Archive for the ‘Liberty’ Category

The DNA of the Left

February 4, 2017

The election of Donald Trump has brought the crazies out of the woodwork, from the “nasty” Ashley Judd to the Madonna terrorist threat to shutting down airports and riots at Berkley. This was predictable by anyone who understands the history and philosophy, that is, the DNA, of the Left.

Karl Marx

Karl Marx

The Left has many factions. In part, that’s to give them the ability to morph into whatever form they need to take for a particular situation. But there are commonalities among them all. The first and foremost is their root philosophy of Marxism. Key elements of Marx’s and Engels’ thinking surface regularly in statements made by Leftists.

For instance, when preaching about the minimum wage, we are told that business owners have excess profits. In debates about international affairs we are told the US is imperialist or exploiting resources of other countries.  We are regularly told the Left is “scientific” while the Right is made up of “science deniers.”

All these claims were made by Marx in his exposition of Scientific Socialism (a tem coined by Engels to describe Marxism) where we are told that all value is created by labor and Capitalists exploit labor by taking profits that, morally, belong to labor. Moreover, Marx lectured us that the Capitalist, to survive, must exploit foreigners through imperialism and war. This is why the Left is anti war during Republican administrations (but not so much during Democrat ones). And finally, Marx posited that his system was scientific and all other social theories were not.

Furthermore, Marx and other socialists theorized that history was determined by class struggle between the various “classes” throughout history. In Marx’s time the classes were the Capitalists and proletarians, or workers. This is why the Left once marched in lockstep with the union movement.

But then, in the 20th Century, Marxist determinism started to break down. First off, the biggest Socialist state, the Soviet Union, did not grow out of a Capitalist society, as Marxists predicted, but out of a Feudal system. Second, Socialist economies did not out-preform Capitalist ones, as Marxists predicted, but the opposite occurred. Finally, the workers of the world did not unite, at least not behind the Marxists. Knowing where their bread and butter came from, workers, even union workers, opposed Socialists, for example, in the conflicts between “hard hats” and protesters in the ’60s and ’70s in the US.

What oh what was a good Commie to do? Salvation came in the form of a group of German dissidents who formed the Frankfurt School. Their big contribution to Socialism was “Critical Theory” and how it changed Marxism to explain the 20th Century failures.

This new thinking is responsible for all modern Leftist dogma. Instead of claiming that Capitalists and workers constituted the struggling classes, we now have the Capitalists versus women, minorities and the LGBTQ individuals. The more recent morphing is white men, versus the aforementioned groups. This explains some of the nuttier Leftist positions, such as defending suicide bombers, choosing Hamas over Israel, and so forth. The Left, true to Marx and Frankfurt, classify all people into tribes and then mark these tribes as good guys or bad guys in the great Class Struggle. So terrorists, because they are not Europeans, must be classified as the good guys.  Violent Black Lives Matter members considered good guys, only because they are not white, and Berkley rioters are justified only because Trump ran as a Republican.

Normal people have trouble understanding how the Left, that still claims a monopoly on science, can defend the indefensible and advocate for riots and atrocity. Simple. We only have to turn to a prominent member of the Frankfurt School and inventor of Critical Theory, Max Horkheimer, who said, according the Wikipedia:

The facts which our senses present to us are socially performed in two ways: through the historical character of the object perceived and through the historical character of the perceiving organ. Both are not simply natural; they are shaped by human activity, and yet the individual perceives himself as receptive and passive in the act of perception.”

The translation is that there is no objective reality. More specifically, a “wise Latina” on the Supreme Court is expected to judge differently than a black justice (Clarence Thomas doesn’t count) or a white one. A man cannot discuss women’s issues, a white can’t discuss black or Hispanic issues, a straight can’t talk about gays and so forth. We each, thanks to our tribe, our group, our class sees a very different reality. Except that the reality of the “ruling class” the rich, the white, the corporations, is corrupt, and the reality of ethnic minorities, gays, women Palestinians is virtuous. So the “news” media can make up stories and Democrat Party operatives can fund demonstrations and riots. Because, after all, what’s true for me isn’t what’s true for you.

