From Ron Pisaturo:
When Obama speaks of the government ‘investing’, he is of course perverting the meaning of the word; he is really spending wealth confiscated from others. But there is a sinister way in which his use of the word ‘investing’ is revealing and apt: the government is ‘investing’ in contrast to ‘lending’. When a creditor makes a loan, the creditor obtains a promise to repay the loan with interest; in contrast, when an investor makes an investment, the investor obtains ownership and a share of the profits.
Since, according to Obama, the government ‘invests’ in you—by paying for your schooling, etc.—the government expects not a repayment of a loan to you, but rather a share of the profits in you.
See the full post at Ron’s blog.
I left this comment on a Sultan Knish article on the Aurora killings and calls for gun-controls.
It is a forensic fact of life that if a killer or robber suspects that his victims have the capacity to fight back, he is not likely to enter a home, business, shop or theater and start shooting. It is also a forensic fact – and there are dozens of stories that demonstrate it, which video footage – that a killer or robber who enters a venue with a gun gets the short end of a hail of bullets from victims who were as armed was well as he was. I recently watched a video of a pair of hooded thugs entering a Starbucks kind of café with a gun and baseball bat and proceeded to round up the patrons. Then some 83 year old patron with a pistol got behind them and began firing. The thugs tripped over each other trying to escape.
But laws that ban guns are pointless, as Daniel suggests here. Law-abiding citizens will refrain from buying guns, or are prohibited from buying them, regardless of their spotless records. Law-breakers will not obey such laws and will always find ways to get guns. Breaking laws is what they do. Then they prey on the defenseless law-abiding citizens. And in a society in which the health and safety of law-abiding citizens are not a government’s first priority, but control of all actions, if they fight back, they are liable to be made criminals themselves, for having had the capacity to fight back to preserve their health and safety. And if they happen to injure a criminal in the act of defending their values, in that same society they’re liable to be sued for the injuries they have inflicted on the criminal. Such citizens don’t even need to have possessed a gun. They could just as well kick the criminal in the groin or judo-chop his larynx or break his jaw, and they could be charged with using “excessive force” to subdue a criminal.
It’s the criminal who initiates force, and when he does, he is risking death or injury at the hands of his victim, who can retaliate only to the best of his ability. That’s the only thing criminal law should consider, and not whether or not a “sporting chance” is granted to the criminal. A criminal forfeits all rights once he initiates force. He introduces the element of force into his victim’s life, and he is just as likely to be a subject of force if his victim fights back as he is willing to subject his victim to. For horror stories of people jailed, fined, or sued for defending their lives or property, see Britain, a comprehensive police-state envied by gun-control advocates here in the U.S.
I left this comment on a Jihad Watch column on Bachmann and Clinton’s “aid”:
A reader provided a link to Bachmann’s site. To post a comment, use Zip code 55003
Dear Representative Bachmann:
I must congratulate you on your firm stand calling for an investigation of the Islamic infiltration of our government, in particular of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s aide Huma Abedin’s family, as well as other prominent Muslim-Americans working within the U.S. government, who have ties to Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. Such an investigation would likely reveal that the Brotherhood especially has been acting against this country for over a decade.
Frankly, I think you should ratchet up the charge to include Hillary Clinton herself. After all, how could she retain Abedin since 1996 without eventually learning of her connections to an organization dedicated to “conquering” the United States and bringing down its “miserable house”? And how could she then retain this person without being sympathetic to that “cause”? Even more, I would include President Obama in your call for an investigation; his foreign policy is obviously pro-Islam. His preferred “allies” are dictators and tyrants, e.g., Hugo Chavez and Saudi royalty, and he seems to have a yearning to be buddies with Vladimir Putin, who despises Obama and uses him as Kleenex.
The behavior and charges of John McCain and the House Speaker among other Republicans are disgusting. Is this a sample of Republican spine and backbone in the face of Islamic jihad? To cover for the enemy? And where is Mitt Romney in all this hullabaloo? Can we count on him to side with you, or is he, like House Speaker John Boehner, going to wuss out and join the lynching mob?
Islam is just another form of “gangster government,” and the Brotherhood is just like the Corleone family from “The Godfather.” Don’t give in to it. “Never give in,” said Winston Churchill, whose bust Obama returned to Britain.
