Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Capitalism from the Brilliant Mind of a Brit…


The link below was sent to me by a friend of many years. Of all his great accomplishments throughout the years, the least is his inability to see the Liberal/Socialist/Progressives for what they are - a group dedicated to changing our system of government, disregarding our Constitution, and substituting an anarchist/Marxist regime. Said regime would right the entire world’s unbalances by “sharing the wealth”, or more interestingly by doing away with wealth, and destroying the engine that allows one to become wealthy. That engine is Capitalism.

I seldom, if ever, include video or links in my pieces. There are so many available on the Internet that it is hard to decide what one would best fit the theme of an article. In this case, however, the idea for the article came because the friend mentioned above sent the link below to me along with a brief message that read: “As the subject [line] states…this is brilliant…enjoy and share…”

The Subject line read: FW: Interesting (iconoclastic, irreverent, creative, entertaining, heuristic, provocative, challenging) take on capitalism and the world economic crisis... (from the U.K.)

I suppose I should have been wary of the way Capitalism would be treated given that the UK is basically a Socialist County, rapidly becoming a Theocracy. However, I watched the video, and was amazed at how such a “cute” cartoon presentation could be so lean in the careful analysis and conclusion area. I started to respond to the email with a few lines of analysis, and soon I had a page of analysis [I publish it here for your perusal, and comment.]


Thank you for sending the video.

One can never read too much Hayek or Adam Smith for that matter.

The problem with all of these presentations is that they are simplistic, not necessarily unbiased, and never suggest a system that works better, or for that matter a solution. His talking points are old, and never seem to get past the nagging phase, and do not introduce any new arguments. The real talent here was that of the cartoonist.

You and I should know better than most that a failure of a system node does not mean that the system is necessarily faulty. To be incredibly simplistic, one could say that flight itself is a failure because in the last month two major crashes have taken many hundreds of lives. Engine failures that were caught "just in time" saved hundreds more. In these cases something went wrong, and most likely someone did not do his or her job. Alternatively, inherent in any human endeavor is fault. All systems will eventually fail. This computer that I am using will one day betray me and fail - causing me to lose a great deal of data and a fair amount of time. Does that mean that the entire computerized gestalt we live in is a poorly designed and overly utilized system? Not necessarily.

In a nutshell, Capitalism is a system of earning and distributing wealth through the creation of goods and services. In doing that, some become quite wealthy, others never do. I believe that those that don't are not victims of anything but their own personalities and actions. I believe by a simple code in that regard: "There are no victims."

I lost a great deal of money due to the machinations of Greenspan, and what those machinations did to markets - all markets. That's not Capitalism's fault, that is my fault for not acting with alacrity and doing more personal research. When Carter started the "everyone should own a home" thing, millions of smart investors should have said, that's not possible. Instead millions bought and sold homes to great advantage. Unfortunately they sold them to many who could not afford them, so banks failed, developers failed, homeowners failed, and systems failed. Each system failure has its starting point not with a Machiavellian plot, but with an error of judgment, or an error due not to human evil, but to simply being human and prone to error. Each failure must be accompanied by a self examination that amounts to taking responsibility for what one does or does not do in response to a system failure. If the current head of the Federal Reserve is a financial idiot - which I believe - then I need to acknowledge that, and take steps to protect myself and my family. To do otherwise is simply to lay the framework for laying blame on "The System" - whatever that system is.

I suggest a very nice little book that takes a different tact on money and budgets - after all, Capitalism is about money and budgets, and greed and stupidity, and humans ignoring the fact that the latter two are far more important than anything. The book is: "Economics in One Lesson", Henry Hazlitt, Three rivers Press NY, 1979. Additionally, if you are so inclined to understand more than the cartoon approach to Capitalism, try "Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to Understanding the Economy." by Thomas Sowell, Basic Books; Rev Exp edition (December 23, 2003).

Alternatively to understand why it is not possible to pit one system against the other in any meaningful way most of the time is to be found in "The Logic of Modern Physics", by P. W. Bridgman, Macmillan Paperbacks, 1960, wherein Dr. Bridgman suggests that many questions are meaningless questions, and to pursue them is a waste of time. Since one can never look at a phenomenon like Capitalism and compare it to other systems in real time, i.e. at the same moment, in the same place to pursue this type of question is to pursue a philosophical matter, not something that has any basis in fact. That defines most academics.

