Tuesday, November 17, 2009

What we have here..

What is the economic system of America?

I can imagine the consternation of a well informed student attempting to answer that question for a class. One hundred years ago, he could have answered "capitalism" and been about 99% correct.

Today, what we have here is an unholy mixture - a small bit of capitalism, a heaping spoonful of socialism, and a liberal dousing of corporatism.

Capitalism is a politico-economic system in which property and specifically the means of any production are privately owned, and men deal with one another as traders - trading value for value.

Socialism places property under the (in name) ownership of the entire public, and production and value are distributed (by a few) in an equitable manner "to all" as determined by 'the few.'

Corporatism can exist in various forms along with socialism or capitalism, but is generally a deviant form of capitalism in which the government (which is supposed to be protecting the individual rights of the individual people) is in bed with various corporations (to the corporations' market advantage). IE the corporations by political "pull" with the government, use the force of the government to gain forcible advantage (or total control) in their market.

So, what we have here, is an ugly, smelly mixture. We take the one moral and effective system, capitalism, and create all manner of evil by enslaving individuals to the group "for the public good" - socialism. Then, since there is really no such thing as "the people" - just individuals - we naturally get not competition among private companies but rather competition among political pressure groups and between companies and even nations competing through political /legislative/regulatory pull within our own government. Competing for what? The summed productive value (eventually in terms of money) of all American individuals. A healthy chunk (taxes) of all production is confiscated from all the actual producers, then political groups war over dividing up that stolen pie and corporate powers buy and pressure government favor so as to be paid some of that pie by the government or be positioned via the power of the govt regulatory functions to obtain unfair market advantage so as to soak up (unfairly) the production of the nation that was left over after taxes. And thus we are enslaved to corporations (those which are in bed with the govt.)

And that's how we get what we have here.... A disintegrating realm of freedom, chiseled away on one side by enslavement to "the group - the public," and cut and mangled on the other side by forced enslavement to politically powerful corporate interests eager to loot some of that "public" money.

Be aware - those advocating socialism have and will continue to claim that corporatism IS capitalism or is inherent in capitalism. This isn't the case, but it's one of the reasons many well meaning people are confused about capitalism.

Here used to be a place of freedom and thus hope, and now, after just 80 or so years of misguided political and economic ideology, here is a place of decay, enslavement, unfathomable debt, disillusionment, confusion, corruption, and despair.

And this horrible horrible journey was all due to, at bottom, one single wrong idea.

God has ordained it, reason and an objective view of the nature of man confirms it, and the very nature of cause and effect will not disobey.

A man's life may not be made a means for another.

You can not build a friendship on the contrary view. You can not build a family. You can not build a nation.

And yet our media and nearly all in Washington go on, day after day, trying to make that simple truth untrue. If we just moderate our policies (based on that idea) a bit - compromise - THEN it'll work. No. 'We haven't gone far enough - if we just go ALL out and make EVERYONE a means for everyone else - THEN it'll work!' No.

The cloud of preconceptions, pressing crises of the moment, and a national ideological landscape smeared with the detritus of Kant and misunderstood religiosity make the application of such fundamentals entirely opaque to them.

This is what we have here..