Writes Richard Salsman on The Bullet Train Fiasco Reminds Us That California Is Our Greece – Forbes:
When America was a freer, more capitalist nation, it achieved great things in infrastructure, largely by private means. The Panama Canal was built by U.S. firms in just 10 years (1904-1914), after the French had failed over the prior two decades. The Erie Canal was dug and made navigable in only 8 years (1817-1825). The U.S. Transcontinental Railroad was built in just 6 years (1863-1869). The Hoover Dam took a mere 5 years to complete (1931-1936). The Golden Gate Bridge was erected in under 5 years (January 1933 – May 1937). Most amazing of all perhaps, the Empire State Building was built in 13 months (March 1930 – April 1931).
An eye-opener. The issue is not “American jobs” but state-to-state or government-to-government deals. In this case, government-run-and-owned companies are benefiting from crony fascism. China is run by card-carrying communists who also control “private” Chinese companies, so they can also be called fascists. The symbiosis is startling but not surprising. General Motors, for example, has billions invested in China to produce luxury cars with the GM signature, but those companies are controlled by the Chinese government. Fundamentally, there is no difference here between the Chinese government undertaking mammoth building projects and the Saudis and Dubai building skyscrapers in the desert with petro dollars extorted from Americans with the connivance of our own government.
Diane Sawyer, of course, would never ask why American jobs are going overseas, that is, why federal tax policies drive American capital to flee to offshore bank accounts and so never keep all those American welders and other construction pros employed. (Or maybe she’s too dumb to suspect the reason.) She’s pro-Obama but this little report doesn’t do Obama any favors. There are doctrinaire leftists in the news media, and then there are the clueless ones who adopt a party line without knowing it’s a party line, but which answers their own cruddy education and hatered of freedom.
We have had a “mixed economy” of freedom and controls for over a century, but such an unchallenged “mix” leads inevitably to across-the-board total controls. What one should object to in this ABC story is not that “jobs” are going overseas, but rather government interventionist policies that forbid capitalists from acting freely and without penalty and which give “crony capitalists” and government “capitalists” a free hand.
Factor into this story the fact that the Chinese government is one of the biggest holders of U.S. treasuries. Was the awarding of this Chinese company the Hamilton and Bay Bridge contracts a means of the U.S. paying off some of its debt to the Chinese government? I’d like to see that story run somewhere.
Jonathan Krohn first captured the national spotlight when he authored the book Defining Conservatism and delivered a speech at CPAC in 2009. He had accomplished all of these major feats when he was only 13 years old. At 17, he’s now making the necessary preparations to enroll at NYU. However, according to a recent Politico article, Krohn has made a massive ideological shift…backwards. In fact, Krohn will neither call himself a conservative or reject the ideology outright. As the article states, “Krohn won’t go so far as to say he’s liberal, in part because his move away from conservatism was a move away from ideological boxes in general.”
Krohn explains it this way:
“One of the first things that changed was that I stopped being a social conservative,” said Krohn. “It just didn’t seem right to me anymore. From there, it branched into other issues, everything from health care to economic issues.… I think I’ve changed a lot, and it’s not because I’ve become a liberal from being a conservative — it’s just that I thought about it more. The issues are so complex, you can’t just go with some ideological mantra for each substantive issue.”
Indeed, “conservatism” is quite similar to the concept of a mixed economy. Where a mixed economy is a volatile mix of freedoms and controls, conservatism is a slap-dashed conglomerate of free market principles and mysticism–or an appeal to the Dark Ages. Ayn Rand put it this way:
The most immoral contradiction—in the chaos of today’s anti-ideological groups—is that of the so-called “conservatives,” who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account?
—Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 227
However, this doesn’t answer the fundamental question of why Krohn consciously decided to abandon the importance of principles altogether. What Krohn reveals is most disturbing:
“I started reflecting on a lot of what I wrote, just thinking about what I had said and what I had done and started reading a lot of other stuff, and not just political stuff,” Krohn said. “I started getting into philosophy — Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Kant and lots of other German philosophers. And then into present philosophers — Saul Kripke, David Chalmers. It was really reading philosophy that didn’t have anything to do with politics that gave me a breather and made me realize that a lot of what I said was ideological blather that really wasn’t meaningful.”
Of all the philosophers Krohn lists as important to him; the one who lived and wrote before the rest, and who remains a titan in the field is–Immanuel Kant. I’ll refer to Ayn Rand once more to elaborate why Kant is such a destructive force in the realm of philosophy:
The man who . . . closed the door of philosophy to reason, was Immanuel Kant. . . .
Kant’s expressly stated purpose was to save the morality of self-abnegation and self-sacrifice. He knew that it could not survive without a mystic base—and what it had to be saved from was reason.