In this world of class struggle and polylogism all bets are off. There can be no conversation, much less agreement There can be no justice except “social justice” which is just tribal warfare, not justice. There can be no rules when we each have our own reality. In fact, there can be no science without objective reality. And, of course, there can be no successful “reaching across the aisle.” So the Constitution, the law in general, is moot. All that remains is the great Class Struggle. And since there can’t be a conversation between radically different realities, all that is remains is lies and violence.

The peace and prosperity, the live and let live attitude, that was once taken for granted in America, is not the norm. It’s the exception in human history. Peace, prosperity and freedom are a result of Classical Western philosophy, the Scottish Enlightenment, and the concepts of individual rights, limited government and the rule of law enshrined in the Declaration and Constitution. What the Left delivers, instead, is brutal collectivism, dictatorial tyranny and mindless mob rule, a throwback ideology from a thousand years ago.

 

 

Advertisements

A Vote for Hillary is a Vote for What?

November 7, 2016

What does she stand for except power, corruption and a talent for lying to her supporters?

The Coming Dark Age

October 17, 2016

As I write this, Hillary Clinton leads in the polls to become the next President of the United States. Clinton supporters are unaware or ignore the nature of their candidate and the machine she controls. One does not have to read Dinesh D’Souza’s books, such as “Stealing America,” or “Clinton Cash” by Peter Schweizer to suspect something dirty about Hillary Clinton. Here is a recent release by Project Veritas on the felonious activities of the Clinton Campaign:

 

Hillary Clinton was an admirer of Saul Alinsky, who, besides writing “Rules for Radicals” worked for the Capone gang in Chicago. I don’t know if Alinsky was a true believing “radical” or if that was just a con to get mindless supporters for his criminal shake-down operation.

Similarly, I don’t know if Hillary Clinton is a true believing Communist or if her rhetoric to the public is just a con job to cover her criminal behavior that includes the Clinton Foundation money laundering scheme, sales of US technology to China and others or her pay for play operation with foreign governments. Certainly the WikiLeaks email release contains strong evidence that her public pronouncements contradict her private discussions with banks and other large corporations.

But the bottom line, in any case, is this: The likely election of Hillary Clinton will enmesh a huge crime operation into the most powerful political position in the world, a position that controls the largest economy and military in the world. It’s easy to see why Hillary would be an opponent of the Second Amendment, put into the Constitution as a last defense against Federal tyranny. If tyranny is your plan, the Constitution is your enemy.

Hillary’s economic plan, if you read between the lines, is little more than a transfer of taxpayer money to special interests and has no hope of improving the economy, as this article by Peter Morici explains.

Perhaps you don’t believe that Hillary is a criminal. Perhaps you believe she is a savior, defender of women and the poor. If so, you really haven’t been paying attention. Even a superficial investigation of the public record on Hillary yields a long line of criminal scandals from her eviction from the Watergate committee for corruption, to the Whitewater scam to the Travel Office scandal and the Cattle Futures scheme, etc. The Great Defender of Women has been accused of threatening women, having their homes broken into, threatening their children and killing pets.

If you think the FBI cleared her of criminal activities you didn’t hear or passed over the details of Director Comey’s talk to the nation. And you missed this exchange in Congress:

Her private email server violated several Federal statutes including the Federal Records Act, the Espionage Act, the Freedom of Information Act and probably others, all felonies, some with jail time. The obvious reason for her server was to mask her criminal activities. Had she been indicted for her crimes she would have brought many others in the Administration down with her because, obviously, they would have seen the origin of her emails to them and been guilty of violating some of the same laws she did. Defenders of the Clinton Foundation have yet to explain how, out of millions, maybe billions donated to Haiti, the county only received two to three percent of the money. That’s only one example.

