What lessons can China teach the world?

Some pictures are worth a thousand words, but this picture is worth a billion of them. This iconic image distills into stark vivid focus, the story of a fascist regime that holds absolute life-and-death power over a billion and a half people. The paramount truth that you need to understand about China's system of government is fully explained within the modest borders of this one picture. The government of China has taken from its citizens the rights of life and liberty.

The People's Republic of China began under Mao Zedong as a communist state. Like the USSR, China followed a Marxist program of redistribution of wealth, until everyone was equally poor. Like the USSR, China took absolute control over both the political and economic systems of the country. Unlike the USSR, China finally realized that communism as an economic system was a complete failure. They still pretend they are a communist nation, but private enterprise is actually how they do business nowadays.

We are certainly not dealing with a Communist regime, either politically or economically, nor do Chinese leaders, even those who followed the radical reformer Deng Xiaoping, seem to be at all interested in treading the dangerous and uneven path from Stalinism to democracy. They know that Mikhail Gorbachev fell when he tried to control the economy while giving political freedom. They are attempting the opposite, keeping a firm grip on political power while permitting relatively free areas of economic enterprise. Their political methods are quite like those used by the European fascists 80 years ago.

In August of 2011, I read a book by Mark Steyn, called After America: Get Ready for Armageddon. This book explained the unparalleled power that China holds over the United States economy. Because they hold over two-trillion dollars in Treasury Bonds, they can, if they so choose, dump them on the world market, causing our own economy to crash. No one expects that they would do this however, because it would damage their own economy nearly as badly as it would ours, since the USA is the recipient of one-fourth of China's exports.

Mark Steyn, in his book, also examined the terrible threat that China presents because of its practice of constant and unremitting cyber-warfare. Chinese hackers have penetrated and continue to penetrate virtually every government and corporate website of any national importance. Not just one sword of Damocles but two hang perilously over our heads. China can collapse our economy and infiltrate and perhaps even shutdown our nationwide computer network, to include banks, businesses, and government agencies.

In the book 1984, George Orwell described a fascist regime called Big Brother. That book perfectly describes the political culture of China. They have a government censorship agency which must employ many thousands of workers, because together, they are able to befuddle and maintain the sheeplike ignorance of more than a billion Chinese people.

If you try to search "Abing," "the Shawshank Redemption," "UA898" and "CNN" on Sina Weibo, China's equivalent of Twitter, you receive this terse message: "According to relevant laws and policies, results are not displayed."

These terms have joined a fast-growing list of keywords blocked by Chinese censors as they try to prevent the public from obtaining news on a prominent human rights activist who recently escaped his more than 18 months of house arrest in eastern China.

While Chen's plight and dramatic escape have made top headlines around the world; news outlets in China, all of which are state-controlled, have mostly ignored the story.

Outside a busy Beijing subway station Monday, CNN randomly asked more than three dozen people about Chen -- only two had heard of him and his escape. One of the two, a young man who declined to give his name, said: "It was all over Weibo for a while before the topic was censored."

Finally, China has instituted a strict policy of one child per couple. This has resulted in a country with too many men, because Chinese families want a male heir to whom they can pass down the family's name and property. So if it's a girl they abort it, or they give it up for adoption, often right here in the United States.

Depending on where they live, couples can be fined thousands of dollars for having a supernumerary child without a permit, and reports of forced abortions or sterilization are common. Since 1979, the law has prevented some 250 million births.

But critics of the policy note its negative social consequences, particularly sex discrimination. With boys being viewed as culturally preferable, the practice of female infanticide — which had been common before 1949 but was largely eradicated by the 1950s — was resumed in some areas shortly after the one-child policy went into effect.

China's hard lesson in economics can teach us that communism doesn't work and capitalism does. The nations of the world can learn that borrowing money from another country allows that country to have incredible leverage over the debtor nation. China can teach us that the world-wide-web's open internet architecture is fundamentally flawed and unprotectable, and that our operating systems―all of them―are porous and undefendable, and that even simple things like elevators and utility turbines can be shutdown or sabotaged by skilled hackers. China can teach a master's level course on how to maintain absolute control over a population via the twin tools of censorship and propaganda. Finally, China can teach the world what happens when the state controls what happens in the bedroom. For half a billion horny bachelors and for the billion aged parents they support, This last lesson is going to be the hardest lesson of all.

China's population aged 65 and over will rise from 8.9 percent of the total in 2010 to 9.5 percent in 2015, 16.5 percent in 2030, and 25.6 percent in 2050. The total number of elderly will increase to 332 million in 2050 from the current 110 million. On the other hand, the number of working-age Chinese will start to see negative growth after peaking in 2016, as predicted by the National Population and Family Planning Commission.

The falling number of young people suggests the Chinese population is graying at an alarming rate. Taken as a benchmark, Europe's pensionable population crossed the 10 percent line in 1970, and will reach 25 percent in 2040. The same will happen in China, only much faster - within the space of three decades. [QEU5HCM9RP4Q]

Mainstream Media lashes out at Romney's "Economic Agenda"

Describing Obama's "government-dominated society" as a breach of America's tradition of letting free enterprise thrive, Romney said, "In my view, that takes us down a path to becoming more and more like Europe. And Europe doesn't work in Europe."

Romney skirted any mention of Britain and other European nations recently sliding back into recession after they pursued the sort of austerity agenda that he proposes for the United States.

The remarks were only one demonstration of Romney's sometimes selective rhetoric clashing with facts as he adjusts his pitch for the general election.

This is an unabashed opinion editorial masquerading as news. This is what we get every day. This is what America has to accept from the mainstream news. You wonder why newspapers across the country are going bankrupt? You wonder why television news has abysmal Neilson ratings? Wonder no more.

ObamaCare, the Commerce Clause, and Socialism

How does a free-enterprise capitalist republic slowly metamorphosize into a socialist republic? People will accept almost any outrage, if you take things step-by-step, and do it s-l-o-w-l-y.
The commerce clause was originally intended to raise money by imposing tariffs. The new Federal government desperately needed revenue to pay for the costs and debts incurred during the Revolutionary war. Since its humble beginning, the meaning of the plain words of the commerce clause have been conflated and conjoined and bastardized with other text found within the constitution and within later Amendments, and then later still, reinterpreted through the cracked and distorting lens of precedent and even dissent!

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

The Supreme Court later paired this clause with the necessary and proper clause:

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Finally, to give unlimited power to the Federal Government, during the FDR administration, under the pressure of a threatened court packing scheme, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of "the several states" to mean private citizens if their actions had a proximate or foreseeable affect on interstate commerce.

