Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Class Warfare Works Both Ways

President Obama is trying to create a culture of makers vs. takers in this country, using the unauthorized force of government to redistribute wealth from the ones who produce it to the ones who don't. What he doesn't understand is that wealth redistributes itself! What does he think the rich do with their money? Smoke it? No, they spend it! They invest it! That spending and investing creates jobs, creates wealth, and distributes it to those who need it and want it. It isn't rocket science. Of course, it does mean that everyone has to contribute something to society in order to get a piece of the pie. Just by participating in the free market, I'm paying my "fair share". Slackers get bupkis.

Don't. Stop. Thief.
I'm not rich. I'm not even halfway to the magic $250,000.00 or whatever annual income it is that supposedly makes one rich. But I do not condone taking by force what anyone else has rightfully earned. That's called theft, and it's illegal unless you're the government. And it isn't sustainable. Too bad the takers won't even understand what caused the economic death spiral we're facing. No doubt, they'll blame it on the steadily diminishing "rich", whomever they are. In a shrinking economy, everyone has to work harder just to stay even, including the takers, who will be getting less money for nothing. In the end, the only rich people will be government employees and holders of high office -- who produce nothing, just like it was back in the USSR. I'm afraid there's no way to fix this at the ballot box anymore. The makers will have to subvert the establishment.

This class warfare works both ways. I work hard to obtain enough wealth to get what I need, and maybe a little more to enjoy life, and maybe put something away to live comfortably in my declining years. I will be most resentful of those who sabotage the economy by encouraging government forcibly to redistribute my earnings to someone who thinks they're entitled simply because I'm more industrious, more talented, luckier, or less lazy than they are. I'll happily and voluntarily share what I can afford with anyone who is down on their luck, and doesn't think I owe them anything. But the ungrateful takers can kiss my jump in a lake. I'm not uncharitable, but I'm no chump, either.

Update: Denny reminded me of this:
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”
~ Robert A. Heinlein

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

The Long March Through the Institutions

I frequently refer to "The Long March Through the Institutions", a phrase variously attributed to Antonio Gramsci, Rudi Dutschke, and possibly others who wished to establish Marxism (communism, socialism, 'progressivism' and all the other illiberal-isms) to replace classical liberalism as the dominant social and cultural norm.

Antonio Gramsci was a socialist around the turn of the 20th century. He said Americans would never accept socialism in a full frontal assault. We'd reject it. He said socialists would have to embark on "a long march through the institutions", to infiltrate the schools, the media, the churches, the bureaucracies, the unions and so on. They did that, and 100 years later, here we are, as evidenced by the 2012 election, which I believe would have been a landslide repudiation of Barack Obama a mere 20 years ago. 

The long socialist march through the institutions is complete, especially in the schools and in the media. The unions didn't need much infiltration, because they already had an entitlement mentality. The churches were tougher, because they actually taught virtue as their primary mission, but the socialists have at least managed to marginalize religion in public, and convince the faithful to ignore politics as a worldly, secular thing -- so they don't vote in numbers large enough to matter.

If we classical liberals want this country back, we are going to have to start our own long march through the institutions. We'll have to take the long view. It could take 100 years. It will require patience and perseverance. If we lose our focus, we'll lose. But as I see it, that's the only way out. I have been in denial since Ronald Reagan left office. The 2012 election jarred me back to reality, and reality bites.

It won't be enough to home school our kids, or to establish charter schools. Public schools, state universities and the Ivy League are the mainstream, and we have to infiltrate them, despite the fact that their current power structure is overtly hostile to our world view. That is precisely what Gramsci suggested, and it is precisely what we must do. It will be difficult. It will be slow. 

Liberty is maximized when self-determination rules. Too far left or too far right is oppressive. (Not to scale.)
We have to be audacious, and keep flinging classical liberal principles at the wall, knowing that they probably won't stick at first. But we have to keep throwing them up there faster than the socialists can scrape them off. In so doing, we will gradually move the window of acceptability back towards the center, where it belongs. That is precisely what the left have been doing (toward the left) for at least 50 years -- have you noticed? Audacity! The best defense is a good offense. It is the only thing that works, but it takes patience. 

Now... how do we infiltrate the institutions and begin our march? I don't know yet. But I do know that people by their very nature, just want to be free. This should be an easier sell than socialism. We are the new anti-establishment! Let's roll!