The only thing I am certain of is that, under Hillary Clinton, we will descend closer to third world status, lose most of our individual rights as Americans, including free speech, religion and arms, face a Federal bankruptcy due to the $20+ Trillion in operating debt and over $200 Trillion in unfunded liabilities due by min-century. And what I am most certain of is when the calamity happens Capitalism and Conservatives will be blamed.

 

Leftist Memes – I

July 27, 2016

I’m starting a series based on the “irrefutable” posts on social media created by Leftists. Today, let’s examine one from mxviv – Mx Justin Vivian Bond – “I’ve been pretty quiet on the presidential race because I figure you’re already not voting for Trump if you’re following an agnostic transsexual gospel singer who writes for a TV show about a liberal Jewish trans parent. HOWEVER, we must must MUST support Hillary if we want to stomp out the flames of this dangerous and hateful movement.

Instagram postShow me where anyone has proposed ending all those programs, not that ending most wouldn’t be a bad idea. You would need an act of Congress first before a President could act, unless, of course, the President is Obama. But I’ll bite on a few.

EPA: Every state has one, presumable to handle the vast majority of local environmental issues. Meanwhile the Federal EPA has severely overstepped its mandate and is imposing dictatorial power over much of American commerce, including locally, outside it’s jurisdiction. The organization could be reduced significantly.

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid: They are all going bankrupt and are unsustainable with projected obligations of $200 Trillion in a $18 trillion a year economy by mid-century. If something isn’t done, they will end all by themselves through failure, and take everyone with them, especially the poor that the Left claims to represent. These huge transfer payment programs need serious reform or replacement.

The minimum wage hurts the poor and the economy and every state has one anyway. The Federal minimum wage is supposed to only apply to employers that engage in interstate commerce. The Left argues that includes everyone.

Department of Education: What does it accomplish? Are SAT scores improving? Are poor kids getting good educations? The department merely imposes Federal mandates on local school districts, to no positive result.

Federal unions: They are incompatible with the Civil Service system and were opposed by FDR because collective bargaining with politicians exploits taxpayers who have no voice in the process. The Left depends on them for funds and support, now that private sector unions have withered away, so they are big political donors with conflicts of interest.

What energy has the Dept of Energy produced? Outside of managing a few national labs they don’t help.

High Speed Rail grants: Why is it a federal function to tax all Americans and send money to well-connected communities? This kind of spending is meant to buy votes in population centers at the expense of the rural and less well off taxpayers.

Fannie and Freddy are corrupt and manipulate the housing market. Their rules were largely responsible for the housing bust. In addition they provide revolving door jobs to retired politicians.

Corporation for Public Broadcasting: Insignificant budget but why is this a federal function when there are thousands of sources of media today? Ditto funding for arts and humanities which means funding for Leftist ideology.

Citizens United is about free speech for groups of people and organizations, you know, like Unions already have as well as the New York Times, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, Hollywood and even the Democrat Party. But the Left is very threatened by a few folks making an anti-Hillary movie.

I guess it is about 80 years of a Progressive movement, a movement that has increased the number of Americans in poverty, reduced the number of Americans working, presided over the downward trend in SAT scores and education in general, is responsible in the recent uptick in urban violence, largely responsible for our $19,000,000,000,000 in debt and our $200,000,000,000,000+ in unfunded liabilities, mostly due to Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and, now, Obamacare because buying votes for the political elite is more important than our future. The Progressive movement can also take a lot of credit for our open borders, pushing wages down for the poorest among us and introducing MS13 and other criminals into our cities. The Progressive movement spawned Barack Obama and his administration, a failed administration internationally and domestically, with the slowest post recession economic growth since the Great Depression, leaving tens of millions of Americans out of work seven years after Obama’s “recovery.”

The Left asks how we can survive without all these laws and tax funded organizations that create tens of thousands of pages of regulations a year and, most importantly, steal your freedom. I think, without most of them, we would prosper.

Bathroom Wars II – Harassment

May 13, 2016

The basic tactic of the Left is harassment. If you are at a party and someone moves well within your personal space, you might move away from them to a more comfortable distance. What if they then not only move closer to you but begin poking you in the ribs? Perhaps you again move away from them. And, what if, again, they follow you and continue to poke you in the ribs?