Saturday, November 14, 2009

Veterans' Day

On this day of gratitude, celebration, and remembrance, sadly, we see even more clearly than usual, the moral confusion in the American mind. Think how often, on this day, you hear the glorification of sacrifice – over and over lauding the 'sacrifice' of the brave men and women who have served this country. It is clear from the manner in which the many media sources discuss the merit of these men and women, that, to them, it is the supposed sacrifice of the veterans' personal values which makes what they have done so admirable. It is again and again stressed how these service members gave up or disregarded their personal interests or values – IE. sacrificed their personal interests – for the sake of the nation. But is this really what these great men and women have done, or have they rather pursued a true prioritization of values, and is this not the fact that makes them so remarkable? Have they neglected a greater personal value and pursued the lesser personal value of protecting their country? Or rather, awesomely, have they truly held a greater personal value for the protection and preservation of this country and what that means for themselves, their fellow men (whom they value), and for their family?
These men and women are noble and worthy of admiration, not because they have disregarded their own interests for the sake of the nation, but because they have personally valued this nation of liberty rightly. They have identified and defended that on which their own values, and historically the personal values of all men, depend – liberty – the rights of the individual as superseding the mob, the group, or the government. It is this which is awe inspiring, that they see a true primary value and realize that their own and all true human life depends on it. The correlation between truth and human action is a glorious sight. Men and women willing to die to protect the ideas which make true human (rational and free) life possible are not 'sacrificing' their own interests for the interests of others, but rather seeing a value (freedom) on which all other real values depend, for themselves as well as the rest of mankind. To see a man or woman engaged in the preservation of that which is truly valuable, disregarding any lesser or secondary whim or fancy, is an awe inspiring and instructive sight.
It is hideous to encapsulate this high virtue as noble because “they sacrificed themselves for others.” It is a pernicious lie to say that the value of these men and women lies in their disregard for themselves. Their value lies in the freely chosen correlation between their identification of their values and the truth of fundamental human value. This is right and beautiful human action in avid defense of that which makes humanity possible. These men and women are not engaged in self immolation for others, and if they were it would not be virtuous or admirable. These men and women are the defenders of the true good, a good that makes their own and all others' moral actions possible.
To emphasize that 'caring nothing for one's self' is the key feature making Veterans great is horribly offensive and simply another device of the ideologies threatening America. These men and women are not great for offering or living their lives for anyone other than their own selves. No. They are great because they have recognized a great good, a good on which true human life depends, and have not looked to others to secure it, but have acted to secure and preserve that which they rightly value, with great courage and great honor. Those who have died in this great task are not to be remembered for valuing their own lives so little, but for valuing human life so greatly. God bless them.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Don't throw the Baby out with the bathwater...

The political Right has failed to understand and thus explain the fundamental moral high ground it actually holds. I believe this is due in large part to a misunderstanding of the idea of sacrifice within a Christian or generally religious context. True Christian sacrifice is NOT the trading of everything for nothing, but this is the effectual understanding which has been allowed to stand, unspoken, unchallenged. The 'right' view is to see sacrifice as an INDIVIDUAL choice in pursuit of another human's value based on the conviction that each individual is an end in him or herself (just as we understand God to view each of us). The left's unchallenged, bent view makes sacrifice the submission of each individual's status as an end in him/herself, to the group as a whole. This is exactly as absurd as trying to fornicate your way to chastity. The right has NOT done a good job clarifying this evil ideology, and providing the clear correct alternative for the past 100 years. Instead, we hear supposed defenders of the right submitting to the left's basic philosophic premise and then trying in vain to construct a right structure with an inconsistent foundation. If I hear that "socialism is great in theory but not in practice" one more time from a supposed right winger, I will dive through my TV set and choke the foolish windbag. All collectivist ideology, socialism included, is evil and awful in THEORY, which is WHY it fails in practice. Is it any wonder our youth often side with the left, when we spout such contradictions? We HAVE the right ethical base, but we do not understand it nor teach it, then wonder why our state indoctrinated children can not defend the right principles with conviction and moral certainty.
Ayn Rand got this basic philosophic correction right, and was one of the few in the past 100 years to consistently point out the Right's failure to properly identify it's superior moral basis. Unfortunately, Rand succumbed to emotionalism when she addressed the influence of Christianity and religion in general. She threw out all religion as non-objective irrationalism instead of simply correcting the error that the religious and especially the bulk of Christians make about sacrifice. The common error Christian's make concerns the atonement, which many explain as the satisfaction of all righteousness by the sacrifice of the perfectly good (Christ) for the sake of evil, the utterly lost (man). This misunderstanding, among other things, leads to an attempt to model these wrong ideas in the economic arena with the sacrifice of the producer (individual property rights) for the sake of the vague 'group,' - society. This, of course, leads to the sacrifice of EVERYTHING, for Nothing. Of course, this is NOT what God did in Christ. Rather, when we realize that the cessation of God's existence (annihilation) would mean the cessation of all existence, we can see that He extended Himself (in Christ) as far as would not negate the value which He pursued - that value (to Him) being *us* - treated as ends in ourselves individually. Missing this correction of confused Christian sacrifice is a main road by which the young, the uncritical, or those new to political or economic thought stumble into the self defeating 'morality' of collectivism (socialism). These folk have a notion that "everybody ought to be OK, and, you know, have stuff,' and a vague idea (due to the popular misconception) that self-sacrifice is the criterion for an action's ethical merit, and the next thing you know they're shouting, "rise up proletariat!" with Marx, and voting for socialists.
The opposite error is to, like Rand, ignore Christianity and religion entirely due to an emotional response to the ugliness collectivism generates in practice. The false premise to which Rand fell prey was that Christianity and religion 'must' contain the morality of self immolation, of bleeding individuals for the imaginary 'common good.' Rand's tossing of the Baby (Christ) out with the bathwater (the incorrect interpretation of Christian sacrifice) did terrible damage to the public acceptance of her philosophy and tremendous political damage to the Right. Christians nod enthusiastically with Rand as she logically destroys the Left's philosophical base, but draw back violently when she pitches all religion because of this simple error. So, the Christians remain conflicted - valiantly defending individualism in the economic arena because they see the ugliness and evil of collectivism applied there, but then grunting and gesticulating helplessly when asked to reconcile this view with the 'popular' flawed understanding of Christian sacrifice . It is so sad, because the Right was never so close to embracing a clear and CONSISTENT philosophical base. The effect of this error about sacrifice has had unfathomable effects on this nation's and the world's history.
If we receive Christ with true understanding, we can, among many more important things, confidently proclaim our consistent support of individual rights, an objective philosophy, and a rational system of ethics.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Universal Slavery

