I was recently asked by my girlfriend about my opinion on a European nation outlawing the wearing of burkhas in public. I responded that this was a typical infringement on individual rights, which is an easy excuse for avoiding the source of the problem.
In frustration with rampant Islamic violence, Europeans will avoid dealing with the source of that violence. Instead, they will set a dress code to somehow alleviate the violence, infringing on individual rights, rather than giving the death penalty to those who terrorize and kill others, thus punishing the guilty.
Americans are as bad or worse. We have "hate crimes" and laws that govern the sobriety of a driver.
Reckless driving is already a crime. When the police proved impotent in stopping reckless driving, then we outlawed the conditions under which a person can operate a vehicle. Then came the rights-bashing organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), whose founder resigned in disgust with the group becoming an alcohol-abolitionist organization. Because this special-interest group believes that people should not drink, they have used drunk-driving legislation to further their goal in stopping drinking. They have lowered the level of alcohol recognized as causing "drunkenness." Now, in some states, the blood-alcohol level is so low that a person can be arrested for having a glass of wine with a meal at a restaurant then driving home. In some places, if a person starts to drive, recognizes he/she is drunk, and pulls over on side of the road to sleep it off, they can be arrested for drunkenly "operating a vehicle" simply because they are sitting behind the wheel!
So a noisy and irritating special-interest group has pressured our "esteemed" government officials into restricting our rights as Americans. I hope their damned kids end up arrested on DUIs if they drive after having one beer. Of course, we will see the double standard if this happens.
Our "war on drugs" has been a dismal failure at a major cost to the taxpayer, and to the benefit of organized crime. Let people live as they wish, and our society will benefit more.
Since the judicial system has failed with ordinary crimes, we now have "hate crimes." Somehow, if it can be determined that a violent crime is done in hate, it is somehow worse than if it is done without hatred. Please show me examples of the many violent crimes that are done where no hatred is involved! What is meant is that it is now illegal for one group of people to hate another group of people. And if a crime can be linked to group hate, the penalty is more harsh. In short, the government has determined the legality of the thoughts of the individual. Crimes are no longer determined merely by the cruelty of the act, but the CRUELTY OF THE INTENT--is this a verifiable criterion, or something to be manipulated by politicians to their arbitrary benefit? Where is our right to free speech when the thoughts of an individual can be determined to be criminal?
If a person hates me because I am a white, conservative, semi-atheistic American, why should I care? No doubt there are many minorities of "color," Christian evangelicals, and others who feel bigoted hatred towards me. If their hatred causes them to do violence against me, are there not already laws in place against such violent acts? If the penalties are not strict enough for "ordinary" crimes, why only raise the penalties for "hate" crimes? Why not across the board?
Of course, since I am not a racial minority, the law will probably not apply to me--white males seem fair game for hatred in our society. So are "hate crimes" not discriminatory against me? If I hate blacks and kill a black person, a gay person, a Muslim, or a Jew, it will be a "hate crime." Would the same apply if I were killed by a bigoted black person? Or do blacks have a right to hate whites? Does the law mean that I will face a stiffer penalty than a minority person for committing the same crime, simply because of my skin color and ethnic origin?
Thinking and dress are not what is criminal--actions are. Let's abolish these special-interest laws that only benefit the few.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Deism, the Enlightenment, and the Founding of America
Deism was a belief at the heart of the movement known today as the Enlightenment, that wonderful period of human history which marked the transition from church-dominated politics to the belief in individual rights and freedoms. Deism maintained belief in a divine order to the universe, minus the presence of an all-mighty and intervening god-being. Their belief was that any creator was powerless in controlling what he/she/it created.
While many American Christians like to refer to America as a Christian nation, and our founding fathers as Christians, they fail to understand that the Christianity of the most influential founders had little to do with modern-day Christianity. Their Christianity was neither sectarian nor evangelical nor socialistic nor prudish. Rather, it was sternly against all of these trends.