Mr. Harvey is an academic. Remember the old adage "Those who can do, those that can't teach." To wit: Mr. Harvey stated that wages have not increased for quite some time, and that is the fault of greedy Capitalists. Wrong. Let me tell you about reality. Our company (HCDS) hired and paid 150 employees each month. Each year the personnel budget increased substantially. Were we increasing wages? Not very much. So what were we spending the money on? Government mandates that's what. Increased Social Security, increased Medicare, Increased California taxes, increased unemployment insurance, increased government demanded audits of personnel records, etc.

Mr. Harvey mentions "Greedy Capitalists" as one causes of economic failure. Yes, there certainly are greedy Capitalists, but there are also Greedy Russian Communists (Lukoil's billionaire owner & Putin to name two.), Greedy Chinese Communists (Try the one who gambles and loses $25,000,000 each year at the MGM Grand - personal communication), and Greedy Socialists - i.e. George Soros.)

While Mr. Harvey seems to want to promote Marxism, he fails to mention that it was tried, and it has failed miserably. You are old enough to remember the Russian food lines, the search for toilet paper, the need for heating fuel that only the rich Russians got, etc. Perhaps Mr. Harvey has never read Einstein's definition of insanity!

So yes David the presentation is iconoclastic, irreverent, creative, entertaining, heuristic, provocative, & challenging, but it is also Communist, & Socialist, Academic pap. This man has never had to meet a payroll, develop a budget, been made to stick to that budget, and survive in the face of the economic down turns that all systems of finance undergo.

Nice try - Entertaining but not terribly effective. I think that this lecture could just as well have been entitled "Class Warfare - Cartoon Version".

Thus far I have not received a response from my friend. I have a vague feeling that I shall not.

November 23, 2010

Labels: , , , , ,

Thursday, November 11, 2010

Dead People Walking...

Before beginning to write about my take on what has become known as ObamaCare, I need to make it clear that the notion of writing an article about this topic was catalyzed by an article written by Bob Webster, Editor of WebCommentary.com. After reading Bob’s Article, and viewing the included videos several times, I realized that we are all Dead People Walking if this criminal act is allowed to stand.

The salient points of one of the videos reduce to the bulleted points below. I realize that the health care bill is incredibly large, not well written and contains thousands of inaccuracies and faulty budgetary and health care projections. My goal here is not to enumerate every one of those but to “cherry pick” a few of the most onerous. I do this to make a point. To wit:

· Health care will be rationed. Single folks limited to $5000, and couples to $10,000.

· A government committee will determine levels of care – not your physician.

· A Health Care Commissioner chooses the appropriate health care option.

· A Health Care Exchange will be established and will be government controlled.

· Should anyone choose not to enroll in a health care plan, he or she will be taxed an additional 2.5%.

· The government health care minions will have access to all personal health care and financial records. [Illegal search and seizure anyone?]

· All care will be rationed, especially in those areas that are expensive to treat, i.e. cancer.

· All health care provided will be subjected to outcome measures that are defined by the government, not your doctor.

· Special needs patients will receive government determined care, for government determined periods.

· The elderly and the poor will be subjected to a Tele-Health care committee examination of their needs, and the committee will determine same.

· End of life services will be government controlled.

· Living wills and directives shall be approved by the government.

These are but a few of the problems identified in Bob’s article. Even though the above list paraphrases them egregiously, they are still pretty accurate as well as frightening. What can be done? I have pondered much that has been written and proposed by politicians opposed to ObamaCare, by elected Tea Party Candidates, and by Republican leaders. Given my age and my experience with politicians, I am not terribly sanguine about major changes, nor am I comfortable that the (new) leadership will have the intestinal fortitude to rescind the law.

If most of the tenets of this law are upheld, we – the people – are all either now, or in the near future, Dead People Walking. What do I mean by that? Before getting into that lets take a brief look at some readily available statistics about health care in the United States, Canada, Europe, and the United Kingdom. The data provide a bit of context without becoming a treatise on statistics, and statistical analysis. As with all statistics, there is generally more to the story than the numbers and even those are often contested. For example, the three illustrations from Investor’s Business Daily data below are considered meaningless by some, but not others. These data are not terribly different from similar data from other sources. The difficulty in comparing such data is that the study years, the population, the analytical methods and the political implications are usually not known. That in itself is instructive, but a topic for another day.

