Home

Niki was right!

05/01/2016

Brian Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

The “quote” from Nikita Khrushchev to the UN on September 29, 1959 is yet again circulating the web and e-mails. Aside from there being no evidence he actually said it, at least not directly (and the banging of his shoe is complete fabrication) I have no doubt the sentiment has always been there. Some reliable evidence suggests his quote was more indirect. In fact, I would suggest it was (and is still) their (Russians in this case) plan A. Plan B (a simultaneous action) being a slow, methodical (but more obvious) military takeover of the world. Plan B is not going quite as well as desired at the moment. Plan A? Well you decide…

For those that remember well all the pontifications about it at the time (no, I was not around!) and remember laughing at what he said… I bet you’re not laughing anymore! At least I HOPE not.

Here is the more reliable “quote” as circulated at the time (and since):

“We cannot expect the Americans to jump from capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving Americans small doses of socialism until they suddenly awake to find they have Communism.” – Soviet Leader Nikita Khrushchev, 1959

Personally I think Socialism is worse than Communism but that is for another time.

Now I’m not suggesting any particular politician (I’ll leave it to Nikita to call them “leaders”) were (are?) assisted by Russia. I’m just say’n…

Per the Oxford Dictionary of English, Socialism is: “A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.” [bold, italics mine] A sub definition [ibid]: “Policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism.” [again, bold, italics, underline mine].

Apparently Bernie Sanders believes we are there. And who am I to argue with a U.S. Senator (at least when they are right).

On the other hand, according to Mises Institute, “Sanders is wrong about the New Deal ‘putting people to work’ since their government-funded activity did nothing to create wealth or end the [D]expression. The Depression lasted until 1945. And the New Deal certainly isn’t ‘the foundation of the middle class’ which grew and thrived in the second half of the 19th century. However, when he classifies the New Deal programs that dominate US policy today as “socialist,” Sanders is absolutely correct.”

It always sounds good on paper, especially when the liberal media adds its two-cents. But it never actually works out that way.

The Mises Institute also states: “To get a sense of what has constituted socialism, historically speaking, it is a mistake to rely on Marxism as the benchmark. Marxism was just one type of socialism in the 19th century, and it failed to gain traction in western Europe. Part of this is because, by the mid-19th century, it was already becoming clear that the predictions of Marxism were wrong. The ownership of capital was not becoming more concentrated. It was becoming more diffuse. The working classes were not descending into a wretched proletariat in western Europe. They were experiencing gains in their standard of living.”

It was for a time also the case on “this side of the pond”; further research showing the application to the U.S. as well. However, we now ARE getting that more concentrated capital (although not to the extent Marx predicted – YET). But the concentration is being caused by the power brokers implementing SOCIALISM, no longer allowing for the diffusion created by CAPITALISM. Why? Well… interestingly enough:

“But socialism isn’t just about cash transfer payment. It’s largely about government regulation, which is where the New Deal was most revolutionary. As political scientist Theda Skocpol pointed out years ago in her research (most especially in her book Protecting Soldiers and Mothers) the US has had “welfare” going back to the 19th century. What was most different about the New Deal — other than its scale — was how it took a largely unregulated economic system and imposed a massive amount of new regulation on property owners in the form of laws related to wages, labor, prices, and more. Arguably, this sort of regulation is far more damaging than mere cash transfers since it directly impedes the creation of wealth before it can even be redistributed.” [ibid]

So, our current state of Socialism? Let’s take a look…
*Medicare, *Medicaid, *Social Security, *Healthcare (ACA as only the latest example), *Public schools funded by the Federal government, *Government college grants, scholarships, and loans, *FDA, *EPA, *HUD, *EBT/ Food stamps, *Minimum wage, *Unemployment insurance, *40-hour work week, *Deposit insurance, *Job programs, *etc. etc. etc. (actually this is just the short list – the VERY short list.)

Hey, what said we combine both redistribution AND massive regulation and see how many lives we can destroy.

Don’t get me wrong. People, from time to time need help. However, I think if we mention that to the “more than 1.5 million nonprofit organizations [that] are registered in the U.S.” [according to the National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS)], we might get the problem solved without government involvement (and might I add bureaucratic expense and interference?).