We all want people who need health care to get care, just as we all want the hungry fed, etc.
In accomplishing this, however, it is immoral to revoke another human's right to the product of his mental and physical effort - his property.
It is evil to steal from Bob and give to Jane, and this will always be the case, even if Bob is rich and Jane poor.
(This may not have been true in the case of a rich feudal lord or monarch whose wealth came by forcible economic rape of the people, BUT, in American capitalism, wealth is CREATED by the producer of value through mental or physical effort. The value is in the created good or service. Men voluntarily trade monetary markers of value for that CREATED value. Except for those rich who became so and thrive by lobbying (bribing) the government to favor their company/interests with legislation, regulation, or the competition stifling tax code --- except for those evil parasites --- wealth in America is NOT come by through the oppression of others, but through the creation of value. Many have never understood this, and still talk as if all wealth came to be through a manner of theft.)

There are many many practical 'system' reasons that the stealing from Bob to pay for Jane's health care is wrong, and many reasons drawn from the poor results such stealing yields, but the bottom line - the real reason is that Bob has a right to life which includes a right to dispose of the product of his work and mental effort as he sees fit. To deny him this right to dispose of his effort is to deny him the right to support his life. There is no such thing as 'partially' destroying a right.
So, you can not create some new medical right (which is an economic "right" by the way) without negating the right to property, and thus the right to life. This is true of any so called economic 'right.' If someone receives without working, then someone has worked without receiving. If that ' work without receiving' was not voluntary, that man or woman is a slave. This is wrong. It is to bleed dry the life from the healthy for the sake of the dying.

This is true in all economic endeavors that place the so called interests of the tribe or the group or "society" above the RIGHTS of the individual. It is just more ugly and absurd to do so in the health arena.

We see the sick baby without medical insurance, and say - "wouldn't we ALL give some of our wealth to help her? *shouldn't* we all do so?" The answer is likely yes for most, and it *should* be done through voluntary giving. The moment we try to use the power of the government (the legalized force of a gun at base) to force *all* to give, we have destroyed the right to property, to life. Though we envision such heart wrenching sights as the sick child, we should not forget that the more common reality in universal health care is the stealing of money from the average family or average income worker to pay for the astronomical health care costs of the millions who choose to smoke, drink, drug, or eat themselves to ill health and death. Much more common will be the loss of some struggling family's small vacation (through the certain higher taxes which will be required) to pay for an obese heroin addict's methadone clinic and eventual liver transplant. There are countless such ugly real scenarios which this sort of legislation WILL create.

I am a physician in socialized medicine - the military health care system. The bureaucracy is astounding and the best and brightest physicians are fleeing the system. The 'weeds,' those angling only for promotion, those playing politics, the bean counters, the 'regulators,' all thrive in this system. Those men/women honestly attempting to most efficiently and effectively provide medical care, die in such an environment. They leave. They become fed up and go practice elsewhere. What, when there is no elsewhere?