Sunday, November 18, 2012

Twinkies Will Live On

Twinkies will live on. I predict that someone in China will make them, that's all. People keep blaming corporations and greedy capitalists for sending jobs overseas. Nope, it's the greedy 'progressives' who make doing business in America so unprofitable that no right minded businessman would embark on such a fool's errand.

People like to say "okay, maybe unions are too powerful now, but they filled a need at one time". Nope, anyone who understands the free market knows that wages and prices float to the optimal value for goods and services as long as there is competition for those goods and services.

'Progressives' point to sweatshops and child labor as justification for ignoring economic laws. Markets exist only if people are willing to participate in them. Markets represent opportunities as well as risks. When I was in high school, I was looking for child labor. I found farm work. I would have preferred factory work. A "sweatshop" if you will.

If an employer exploits his workers, there is a price to pay. It turns out, that price was the formation of unions and government regulation instead of the natural and inevitable market correction. I think those artificial measures were poor solutions, for which we are paying dearly now.

There is no way that wages would ever float to zero. Think about it: Employers need workers to produce their product. Smart workers will naturally find the employers who will pay fair market value for their services. Stupid or lazy workers might keep working for sub-standard wages, but the employer gets what he pays for, doesn't he? And it's an incentive for the stupid or lazy workers to get smarter and become more industrious.

If the fair market value for labor ever went to zero (or even if it went below the ridiculous and arbitrary minimum wage set by government in complete ignorance of the fair market value), the work force would literally die off, or leave the country, and employers would have to start paying more if they wanted to stay in business. It is simply economic reality that they would ignore at their peril.

Similarly, it is also economic reality that wages may be lower than workers might want. They can try to ignore that reality by forming unions, striking, and using other strong-arm techniques to blackmail employers into paying more for their services, but reality doesn't take a vacation. Sometimes, reality bites. And now, reality has taken a big bite out of Hostess Twinkies.

The employer, overburdened with government regulations, including ObamaCare, union demands and a down economy, has gone under, resulting in the loss of an employer, the loss of thousands of jobs nationwide, including -- eventually -- secondary and tertiary ones in related businesses. And it has deprived millions of people of the simple, if unhealthy pleasure of eating a Twinkie. The union could have helped prevent this by accepting reality and reducing its demands. Instead, it killed the goose that lays the golden eggs, and for what?

Economic laws are as real as the laws of thermodynamics, which say there is no such thing as perpetual motion. Economic laws say there is no such thing as a free lunch. But not a day passes in which some 'inventor' claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine, or some 'progressive' claims to have discovered a free lunch. Economic stimulus, strikes, and minimum wage are the same as giving the perpetual motion machine a spin. It will coast for a while, but it soon grinds to a halt. It. Doesn't. Work. I blame the schools. Way to go, 'progressives'!

Monday, November 12, 2012

How Conveeenient!
General Petraeus' extramarital affair was discovered just in time to prevent his testimony over the Benghazi affair! How long have TheRegime™ been sitting on that information? Is this a great country or what? Well... I'm starting to have my doubts. I don't condone the General's dalliances, and this just goes to show that if you don't keep your nose (and other body parts) clean, it can severely compromise your effectiveness (be it good cop or bad cop).

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Which Is Worse?

Which is worse? The institutional racism of apartheid which we abolished in 1964, or the institutional racism of affirmative action, which we established at about the same time?

If the cultural racism exists that affirmative action is supposed to alleviate, it seems to me that racial quotas and preferences will do more to exacerbate this kind of racism that it will to stop it. We have all of The Constitution dedicated to equal justice -- if people would only follow it. We have a first amendment that allows people to crusade for equal justice. We have the tools, let's use them!

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Valerie Jarret, Obama’s Brain

“After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded; the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go.” 

I hope Barack Obama fails. Period. I don't want America to fail, which is why Barack Obama must fail. Valerie Jarret articulated his mission. She is the brains behind the Obama regime, just as Karl Rove was purported to be the brains behind the GW Bush regime. The difference is, I do not think Karl Rove ever made any statement like this one.

Jarret's words are not the words of a benevolent, principled, constitutionally limited representative republic. They are the words of a tyrannical and oppressive dictator. Echoing Jarret's sentiment, during the campaign Obama said, "voting is the best revenge". The liberty-minded had better gird their loins, and anyone who needs to survive financially (that's all of us not on government entitlements) had better get into hunker-down mode, because our own government is conducting an all-out war on us.