OuthouseThis is what the Left does. No matter what concessions are made for their philosophy or ideology, they continue to push the envelope and continue to invade our comfort zone. You would think that after the Supreme Court declared gay marriage a right in all 50 states the Left would take a short break and celebrate. Nope. They came up with something else to use to poke us in the ribs.

The Obama administration on May 13th, 2016 declared that all institutions that receive federal funding must allow men who “self identify as women” to use the women’s restroom or lose funding. Let’s put the several Constitutional issues aside for a moment. Discussing the Constitution would be appropriate but would ignore the fine point, that the motivation for this edict has nothing to do with civil rights, transgender people, fairness or anything reasonable. It’s only about “fu**ing with our heads” as my crude college classmates would say. It’s about establishing social superiority by the Left and their continuously moving into our personal space, this time literally, and daring us to do something about it.

Americans are a polite and kind people so are easily preyed upon by this Leftist tactic of attacking the culture while instilling guilt. It’s past time we stopped putting up with these Alynsky tactics and stood our ground, maybe stepping into the Left’s personal space a little. The alternative is to have the rule of law destroyed completely and the social compact with it.

Just so you know I’ve thought about it, here are the Constitutional issues:

  1. The Obama rule is, effectively, a law, and only Congress can pass laws.
  2. The Obama rule puts conditions on existing funding and, therefore, violates a previous Supreme Court decision stating that the executive cannot put conditions on existing funding that were not put there by Congress.
  3. The Obama rule violates the 10th Amendment that gives the states jurisdiction over matters not delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. (Old fashioned view I know)

However, I reiterate, this isn’t best addressed by referring to the Constitution or legal precedent. This is addressed by understanding that the Left is not well meaning, not for good, not for rights, not for gays or blacks or women. Those groups are just pawns. The Left is for raw, fascistic, political power over all of us, including transgendered people, with the benefit that we then become serfs who toil without end while they become our lords and masters who confiscate our property, our wealth and our dignity.

 

Bathroom Wars – “Don’t Sh*t and Old Sh*tter”

May 10, 2016

The Federal “Justice” department has threatened and is now suing North Carolina over it’s more than reasonable “bathroom law” which states, simply, that people with a penis should use the men’s room and people with a vagina should use the ladies’ room. The North Carolina law was in response to a law passed in Charlotte ordering all bathrooms to be “gender” neutral.

Transgender toiletGiven my complete cynicism and disdain regarding the Leftist agenda, motives and reasoning, I call the the Justice Department actions pure bunkum. I’m not saying they can’t jail people or punish them. I’m saying they don’t give two cents about gay or lesbian people or transgendered people just as they don’t care about black people or anyone else. This whole controversy is no more than a temporary tool to mess with our heads, divide us and help permanently destroy the legal basis of our Republic. The goal, of course, is political power and turning us into surfs of Leftist elites.

The proper response is not just to counter sue, as North Carolina did, but to redirect the Saul Alinsky tactics back at Loretta Lynch and Barak Obama. I suggest a “sh*t in” (Alynsky’s term) where mobs of concerned citizens, consisting of both men and women, clog Federal Government toilets. The braver men and women should go to the opposite sex’s toilet. The Robert F. Kennedy Justice building should be the first building considerd for the consciousness raising and fumigation.

 

 

Peasant – Our Banana Republic – Part II

May 9, 2016

The question is simple. Does the Left have any real interest in solving the problem they claim to want to solve. Or do they have another agenda? I first began to question their motives regarding the gun control debate.

More Guns Less CrimeThe pro Second Amendment crowd points out, often, statistics such as how few “assault weapons” are used in crimes, and that the term “assault weapon” does not apply to civilian guns, and how no proposed gun law would have prevented whatever shouting is in the headlines or how murderers and terrorists break multiple laws committing their crimes so why would we think a new law would deter them, etc. etc. Additionally, the pro-gun folks cite research showing that more guns equal less crime,  gun-free zones are killing fields and the most dangerous cities have the most onerous gun laws.