Friday, July 10, 2009

Giving Back

Wrong headed liberal / collectivist ideology is frighteningly pervasive, often in forms in which it is unlikely the people involved are even aware of their infection.
As I was watching the latest professional golf tournament, I counted at least a dozen instances in which the announcers used a phrase with subtle, skewed implications. In reference to several PGA professionals' impressive charity work, the announcers referred to the activity as "giving back." As a paraphrase, they would say, "It really is impressive, Jim, how David Toms has taken the time and made the effort to give back." Or, "you can really see that these guys think that 'giving back' is really important."
It is not sufficiently tempting to simply write this off as benign happenstance of word choice. There are too many more obvious, and more longstanding phrases to describe the charity which these pros are performing. They are *giving.* They are NOT giving *back*.
Giving "back" implies that the property they are giving to the various groups was somehow once 'taken' from those groups in some sense. This is the evil idea propagated (sometimes knowingly, sometimes not) by liberals / collectivists for over a century.
When those who have property or wealth have come by it by looting or parasitizing his fellow man as in feudalism, tribalism, socialism, fascism, or communism, then, yes, for such a wealthy man to give to another in need could be considered 'giving back.' But in a free politico-economic capitalistic system, wealth is CREATED by individuals who think and exert themselves to provide a product or service which is DEMANDED by the freely choosing people who make up the market as a whole. The method by which a man in this system becomes wealthy is the moral 'day' compared to the moral 'night' of the listed collectivist systems. It makes all the difference in the world. A wealthy man within capitalism has created the good, the wealth. The market did not create it. The purchasers did not create it. The PRODUCER created. The others recognized the objective worth of his creation and freely traded value for value. **NOTHING** is 'owed' to those who sought and traded for the valuable good or service that the wealthy man created. NOTHING.
So to say that he is "giving back" is tantamount to saying that, like the despots, like the tyrannical mob of socialism, or like the feudal lord, the honest producer has in some sense 'bled' the public of that which was or could or should have been "theirs," and that now we can benevolently nod approval that the wealthy man is somehow doing his just penance and returning some of the good life that he 'took' from them by 'giving back.' This is evil. Though subtle, it is as great a wrong as can be committed. It is the calling the good, evil, and the evil, good. It perpetuates the uncritical ingraining of an evil idea into the vernacular. It furthers the continued unthinking acceptance of the idea that all wealth is generated by a manner of theft, and that therefore rightful claim to wealth is only with those who earned or created NOTHING.

It is good to expose the absurdity of this evil ideology.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Golf Digression - on lost balls.

Watching the US Open is one of the more enjoyable events for the average to above average golfer. In this, the supposedly sternest test of golf, we get to see just how tough (or not) the pros really are as the thick high rough, baked fairways, cement greens, and ridiculous length bombard their golfing fortitude. It's a malicious joy to watch them fold, whine, and complain their way to a satisfying missed cut, and/or an embarrassing 80-something. There is something refreshing about seeing the very best experience golf the way most of us have known it for our entire lives - as a wicked tormenting mistress all too gleeful in crushing our small feeble hopes of golfing success.
Well, this is how I had happily envisaged the US Open....
Now, after noting the small heard of official 'ball finders' on every hole, I'm not so sure. On each hole, 90% of the terror of that thick lush awful US Open rough is just blithely swept aside by a small army of USGA officials camped along each fairway to find poor little Pro's errant tee shot.
When did this become golf?!
If you or I ever played Bethpage Black and hit it where I saw all of the leaders hit it multiple times this year, we'd have been hiking back to the clubhouse to buy another couple sleeves of balls. Or, had we smartly packed plenty of ammo for the day, we would at least have spent a goodly portion of that day returning to tees for stroke and distance lost ball penalties. None of those pros would be under par if they had to tramp all three-hundred and ten of the awe inspiring yards they just fired their drive INTO THE GORSE, only to root around for the allowed 5 minutes of fruitless hunting before trudging, stricken with shame, back to the tee for a re-do.

There are no ball finders in real golf. There ARE lost balls in real golf. This is one of the main things that makes golf HARD. To remove this real danger for the "pros" is the antithesis of the spirit of the game which the USGA should be working to protect.

We, the common golfer, can proudly say in the spirit of Bobby Jones, the USGA plays a game with which we are not familiar (and do not wish to become so.)