While I completely agree that government has its place, in the United States of America that place is supposedly (used to be) defined by the Constitution. Leaving aside the completely absurd argument that the Preamble defines the responsibilities of the Federal government (i.e., the results of suggesting “…in Order to form a more perfect Union, … promote the general Welfare….” defines ANYTHING the fed is allowed to do), the Constitution defines specific enumerated responsibilities (defined in Section 8 – the remainder primarily defining how it is to do them). Unfortunately, “…promote the general Welfare…”, while intended to explain the WHY of the Federal government vice the WHAT, apparently allows for anything and everything the Federal government wants to force upon us.

Welcome to Socialism. I think we are there. And a sad state of affairs to be sure…

>>> The day is at a close, the night is drawing in and my cigar awaits – ’til next time…

***The New Dark Ages Cometh

06/16/2013

Brian Sunday Posts , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Watched Robin Hood yesterday. The 2010 film starring Russell Crowe.  I was getting ideas for the days that come.

At the beginning of the movie the declaration read: “In times of tyranny and injustice when law oppresses the people, the outlaw takes his place in history.  England at the turn of the 12th Century was such a time.”  The United States at the beginning of the 21st is as well.  Much of the rest of the world is already there.

King John was at the end of the old Dark Ages… we are at the beginning of the new.

King John was an incompetent, lying, coward in well above his head. Ring any bells?  The United States currently has an Executive Branch that reminds me a lot of King John.  Like King John, blaming everything on its predecessor and declaring everything it does is owed them and necessary to fix the problems left by others.  The IRS, NSA, Justice Department, … – are they fixing the problems or causing them.

It is not just the current Executive Branch at the Federal level that gives me pause.  The Legislature as well is taking us down the path of tyranny.  Also cowards, but more are leading than following.  The administration as a whole is a puppet…  a puppet of the forces of the party.  Some of these forces operate within the government and sit in positions of power in the Legislature.  Others run things from the background preferring anonymity and deniability.  But culpable none-the-less – even more so since they are pulling the strings.

As well, let us not leave out the State and local governments.  Not to be outdone, many are jumping on the bandwagon of tyranny and oppression.  Even further restricting the rights of their people and/or stealing their means of support through taxation.

That said, I heard over the past week that the U.S. is becoming a single party system (don’t remember who said it).  Not one in name, but in philosophy.  In action.  The Progressive Party.  Not official.  Doesn’t need to be.  Based on “official” party ideologies alone many of these actions could not be taken.  The House and the Senate should be at odds.  But they are not.  The official parties are separate.  The House “led” by one, the Senate by the other.  The, theoretically, underlying ideologies are separate. The actions of the members are not.  Regardless of the party, they are justifying oppression in the name of progression and diversity.  Each and every action taken of late, regardless of party affiliation is socialist.  From firearms to religious freedom to taxation to illegal immigration and border security to…  I could go on and on.  A few will be discussed below.  Others at a later date.  Regardless, we are a Socialist nation.  Becoming, as they all do, more and more oppressive in the name of “protecting” the people (not to mention ensuring their feelings aren’t hurt).

Of course the protection of the people, as is necessary for tyranny to reign, comes in the form of denying them the means to protect themselves (outlawing firearms), denying them a belief in a higher being – in anything other than the secular ruler – (i.e., religious freedom), and taxing them past the limit of capacity to “provide” for the “needs” of the whole.  To name just of few of the tyrannical acts being perpetrated on the American people of late.

The old saying goes, “If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns” is getting closer and closer to reality.  Every new crime committed with a firearm is being used to outlaw more and more of our right and ability to protect ourselves.  On this subject, I defy anyone to provide concrete, empirical data that supports the idea that taking guns from law abiding people reduces the amount of crime perpetrated by those that use them for evil purposes.  One would think that if such proof existed it would be used to back up the actions taken to deny us guns.  However, the “arguments” used are all based on emotion and sensationalism.  Legitimate study after legitimate study, in this country and around the world, proves just the opposite.  As well, every study conducted on the subject demonstrates that when confronted with a firearm in the hands of their potential victim, the perpetrator flees.  Legitimate studies (I keep using that term to differentiate from those “studies” conducted or charted by anti-gun individuals and organizations – the typical study skewed by the questions and illegitimate statistical “analysis” of the results) have shown far more lives are saved each year in the U.S. by the use of a firearm in defense than taken by those committing crimes.  Every one!  I’m sick and tired of having to hear it.  I’m sick and tired of having to say it.  I’m sick and tired of it being ignored!