The butterfly effect of any action causes every action no matter how trivial to potentially affect interstate commerce in some way. For instance, if I drive to work, I along with the thousands of others who also drive to work, congest traffic lanes through which interstate commerce is being conducted by truckers hauling loads across state lines. Therefore, congress could conceivably regulate the times during which I and others are allowed to drive our vehicles. They could conceivably regulate the price everyone pays for gasoline, since gasoline is purchased to facilitate interstate commerce. Congress could, by nature of regulating commerce make virtually any law they so choose. This is in fact the understanding of the Obama administration, as the Supreme court judges Obamacare this year. Hopefully the court will strike down the individual mandate, perhaps invalidating the entire law.

The national mainstream media is fully on the side of the Obama administration, as evidenced by their willing participation in the purveying of suitably prejudicial information at key moments throughout this process. For instance, today in the news, the big story is about all the money which the "greedy" insurance companies will have to refund to the individuals and businesses who use their services. These rebates will be given to approximately sixteen million people, or five percent of the population.

Consumers and businesses will receive about $1.3 billion by this August from insurance plans that failed to meet a new standard in the 2010 health-care law, according to estimates released Thursday by the independent Kaiser Family Foundation. (That’s assuming the law, or at least the portion of it containing the rule, is upheld by the Supreme Court, which is expected to issue its decision in late June.)

The rule requires most insurers to spend at least 80 percent of the premiums they collect from customers on health-care claims or quality improvement efforts leaving no more than 20 percent for administrative expenses, such as salaries and marketing, and profits for investors.

The official tally won’t be known for weeks, but researchers at Kaiser came up with an initial estimate by analyzing preliminary data that insurers recently submitted to state regulators.

They found that at least 486 plans covering 15.8 million people will have to issue refunds. And the number could be higher because data for California were unavailable.

Here again, we see the heavy hand of Congress meddling in the affairs of private enterprise. What will the owners of stock in insurance companies do when they see their bottom-line reduced by Federal fiat? Congress is in effect telling the insurance industry how much profit it is allowed to make. What happens when they do the same thing in other industries? What if they tell McDonald's how much profit they're allowed to make on a Big Mac? Where does this end? There is no end.

If Obamacare is left to stand by the Supreme Court, the freedom to pursue happiness, the freedom to own property, the freedom to become an entrepreneur and grow a business will no longer be freedoms, they will be merely privileges given to a favored few, denied to most. Obamacare is the last straw that threatens to break the back of free enterprise and roll our great nation down the hill into the same polluted socialist sewer that Europe is now drowning in. If you would trade all your freedom for a one-in-twenty chance at an insurance rebate, then in my opinion, you deserve neither.

War: Israel vs. Iran...soon?

How can two irreconcilable and contradictory worldviews from two Jewish leaders be reconciled? One is lying.

General Benny Gantz, chief of staff of the Israel Defense Force, told Israel's Haaretz newspaper Iran would probably refrain from going "the extra mile" and completing a weapon.

General Gantz described Iran's leaders as "rational people" and said the ultimate aim of their nuclear program was still an open question. "If the supreme religious leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wants, he will advance it to the acquisition of a nuclear bomb, but the decision must first be taken,"

General Gantz said. "I believe he would be making an enormous mistake - and I don't think he will want to go the extra mile."

Meanwhile, Benjamin Netanyahu has been aggressively hawkish on the possibility of a preventive strike by Israel on the facilities and factories involved in the manufacture of atomic weapons for Iran.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has raised the specter of war by saying unilateral strikes on Iranian nuclear sites are possible within months.

­Speaking with local media for the first time since returning from Washington earlier this week, Netanyahu said "I hope there won't be a war at all, and that the pressure on Iran will succeed," Haaretz daily reports. However, he said the eleventh hour was soon approaching for Iran to “halt its nuclear program or suffer the consequences.”

“We're not standing with a stopwatch in hand," he said. "It's not a matter of days or weeks, but also not of years. The result must be the removal of the threat of nuclear weapons in Iran's hands."

While the world apathetically watches, Iran is systematically moving their nuclear weapons program underneath a mountain.

Fordow, near the city of Qom, is the site of an underground uranium enrichment facility at a former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps base.^[16][17] Existence of the then-unfinished Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP) was disclosed to the IAEA by Iran on 21 September 2009,^[18] but only after the site became known to Western intelligence services.

Benjamin Netanyahu has warned that they will soon have no other option than an all-out unilateral attack. The United Nations—an international organization with the ostensible goal of world peace—has been stridently vocal over the years in condemning the nation of Israel for alleged human rights violations. It is an unfortunate fact that the UN has been co-opted by an assorted cabal of fascist third world regimes. It is for this reason that Israel cannot count on the international community to aid them in this most existential of conflicts.

Everyone paying attention is aware of the increasing tension developing between Iran and Israel. An attack by Israel is considered by many to be inevitable. Yet, Iran still intransigently continues doing what it claims it is not. Moreover, Iranian leaders have even threatened to close the Straight of Hormuz it they are inconvenienced in any way.

A senior member of Iran's parliament said on Monday the Islamic Republic would close the entry point to the Gulf if new sanctions block its oil exports, reiterating a threat made by officials a month ago that caused a temporary oil price spike.

"If any disruption happens regarding the sale of Iranian oil, the Strait of Hormuz will definitely be closed," Mohammad Kossari, deputy head of parliament's foreign affairs and national security committee, told the semi-official Fars news agency. The threat came after European Union nations agreed on an oil embargo against Iran as part of sanctions over its nuclear programme.

Not only has Iran threatened to close the strait, which would cause an immediate worldwide oil shortage, but Iran's Military commanders apparently believe that closing the strait would be trivially easy.

Iran's top naval commander said Wednesday that closing the Persian Gulf to oil tanker traffic would be "easier than drinking a glass of water" but that his nation would not do so for now.

"Closing the Strait of Hormuz for Iran's armed forces is really easy ... or, as Iranians say, it will be easier than drinking a glass of water," Habibollah Sayyari told the country's English language Press TV. "But right now, we don't need to shut it as we have the Sea of Oman under control, and we can control the transit."

All of the above leads me to believe that an attack is imminent. A month ago the Prime Minister was adamantly promising an attack. Now, only one month later, Israel's Chief of Staff General Gantz is assuring us that no attack will be necessary, that—and I actually laughed out loud at this part—the Iranians are "rational people." To those with even the tiniest iota of intuition, Gantz was really saying: Game On.

Will gasoline price lead to double-dip recession?