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

The Lobby - 21st Century Tribal Looting

As you read the lists of pork spending of late, do not dream that this is an anomaly of government malfeasance.  No this is but the continued natural history of false ideology in practice, unhindered by coherent dissent for well over fifty years.  The poisonous ideas, which we as a country have been sipping in diluted form with the teaching of a mixed economy and justifications of capitalism with socialist principles, we are now preparing to drink unmixed.   The evil ideas are that human rights originate from need,  that individual rights are granted BY society and incur an obligation to society, and that the interests of the 'group,' the 'nation,' the 'world,' or 'the society,' outweigh the rights of individual men and women.   

The idea that rights originate with need has led to the absurdity that a person's created wealth (through free trade of the products of his thought and effort) is always at the mercy of the governments legalized gun, but the looted money from the coal miner's, or small business owner's, or doctor's paycheck via income tax - this is the welfare recipient's, or medicare recipient's, or "earned income tax credit" recipient's, or earmark benificiary's property BY RIGHT.   We have swallowed more and more of this poison with each passing year.  We are about to guzzle the bottle.   

This idea is closely tied to the liberal distortion that an individual is granted his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by society as a whole, and thus the individual is obligated to society.    So creating wealth by thought and effort does not warrant one's right to the product, but rather someone's 'need' serves as the moral justification of rights to OTHERS' production, and the government is in the position of judging which 'needs' are most aligned with 'what is good for society.'    Once the idea that 'the good of society' is allowed to be used as a justification for government action, outweighing the rights of the individual, it is a fight to the death within the tribe to position this group or that group as "society."   I'm sorry.  I meant to say "within Washington" to position this interest or that interest, foreign or domestic, as the interest "of society."   You should realize that our battle of pressure groups in Washinton is just the 21st century equivalent of savage tribal feuding, and based on the same immoral ethic.  For that matter, our present day sacrifice of the producers to "society" is just the modern day moral equivalent of savages repeatedly sacrificing virgins for the 'good' of the tribe.   I give you the obscene spectacle of the lobby industry to (formerly) our American government over the past 70+ years.

Here is a letter regarding the process of purchasing, three times your investment in other people's production. In other words this is how, for a 30% investment, one secures the “legal” robbery of one's neighbors. This is only one small example of the processes involved in our recent splurge of earmarks (all the worse because it is smuggled in during a time of economic distress – distress, not surprisingly caused by the same fundamentally evil ideas.)

(from http://omnibusting.heritage.org/2007/12/17/11402-earmarks-and-counting/) 