Barack Obama's first "pants on fire moment" was at his first inauguration, when he swore to uphold and defend The Constitution of the United States. A majority of American voters evidently think he should reprise that moment in January 2013. Folks, The Constitution can't uphold and defend itself. The best defense is a good offense.

It's up to us to sell the principles of liberty and freedom to the voters. I think it's an easier sell than the legalized theft that is socialism. We've already lost two or three generations, so it's time to get busy!

Tea Party: 0
Occupy Brats: 1

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Fool Me Once, Shame On You! Fool Me Twice, Shame On Me!

As I write this, Mitt Romney has conceded the election to Barack Hussein Obama. I actually thought Mitt Romney might have been the optimal candidate for our time. We were interviewing for the CEO (Chief Executive) of the United States. Romney has been a very successful executive in both public and private capacity. If anyone had the know-how to turn the economy around, it was Romney. And what he lacked in reverence for the founding principles, he more than made up for by nominating Paul Ryan for VP. Ryan is a great numbers guy too. They would have made a fantastic team. Sure, Ronald Reagan was possibly more personable, and had better instincts for the founding principles, but I think one could argue that Romney's and Ryan's talents might have been more pertinent to our present situation. I think it's a horrible loss to America that they weren't elected. Given that, and how astonishingly bad Barack Obama is, it is nothing less than disgraceful that those two didn't win by the biggest landslide in history.

For the last four years, I half believed the sign,

It is now abundantly clear that it wasn't a mistake, it was a deliberate self-inflicted bullet to the head.

Pundits kept saying that people bought the empty "hope and change" rhetoric, and giving him the benefit of the doubt, painted Barack Obama with their own hopes and aspirations. But now that they know who he really is, they'll reject him.

Well first of all, you would have to be willfully ignorant not to have known what Barack Obama was all about back in 2008. He wrote not one, but two "autobiographies" (most likely ghost written by none other than William Ayers), in which he described in agonizing detail exactly who he is. He hung out with the most radical racists, haters and criminals imaginable, not to mention profligate pot head slackers. You show me who your friends are, and I'll show you who you are, Barry.

But now that everyone knows who this Manchurian candidate is, we re-elected him anyway. The left excoriated Mitt Romney for saying that 47% of the citizenry were lost to him. It turns out, it is more like 51%. We now have more takers in this country than we have producers, and that is not sustainable. Can you say, "death spiral"? I knew you could...

Barack Obama is openly hostile to The Constitution, which will be nothing more than a formality in four more years (because after the election, he'll have "more flexibility"). Our Constitution can't uphold and defend itself. The fact that a majority of Americans would re-elect such a man tells me that more than half of us have no idea what it takes either.

Acting more imperial than presidential, Obama has already systematically rendered congress irrelevant, issuing rapid fire executive orders, and side-stepping every check and balance that stood in his way. The idea that more than 50% of the voters would make this man even less accountable to the people by awarding him a second term, is astounding. In four more years, this nation will be irreparably separated from the founding principles that made this the freest nation on earth.

The national debt and deficit will continue to rise, unchecked. Obama will appoint several more Supreme Court Justices (does "Justice Eric Holder" have a nice ring to it?), and of course the biggest assault on our economic and personal freedom -- ObamaCare -- will become writ in stone. We now have no chance to repeal it. And that just scratches the surface: we will get more of the same criminally negligent, if not malevolent policy such as the Fast and Furious gun running scandal, and of course, who could forget the murdered Americans in Benghazi? Their families sure won't.

Emperor Obama will continue to divide the nation by race and by class. At a campaign rally, he recently told his disciples that "voting is the best revenge". Revenge for what? Against whom? Against the people that made this nation the best hope for rags-to-riches on the planet? Against the people who made this nation the beacon for your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free? Those guys?

Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, you had a good run. It was nice knowing you, but don't let the screen door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Monday, November 5, 2012

Make The Best Choice, Not The Perfect Choice

We don't live in a perfect world. We don't have the perfect candidates. But one of two men will in fact become president. It is inescapable. So vote for one of them, and select the least bad, or the most good candidate that will actually win. I think Bill Whittle explains the situation as clearly as it can be explained.

You don't have to complete your entire ballot. You can leave parts of it blank if you don't know all the answers. There is no penalty for turning in an incomplete ballot, but there is a huge penalty for leaving a very bad man in office. That's what I'm talking about.

Sunday, November 4, 2012


It's environmentally friendly too, except for the horse! Horses are less sustainable than automobiles.