Attila’s share of Kant’s universe includes this earth, physical reality, man’s senses, perceptions, reason and science, all of it labeled the “phenomenal” world. The Witch Doctor’s share is another, “higher,” reality, labeled the “noumenal” world, and a special manifestation, labeled the “categorical imperative,” which dictates to man the rules of morality and which makes itself known by means of afeeling, as a special sense of duty.
The “phenomenal” world, said Kant, is not real: reality, as perceived by man’s mind, is a distortion. The distorting mechanism is man’s conceptual faculty: man’s basic concepts (such as time, space, existence) are not derived from experience or reality, but come from an automatic system of filters in his consciousness (labeled “categories” and “forms of perception”) which impose their own design on his perception of the external world and make him incapable of perceiving it in any manner other than the one in which he does perceive it. This proves, said Kant, that man’s concepts are only a delusion, but a collective delusion which no one has the power to escape. Thus reason and science are “limited,” said Kant; they are valid only so long as they deal with this world, with a permanent, pre-determined collective delusion (and thus the criterion of reason’s validity was switched from theobjective to the collective), but they are impotent to deal with the fundamental, metaphysical issues of existence, which belong to the “noumenal” world. The “noumenal” world is unknowable; it is the world of “real” reality, “superior” truth and “things in themselves” or “things as they are”—which means: things as they are not perceived by man.
Even apart from the fact that Kant’s theory of the “categories” as the source of man’s concepts was a preposterous invention, his argument amounted to a negation, not only of man’s consciousness, but ofany consciousness, of consciousness as such. His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man islimited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes—deaf, because he has ears—deluded, because he has a mind—and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them.
—For The New Intellectual, 30
And there you have it. The story of a young boy who embraced “conservatism,” with all its contradictions and logical loopholes, as a viable ideology only to discover that it’s not. Subsequently, he has gone on to learn that attempting to understand reality and existence is merely a futile effort due to the construction of the human brain–at least according to Kant. Krohn was right to reject “conservatism” but he has escaped flagrant contradictions only to fall for evasion (His exposure to the former helps explain his attraction to the latter as well). Here’s hoping Jonathan will read his way to Ayn Rand soon–before the NYU faculty gets to him.
There’s nothing wrong with the Constitution that repeal and nullification can’t fix. In the context of Obamacare, the Supreme Court ruling upholding it, and the Sixteenth Amendment granting the government the power to tax incomes, here’s an interesting bit of history. It underscores the reason why we shouldn’t count on Romney or any Conservatives to rescue the country from the cannibals:
“In 1909 progressives in Congress again attached a provision for an income tax to a tariff bill. Conservatives, hoping to kill the idea for good, proposed a constitutional amendment enacting such a tax; they believed an amendment would never receive ratification by three-fourths of the states. Much to their surprise, the amendment was ratified by one state legislature after another, and on February 25, 1913, with the certification by Secretary of State Philander C. Knox, the 16th amendment took effect. Yet in 1913, due to generous exemptions and deductions, less than 1 percent of the population paid income taxes at the rate of only 1 percent of net income.”
So, the Progressives (aka Socialists) outfoxed the Conservatives, who shot themselves in the foot by introducing the legislation as a ruse to defeat a tariff bill. As the brief article explains, the “progressive” wing of the Republican Party also advocated an income tax. And the rate of tax has grown from 1 percent to blatantly confiscatory rates that only tax specialists can understand (if at all). The “progressives” knew this; the “conservatives” didn’t. But, it was Teddy Roosevelt who split the Republican Party by starting his own “Bull Moose Party” and handed the White House to that Progressive fashion plate, Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson during the election of 1912. Wilson approved of every piece of Progressive legislation, including the 16th amendment and the Federal Reserve Act of December 1913 (he took office in March 1913, about a week after ratification of the 16th Amendment). Conservatives have been fighting a rear-guard action against the Progressives every since, in terms of political philosophy, and it too much resembles Napoleon’s retreat from Russia.
Here’s the link to the short article on the history of the 16th Amendment.
So, the Constitution is worth salvaging. It is too remarkable a political document. It just needs a Judge Narragansett to blue pencil those parts of it that contradict its glorious intention and premises, which are to restrict Congress’s power to loot and destroy, as depicted at the end of AS. Unfortunately, no one on the Supreme Court or on any Federal court now is a Narragansett. And I’m afraid we are headed for a civil war between the haves (us) and the entrenched looters, in and out of government. The conflict won’t wait for the philosophical reeducation of Americans. How it will end is a matter of speculation. Or it may be that the country will just become a full-fledged dictatorship lording it over an electorate resigned to its servitude.