The religion of the founding fathers was based upon the divinely-granted and inalienable rights of individuals. They believed that the freedom of individuals was the safeguard of a free and prosperous society. They assured that there would be no state religion nor any church-dominated government. Individuals would have the freedom to think freely, speak freely, pursue their own goals and dreams, set their own motivations, protect themselves, and amass wealth as they would see fit. Individuals were free in all of this as long as they did not infringe upon the rights of others. Importantly, the government did not have the right to set any restrictions except to protect the rights of individuals and assure the common good.
Contrast this with the social trends in the world today. More regulations are set daily in western nations in the interest of "fairness." Even the word "fairness" gets re-translated as the non-working reaping the rewards of the labor of others. Our current U.S. president commented on his vision of the free market providing wealth to be "shared across the board." This view has absolutely nothing to do with the vision of the founders of this nation, who would recognize "wealth redistribution" as the robbing of the achiever and the de-motivating of the unproductive. Under the guise of economic stimulus, our nation has already witnessed wealth redistribution and government infringement in the private sector to a level inconceivable merely decades ago.
Under the current U.S. government, the medieval Christian and Islamic values have gained dominance over the deistic values of the founding fathers. We have taken a major historical step backwards in the development of a free society. The higher authority is being established in the U.S. government, which will determine instead what is "fair" and what is not. The choice is no longer left to the decisions of individuals in their routine conduct of business.
While many American Christians like to refer to America as a Christian nation, and our founding fathers as Christians, they fail to understand that the Christianity of the most influential founders had little to do with modern-day Christianity. Their Christianity was neither sectarian nor evangelical nor socialistic nor prudish. Rather, it was sternly against all of these trends.
The religion of the founding fathers was based upon the divinely-granted and inalienable rights of individuals. They believed that the freedom of individuals was the safeguard of a free and prosperous society. They assured that there would be no state religion nor any church-dominated government. Individuals would have the freedom to think freely, speak freely, pursue their own goals and dreams, set their own motivations, protect themselves, and amass wealth as they would see fit. Individuals were free in all of this as long as they did not infringe upon the rights of others. Importantly, the government did not have the right to set any restrictions except to protect the rights of individuals and assure the common good.
Contrast this with the social trends in the world today. More regulations are set daily in western nations in the interest of "fairness." Even the word "fairness" gets re-translated as the non-working reaping the rewards of the labor of others. Our current U.S. president commented on his vision of the free market providing wealth to be "shared across the board." This view has absolutely nothing to do with the vision of the founders of this nation, who would recognize "wealth redistribution" as the robbing of the achiever and the de-motivating of the unproductive. Under the guise of economic stimulus, our nation has already witnessed wealth redistribution and government infringement in the private sector to a level inconceivable merely decades ago.
Under the current U.S. government, the medieval Christian and Islamic values have gained dominance over the deistic values of the founding fathers. We have taken a major historical step backwards in the development of a free society. The higher authority is being established in the U.S. government, which will determine instead what is "fair" and what is not. The choice is no longer left to the decisions of individuals in their routine conduct of business.
Divine Intervention and Social Dependency
About ten years ago, I remember the encounter between a man in his late thirties and his friend and coworker in a parochial school where we all taught. Our co-worker, who was an evangelical Christian, asked him when he and his wife were going to have children. When he replied that they could not have children, the co-worker replied "Oh, you don't know my God. You should get to know him. With him, all things are possible."
What the woman did not know is that his wife had just had a complete hysterectomy. And all the prayer in the world was obviously not going to help much in making her fertile.
Observing this conversation was a sort of turning point in my life. I reflected, and reflect today, on the futility of divine intervention in such circumstances. I reflect on how the power of a surgeon's knife is far more powerful than the imaginary god of my evangelical friend. Of course, the true believer will still say that their almighty god can even overcome a hysterectomy. I'm not holding my breath--neither did the man in my true story.
Yet much of the Judaeo-Christian tradition teaches reliance upon such an intervening imaginary being, and how we are "filthy rags" incapable of doing any good ourselves. Jesus himself based his world view on charitable giving, and with his passing, his chosen twelve followers set themselves up as re-distributors of the wealth of the early Christian communities, which "shared all in common."
How easily this religion was manipulated by crafty clerics--Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant--to form governments where the people were dependent upon the clerics and the divine right of kings instead of upon themselves. Medieval Hinduism had a similar development, with the brahmin and kshatriya castes dominating the society. We see Islam today in this same despicable phase of evolution, giving rise to violence against the "infidel" who largely outgrew their medieval phase of development.