None of these arguments cause the Leftist to even pause. Worse, none of these arguments cause the Leftist to tone down their hateful rhetoric even slightly. After many years of observing this immunity to fact I had to wonder if the Left really cared about protecting people from crime or if they were just pretending.  If you really cared about something wouldn’t you care if your prescriptions worked? Not if you are a Leftist.

After years of petty debates with Lefties, I had to come to the inevitable conclusion that the Left has absolutely no concern about gun crime. Their concern is a ploy to mask a different agenda, that is, to disarm the public. So it does not matter what other solutions are offered. Those will all be rejected no matter how effective. That’s why the Left reacts strongest against the best alternative ideas.

So even though the President’s children and the children of other elites in DC are protected at the Sidwell Friends School by armed guards plus the Secret Service it’s a stupid idea to put armed guards in schools if the NRA suggests it. Politicians, such as former mayor Bloomberg, lecture us on the evil of guns, especially ones with lots of bullets while surrounded, like a potentate, by armed guards and a total number of guns and bullets than most of us could not afford while advocating that his constituents are banned from owning even one gun or one bullet.

If you have ever seen the President traveling through Washington, you were stunned by the parade of armored cars surrounding him, carrying machine guns, speeding through red lights, while you and the rest of the peasants are held back by police foot soldiers reacting to the distant signal that the President, the most high holy, may piece be upon him, is coming.

One is forced to come to only one, unavoidable conclusion: The Left, despite their claims, are NOT interested in our welfare, NOT interested in our safety, NOT interested in our well being nor our happiness. They are only interested in a statist, collectivist utopia where they are in charge and where we labor day and night only to fund their privileges and power over us. An armed public stands in their way so disarming the public is their highest priority.

In other words, the goal of the “progressives” is to push back the clock to before the Enlightenment and the Founding, to even before the Magna Carta, to push back the clock to when there were kings and dukes and everyone else was, effectively, a serf.

Our Banana Republic – Part I

April 4, 2016

I’ve been an advocate of free markets and political liberty based on individual rights for many years. I always assumed that my intellectual opponents had a different set of values and a different way of reasoning than I did. So I felt my mission was to persuade them of the superiority of individual rights and free market Capitalism over Socialism.

But, over the years I began to wonder if there wasn’t something else motivating the movers and shakers of Socialism in America. They compromised on nothing. No graph, no statistic, no analysis seemed to persuade them or make them reconsider their ideology. Yet, the utter failure of central economic planning and social engineering historically and around the world was manifest. What could they be thinking?

Ayn Rand famously said that in the face of a seeming contradiction such as this, we should “check our premises” because contradictions are impossible in the real world. So let’s check our premises. Do the Democrats, Leftists, Socialists and others in that camp have, as a goal, social justice, or justice of any kind? Or is something else going on? This is the first of a series where I intend to construct a case against the notion of the well meaning Socialist. To get things started here I present, for your consideration, this video that lists the Clinton scandals:

Global Warming

February 12, 2014

The advocates of man-made global warming are fond of claiming science as their ally. But the science is almost immaterial since global warming is a thin disguise for what is a very dangerous political movement, one that would subjugate all of us to a tyranny that claims our lives and values are inconsequential compared to what authorities assert is best for the planet.

But, if we wish to pretend this is about science, the warmers have a few challenges.

Snow Covered MailboxHow do we measure Global Temperature?

We usually take if for granted, but how do we get a number, one number, for the temperature of the Earth? Terrestrial measurements are fraught with error as the environment around many measurement stations has changed. The most extreme examples are of rural stations ending up in the outskirts of cities where temperatures are normally warmer than in the rural location. There are also maintenance issues and other problems with terrestrial measurements.

Satellite measurements are more controlled but don’t go back very far, historically. Balloons provide great atmospheric profile data but weather balloons haven’t been around that long and they are not launched uniformly around the world. Ice core samples provide thousands of years of data but don’t help us know what the temperature was in places that don’t have ice.