Britain is officially in a double dip recession. The Office for National Statistics announced today that Britain's gross domestic product fell 0.2 percent in the first quarter of 2012. They too, have been experimenting with quantitative easing. They too, are very deep in debt. They too, have been hit by a sustained surge in the price of oil, leading to much higher prices at the pump.

The government desperately needs growth to achieve its overriding goal of eliminating Britain's large budget deficit over the next five years. But this will be a challenge as many of Britain's euro zone trading partners are already in recession.

The figures will also be a conundrum for the Bank of England, which had appeared poised to end its second round of quantitative easing gilt purchases due to survey evidence that the underlying economy was strengthening.

"Today's figures confirm that there is a genuine debate to be had on whether the committee needs to sanction more QE," said Investec economist Philip Shaw.

There is a close correlation between surges in the price of crude oil, and recessions. Since World War II all but one of the twelve oil surges were accompanied by a recession. While the relationship is not fully understood, and causation cannot be inferred, the link between them is unmistakable.

To you investors out there, I'd say it's time to start hedging your bets. To those of you thinking about buying a house, or expanding your business, or in fact considering any major cash outlay, you might want to hold on to your money for a few more months and see how this plays out.

At this point I could go off on an another Obama rant, pointing out what a miserable failure he is, but instead I'll take this opportunity to explore the failure of Keynesian economic theory. In the decades and centuries to come, they will look back on our era with the same amusement that we look back on the benighted eras of our own past. From a flat Earth in the center of the universe, to a moon composed of cheese, they held a lot of misconceptions. And so do we, still today.

A nation that adopts and follows the economic advice of 20th-century English economist John Maynard Keynes is deciding to become bankrupt. There are two Keynesian methods Obama has been using. The first is borrowing money and giving it away, and the second is called Quantitative easing...[QE] QE, is nothing less than the systematic adulteration of a nations currency, and if you'd like an apt analogy, it's like giving an attempted suicide victim with slashed wrists an infusion of saline solution instead of blood.

The American Dollar is the life-blood of our economy and if it is systematically adulterated by just printing more money, then hyperinflation is what we're going to have. This currency adulteration, coupled with the profligate borrow-spending of our own prodigal son of a President―who just borrowed and gave away more wealth than that held by all previous empires in the history of the world combined―threatens an economic cataclism!

Best news since the Great Depression!

I've got some good news and I've got some bad news. The good news is that Hispanics are no longer flooding across the border and taking American jobs. The bad news is that Hispanics are going back to Mexico where there are jobs.

Roughly 6.1 million unauthorized Mexican immigrants were living in the U.S. last year, down from a peak of nearly 7 million in 2007, according to the Pew Hispanic Center study released Monday. It was the biggest sustained drop in modern history, believed to be surpassed in scale only by losses in the Mexican-born U.S. population during the Great Depression. Much of the drop in illegal immigrants is due to the persistently weak U.S. economy, which has shrunk construction and service-sector jobs attractive to Mexican workers following the housing bust. But increased deportations, heightened U.S. patrols and violence along the border also have played a role, as well as demographic changes, such as Mexico's declining birth rate.

The Obama administration is responsible for an economy in such dire straights that the number of illegals fleeing the country hasn't been this great since the Great Depression! How's that hope and change going for you? Don't worry Obama, the mainstream media has your back, let's get that spin on...

The influx of Mexicans, which has dominated U.S. immigration patterns for four decades, began to tumble in 2006 and 2007 as the housing bust and recession created a dearth of jobs. At the same time, the number of Mexicans returning to their native country along with their U.S.-born children soared. Stricter border enforcement, more deportations and tough state immigration laws such as the Arizona statute being challenged before the Supreme Court on Wednesday probably also contributed to the shift, says Jeffrey Passel, lead author of the report. The study analyzed data from censuses and a variety of other sources in both countries.

I love those last reasons: "Stricter border enforcement, and more deportations." Well, if you're going to outright lie, you might as well make them big fat lies, I always say. Okay, some people might see this mass Hispanic exodus as good news. I don't. It's not good news because chances are that the ones who are leaving are leaving because they can't find work. That means that they moved back because:

1. They want to work
2. They can't find work
3. They're going where the work is

The ones who were hoping to find the American dream, to live peacefully and productively in the freest, proudest, happiest, and most powerful nation in the world have given up that dream and moved back home. But the illegal aliens still here, are still here because:

1. They already have a job here, illegally
2. Or they aren't looking for work
3. And they aren't looking because of government handouts
4. Or they work for the Mexican drug cartels

What I find utterly impossible to believe, what I find to be the most outlandish and mendacious deceit imaginable is that the Obama administration has strengthened border enforcement. Not only could nothing be further from the truth, but our sieve-like borders have never been more porous to the influx of narcotics in American history! Tons of cocaine and marijuana and various opiates are imported daily, while billions of dollars flow back to the ever-more powerful cartels that now rule Mexico in all but name. There is no over-arching plan to win this drug war. I've said this before, if we want to win the drug war we have to go where the enemy lives. Meanwhile the best leave while the worst stay. Americans should ask whether that sad fact is a fitting epitaph for the American dream:

The best of us don't live here anymore.

Zimmerman's offer of condolences was not an "apology."

I wanted to say I am sorry for the loss of your son. I did not know how old he was. I thought he was a little bit younger than I am, and I did not know if he was armed or not.

The Martin family has been demanding an apology for some time now, so I guess it's reasonable to assume that this gesture by George Zimmerman was an apology. He even uses the phrase: "I am sorry..." However, what he doesn't say is that he is sorry for the actions that he took. What he says is that he's sorry for their loss. This is not an apology; this is an offer of condolences. He's saying I am sad that you're feeling bad because your son is dead. He's not saying I'm sorry I killed your son.

But look how the press spins this statement by George Zimmerman:

The attorney for George Zimmerman apologized for the apology his client offered to the parents of Trayvon Martin during his bond hearing last Friday, saying he did not understand the victim's family would find the timing of his remarks inappropriate.

Notice that Zimmerman's lawyer never calls Zimmerman's statement an apology, but the press needs an apology nevertheless, so they just call it that. The Martin family's attorney Benjamin Crump had this to say:

The apology was somewhat of a surprise because we had told them this was not the appropriate time, but they just disregarded that, and he went and pandered to the court and the media and gave a very insincere apology.

See how Benjamin Crump immediately attacks, calling the offer of condolences an apology and then attacking that "apology" as insincere. Further, Crump accuses Zimmerman of "pandering to the court and the media." Unfortunately Zimmerman seems to still be laboring under the delusion that he can somehow appease the mainstream media, somehow turn aside this massive leftwing onslaught being waged against him. But he can't. He is the designated sacrificial goat to be offered up on the altar of political correctness in the name of white guilt. Plus, the media circus surrounding Trayvon Martin's death, provides hours of free prime time Obama publicity and seals the lock on the black vote in November.

Well this just proves what I've said all along: never apologize. Other people see it as a sign of weakness, and they immediately attack. Giving an apology is like swimming with sharks and gashing your wrist. The social pressure in big cases like this to apologize is immense, and I think that's why Zimmerman worded his offer of condolences in the unfortunate way that he did.

Want to know why college costs so much?

I don't know about you, but I've noticed that every time Obama opens his mouth, it's to complain about the millionaires and the billionaires that are not paying their fair share. He was on the radio Wednesday trying to drum up support for more Federal student aid.

For some time now, I've been calling on Congress to take steps to make higher education more affordable – to prevent these interest rates from doubling, to extend the tuition tax credit that has saved middle-class families millions of dollars, and to double the number of work-study jobs over the next five years.

Instead, over the past few years, Republicans in Congress have voted against new ways to make college more affordable for middle-class families, and voted for huge new tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires -- tax cuts that would have to be paid for by cutting things like education and job-training programs that give students new opportunities to work and succeed.

Institutions of higher learning―liberal indoctrination and brainwashing institutes―also want taxpayers to pony up for the kids. That way, they get more money than ever and they get to do what they might well have done for free anyway, which is the chance to convince our children that America is evil. The professors call this a win-win.

Stephanie Cellini George of Washington U. and Claudia Goldin of Harvard, are authors of the study: “Does Federal Aid Raise Tuition?”

The authors focus on two kinds of for-profit institutions in five states (Florida, Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee and Wisconsin). One kind is eligible to receive federal aid through Title IV (of the Higher Ed Act of 1965), which implies that accreditation requirements and other federal standards apply to these schools; the other kind is not eligible. Surprisingly, the non-eligible institutions outnumber the eligible and show some staying power – many have been around a while, although they tend to be smaller, on average.

In any case, students at the eligible schools can get Pell grants and federally subsidized loans, while students at the ineligible schools can’t. The authors find that the eligible schools charge tuition that’s about 75 percent higher, thus receiving a tuition “premium” that’s about equal to the average federal aid the students receive. Students at the non-eligible schools get no aid but pay lower tuition. Their out-of-pocket cost is about the same as that for their aid-receiving counterparts at the eligible schools.

Now this is absolutely astonishing! Neither the taxpayers nor the students receive any benefit from these Federal tuition aid programs. Only the universities and their staff benefit from all this Federal largesse. So let's follow this fun little money trail:

Democrats in power receive vast sums of money in campaign contributions from universities, educators, teacher unions. In short, every facet of our educational system has been funding the election campaigns of the Democrats for the past fifty years.

Universities receive money from students in the form of tuition. If the students have access to extra money in the form of easy loans and grants, the universities just jack-up their prices in return. However, even with all the extra Federal help these students will still graduate with an average of $25,000 of debt.

Vote for Obama, so that he can take more of your money and redistribute it to our revered institutions of higher learning. In return these colleges and universities will teach your children to hate the so-called one percenters, America, and probably you as well. Or you could just repeatedly hit yourself in the head with a hammer until darkness ensues. That latter idea is much cheaper and in addition it probably won't hurt your kids as much as the former one might.

Obama's class warfare and his ultimate goal.

Michael Bargo at American Thinker has the idea that Democrats don't want to raise taxes on the rich anymore than the Republicans do:

There is one project that liberals never complete ― a task that is talked about all the time, especially during campaigns, but for some reason just can't get done.

It is "making the rich pay their fair share" of taxes. Somehow, even though President Obama and his party found the time to write ObamaCare and a huge plan of spending that included the Stimulus and Recovery Acts, taxing the rich for their fair share just slipped through their fingers.

...The real reason why the president will never tax the rich their full "fair share" is because then he can no longer complain that they don't pay their fair share. He stands to lose his "fair share" political card. He needs a scapegoat. If this doesn't seem to make sense, imagine a country where the "rich" paid all the income taxes. Would the president and his party then be satisfied that they achieved their goal?

One argument Michael Bargo makes is that politics is self-serving theatre. I think there's a lot of truth to that. The histrionic outrage of fido-gate is a case in point. However, I think he's missed the forest for the trees in this case. Obama didn't raise taxes when Democrats held the House and the Senate, because every economist he talked to explained that you just don't raise taxes during a recession. Raising taxes during the recession would have sparked nationwide outrage. Furthermore it would not have served to transform America in the way that is Obama's ultimate goal. However if Bargo thinks that progressivists, or the Democratic party in general, won't ever raise taxes on the rich to insanely high levels then he's forgotten history.

Taxes during some periods of United States history have been absolutely ruinous. For instance, During WWII and for a decade thereafter, the top marginal rate was 91%. So, yes, given the opportunity, Democrats would absolutely increase taxes on the rich. The reason Michael Bargo's argument doesn't really apply is because it relies on the ambiguous term "fair." The Democrats can continue claiming the rich don't pay their fair share, no matter how much the rich are taxed, because "fair" in one person's mind is totally different from "fair" in someone else's. If we raised taxes to the point that the "rich" paid 100% of all taxes collected, they could still claim it wasn't a "fair" share, because there would still be people who are poor.

Bargo is right when he says that Obama doesn't really want to make the rich pay higher taxes, but he's wrong if he thinks it's because his party needs a class-warfare talking point. Obama's goal is nothing less than the end of America as we know it. He plans to destroy this country―which I believe he truly hates―by bankrupting it. Once our T-bills are worthless due to runaway inflation, once the American Dollar is worthless, also due to inflation...well then we'll all be equal...equally starving and equally dirt poor. That's Obama's vision. That's what he means by "Fundamentally Transforming America."

Obama desires a desperate and starving America, an America where people are faced with the same dilemma that the starving masses in other countries face―feed myself or feed my children? Obama wants an America where people will be grateful for the nugget of dogmeat they find swimming in their bowl of government gruel.

Barry's Unan1mous Election Strategy

In 2006 there was a new and exciting—to me anyway—reality show called Unan1mous. The prize was 1.5 million dollars to be awarded to one and only one winner. Here's what made it so unique and groundbreaking. The nine contestants locked up inside a bunker on the show had to vote unanimously to give the prize money to one member of their group. They were told that the prize money would begin to dwindle to a smaller and smaller amount the longer they remained unable to come to a unanimous decision. In addition, they were unable to leave or quit. If a player left, the prize money remaining would be cut in half. These nine people had to agree to make one of themselves rich, while the rest would get nothing.

They each used the same strategy that Obama is using. Look at how poor I am. I grew up so very poor. I really need the money more than you because my family is always so hungry and poor and plus, did I mention that I have a sick grandmother who badly needs an operation? And you! Look at you. You grew up so very rich, with a silver spoon in your mouth, I bet. You don't need the money as badly as I do...etc.

President Obama brought out the knives Wednesday, so to speak, by bringing up a spoon. In a speech in which he stressed the need for education and opportunity, he contrasted his own life story with that of his likely GOP rival.

“I wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth. Michelle wasn’t. Somebody gave us a chance. Just like these folks up here are looking for a chance.” Obama said.

I remember watching that show during its one season and thinking, how stupid they all are! How incredibly short-sighted and foolish, competing to see which of them can portray themselves as the most pathetic. Why does the most useless deserve the money the most? They finally unanimously agreed to give the money to Tarah, once the money had dwindled to $382,193. At the time I thought to myself, these nine people threw away a golden opportunity. In their shortsighted greed, and misguided attempt to elicit pity from each other, they ignored a compromise solution which would have benefited each of them.

They each stood up in front of the group and gave their sad little speeches explaining why they deserved the money, why they needed the money, why this money would change their lives. In the process not one of them ever gave the first thought to the fact that their ideas on how to use the money brought absolutely no benefit to the other contestants on the show. After listening to their speeches on my television, I concluded that not one of them deserved that prize money. Each of them planned to use the money for their own selfish purposes.

If I had been on that show I would have had an entirely different speech. I would have explained how their voting to give me the money would not be a gift. It would not be a favor. They could vote to make me the CEO of a new corporation in which they would all be owners. Nine people each hold one share of stock in a company valued at 1.5 million dollars. The person to whom the prize should be given is the one who could provide the soundest business model to wisely invest and grow that money, and then later disburse dividends to the other shareholders.

This comparison I make serves to illustrate the most vital and existential point I can imagine. Our President is just like those pathetic Unan1mous contestants. He wants you to vote for him because he's been so very poor his whole life. He points at a successful businessman like Mitt Romney and disdainfully asks: why should a rich man like him win?

Well, the answer is obvious. Give the job to someone who can provide the soundest business model to wisely invest and grow our economy, which would result in all Americans sharing the resulting prosperity. Now honestly, which Presidential candidate has the all the business experience, and which has zero? Which candidate has the soundest and wisest business model based on competition and free enterprise, and which candidate only has stories about sick grandmothers needing operations?

We each have a vote, but time is running out. At nearly 16 trillion of debt, our future is dwindling away more and more every day. Don't waste this golden opportunity, because I doubt this chance will come around again.

SCOTUS says Republicans cannot be blamed for Rush and Ted.

Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut and the progressivist mainstream media went berserk! On a thousand different radio and television shows commentators and journalists contacted every Republican in power that they could get a hold of. They demanded immediate and emphatical denunciation. They wanted to know whether Rush Limbaugh's comments reflected the general impression all conservatives feel about the issue of birth control, and a woman's sexual freedom. "Do you feel," they would ask, "that all unmarried women who use birth-control are sluts?"

And so election 2012 was in full-swing, with every major mainstream news outlet shamelessly cheerleading in the Obama fan club. Not to be outdone in the purveyance of inflammatory invective, Ted Nugent declared: "If Barack Obama becomes the president in November, again, I will be either be dead or in jail by this time next year." Later at an NRA convention, Ted had this to say:

“Our president and attorney general, our vice president, Hillary Clinton–-they’re criminals. They’re criminals. We need to ride into that battlefield and chop their heads off in November! Any questions?”

Immediately the mainstream media frantically began hunting for associations between Mitt Romney and Ted Nugent. It was Martin Bashir who came to the rescue! The big news endlessly repeated in literally thousands of news publications is that "According to the Texas Tribune" Mitt Romney actively sought Ted Nugent's endorsement in early March. The discussion then wandered off into hypocritical ponderings about whether Romney would try to distance himself from "The Nuge," and whether their close association would hurt Mitt in November.

I tried to find that original Texas Tribune article, but I could find nothing about it on the Texas Tribune website. I searched high and low across the width and breadth of the worldwide web and all I found was this tweet:

This of course led me to the msnbc tv show, which was actually the source of this news. Martin Bashir interviewed a reporter for the Texas Tribune who maintained that Ted Nugent told her that Mitt called him. So this tempest in a teapot is basically hearsay repeated on a biased show by a biased source from a lunatic ex-rocker, then endlessly repeated as though it were an incontrovertible fact.

Luckily for Mitt, the Supreme Court has already made a ruling that lifts the burden of guilt under which Mitt Romney must labor and campaign under. You see, just because one member of some organization or political party is guilty of speaking outside the boundaries of perfectly politically correct speech, does not necessarily implicate other members of that same organization or political party:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that a federal law that allows torture victims to sue their overseas assailants does not permit suits against corporations or political groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The justices said the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991 authorized lawsuits only against the people responsible for torture and killing.

It looks like terrorism is working.

ter.ror.ism      [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun

1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

An Airplane Made an Emergency Landing Because a Charging Cell Phone Was Mistaken for a Bomb

OH MY GOD THERE'S A BOMB ON THE PLANE. That's what one passenger on board thought when he saw a cell phone being charged inside the airplane bathroom. The plane, headed for America, had to make an emergency landing in Dublin, Ireland to deal with the "bomb".

When the pilot made the emergency landing, officers quickly boarded the plane to investigate the "bomb". What they found instead was a cell phone, wrapped in its own charging cable, plugged into the electric outlet inside the bathroom.

If the intent of terrorists was to cause a constant state of unreasoning fear in the minds of westerners, it looks like they have succeeded beautifully. The same cellphone found in the same airplane bathroom ten years ago—yes even post-9/11—would have caused the discoverer of the phone to walk out into the aisle and announce: "Hey I just found a cellphone somebody left in the bathroom!" But apparently today, people immediately think: "OMG! A BOMB!"

This senseless hysteria is only further exacerbated by the over-the-top invasive kabuki theatre security screening, where belts and shoes are removed and some officious jackass paws through everyone's carry-on bag looking for deodorant, toothpaste, and shampoo. Then passengers are forced to stand before a machine which bombards them with x-rays so that some perverted voyeur in a "secret room" can examine women's breasts and everyone's genitals while he does whatever it is he does when the rest of us can't see what he's doing.

I'd like to think that if I saw a cellphone charging in a bathroom—even if it was wrapped up in its own charging cord—that I'd immediately understand that it was a cellphone. First of all, bombs are bigger than a cellphone; usually quite a bit bigger, especially when they're the homemade kind. Second, even with a cord wrapped around it, a cellphone looks like a cellphone, not a bomb. Third, why would a terrorist leave it in the bathroom where it would be found by the next person with a slightly full bladder? That makes absolutely no sense. Finally, while I might forgive the panicky passenger, I am completely unable to give a pass to the pilot, crew, and tower.

A panicky passenger reports that it looks like there's a bomb in the bathroom. Ok, so don't you think that maybe you should go...I don't know...LOOK AT IT? Instead: OMG BOMB! BOMB! BOMB! TOWER WE MUST EMERGENCY LAND OMG OMG OMG!!!

Ok, I didn't hear the conversation that led to the emergency landing. I don't know whether the tower asked the pilot whether he or any other crew member had actually seen this alleged bomb. I don't know whether they all stood in a big circle and peed in their pants while staring wildly around at each other with tears leaking from their wide-eyes, and down their pallid fear-clutched faces. OMG A BOMB! or not.

What I do know, is that this was a cellphone and not a bomb. This emergency landing is a symbol. It is a symbol of our endemic failure to open our eyes and behold evil. That cellphone is the very emblem of our failure to address who it is that we are in a state of war against. We have failed as a nation and as an enlightened society. We have been shutdown and incapacitated by our own fear to forthrightly point out that there is one and only one unifying similarity in virtually every act of terrorism committed in a generation. The culprits in every case were self-evidently Muslim men. Their speech, their dress, their mannerisms, these all identify the one type of person who just might be a terrorist. Instead they're checking inside a baby's diaper. They're checking Grandpa's colostomy bag. They're rubbing and feeling the crotches of little boys and little girls.

Terrorists no longer have to get boxcutters or guns or bombs on planes. Now they can bring them down with a cellphone! I am outraged and shamed. Simple words and exclamation points are wholly inadequate to express the amazing fury I am feeling right now. We have been humiliated before the world, and right now those same terrorists are laughing at us, while they figure out a way to kill us.

God designed mankind to stand his ground.

I remember a fight I was in as an eleven year old. It turned out badly for me. The fight was―as is typical for American boys of my general age at a new school―an entirely staged event. How tough is the new kid? I don't know, let's put him up against Jim. And so I was socially bullied by a peer group into a fight with a pugnacious bully named Jim V. I didn't want to fight him, because he outweighed me by fifty pounds, and I'm not a fighter. We postured and circled for a few minutes, and I threw a few jabs and so did he. Then he rushed me and I―so very foolishly―turned away as if to retreat, covering my face with my arms. It is for this reason that I never saw the left and right hooks that caught me in either side of my face.

I learned my lesson. When an enemy confronts you, you never never take your eyes off of him, because he will use that moment of inattention to attack. In another terrible example of why this is so important, there was an employee who once worked for the same security guard company that I am employed with. While unarmed, he was confronted by an armed assailant. He chose to turn and run. The man with the gun shot Michael L. in the back, right at the base of his neck. He was not killed. In some ways it was worse than that; he is now a quadriplegic.

Unlike virtually every prey animal in the wild, our eyes are situated in front. Our peripheral vision is restricted, and we're completely unable to see behind us. Furthermore, we're bipedal which severely restricts our ability to run. We are biologically designed to stand our ground. God―or natural selection if you prefer―made us this way. Therefore a "Stand your ground" law which protects our inalienable God-given right to stand our ground is a sensible law. I am in favor of any law which protects our natural rights. Progressivists―like Adam Cohen―feel exactly the opposite.

There is no way to undo what happened in the Zimmerman-Martin encounter, but some good can still come of it: it could lead states to repeal their misguided "stand your ground" laws. Many criminal-law doctrines evolve over centuries, but “stand your ground” laws arrived suddenly — starting in Florida in 2006. Under traditional legal principles, people in disputes generally have a duty to “de-escalate” in the interest of saving human life, but the Florida law dialed down the historic “duty to retreat.” Now, people would have the same kind of right to stand their ground in public — on the streets, in parking lots and in bars — that they historically had in their homes.

Can you feel Adam's outrage? People would actually have the right to stand their ground when confronted by a dangerous threat, no matter where they happened to be. Mr. Cohen obviously and seriously believes that it is the duty of a patriotic law-abiding citizen of the United States of America to turn tail and flee when confronted by a threatening assailant.

But critics have pointed out the obvious problem with "stand your ground" laws. They encourage people who get caught up in dangerous encounters to up the ante and to shoot when gunfire could have been avoided.[Emphasis mine]

Notice the word encourage? Laws which protect our natural rights don't encourage us to commit crimes. Does our constitutional right to own a gun "encourage" us to commit murder? That's a strawman Mr. Cohen, and I think you know it.

The Trayvon Martin story is driving this "stand your ground" backlash, but ironically as the story has developed, this was evidently not even a case of standing ground. Zimmerman was literally on the ground―on his back―with Martin viciously cracking his head against a concrete sidewalk over and over. Zimmerman's gun was noticed by the assailant who apparently went for it. In fear of his life, Zimmerman was forced to shoot Martin. This is a clear-cut justifiable homicide in self-defense.

Let's imagine a scenario where Adam Cohen might legitimately point at "stand your ground" laws as dangerous. The following is my own fictitious and hypothetical example:

A man―possibly ever-so slightly inebriated―having just spent a few hours socializing with his friends at a local bar, is getting into his car when he's confronted by a mugger who holds a knife and demands his wallet and his keys. The victim of the mugging pulls a gun. Freeze...

What Adam Cohen seems to expect is that the man being mugged, even though he has a gun, should―by nature of Cohen's progressivist interpretation of "traditional legal principle"―flee. Flee away from his vehicle, away from his friends in the bar, away into a dark city possibly full of unimaginable danger, and don't forget also with a knife wielding criminal in hot-pursuit. The idea is laughable!

Keeping it Real...Real Dumb

I am a faithful reader at American Thinker. By and large I agree with almost every single article that is posted on that website...until now. Various pundits and bloggers have weighed in on the controversial John Derbyshire article: The Talk: Nonblack Version.

American Thinker writer Daren Jonescu while respectful of Derbyshire has a problem with his scientific method:

Let's leave aside Derbyshire's faith in the efficacy of IQ tests as a measure of real innate intellectual capacity. Let's assume, in fact, that IQ tests, or at least the ones he prefers, are perfect measures of intellect. And let us also grant that the racial group labeled "black" consistently scores significantly lower on such tests than the groups labeled "white" or "Asian."

Granting every bit of that, what does any of it have to do with his advice to his children regarding personal safety? On the contrary, Plato -- a far greater authority on human nature, I daresay, than any IQ test designer -- warns that the man capable of the greatest good is also necessarily capable of the greatest evil. In other words, the most gifted are the most dangerous, which is why good moral education is so vital. If Plato is right, then one ought to suppose that the more intellectually gifted race is the one more likely to produce truly dangerous individuals, particularly in a place or time of degraded moral guidance.

In fact, history would seem to bear this out (assuming Derbyshire's IQ standards are correct). Quickly create for yourself a list of the ten most bloodthirstily inhuman characters in history -- how many of them fall into each of the three main racial groups? For that matter, who is more dangerous to today's young people, in real terms -- some crack-addicted punk with a gun or Nancy Pelosi?

Daren Jonescu argues that a person's intelligence is either completely unrelated to the incidence of criminal mischief, or if it is related, it is related in the opposite direction of what John Derbyshire assumes. I.E. Greater IQ = Greater Criminal Opportunity.

While I agree in theory that intelligence and criminal mischief don't seem to be directly related, I just have to draw a conspicuous connecting line that does exist. I'll call this line the blackness line.

In the black subculture, education―far from being valued―is actually a cultural negative. Blacks tease and insult other more studious blacks for "acting white." IQ is not just an indication of how much you can learn, it's also an indication of how much you have learned. This probably accounts for a lot of the low IQ scores in all these tests. They are quite proud of their ignorance, even boasting loudly about how little they know―or care―about whatever educational topic it happens to be. This is sometimes called: "keeping it real."

So blackness or "keeping it real," is this quality of being dismissive of education and also those who seem to be educated. Essentially, blackness inculcates a life-long suspicion and outright animosity towards what the rest of our country values the most. This blackness is incredibly divisive and―as has been proven over the past fifty years―incredibly destructive to the entire black community.

I'll put this in unequivocal terms. Either they can't or they won't, and it doesn't really matter which is true. When they celebrate their own failure and worse, punish those of themselves who are successful, you can see that this road leads only to nowhere. In fact it already causes many of them to actually compete to see which of them can be the biggest failure of all. This is evident in the behavior of street gangs as well as black flash mobs.

While intelligence by itself is not directly related to criminal misconduct, surely you can see that when that lack of intellect―caused by a lack of respect for education―is combined with hatred for those that actually are intelligent, black crime is going to soar ever higher.

Is a "sin" tax a good conservative compromise?

The argument between conservatives and progressivists has always been the same. Conservatives want to lower taxes, while progressivists want to buy more stuff. There it is. I don't think it gets any simpler than that. The same argument is repeated in most households across America as one family member wants to control spending while another wants to buy more stuff.

How is this fundamental disagreement resolved? The usual outcome for these diametrically opposing positions is for the two parties to compromise. Now an honest compromise would have the conservatives agreeing to raise taxes, while the progressivists would agree to reduce spending. But honestly, that's never how it works out. In the Federal government they usually compromise by each party having its way. The conservatives lower taxes while the progressivists buy more stuff. This is also known as eating your cake and having it too, and the result is sixteen trillion dollars worth of national debt.

Now, both sides understand that America has reached a point where the usual compromise will no longer work. Conservatives will have to agree to raise taxes, while the progressivists will have to agree to reduce spending. This honest compromise is going to hurt both parties politically, and since that hurt will be felt most keenly of all by the politicians themselves, an honest compromise is the last thing that's going to happen.

I have a suggestion for the conservatives which will allow them to raise taxes, while still keeping within their philosophical framework of limited government and low taxes. I call my idea the Day Traders Tax. Like cigarettes, alcohol, and gambling, the Day Traders tax would be a similar "sin tax." We conservatives don't like paying taxes, who does? But we object less to the various sin taxes for products we disapprove of anyway.

Go ahead, we say, raise the tax on cigarettes. We don't like people smoking anyway. It's a filthy habit, and if the tax helps raise money and also reduces the number of cigarettes smoked, it's a win win. Similarly, we also have extra taxes on alcohol. It raises money while also perhaps reducing the amount of alcohol consumed. Gambling is on the list too, and as such has special taxes. In each case these extra "sin" taxes are hidden from the consumer. They are priced into the product, not added to the price at the point of sale.

The biggest casino of all is not in Las Vegas or Atlantic City. No, the biggest and most profitable casino in the entire world is found in New York City. It's called Wall Street. Uncle Sam needs to get in on some of that action. With a nominal fee derived from the sale price of every security traded, the Federal government could probably make hundreds of billions of dollars every year. It would be imposed like the other sin taxes on the seller, not the purchaser. Therefore a person who wanted to invest in shares of stock would not be taxed until he decided to sell his shares. This would reduce market volatility, which is desired by everyone except perhaps the day traders.

The Day Traders tax seems to be a good compromise position which would not affect most people at all, and would perhaps achieve a meaningful revenue return, in contrast to other ideas like the so-called "Buffett tax," which is purely a partisan gesture aiming at raising a paltry few billion per year. This compromise tax would obviously have to be accompanied by meaningful cuts in every area of government spending, and I would suggest the entitlement areas of our Federal budget be especially targeted.

The Irony behind Ezra Klein's "No Free Lunch" headline

Ezra Klein's opinion headline reads: "No free Lunch in Republican Budget." He goes on to explain that the budget cuts in the Paul Ryan budget are from programs for the poor. Of course! The narrative from progressivists has historically been that conservatives hate the poor, and especially children!

Are we expected to just continue forever paying for welfare, food-stamps, section 8 housing, free daycare, all kinds of grants for education, training, new cars, and ever-growing healthcare costs, just because some slutty welfare queen succeeds in dropping another load in the cradle? Oh dear, I'm terribly sorry about using the "slut" word. I tried to think of a better one, but the only thing I could come up with that was even close, unfortunately suggested that a business transaction was also involved.

The Republicans have a problem: Their budget promises don't add up ... Cutting programs for the poor isn't popular. So Republicans have come up with a solution: Don't call them "cuts."

The Ryan budget's section on these cuts is titled "Repairing the Social Safety Net." It explains that "the welfare reforms of the 1990s, despite their success, were never extended beyond cash welfare to other means-tested programs." It proposes to extend the welfare reform model to Medicaid, to food stamps and other unnamed "low-income assistance programs."