Yet the next phase of societal evolution is little better. We have seen the twentieth-century transition from divine intervention to governmental intervention. From Russia to England to Canada, the transition from czars and kings and queens to socialist governments of many varieties was made complete during the last century. Today, we are witnessing this in the United States at the dawn of a new century.
The Acts of the Apostles accounts that those early Christians who sold property to donate to their socialistic leaders, but withheld some of the money for themselves, were struck dead by their god. Superstition, fear, and false hope are powerful tools in controlling the masses. First, convince people that they must depend upon an imaginary being for their worth and their survival, and place fear of divine retribution in their hearts. Transfer this dependency to the god's chosen leaders. Then when the god never shows up to help, the leaders remain. After a while, the god disappears from the dogma, but the tyranny remains.
No matter how much people pray to their imaginary god and wait for divine intervention, the poor and the ill continue to starve and die, the barren remain so, the wealthy still find themselves unhappy or suffering inwardly or facing the problems of illness and death which no money nor prayer can prevent, and nothing really changes. Hope upon an afterlife or coming new world rings empty when the imagined being in charge is impotent in alleviating the suffering of the present moment.
The transition from reliance upon an almighty and intervening god, to reliance upon his divinely-ordained clerics with very human means of inflicting suffering and maintaining control, to reliance upon the government are mere phases in a continuum of teaching that the individuals cannot make responsible choices on their own, and that a higher power must intervene to provide for them and protect them from themselves. Inevitably this means a bigger government with many laws restricting the rights of individuals. The government replaces the god.
The major exception to this trend was the government formed over two hundred years ago in America.
What the woman did not know is that his wife had just had a complete hysterectomy. And all the prayer in the world was obviously not going to help much in making her fertile.
Observing this conversation was a sort of turning point in my life. I reflected, and reflect today, on the futility of divine intervention in such circumstances. I reflect on how the power of a surgeon's knife is far more powerful than the imaginary god of my evangelical friend. Of course, the true believer will still say that their almighty god can even overcome a hysterectomy. I'm not holding my breath--neither did the man in my true story.
Yet much of the Judaeo-Christian tradition teaches reliance upon such an intervening imaginary being, and how we are "filthy rags" incapable of doing any good ourselves. Jesus himself based his world view on charitable giving, and with his passing, his chosen twelve followers set themselves up as re-distributors of the wealth of the early Christian communities, which "shared all in common."
How easily this religion was manipulated by crafty clerics--Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant--to form governments where the people were dependent upon the clerics and the divine right of kings instead of upon themselves. Medieval Hinduism had a similar development, with the brahmin and kshatriya castes dominating the society. We see Islam today in this same despicable phase of evolution, giving rise to violence against the "infidel" who largely outgrew their medieval phase of development.
Yet the next phase of societal evolution is little better. We have seen the twentieth-century transition from divine intervention to governmental intervention. From Russia to England to Canada, the transition from czars and kings and queens to socialist governments of many varieties was made complete during the last century. Today, we are witnessing this in the United States at the dawn of a new century.
The Acts of the Apostles accounts that those early Christians who sold property to donate to their socialistic leaders, but withheld some of the money for themselves, were struck dead by their god. Superstition, fear, and false hope are powerful tools in controlling the masses. First, convince people that they must depend upon an imaginary being for their worth and their survival, and place fear of divine retribution in their hearts. Transfer this dependency to the god's chosen leaders. Then when the god never shows up to help, the leaders remain. After a while, the god disappears from the dogma, but the tyranny remains.
No matter how much people pray to their imaginary god and wait for divine intervention, the poor and the ill continue to starve and die, the barren remain so, the wealthy still find themselves unhappy or suffering inwardly or facing the problems of illness and death which no money nor prayer can prevent, and nothing really changes. Hope upon an afterlife or coming new world rings empty when the imagined being in charge is impotent in alleviating the suffering of the present moment.
The transition from reliance upon an almighty and intervening god, to reliance upon his divinely-ordained clerics with very human means of inflicting suffering and maintaining control, to reliance upon the government are mere phases in a continuum of teaching that the individuals cannot make responsible choices on their own, and that a higher power must intervene to provide for them and protect them from themselves. Inevitably this means a bigger government with many laws restricting the rights of individuals. The government replaces the god.
The major exception to this trend was the government formed over two hundred years ago in America.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Smoking Is Now Becoming a Crime--But the Murderers Go Free
The right to determine whether smoking will or will not be permitted in establishments is being taken away from the private business owners and managers of hotels, restaurants, and bars.
The police forces and judicial systems fail miserably in stopping robbery and violent crime. Our homes are no longer safe, but instead of correcting this, it will become a crime to smoke in public. Will the same dunces who cannot enforce other laws somehow enforce this?
In the meantime, our rights are trampled upon again, in our government's open defiance of the Constitution which it is sworn to uphold. We have lost both the right to safety in our homes and our right to light up a cigarette when we get frustrated with it.
Perhaps the defiance called for is that voiced by the founding fathers of our nation, who held that the individual should be in defiance of a government which fails to recognize the God-given rights of its citizens.
The police forces and judicial systems fail miserably in stopping robbery and violent crime. Our homes are no longer safe, but instead of correcting this, it will become a crime to smoke in public. Will the same dunces who cannot enforce other laws somehow enforce this?
In the meantime, our rights are trampled upon again, in our government's open defiance of the Constitution which it is sworn to uphold. We have lost both the right to safety in our homes and our right to light up a cigarette when we get frustrated with it.
Perhaps the defiance called for is that voiced by the founding fathers of our nation, who held that the individual should be in defiance of a government which fails to recognize the God-given rights of its citizens.
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Taxes Do Not "Cost" the Government Anything
From: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Business/Story?id=7562814&page=2
"Everything is on the table, including the tax treatment of health care plans," said Baucus. Limiting the tax exclusion for health benefits would be a ready source of revenue. The current exclusion costs the federal government $150 billion per year in revenue and more than $200 billion per year if payroll taxes are included in the calculation." (emphasis mine)
Since when does not taxing individuals COST the government anything? From reading this you would think that the government pays people money by not taxing them. Let's get something straight here. Taxes cost individuals money. Not taxing individuals costs the government nothing.
It is not a "cost" when the politicians do not get their rotten hands on the money that rightly belongs to individuals, unless and until the duly-elected officials legally pass tax laws. These tax laws then COST the INDIVIDUAL hard-earned money.
This is pure brainwashing to dupe individuals into believing that their hard-earned dollars belong to the government. This is not news reporting, but totalitarian propaganda.
Let us say here what is really happening: "Adding a new tax on health benefits would be a ready source of revenue to pay for only a fraction of the cost of the proposed government-run health care system, while discouraging private alternatives, especially among small businesses for whom providing health benefits become un-affordable. Taxing the untaxed health benefits of workers can bring in $150 billion per year, and more than $200 billion per year if payroll taxes are included in the calculation, to provide money for the politicians to spend instead of us."
"Everything is on the table, including the tax treatment of health care plans," said Baucus. Limiting the tax exclusion for health benefits would be a ready source of revenue. The current exclusion costs the federal government $150 billion per year in revenue and more than $200 billion per year if payroll taxes are included in the calculation." (emphasis mine)
Since when does not taxing individuals COST the government anything? From reading this you would think that the government pays people money by not taxing them. Let's get something straight here. Taxes cost individuals money. Not taxing individuals costs the government nothing.
It is not a "cost" when the politicians do not get their rotten hands on the money that rightly belongs to individuals, unless and until the duly-elected officials legally pass tax laws. These tax laws then COST the INDIVIDUAL hard-earned money.
This is pure brainwashing to dupe individuals into believing that their hard-earned dollars belong to the government. This is not news reporting, but totalitarian propaganda.
Let us say here what is really happening: "Adding a new tax on health benefits would be a ready source of revenue to pay for only a fraction of the cost of the proposed government-run health care system, while discouraging private alternatives, especially among small businesses for whom providing health benefits become un-affordable. Taxing the untaxed health benefits of workers can bring in $150 billion per year, and more than $200 billion per year if payroll taxes are included in the calculation, to provide money for the politicians to spend instead of us."