So getting a single number for the temperature of the Earth today or historically is a problem. We either have long-term data or global data but not both. Still, we can at least look at something like ice core data and get information about the temperature record at one place on earth (let’s forget for now that the continents and their ice don’t stay put but move around over time.)

And even if we decide which measurements are the most meaningful, how does one integrate all the measurements to achieve one number, one, grand, global temperature?  These are not minor scientific problems.

Is the Earth Warming?

The second problem, after determining one temperature number, is to ascertain whether the earth is cooling or warming or staying the same.  In other words, are the measurement uncertainties small enough to allow us to predict a trend? The Earth’s temperature is certainly not staying the same over time, with or without people on board. (My preference is warming. Cooling would result in mass extinctions.)

Why is the Earth Warming?

Third, if we can get past that hurdles of measuring temperature and determining a trend, we are confronted with proving WHY the temperature is changing and not just qualitatively but quantitatively, to the fraction of a degree. A computer model is NOT A PROOF. A computer model is a hypothesis that must be proven by observation, experiment and testing. This is no different than what is required of any mathematical description of reality be it Newton’s laws or quantum mechanics.

How Do We Change the Temperature Trend?

Fourth, if we decide we can measure the temperature and that the temperature is changing and that people are the cause, we must now propose a solution. And, again, scientific necessity requires that we PROVE the hypothesis, that is, prove the cure we propose. Even advocates of warming have not found a solution tyrannical, oppressive and inhuman enough to make much of a difference in their temperature trend claims. By their own calculations “cap and trade” and other policy proposals make a difference of only a couple tenths of a degree C per century.

Is the Cure Worst Than The Disease?

Fifth, and finally, if we are to be humane, and the warmists show no signs of being humane, we should determine if our cure is worse than the disease. I say it is. The warmists predict oceans rising, cities being flooded and a host of disasters. (But, of course, it’s also true that more carbon dioxide means more plant growth and warmer climates have longer growing seasons.)

The warmists’ cure is an end to individual rights, freedom, capitalism and, frankly, humanity. Is living in a gulag run by enviro-nazis preferable to putting your home on stilts, moving inland or to a more Northern latitude?

Just to cap this off, what do we do if 1) we can measure the Earth’s temperature and 2) we can detect a trend and 3) the trend is caused by people and 4) we have a political cure but 5) our cure goes too far and we reverse the warming trend instead of stopping it? Would you prefer Cleveland is in the tropics or that Orlando is under ice?

More research and information can be found at the Junk Science web site.

Income Inequality

December 18, 2013

President Obama gave a speech on Dec 4th and he spoke about income inequality. The Washington Times reports on the speech here. On Dec 15 Paul Krugman wrote about the subject in the NY Times.

Steel MillIncome inequality is a recurrent bugaboo of the Left. On the surface, the concern seems to have merit. But worry over income inequality has, at it’s root, Marxist presuppositions. If, as Marx believed, workers are exploited, getting an incomplete share of what they produce for a business, then comparing the income of workers and business owners makes sense.

However, if one understands more completely the workings of a free market economy, that not just labor but also capital provide value, then there is no reason to be offended by what capitalists or management earns anymore than there is reason to be offended by what a bricklayer earns compared to a teacher or engineer.

As a rebuttal to the notion that inequality isn’t some sinister byproduct of Capitalism, modern Progressives have come up with arguments claiming that societies with greater income inequality have lower economic growth and other societal ailments.

At the root of the debate is a false premise, the premise of income inequality itself. As Thomas Sowell explains, an abstract discussion of income categories leaves out a very important component, people. If, instead of comparing income categories you compare individual people you find out some interesting things. The biggest income inequality is between the old and the young. Not only do people move up the income scale throughout their lives, individuals move in and out of income categories constantly as their income varies. Better to hear his explanation first hand:

And here is Margaret Thatcher’s more dramatic exposure of Leftist fallacy: