a single group or class, we shall injure or destroy all groups, including the members of the very class for whose benefit we have been trying to run it.”[2]

Mr. Allison is clear about his basic principles.  He understands that economic success can only come about in a nation of free people who benefit or suffer from their own decisions.  He understands that production engaged in by free individuals, not consumption, will improve economic conditions and he understands that re-distribution brings little in the way of economic stimulus. 

I recommend this book for anyone who wants to understand why our economy is in the doldrums.

---

[1] Page 185

[2] Economics in One Lesson, Henry Hazlitt, Paperback, Three Rivers Press, Page 158

Book Review: Free Market Revolution, How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Government

Free Market Revolution –  How Ayn Rand’s Ideas can End Big Government

By Yaron Brook and Don Watkins

Reviewed by Robert Villegas

If you were offered a book about how to live without guilt and be more successful, would you be interested?  If it taught you that success is good and more is better, would you be intrigued?  If it helped you understand the incessant attacks on capitalism by politicians, journalists and social planners, would you check it out?

The book is called “Free Market Revolution, How Ayn Rand’s ideas Can End Big Government”.  Its goal is to clarify some important philosophical and economic issues and convince you that Ayn Rand’s ideas have the solutions we need for a civilized society.  It challenges some of history’s falsehoods and provides a new way of looking at economics.  It can help voters, students, business people and even politicians understand the factors that move society.

The authors, Yaron Brook and Don Watkins point readers toward a new moral and political theory that challenges the corruption of today’s world.  Ayn Rand was an iconoclast who, even today, stirs both anger and respect among the millions who read her books.   Her philosophy is a full-fledged integrated system with all the characteristics of a complete, consistent frame of reference.  Objectivism, as it is called, is entirely original. 

Mr. Brook and Mr. Watkins are enthusiastic salesmen for Ayn Rand’s ideas.  Their presentation is flawless.  Yaron is already famous as the Executive Director of the Ayn Rand Institute.  His stirring speeches and commentary can be found on youTube.com and PJTV, not to mention Fox News and other networks.  Don is a fellow of the institute and a perennial radio and television guest as well as an op-ed writer for Investor’s Business Daily and USA Today to name a few.

“Free Market Revolution” covers two key aspects of Ayn Rand’s philosophy: her morality of self-interest and her advocacy of laissez faire capitalism.  Rand’s philosophical approach creates an internally consistent and powerful argument for political freedom.  Find an energetic and innovative entrepreneur and you’re likely to find someone who has read Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged”.

Part 1 of the book is entitled “The Problem”.  It begins by setting the context for the book, discussing the recent resurgence of interest in Atlas Shrugged and explains the intellectual and economic malaise that needs Ayn Rand as antidote.  This section also analyzes the essential arguments of the left; especially the argument from need and the argument from greed.  It counters these arguments with the suggestion that liberating the un-free market will restore America’s once powerful place in the world.

Part 2 makes up the rest of the book and provides some of the most fascinating ideas ever put to print. It includes a re-evaluation of the concept of selfishness, the role that it plays in both life and the economy, and informs us of the discovery, made by Ayn Rand, that business success is not accomplished by predatory behavior but by innovation, production and win/win trades.  Brook and Watkins challenge the idea that economic transactions are “zero-sum” (which gets at the heart of the Marxist critique of capitalism).  The authors show that free markets are the engines necessary for improving human life.

In many respects, the book has the feel of a symphony.  It starts with a basic theme, allegro, stays there for a while as it develops; then boldly explores both harmony and rhythm; until finally, at the end, it finishes with a crescendo of energy and power.   By the time we arrive at the last chapter, entitled “Stopping the Growth of the State”, we have thoroughly examined the concept of selfishness and discovered its positive aspects and the role it plays in making society vibrant, innovative and life-enhancing; we've found a solid argument that declares capitalism to be moral; we’ve examined altruism and how it thwarts life and success; we’ve studied the division of labor, supply and demand, prices and their role in creating efficient markets; and we’ve studied how it happened that many people in society have moved from an entitlement morality to an entitlement mentality. 

The last chapter brings us full circle, exploring Rand’s philosophy further, identifying the major contradiction that has created our economic decline and provides a strategy that will end big government.

Both Yaron Brook and Don Watkins are competent writers, able to explain broad philosophical and economic concepts in a way that makes them real for the average reader.  This book is destined to become a manifesto for prosperity and peace in the world.  I highly recommend it.