Monday, May 4, 2009
The "Tax Break" Lie
Take the headline to the Reuters news story "Obama Seeks End of Tax Breaks for US Firms Overseas" that just appeared on the CNBC website. As my buddy Nikhil Akkaraju points out, creative wording can effectively brainwash the reader or listener.
Take, for example, the term "tax break," This is a term which projects socialist thinking into the mind of the listener.
It implies that everyone owes taxes, and that the government, or some politician in the government, somehow gives people, or takes away from them, a "break" from the taxes we are forced by legislation to pay. The mentioned headline makes our current leader a champion who eliminates any of these undeserved "breaks" for some businesses. This is semantic bullshit.
In reality, our president simply wishes to tax us more. So say it.
So let's word this correctly: "Obama Seeks to Tax US Firms Overseas."
And watch out for other socialist catch phrases like "affordable housing" (housing for those who can't afford it) and references to "the less fortunate" (implying wealth comes from luck rather than sweat).
Take, for example, the term "tax break," This is a term which projects socialist thinking into the mind of the listener.
It implies that everyone owes taxes, and that the government, or some politician in the government, somehow gives people, or takes away from them, a "break" from the taxes we are forced by legislation to pay. The mentioned headline makes our current leader a champion who eliminates any of these undeserved "breaks" for some businesses. This is semantic bullshit.
In reality, our president simply wishes to tax us more. So say it.
So let's word this correctly: "Obama Seeks to Tax US Firms Overseas."
And watch out for other socialist catch phrases like "affordable housing" (housing for those who can't afford it) and references to "the less fortunate" (implying wealth comes from luck rather than sweat).
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Both parties to blame
Having blasted the new tyrannical administration set up by Barack Hussein Obama and his fellow Democrats, I will now make a statement which will surprise many.
The political party I fear the most is the Republican Party.
Why? Because the Republican Party SHOULD be the opposition party to this excessive spending and debt, and especially to tyranny resulting from the infringement of the rights of the citizenry of this nation. However, Republicans have abandoned capitalism in favor of a watered-down socialism rather than the blatant socialism of the Democrats. A vote for a Republican is no longer a vote for capitalism. We know where the Democrats are coming from, and we know what to expect from them. It is the socialism of the Republicans, the alleged "opposition party," which is the frightening reality.
When the provisions for an ungodly massive debt were being passed through Congress, Republicans were there feasting on the spoils. Earmarked funds were carefully arranged by them for their pet projects, and the pact was made with the devil.
The day is coming when Democrats will successfully finish the abolition of our Constitution and its accompanying Bill of Rights, and effectively remove our rights from public policy, when our free speech is taken away along with our guns, when the president will become the CEO of all business in the nation, when hospitals will all be government hospitals on the same par as charity and veterans' hospitals are today, when control of everything is finally in the hands of the government. Then, when the Republicans come back into power, they will NOT return these rights to the people. They will do as they have done in the past. They will enjoy the usurped rights as politicians, and a change of agenda will be the only change--the mechanisms of tyranny, being in place, will be merely exercised for conservative purposes rather than leftist ones. But the socialism and tyranny will remain.
The political party I fear the most is the Republican Party.
Why? Because the Republican Party SHOULD be the opposition party to this excessive spending and debt, and especially to tyranny resulting from the infringement of the rights of the citizenry of this nation. However, Republicans have abandoned capitalism in favor of a watered-down socialism rather than the blatant socialism of the Democrats. A vote for a Republican is no longer a vote for capitalism. We know where the Democrats are coming from, and we know what to expect from them. It is the socialism of the Republicans, the alleged "opposition party," which is the frightening reality.
When the provisions for an ungodly massive debt were being passed through Congress, Republicans were there feasting on the spoils. Earmarked funds were carefully arranged by them for their pet projects, and the pact was made with the devil.
The day is coming when Democrats will successfully finish the abolition of our Constitution and its accompanying Bill of Rights, and effectively remove our rights from public policy, when our free speech is taken away along with our guns, when the president will become the CEO of all business in the nation, when hospitals will all be government hospitals on the same par as charity and veterans' hospitals are today, when control of everything is finally in the hands of the government. Then, when the Republicans come back into power, they will NOT return these rights to the people. They will do as they have done in the past. They will enjoy the usurped rights as politicians, and a change of agenda will be the only change--the mechanisms of tyranny, being in place, will be merely exercised for conservative purposes rather than leftist ones. But the socialism and tyranny will remain.
Defense of the Right of Free Speech
Now free speech will soon be clamped down on, violating the First Amendment of the now-defunct Constitution of the United States. New Pentagon appointee Rosa Brooks is now putting forth the idea of LICENSING THE PRESS! This is suggested in an effort to maintain the "quality" of journalism.
Just to remind those tyrants who intend to take this right away from me and from all other Americans who defy the tyranny of the current government, here is the original text of the Constitution which you have defiled:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I remind you enemies of the free State that the Presidency does not have the right to legislate at all, much less to set policies which infringe on the rights of the citizens. We live in a republic, NOT a mob-rule democracy.
Take the presses away, take the Internet away, take my pen and paper, and I will still write in defiance of this government which is usurping American freedom, and I will do so in my own blood on oak leaves if I have to.
Just to remind those tyrants who intend to take this right away from me and from all other Americans who defy the tyranny of the current government, here is the original text of the Constitution which you have defiled:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I remind you enemies of the free State that the Presidency does not have the right to legislate at all, much less to set policies which infringe on the rights of the citizens. We live in a republic, NOT a mob-rule democracy.
Take the presses away, take the Internet away, take my pen and paper, and I will still write in defiance of this government which is usurping American freedom, and I will do so in my own blood on oak leaves if I have to.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Several millions of Americans protested yesterday against increased national debt, yet Newsweek, CNN, ABC News, and MSNBC websites do not mention it--as though it simply didn't happen. The CBS News site only mentions it in passing.
People will still try to claim that the American media is not biased.
People will still try to claim that the American media is not biased.
My comment for today, in the wake of the tax protests of millions of Americans yesterday, is to simply quote Neil Boortz:
Obama says that Americans need a "government that is working to create jobs and opportunity for them, rather than simply giving more and more to those at the very top in the false hope that wealth will trickle down."
Obama says that Americans need a "government that is working to create jobs and opportunity for them, rather than simply giving more and more to those at the very top in the false hope that wealth will trickle down."
No, no and hell no. It is not the role of the government to create jobs for people. There is this little thing called the private sector that is far more capable of providing jobs for people. But the more you tax the small business owners and the entrepreneurs and the evil rich ... the more jobs government is going to create, because it is squeezing out the private sector! Also ... and do I really need to say this? ... the government doesn't "give" to those at the very top. Those at the very top EARN. They ACHIEVE! The government doesn't GIVE to them .. the government TAKES from them .... And then gives to those at the bottom and call it tax cuts.
"Squeezing out the private sector" is the goal of socialists and communists. The real agenda should be self-evident here.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Friday, April 3, 2009
Once the Democrats gain control of our arms (through gun control), our money (through bank and insurance takeovers), our transportation (through auto company takeovers), and our free speech (by politically targeting journalists and smearing critics like "Joe the Plumber"--and maybe eventually, me) what freedom will we have left?
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Today, the crooked and idiotic islamocommunist we dumbass Americans elected as our president had the gall to say that instead of terrorism, India and Pakistan should focus on their common enemy of poverty.
What kind of idiocy is this? Mr. Obama speaks here with the voice of a pampered American who does not have to worry (yet) about getting blown up while going shopping as most Indians have to do today. What kind of fool thinks that poverty is a greater threat to India's stability than violence? Or thinks that getting Indians and Pakistanis together to hold hands and sing songs (or worse, do a similar type of "community organizing" of Obama's pre-election days, and create a welfare class in the Indian subcontinent as well) will somehow end Pakistani-sponsored terrorism? Is violence in India merely the product of poverty, as our idiotic leader seems to think? Are the religio-political factors to be swept under the carpet since they do not fit with the political correctness of the U.S. Democratic party, the Congress Party of India, or the Pakistani government?