outragedtaxpayer // June 7, 2008 at 7:12 am
Some months ago I was treated to the spectacle of a K Streetlobbyist explaining how one goes about legally bribing Congressmen and Senators to get them to deliver a million dollar earmark. The lobbyist was too well trained to use words like “bribe” or “graft,” but the message was clear. I’d like to share it because I’ve been told that sunlight is the best disinfectant.I pride myself on my cynicism. I haven’t voted in years, have never voted for a Republican, and the last Democrat I voted for was Jimmy Carter (the first time). Yet despite my resignation to the institutionalized corruption in Washington, the matter-of-fact nature of this sales pitch offended me so deeply I feel compelled to speak out.  I was introduced to this lobbyist by a prospective angel investor in a privately-held company on whose board I sit. This investor, who I admire, is a wealthy self made man, the kind of smart, hard-working immigrant this country could use more of. Although he is still learning the ways of his adopted land, he appears to be a quick study. His advice to our fledgling startup: Congress is giving away buckets of money and we would be foolish not to get some.  The lobbyist, employed by a prestigious law firm, hails from a tradition of service. His resume shouts duty-honor-country.  You would never expect to see him pop up in a Boss Tweed cartoon.  I signed no non-disclosure agreements prior to our call, nor was I sworn to secrecy, nor did anyone reveal the secret handshake.  The lobbyist didn’t know me from Adam. I could have been a front for Woodward and Bernstein. I can only assume I’m not the only one who heard his pitch that week.So, how does one buy a million dollar earmark? The lobbyist costs $6,500 per month plus a 7.5% kick-back, more genteelly called a “commission.” The lobbyist makes sure that your application is properly constructed and gets into the overflowing earmark inbox of your particular Congressman by the specified date. More importantly, he makes sure that your Congressman, the two members of your Senate delegation, and the chairman of the targeted appropriations subcommittee (an apparently central player in this process named Peter Visclosky) all understand the importance of your request. Failure to line up all four of these supporters results in proportional discounting of your earmark.I inquired how we go about convincing these keepers of the public trust of the merits of our project. “By holding fund raisers,” explained the lobbyist.“Is there a price list?” Nothing is written down but the lobbyist assured me that the going rate is $10,000 per Congressman and $20,000 per Senator. Wow, these guys work cheap, I thought. We can’t even get simple audits done for that price, much les buy a million dollar earmark. This must be some volume operation.“Can our company write $60,000 worth of checks and be done with it?” I asked. Oh no, I was told. That would be illegal “Donations” must come from employees, directors, and their families in individual checks that do not exceed hard-money limits. I noted that our company is still quite small, which means that to collect $60,000 everyone connected with the company would have to write checks, not all of whom could afford that level of “generosity.” Never mind whether they even support the political positions of the target legislators. (What are their names, again?) The lobbyist patiently explained that it was perfectly legal for a company to give bonuses to employees provided these are not directly tied in timing and amounts to political donations in such an obvious way that they could be construed as illegal reimbursements. Not being accustomed to this way of doing business, I asked how we could be sure that “donations” made before the earmark was delivered would be honored. “Let me put it this way,” assured the lobbyist, “they’ve never let us down. There was a little more to it than that, but not much. The lobbyist explained that the money, or  “plus-up” as they call it, had to be routed through a funding agency, and not every federal agency is willing to be a party to this process. “But,” he advised, “agencies under budget stress are usually willing to cooperate.” In return for passing along the money, the conduit agenc keeps a handling fee of anywhere from 5% to 15%. I didn’t ask what that negotiation involved.So here’s the math.  A year’s worth of lobbyist fees comes to $78,000. The company’s compensation committee doles out $60,000 worth of bonuses on the understanding that directors and executives must be comfortable swearing under oath that these bonuses are not intended to reimburse political donations, even though they are. Figure a 7.5% commission for the lobbying firm and a 10% commission for the funding agency adds another $175,000 to the bill. For a total investment of $313,000, then, the company gets $1,000,000 in taxpayer money with no strings attached. This is better than a threefold return in less than a year. I wish all my investments did that well.The phone call ended cordially and I had a sleepless night.  Everyone else is doing it. No one could ever prove that we’d broken the law. Our competitors are getting earmarks, which they proudly announce in press releases. Our promising young company is just as deserving of support, and certainly more so than a lot of earmark recipients we’ve all read about in the papers. And as one of the 1% of the taxpayers who carry nearly 40% of our country’s income tax burden, it’s my own money they’re giving away, damn it. Would it be so wrong to try to see some of it put to good use?Perhaps out of romantic nostalgia, I keep a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution on my desk. When I woke up the next morning one look at the cover answered my question. Instead of holding a “fund raiser”  I offer you this testimony. I wish I had the courage to put my name on it but I fear exposing our portfolio companies to retribution by our esteemed elected officials, whose unbounded power over our economic affairs is only enabled by our willingness to keep paying for it.  Outraged Taxpayer

This country will fail if the natural expansion of these ideas is not stopped. The answer is that government is rightfully engaged in the protection of individual liberties and VERY little else. The robbing of some for the interests of whichever group has sufficiently bribed the legislators to be considered “society” is not only immoral, but is one expression of the fundamental poison destroying our country – the first and last (originally) moral politico-economic system. All of the other so called “free” societies simply traded slavery of the masses to the king or the dictator for slavery to the state. We were the first and the last to trade slavery for true politico-economic freedom where each man's individual rights outweighed the claims of “society.” The last vestiges of this first moral system are being destroyed. And the evil, as always, is winning by default.