The War on Women...Again

Senatorial candidate, Representative Todd Akin of Missouri has committed political suicide by making a very poor choice of words about “forcible rape”.  However, the uproar against it reeks of political opportunism for both Democrats and Republicans.  I think it is very nasty of politicos to raise the “war against women” mantra again. For Republicans, it has given them an opportunity to throw another Republican under the bus, albeit one who probably deserves it (and who may actually be a Trojan horse, bought, paid for and delivered by the Democrats).  

I think it is reprehensible to attempt to make political hay out of an issue that is very important and needs to be debated by reasonable people seeking reasonable solutions.  Certainly, there is no such thing as “forcible rape”.  All rape is forcible.  That is a fact.  But to use this statement to tar and feather all Republicans is unscrupulous and unfair. 

Keep in mind, I’m not a big defender of Republicans and have done my share of ridiculing them.  But the idea that there is a war on women does a disservice to the women who have been raped and it unfairly tarnishes the reputations of the many Republicans who also care about women who have been raped.  Democrats are no more for women or against them than are Republicans.  If you want to have a reasonable debate, let’s stop calling people names and tarnishing them with having a war on anything.  According to this faulty logic, you could equally say that Democrats have a war on women because so many women have lost their jobs since Obama has been President. 

The mistake here is in the practice of invoking collectivism; the grouping of people, in this case, according to ideas that many of them do not hold.  There are many women Republicans who don’t feel they are at war with women. Some Republican women, a few, even favor a woman’s right to abortion.  In fact, they think that free market principles and policies are the best way to help women as well as men (and blacks and gays).  Many Republicans believe that you don’t help people by expropriating money from one group, and then using that money in wasteful and even harmful ways presumably to help another group…such as paying approximately $1,000,000 per job created – most of which jobs do not return the “investment” (like jobs are supposed to do).  It doesn’t take a Republican to adhere to sound economic principles - it takes a sound thinker adhering to individual rights.  In fact, this wasteful spending could be said to represent a war by the Democrats on the entire country.

Regarding tax payers paying for abortions or the consequences of rape, I first would like to state that I am in favor of a woman’s right to do whatever she and her doctor decide is in her best interests.  I fully support a woman’s right to control her body and to make all decisions without the interference of government (or men). I consider the idea of outlawing abortions to be a violation of the woman’s individual rights.  On this point, I disagree with many of my Republican friends who have a different view of the good and how it is derived. 

However, I do not support the idea that government should use tax payer dollars to fund abortions.  I consider it immoral to force one individual to pay for the needs of any other individual.  If I want to help women get abortions, I should support that privately with private donations and not ask the government to do it.  Using tax payer dollars to pay for abortions, houses, solar panels, cars, factories and windmills, etc. is wrong. 

The key question is what is the proper role of government?  I hold that each individual is properly responsible for him or herself and I consider it evil to demand that other people pay for anyone else’s stuff.

The fact that I don’t support the right of a person to take my money and give it to someone else does not mean I am at war against women.  Welfare and welfare services, or any government services (even those that support big corporations and thieving CEOs), are not a right.  No person has a right to demand that other people lose their rights in order to pay for someone elses "rights".  To insist that it is proper to take other peoples’ money by force is wrong – yet that is what the leftists (and some on the right) do.  This violation of individual rights is what the advocates of abortion are demanding.  They are demanding that government, meaning the tax payer, pay for abortions and contraception.  They have a right to abortions and contraception if they want to purchase them…but they don’t have a right to force other people to pay for them.

But I consider the issue of funding abortions to be part of a larger struggle for freedom.  People should be free to use their hard earned money as they see fit - and that right is more important than someone else's need. 

The real issue in this election is about fiscal solvency.  The issue of funding abortions is an important part of that debate but it is only part of the wider debate.  Most of us are aware that once the present crop of Democrats is done implementing their re-distribution policies, if we elect them again, there won’t be any money for anything…and that includes money for abortions and rape victims.  If we become insolvent as a country, there won’t be any benefits for anyone, seniors, women or government cronies.  There won’t be any money to scream about and demand (as a right) because the Democrats will have forced us into bankruptcy…and bankruptcy means there is no more money. 

Supporting the Democrats and their spending, even their spending on abortion, will not make things better…it will eventually cause the financial and economic collapse of our country.  That would cause a real war on women…and men…and children…and Blacks…and Hispanics…and…and…and.  I

f you want our country to collapse, vote for the Democrats.

THE SAVAGES

The savages

are standing 'round the tree,
after killing the man
who planted it,
all clamoring for a pear,
all screaming for a share,
because, they say,
they've been oppressed.

The savages

will whine about their need,
with not the sense
to save the seed.

Copyright 2012 by Robert Villegas, Jr.

Read the Book!!

I realize you're busy and you don't have time to do something so wasteful as to read a book, especially one that is over 1000 pages long and is only a mere work of fiction. 

I realize that your life is so important that you should not be bothered with something so demanding as to read a mere book.  Yet, I wonder why your already brilliant intellect has yet to land upon, on its own, the brilliance and newness of the ideas in this book. 

I realize this book is considered by many to be one of the most monumental books of all time and that it teaches ideas and principles that few other books have offered ever in history; ideas that challenge the entire history of Western thought; ideas that will help you understand your life and world events.  I know you think I'm asking too much.

I know that if you have any vestige of honesty in you, this book will help you save your life, if you'd only read it.  But that's all right, I shouldn't ask so much of you as to want that for you. 

I realize that you don't want other people to "dictate" your thoughts to you.  Yet, I also realize that the ideas you practice, the thoughts of ghosts and demons and "being yourself" are all ideas dictated to you by others.  This book, on the other hand, dictates nothing. 

Sure, I realize you'll do fine plodding along for the rest of your life and that you are suffering from not knowing the ideas and principles that this book can teach you. 

And I'm sure it hasn't occured to you that your not having read this book has made it impossible for you to understand me on important topics. 

Just go along living the way you do while the world that has read the book passes you by. 

So I'll try this: does it make any difference to you that other people are also recommending it?

Dark Day for the Dark Knight

I believe that some people kill today because they've been taught that individual rights do not matter.  Society no longer discusses them, politicians violate them legally, and denigrate the best among us; they tell us we didn't build our businesses and that society owns them; Hollywood shows us murderers as heroes, teachers have stopped teaching about the sanctity of life and most importantly, they don't remind us that individual rights not only represent the freedom to do as we wish, but they also represent an obligation to respect the rights of others. 

Today, people push buttons for everything they need; many feel worthless because they can't get a job; others can't stand to see their children suffering and hungry; others are demeaned because they must rely on government to survive; some think their petty thoughts are profound and that their anger over losing a video game gives them a right to hurt others.  Philosophy has taught them, by omission that there is no reality, there is no mind and there are no consequences.  Why not push triggers too? 

Don't be surprized that the mass murderers of today think they are doing something cool.  The lives of others mean nothing when the media and our leaders tell us daily that we didn't do anything on our own, that sacrifice is the cure for society, and that those with more deserve to be punished.  Why not kill a few well-dressed people in a theater?

It is a Dark Day for the Dark Knight but the writing has been on the wall, so to speak, for several decades.

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.

OCEAN

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.

THE CONMAN

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."

Unions

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.

See: http://mises.org/quotes.aspx?action=subject&subject=Unions

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Hugs for the Cuddly Dems

In looking over some of the leftist blogs, it seems that the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party is still clinging to its feigned superiority and Marxist religion. Once again they are insulting the people who voted “No” against their superior solutions that somehow didn’t work again.

This time it is really bad for them. And they are so depressed again. Their counselors appear to be laughing under their breath again to see them on the couches again crying that the American public has rejected them...again. All they’re trying to do is make things better. Why don’t things get better and how could those hicks vote them out again? What’s wrong with the world?

The Tea Parties have been instrumental in creating a Republican majority in the House, in spite of the left’s efforts to marginalize them. So with that failure under their belt, they continue to marginalize them. Where did these people come from?

ACORN has been defunded by Congress and they've filed for bankruptcy. They were too busy defending themselves in the courts from the last election and they couldn't take Obama's money this time to register fraudulent voters so they could claim a grass roots surge of support from the bottom up. So much for the idea of "the poor man's revolution."

The media was not able to swing many votes this time and so they engage in character assassination of newly elected Republican politicians while decrying character assassination toward themselves.

Our educational system continues to indoctrinate our children with leftist anti-capitalist propaganda while the left ignores the fact that they have failed to educate those children in how to read, write and calculate. So they tell us it is better for America if we continue to let them run the schools.

The global warming scam has been exposed and so they spew fire about how stupid the deniers are in rejecting real impending global disaster that seems never to come.

Glenn Beck is causing George Soros to be exposed for the nation killer that he truly is which causes Soros to lose billions…and the press stands in line to get more of Soros’ money.

The unions are on the verge of going bankrupt because the Republicans are poised to stop the deficit spending necessary to bail them out; and to make things worse, they plan on investigating their ties to Obama.

The cities and states run by Democrats for decades are going bankrupt so they elect the Democrats back into power because they are experienced in government. But Obama will soon not be able to bail them out.