The new health care laws are pushing further and further into the area of religious belief and forcing both religious “organizations” and privately owned companies to go against their beliefs to comply with the law.  Our government is placing more and more restrictions on individuals and organizations in the name of socialism.  Not only are they severely restricting what is defined as a “religious” organization in order to force this health care plan (something, by the way, we don’t even need and does not in any way fulfill the illegitimate promises made), but are denying privately owned companies from making their own decisions based on their own moral convictions.  We cannot have individual moral convictions.  We may only believe those things that comply with the socialist ideals of Progression and Diversity.  Anything else in their minds is anarchy!  Heaven forbid we have our own beliefs.  Beliefs that have stood the test of time and more often than not have been of benefit to all.  Oh, sorry… am I allowed to say “Heaven forbid” or might I offend someone?  I’m sure in the times to come, regardless of the fact that people have a choice as to whether or not to read my prose, I will be forbidden from uttering such words.

“More taxes” is the battle cry of the weak.  The battle cry of those that have no clue of the way economics and monetary policy works.  Every time taxes are lowered to a reasonable level (yes, the government DOES need funding for legitimate purposes), the coffers of the government increase.  One would think the liberals would want lower taxes.  It would give them more money to waste.  The problem with that is they don’t want more money to waste.  In reality they are not after our money.  It is just the tool used for control.  They want to control us.  For no other reason are our bank accounts being emptied.  And when they can’t empty them anymore, they borrow from our children and our children’s children.  Those yet to be born are already being controlled.  More and more of our fellow citizens are becoming unemployed.  You would think this a bad thing.  However, to the current tyrannical regime, it is what they want.  If you are unemployed you must seek assistance from somewhere.  Since more and more of your family, friends and neighbors are unemployed or under-employed as well, where does one turn?  More and more are on welfare.  More and more are on in the food stamp program.  More and more are being dragged, sadly even willingly, under the yoke of government programs.

These are of course just a few of the issues being perpetrated upon us.  Add them to those of our own making (or at least the making of our fellow citizens). Those such as the large number of men that are too cowardly to stand up and be fathers – those that think being a man is having the ability to get a girl pregnant.  It is not.  Boys can do that.  Men are those that ensure the legitimacy of their relationship with their women and stick around to take care of her and her child.  How about – two years after the birth of an unplanned child, about one third of mothers living with the father [i.e., unmarried] have ended the relationship, compared to only 7% of married mothers.  Does this matter…  Considering the majority of those end up on welfare and in poverty I would say it does.  The median annual income for female-headed households with children under six years old is roughly one-fourth that of two-parent families.  Enough stats…  MAN UP!  btw:  Congratulations on this Father’s Day to those of you man enough to be heads of your households and provide for and lead your family.

This leads to, but is not the only contributing factor, unwed (especially teen) mothers.  Nearly 40% of all births in the United States were to unmarried women in 2007 (I’m sure there are newer statistics but that makes the point – it is getting consistently worse each year though).  Almost half (48%) of all non-marital first births are to teen parents.

There is much more contributing to our fall into darkness.  I’ve discussed apathy…  We will leave it at those for now.

Robin Hood said, “In tyranny lies only failure. Empower every man and you will gain strength.”  This line fell on the deaf ears of King John.  It would fall on the deaf ears of the powers-that-be of today as well.  They, as he, don’t understand.  They, as he, are too cowardly to share power.

Bottom line of all this:  We still have a chance but I do not see us taking it.  Soon the opportunity will have slipped away.  Nay, be given away by our inaction.  We are heading for the New Dark Ages.  You heard it here first.  I will not accept surprise when it happens.  Be prepared!

I’m not sure yet what form this New Dark Age will take.  I will contemplate this and consider enlightening you in the future (knowledge is after all, power! – well, that and good quality firearms!).  With technology in the picture and more and more being controlled by the government it will be difficult for anyone to combat.  We will not exactly be able to jump on horses, draw our swords and battle the king’s forces (although learn to ride and use a sword so far has been my advice).  In the old Dark Ages little real difference existed between the king and a pauper.  As stated by Robin in the movie, “There is no difference between a knight and any other man aside from what he wears.”  Not so much now.

Have we yet hit the last straw?  No, but we are close.  What can we do?  As stated on the hilt of the sword, “Rise and Rise Again until Lambs Become Lions”.  It will become more difficult but, for those of you that don’t mind a little blood, maybe exciting.  The question for now is, what will you do?