The introduction of capitalism to India in the early 1990's has brought about the most prosperity that India has experienced since independence. By tapping into the talent of Indians, this economic change has put India in the ranks of a growing world power. This capitalism, until now, was the backbone of the American system which produced the prosperity Americans have enjoyed for generations and which propelled the U.S. into a top global position.
It is this same capitalistic sytem which has catapulted Indian Americans into the highest ranks in American society today.
Now Obama wants to deprive Indians and Indian-Americans from experiencing that prosperity by bringing socialism to the United States instead of capitalism to India. Wasn't socialism the course India has tried for the last several decades and which failed to alleviate poverty? Now blocks are being set up for Indians to get H1B visas, and U.S. companies will be penalized for hiring Indians. If the company is a victim of government takover, no H1B workers will be hired (though I suspect Mexican and Central American illegals will continue to do manual labor and janitorial work for the U.S. government owned companies).
Yes, Obama wants to bring the same socialism (or worse) into the United States, by attacking journalists who exercise their right to free speech, by limiting our right to bear arms, by gaining complete control over money and finances by bank takeovers, by taking over the automobile manufacturers, and by buying out failing companies with our tax dollars and setting them up as government-managed companies, with a new CEO in the oval office.
What kind of idiocy is this? Mr. Obama speaks here with the voice of a pampered American who does not have to worry (yet) about getting blown up while going shopping as most Indians have to do today. What kind of fool thinks that poverty is a greater threat to India's stability than violence? Or thinks that getting Indians and Pakistanis together to hold hands and sing songs (or worse, do a similar type of "community organizing" of Obama's pre-election days, and create a welfare class in the Indian subcontinent as well) will somehow end Pakistani-sponsored terrorism? Is violence in India merely the product of poverty, as our idiotic leader seems to think? Are the religio-political factors to be swept under the carpet since they do not fit with the political correctness of the U.S. Democratic party, the Congress Party of India, or the Pakistani government?
The introduction of capitalism to India in the early 1990's has brought about the most prosperity that India has experienced since independence. By tapping into the talent of Indians, this economic change has put India in the ranks of a growing world power. This capitalism, until now, was the backbone of the American system which produced the prosperity Americans have enjoyed for generations and which propelled the U.S. into a top global position.
It is this same capitalistic sytem which has catapulted Indian Americans into the highest ranks in American society today.
Now Obama wants to deprive Indians and Indian-Americans from experiencing that prosperity by bringing socialism to the United States instead of capitalism to India. Wasn't socialism the course India has tried for the last several decades and which failed to alleviate poverty? Now blocks are being set up for Indians to get H1B visas, and U.S. companies will be penalized for hiring Indians. If the company is a victim of government takover, no H1B workers will be hired (though I suspect Mexican and Central American illegals will continue to do manual labor and janitorial work for the U.S. government owned companies).
Yes, Obama wants to bring the same socialism (or worse) into the United States, by attacking journalists who exercise their right to free speech, by limiting our right to bear arms, by gaining complete control over money and finances by bank takeovers, by taking over the automobile manufacturers, and by buying out failing companies with our tax dollars and setting them up as government-managed companies, with a new CEO in the oval office.
"I am a strong believer in the ability of the free market to generate wealth and prosperity that’s shared across the board." - Barack Hussein Obama
---
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” - Margaret Thatcher
--------------------------------
---
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” - Margaret Thatcher
--------------------------------
Living in the USSA, the Obama nation--more socialist by the day .
Instead of asking, "What can we do to fairly bail out AIG?" let's ask "Why the hell are we bailing out AIG?"
Can we not learn a lesson here? The AIG directors failed miserably, and the government proves them to still be far more competent at running a company than the damned members of Congress are. After botching up AIG, do Americans want the government in charge of HEALTH CARE now? Are we Americans that stupid?
If the government is going to get involved in running free market businesses, why only buy out the losers? Why not buy out Google or some successful company so we can MAKE money instead of wasting it? (Know that I am joking here. We all know what would happen to Google in the hands of our incompetent politicians. In fact. let's sell our government to Google instead. Our debt will be reduced, but we will have to be damned sure Pelosi, Dodd, and the other crooks don't get bonuses on their way out.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)