Barney Frank got re-elected and looks forward to the investigation into his role in the sub-prime fiasco.

President Obama wonders how he is going to advance the Alynsky strategy that his college buddies insist upon. Should he just rule by Executive Decree, create an emergency so he can declare Marshall Law or just take dictatorial power while he has the chance?

Everywhere the leftists are talking about the evils of capitalism and how they intend to fight the corporate interests that they’ve been partnered with over the last two years. They complain that the capitalism they tried to destroy has failed, and they even pretend that they are defending the middle class by raising taxes on the people who hire them.

In order to pretend to be courageous, some of them are outing themselves as socialists and calling their collaborators cowards for not standing up and saying it out loud. I think they regret not coming out when they had the chance to mainstream themselves. Now they are looking at another 40 years before they can deceive another generation of Americans into thinking that they are just nice fellows who happen to admire Mao.

What do the leftists have to do to make people think that they are really just a bunch of cuddly nice furry little people who want to make things better with other peoples’ money? Why do Americans always associate them with Stalin and Mao and Castro?

Just watch, one of them is going to start a new company selling little cuddle-bears named Josef, Mau Mau and Fidel. Maybe that’ll help.

That’s the problem with the left. They just can’t sell socialism to the American public – no matter how hard they try to indoctrinate the children. They are now convinced that the right move after Obama’s victory in 2008 would have been to outlaw the Constitution and the elections and just declare Obama ruler for life.

I’m sure George Soros would be sleeping better had they done that.

Reflecting

Today President Obama told us he would be reflecting on the meaning of yesterday’s election defeat. I don’t know if anyone noticed the irony in that promise. One would have thought that a man of his education and intelligence, particularly a constitutional scholar, would already know the limits of his office before he decided to run for it.

Is he really just learning on the job? Did he really think the oceans would fall and the skies would open when he became President? Does it take an election defeat to teach him a lesson that he should have already known? Why didn't he know that it is his job to protect American citizens not confiscate their earnings? He should certainly have known that free people do not like being treated like draft animals.

Well, if we must educate our President on the job, we have certainly made a mistake in electing him. How could so many educated citizens, who certainly know their own limitations, elect to the highest office in the world a person who does not know his own limitations?

Well, if we have to teach you to be a grown up, Mr. President; here goes:

Mr. President, you should reflect on the education you received in your youth from people like your mother, from Frank Marshall Davis and perhaps even from your father. These people taught you that capitalism is evil and that it should be destroyed. And we know that your socialist friends and fellow radicals in the various schools you attended held the same Marxist belief. Perhaps you should reflect on that; and you should ask yourself the following questions: is it possible that you and all your radical friends are wrong about capitalism? Is it possible that your job is not to create a crisis in our economy but to protect our freedom to make our own decisions?

Is it possible that all your friends, the William Ayers, the Reverend Wrights and many others in your life were wrong? What if they don’t have the knowledge of history (or of economics) that you think they do? Perhaps they have miscalculated in thinking that they have the right to decide what is a proper society or who should pay taxes and who should not?

What if their idea of social justice is an excuse for slavery; and, most importantly, what if you do not have the authority to decide who gets taxed, who gets fired, who gets bailed out, who can drill for oil; who should “nudge” us in any direction whatsoever? What if all this moral authority you assume for yourself was not really given to you by the election of 2008? What if you really have no authority to violate the individual rights and the individual choices of citizens and business people?

Mr. President, perhaps you don’t understand as much as you think you do. Perhaps you are revealing to the world your utter inability to lead; perhaps you are embarrassing yourself for all to see. The point is, the office of President of the United States does not give you the authority to make arbitrary, unilateral decisions that everyone else must follow because you won an election. We live in a constitutional republic that limits every office of the government including yours. The government is limited in what it can do and prohibited from dictating individual choices and decisions. For lack of a better word, this is what they call "freedom."

Perhaps your constitutional scholarship did not teach you that, properly, you cannot make arbitrary decrees, that only Congress can write laws, not you. Perhaps you missed the point that our government was limited to only those actions authorized by constitutionally drafted laws and that you have no right whatsoever to violate the Bill of Rights. I feel like I'm talking to a second grader.

Where did you come up with the idea that being elected President meant you could do whatever you want? We are not your subjects, you are not a god, and we won’t accept your efforts to turn us into slaves, no matter how much Michelle says you are going to require of us.

What if your belief that you hold a moral authority over other individuals is actually a “reflection” of your immaturity, your poor education, perhaps even your arrogance?