>>> The day is at a close, the night is drawing in and my cigar awaits – ’til next time…

Entitlements

03/31/2013

Brian Sunday Posts , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

The definition of entitlement from the Encarta Dictionary: English (North America) “to give somebody the right to have or to do something” [emphasis mine].  Merriam-Webster defines it as “a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also: funds supporting or distributed by such a program” [again, emphasis mine].

What truly are entitlements as the term applies to our daily lives?  According to A Glossary of Political Economy Terms by Paul M. Johnson of the Department of Political Science, Auburn University – the most important examples of entitlement programs at the federal level in the United States would include Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, most Veterans’ Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement plans, unemployment compensation, food stamps, and agricultural price support programs. Based on the definition above, the activities should not be called entitlements.

I would though argue that benefits such as Veterans’ Administration programs, federal employee and military retirement plans should not be included at all.  These programs were earned through employment – as are any such programs in the private sector.  Although programs such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are paid for by the eventual receiver of the benefit they are unconstitutional activities of the Federal Government.

Oft cited as justification for Entitlement programs is the “general Welfare of the United States” parts of the United States Constitution.  The Constitution contains two references to “the General Welfare”, one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution “has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its Departments.”  This leaves the Taxing and Spending Clause which reads, “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States…”.  However, while the “general Welfare” has been, and I agree should be, interpreted as many things, it says nothing of redistribution of wealth programs – exactly what these so called entitlements are.

Per the official Social Security website: “The constitutional issue about the taxing power had deep roots running all the way back to the founders and to a dispute between Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Although both Hamilton and Madison were Federalists who believed in a strong federal government, they disagreed over the interpretation of the Constitution’s permission for the government to levy taxes and spend money to ‘provide for the general welfare.’ Hamilton thought this meant that government could levy new taxes and undertake new spending if doing so improved the general welfare in a broad sense. Madison thought the federal government could only expend money for purposes specifically enumerated in the Constitution.  The Madisonian view, also shared by Thomas Jefferson [an Anti-Federalist], came in time to be known as the strict construction doctrine while the Hamiltonian view is called the doctrine of implied powers.”  Obviously I completely agree with Madison and Jefferson.  When you throw the 10th Amendment into the mix it makes little sense for the general welfare to be interpreted as Hamilton did.  IF, as he suggests, “government could levy new taxes and undertake new spending if doing so improved the general welfare in a broad sense”, thereby opening the door to those “implied powers”, it could basically do whatever it wanted.  It would operate with complete impunity.  Can you say $16T debt?  Can you say 10th Amendment disregarded?  Keep in mind, the 10th Amendment not only covers the States but “we the people” as well.  Considering it is not only our rights being ignored but our money used to pay for these programs, it may be something with which you should concern yourself.  Just a thougth…

According to Paul M. Johnson, “The existence of entitlement programs is mainly significant from a political economy standpoint because of the very difficult problems they create for Congress’s efforts to control the exact size of the budget deficit or surplus through the annual appropriations process.”  As well, “Since the middle 1980s, entitlement programs have accounted for more than half of all federal spending. Taken together with such other almost uncontrollable (in the short run, that is) expenses as interest payments on the national debt and the payment obligations arising from long-term contracts already entered into by the government in past years, entitlement programs leave Congress with no more than about 25% of the annual budget to be scrutinized for possible cutbacks through the regular appropriations process.”  This of course presupposes that you can’t touch such programs.  I have a revelation!  How about we get rid of these programs?  How about if people “need” assistance we leave it to the States (should any individual State choose to have such programs), private charity or family/friends.  Wow, what a concept.  I cannot take credit for it though.  It was around for thousands of years prior to our Entitlement programs being implemented.

Bottom line:  this is a pure and simple redistribution of wealth which boils down to legalized (and unconstitutional) theft.  They are taking money from one to give to another.  The first receives no compensation or benefit from the “transaction”.  As well, per the Merriam-Webster definition of “a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group”, one can hardly argue that it is providing “for the … general Welfare of the United States”.  These programs are providing for specific groups of people that fit specific criteria.
That is NOT the general welfare of our country directly or indirectly!  For those that doubt, we will take a look at the Broken Window Theory at a future date.

I went through the Constitution (again!) to look for rationale above and beyond that normally claimed to support these programs.  I found none.  However, what I DID find were violations of MY rights (and yours).  Since those that come up with these ideas seem bent on interpreting the Constitution in any way they see fit, I am going to throw out these arguments as I see them (two can play at that game).