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Slavery in America

If you are a producer in America, a person who spends his thought and effort to provide a good or service to others in fair trade, then you are a slave. You are a slave and either suffer under the whip or ignorantly whip yourself depending on whether you vote for or against the liberals, or, as they should be called, the anti-capitalists or feudalists. Realize that, as the non-producer - entitlement class has grown, they have grown to enslave the producers of this nation. The lawmakers elected by this group strengthen their hold on aristocracy by promising to take more and more from the producers and give to those who consume only, to those who either entirely parasitize the producers or exist in a job by pull or union pressure, and not by merit or efficiency. Or worse, they give to the very countries who hate America, ironically for the very ideals that the liberals are killing - most prominently, the concept that the rights of the individual supersede what some group 'says' are the interests of 'society as a whole' - that individual rights supersede the supposed interests of the 'tribe.'
So realize that well over 30% of your thought, your effort, the labor of your time, your very life are taken from you, by force of the growing entitlement class and foreign lobbyist parasites. This itself is a moral obscenity, but what is worse is that your stolen production is then spent as a payback by these lawmakers to either entice their entitlement voters or satisfy the demands of their lobbyist benefactors, who by influencing the legislature keep either their unworthy company in existence or, in the case of foreign lobbying groups, maintain their tyranny in some oppressed nation. It is sick that we, the producers, are enslaved to support our own destruction. It is obscene.
When will we see a leader who can destroy this new irony of an aristocracy? As the feudal lords existed by consuming the production of their serfs, so the entitlement class (in either the welfare state, or the welfare medical system, or the welfare job system - i.e. those who do little but bleed a good company through union power, or those of evil companies who exist only by pull in Washington) - that entitlement class votes the true producers into slavery - a life as a serf to work for his/her own death - yes, death, for this is the process which destroys dreams, ambitions, goals for persons and families, plans for truly great production, for truly great businesses; this is the process which has and continues to destroy unfathomable potential. The world does not know nor even take time to consider what would have happened if the lives of never known brilliant, industrious, creative people were not stifled by the policies of state-ism, the policies which say the rights of some to the product of their labor should be broken, their effort stolen, and given to those who claim that their very uselessness gives them a moral claim on others. Again, it is obscene.

Saturday, January 31, 2009


A letter to the editor, from my Father.

It is generally agreed that Franklin Roosevelt’s "New Deal" did not end the "Great Depression". While massive deficit spending failed, the beginnings of democrat-sponsored socialism emerged. During that decade, the perceptions by Fascist as well as Communist socialists that democratic capitalism was on its last legs emboldened both. The Fascists tried first to exploit this perceived weakness when Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor was immediately followed by Germany’s own declaration of war on the United States. Thus galvanized by war, the citizens of the United States succeeded in marshaling the latent power of democratic capitalism under God that not only crushed the thousand year reign fascist powers envisioned but ended the ‘Great Depression" as well. Even Joseph Stalin credited American manufacturing with determining the outcome of the war. Unfortunately, he couldn’t bring himself to acknowledge that the Source of American economic power rested in the God-given rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that entailed cultivating virtue and the right to private property. If he had, another forty-five years of misery, ruin, and death in his own country could have been avoided as the Soviet Union immediately took its shot at the United States in WWIII also known as "The Cold War". His unbelief perpetrated by his successors calamitously affected/infected the rest of the world as well. It is now astonishing that the United States is embracing the very essence of our past enemies’ economic policies and religious beliefs. The current so-called stimulus plan is based on the idea that the reason the "New Deal" didn’t work was due to not spending enough taxpayer money fast enough. Socialist thinking is the greedy, envious enemy of free enterprise’s unique, wealth-producing power. A socialist government becomes an all-powerful intimidator of the individual entrepreneur there-bye depressing the standard of living of all economic classes. The rich are not the enemy of the poor or the middle class. Indeed, the greed of a government consisting of a socialist elite trumps the occasional, greedy, individual capitalist simply because of the power it is able to wield over everybody’s property. Serfdom looms as the engine of wealth creation, the risk-taking businessman, is driven from the economy. The current economic crisis is due to the socialist virus in our own government suppressing energy production of both nuclear and fossil fuels while forcing banks, for over twenty years, to make bad loans to people who did not meet sound financial standards. Because of the government’s intimidation of banks — make the loans or feel its full wrath — the world now knows how long it takes to generate such a crisis. Today’s government personifies the schoolyard bully’s demand "give your lunch money or else" and is hardly the noble political body the founders as well as Adam Smith envisioned as the protector of private property, life, and liberty. The current proposals appear to be a lemming-like rush to utter catastrophe. The premise seems to be that if enough lemmings rush into the water fast enough, the dead bodies, that is, the impoverished, will pile up sufficiently to eventually enable the few remaining lemmings to reach the other side, that is, prosperity. How utterly gruesome and foolhardy! How typically socialist! Make no mistake, just as in the Thirties, the enemies of this country are watching intently and calculating when to make their move to fill the power vacuum they believe the United States is creating. William M. Yavelak

Saturday, January 24, 2009

Quote on Target

The late Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931 to 2005) offered the following observation several years ago and it bears poignant significance today: "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the rich out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it."