Ezra goes on to explain that our economy is not in the best shape and so these cuts will overwhelmingly affect the poor. Hmmm...well we certainly don't want to dwell on why the economy after more than three years of stimulus and quantitative easing, is still in the sorry shape that it is.

It is understood that the Paul Ryan budget has to cut Federal expenditures. That's the job he was tasked with, and that's what he has done. His budget attempts to eliminate some of the inefficiency in the system by moving the onus of providing for the poor from the Federal system to the state level. The military budget has already been slashed to the bone. With the baby boomers retiring in ever greater numbers, we just don't have that much money left. Back in the '90s welfare reform worked. I don't see why this won't also work.

Ezra Klein thinks the Federal government―in spite of the fact that as a percentage of GDP we will soon surpass even Greece in the level of back-breaking debt we've incurred―can just go on forever providing everything that poor people need to continue doing what they do without setting any limits. These never-ending free lunches for the poor have resulted in a massive expansion of the demographic called "poor people."

Seriously, as we go along in life, we discover that when we go handing out free lunches, all kinds of people start showing up. Of course, conservatives already understand that there's no such thing as a free lunch, because somebody has to pay for it. Ironically, I don't think that thought ever once crossed Ezra Klein's mind.

MSM touts Unemployment Rate, ignores Employment Rate

I notice that national headlines keep trumpeting the fact that the unemployment rate is dropping, which is cited by the mainstream media as proof that Obama's stimulus plans and his quantitative easing programs are finally beginning to work. There's just one problem. While unemployment rates may be dropping, the employment rate has not increased very much at all. Looking back for ten years the following chart shows the employment percentage rate for all working age Americans:

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics
Year %Employed
2002 62.7
2003 62.3
2004 62.4
2005 62.7
2006 63.1
2007 63.0
2008 62.2
2009 59.3
2010 58.5
2011 58.4
2012 58.6 [as of February]

This chart is proof beyond all shadow of a doubt that the vast majority of people who lost their jobs in the 2008 recession have not yet regained employment. But none of these facts are made known to the people. In fact just the opposite is the case. What is the term for a systematic nationwide program of triumphantly proclaiming good news while hiding, or ignoring bad news? Oh yes, the word is propaganda.

Americans, especially conservatives have noticed the biased slant of the mainstream media which has become especially evident since the 2008 Presidential campaign. The MSM moved Heaven and Earth to ensure that Obama was elected. For more than three years we have regretted it. Nothing is better. The national debt has more than doubled and is now nearing 16 trillion dollars. What did we get for this prodigal borrowing extravaganza? All we got was deeper in debt, and yet the employment rate is still hovering at only 58%. What did we get for the systematic devaluation of our currency by printing money? All we got was inflation, and so we notice that everything costs more, especially that fill-up at the gas station. The national media doesn't want to mention any of this. Instead we get propaganda:

Unemployment claims hit 4-year low of 357,000.
CHRISTOPHER S. RUGABER, AP Economics Writer Updated 10:09 a.m., Thursday, April 5, 2012

The number of people seeking U.S. unemployment benefits fell to a four-year low last week, suggesting employers kept hiring in March at a healthy pace.

Weekly applications dropped 6,000 to a seasonally adjusted 357,000, the Labor Department said Thursday. That's the fewest since April 2008.

The four-week average, a less volatile measure, fell to 361,750, also the lowest in four years. The average has dropped nearly 13 percent in the past six months.

Evidence like this, of widespread propaganda foisted on a naive and misinformed populace should make you stop for a moment and suddenly―WAKE UP! We have never been deeper in debt. The American Dollar has never before been worth less than it is right now. Our credit rating has never before been downgraded, like it has during Obama's term. All these problems are serious ones. They can all be solved. We have a much bigger problem. This problem is an existential problem. This problem cannot be solved using traditional methods. This problem, unless it is solved will undoubtedly destroy this nation. The problem is that the national media is engaging in the most egregiously deceitful propaganda campaign since the fall of the Soviet Union.

What can we do, when instead of knowledge we get lies? How can we react when we're unaware? While we slumber peacefully in blissful ignorance, the mainstream media is malevolently disconnecting the fire-alarm.

WAKE UP!

Winners and Losers, the case against "Big Government"

What if every footrace in the Olympics featured a winner dragging a loser across the finish line? It would make a mockery of a noble and worthy contest. How asinine and pointless it would be to compete―or even to watch―such a spectacle. Yet, it seems as though government after government attempts to achieve exactly this misguided and destructive goal. Maybe you think life and living aren't supposed to be a competition? If that's what you think, then you're ignoring about three billion years of history backed by scientific proof that competition is precisely and exactly what life is all about.

Government can be defined as a set of laws designed to help a large group of people live together as productively, efficiently, and peacefully as possible. Obviously, the way the government is designed and the particular laws of that government influence how well the ultimate goals of prosperity and peace are achieved, and are reflected by the satisfaction a populace has with its government.

"Big Government" can be defined as a set of laws designed to force some citizens to support and subsidize other citizens based on some unachievable ideal of a utopian future where every member of the society is not only healthy and wealthy but also happy. If you think this goal is achievable, then you are most likely a Democrat.

The socialist European Union will fail because of the failing countries that are being dragged and prodded along by the successful countries. The winners are forced to carry the losers with them across the finish line every year. We can see the EU going off the rails more and more every day, and the train wreck―when it inevitably happens―is most likely going to cause a worldwide depression. The countries of Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Romania, Hungary and Latvia, are a litany of failure, and the other countries in the Union will not agree to continue to subsidize these losers year after year.

The USSR was a collection of failing little bureaucracies and departments, each with pathetic five-year plans, and filled by people who did as little as possible, as poorly and shoddily as possible, for as long as possible. It failed for exactly the same reason that the EU will fail. They all thought that life wasn't about competition. Why is it that human beings keep trying the same thing time after time, and it keeps failing time after time, yet they keep hoping for a different result time after time? That is the definition of insanity!

Obama and his adoring "Occupiers" are attempting to repeat the same collectivist experiment in governance that has failed everywhere it has been tried. We are not completely a nation of ignoramuses. Every American has the opportunity to learn American history. This country was founded on the principle of free enterprise which is by its very nature entirely about competition. The lesson learned by the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock, right here in America, was that collectivism doesn't work. The Pilgrims tried their own version of socialism and as a result starvation ensued. Once each family became responsible for providing for themselves and for seeing to their own well-being, prosperity ensued.

In case after case, time after time, people have proven over and over, that they will not―absolutely will not!―drag the losers with them across the finish line. It is for this reason that "Big Government" will always end up as a monumental disaster, with misery and hardship for every citizen, every time it's tried.