Taking my money to pay for unearned entitlements for others, and, in fact, specific groups such as the poor and farmers, violates my 4th Amendment rights.  That is, it violates my right to “be secure in [my] … effects, against unreasonable … seizures…”  In this case, taking my money to give to someone else is in effect seizing my “effects” (no pun intended).  It is unreasonable since I receive no benefit from the seizure and have no say in either how much is taken or to whom it is given.  In fact, I actually become less secure in my person and house since I have less money with which to secure family and myself.  In a similar vein, this would also violate my 5th Amendment rights.  These being “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”  In this case we are not even talking about “private property be[ing] taken for public use”.  The money (property) they are taking from me is designated for specific groups, not to be used for the public.  Due process of law means “a fundamental, constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the government acts to take away one’s life, liberty, or property. Also, a constitutional guarantee that a law shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.”  This specifically applies to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” (i.e., ME!) and, while specified in the 5th Amendment this applies to States as well per the 14th.

I am also going to claim my 8th Amendment rights have been violated.  My claim in this is that since this amendment does not claim to be specific to criminals (as may be presumed by its wording), it is applicable to every citizen.  Therefore, this theft of my funds is an “…excessive fines imposed…” which results in “…cruel and unusual punishments inflicted”.  I am being unduly punished by having my money taken, again with no benefit to me, and reducing my standard of living.

Additionally I am claiming a violation of my 10th Amendment rights.  This of course is the amendment that ensures “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  I am “the people”.  While I might agree that many of these programs could be enacted and implemented at the State level (should the people of that State so choose and it is done so in a manner so as not to violate my 14th Amendment rights), until then, and as long as it is the Federal government doing it, I am being denied my constitutional rights.  I have all those rights not enumerated in Article I, Section 8.

I am finally claiming my 13th Amendment rights are violated.  As I’m sure you will recall, this amendment states, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”  I am claiming that this theft of my funds amounts to involuntary servitude.  I work and do not receive the entire benefit of my labor.  The time I must work to earn that which is taken to redistribute is involuntary servitude.  I have committed no crime.  Why am I being punished?

On the other hand, since we technically live in a Representative Democracy, we may as well just scrap the Constitution (Articles I and II excepted since in order to be a Representative Democracy, you need representatives) and let our duly elected representatives (Congress and the President) enact any laws they wish.  If we don’t like it, we just elect new ones and have them change it.  Based on the treatment of the Constitution over the last 50-60 years (to a more limited extent even longer), we are effectively doing this anyway.  Why not save the money being paid to the Judicial Branch and just scrap it?  No Constitution, no need to interpret it, no need for a Supreme Court (and all the support structure that goes with it).  Per the United States Courts website, “the Judiciary as a whole would receive $6.76 billion” in fiscal year 2012.  More for those Entitlement programs!

You may claim these arguments are silly, unrealistic or just plain ridiculous.  However, keep in mind, when we look at an application of our Constitution based on moving standards vice the original intent of the drafters and common sense, we can eventually make it say virtually anything we want.  Did I say “virtually”?  hmmmmmm

>>> The day is at a close, the night is drawing in and my cigar awaits – ’til next time…

Slaves and Citizens

02/27/2013

Brian Random Thoughts , , , , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

Here’s a thought: how about we stop worrying about the differences between the rich and the poor and just focus on helping the poor not be poor.  This cannot be achieved via redistribution of the wealth of those that earned it to pay for welfare, food stamps, government dictated medical care and other gifts to those that did not.    This creates slaves, not citizens.  Slaves ever in debt morally to the government and the people paying for those handouts.  It CAN be achieved by allowing the rich to use their resources to create employment for the poor. This allows people to get out of the cycle of slavery and enter the ranks of true citizens.  Citizens proud they are able to provide for themselves and those reliant on them.

Unfortunately our current state of Socialism won’t allow this.  It is more concerned with equality for everyone than prosperity for anyone.  Since it is pretty much impossible for all of us to be rich (I certainly am not – and barring winning the lottery, will never be), the Socialist’s solution is to take the money away from the rich and just give it to the poor (the distribution being controlled by the Socialist elite of course).  One thing the Socialists in power don’t seem to get, the rich eventually run out of money or leave the country with what they have while they still have it.  The result being that we all end up poor.  Who pays then?  What a country!

Probably more on this later…

>>> The day is at a close, the night is drawing in and my cigar awaits – ’til next time…