Source: Investor’s Business Daily

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S - 65%; England - 46%; Canada- 42%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S.- 90% ; England - 15%; Canada - 43%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S. - 93%; England - 15%; Canada - 43%

Lancet Oncology – a much respected Journal, offers this analysis when comparing Cancer survival rates in Europe and the United States. [Ardunio Verdecchia et al,”Recent Cancer Survival in Europe, 2000-2002 Period, Analysis of EUROCARE-2 Data” Lancet Oncology, 2007]

This analysis demonstrated that American men enjoy five year cancer survival rates of 66% and woman survive at a 63% rate. European Men’s survival rate is 47%. Only women of three countries - Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland enjoy a five year survival rate of 60%. Great Britain, known for its 50-year-old government-run, universal health care system, fares worse than the European average: British men have a five-year survival rate of only 45 percent; women, only 53 percent.

Canadian men and women fare a bit better with 58% of women surviving cancer by 5 years. The men’s survival rate is 53%. [These data are from a 2001-2003 study by June and David O’Neill of the USA Congressional Budget Office.]

The National Center for Policy Analysis [http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba649] in an article entitled “10 Surprising Facts about American Health Care” offers the following as one of the 10 indicated points:

Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.[3] Some 56 percent of Americans who could benefit are taking statins, which reduce cholesterol and protect against heart disease. By comparison, of those patients who could benefit from these drugs, only 36 percent of the Dutch, 29 percent of the Swiss, 26 percent of Germans, 23 percent of Britons and 17 percent of Italians receive them.
I could provide more statistics, more studies and more opinions, but will not. We could analyze the methodology, vis-à-vis how these data were gathered, and examined, the conclusions vis-à-vis outcomes, cost to benefit analyses and other conclusions about various care systems. That may be an interesting and enjoyable exercise, but is beyond the scope of this article. We would be Dead People Walking if ObamaCare is implemented not because statistically we would most likely slide into the mediocrity of our Canadian and European cousins, but because we would forfeit our freedom of choice, our privacy, our independence and our health to an overarching bureaucracy. Imagine these same people providing health care services to three hundred million American citizens as well as millions of illegals. England with a population of 51 million, and Canada with a population of 34 million are unable to manage their systems, and provide the equivalent of our health care services. We believe that health care in the United States should be improved, and made more efficient, and less costly. We need to work on that, but not at the price of our freedoms, and our sanity.

ObamaCare may be the full employment act for an entire new cadre of government bureaucrats who will determine how our care is rationed. It will not be a good thing for American patients needing a physician. A recent Survey by the AMA (American Medical Association) indicated that as many as 46% of all practicing physicians will leave the medical field if ObamaCare is implemented. Given the estimated 32 million new patients that ObamaCare shall allegedly attract, who will treat them? In fact, if physicians, and most likely other medical professionals, leave the field, who would treat the existing patient load, let alone 32 million new patients? Where will these patients be treated? Emergency rooms, hospitals and medical clinics will be overrun with patients who need treatment by a physician, not a non-medically trained government employee.

A rejoinder may be that the government will hire as many physicians and health professionals as necessary to provide care. Many professionals including doctors, nurses, physicians assistants, nurse practitioners, etc. will simply not want to work in a rule bound, overregulated health care system where efficient and effective patient care, as determined by the attending professional, is the exception rather than the rule.

If we are not in control of our own destinies, and can no longer make personal decisions about our health care, our physicians, our health care plans, we have lost control over most of what is important to us – life. We are no more able to control how we care for ourselves than the proverbial fatted calves. We will, as we age, be Soylent Green material, and will be cast on the dung heap of those not worth the effort, or the funds necessary, to keep us alive. (Illegal immigrants excepted) If we are no more than a ratio of cost to age, and fail to meet whatever is determined to be in the appropriate cost to age benefit cohort – the one that dictates we are “OK to treat”, what are we? Dispensable, that’s what.

If we can come to terms with being Dispensable, we can then plan how we will live. Any reasonable person knows that we cannot stop aging, regardless of how we try to maintain good health and a positive approach to advancing years. (For those who are many years younger than me – you too will be old one day – God willing.)

Currently, how do we care for ourselves and try to maintain good health? We eat well, we exercise, and we stop smoking if we did. We drink moderately, and we take a fair share of vitamins and supplements. If we are diagnosed with a disease, we visit our health care providers, and we adhere to the treatment regimen that has been recommended. We drive carefully, we don’t do illegal drugs, and we stay away from places that are likely to impair our health.

If a healthy 73 year old breaks a hip, some high grade dull normal in Washington will divide the cost of care by the age, and decree that my care will be too expensive, and that the costs to care for an old person would be better spent on a teenager who broke a hip while drag racing. After all, he or she has a lot of taxpaying years ahead of him or her. A 73 year old has relatively few.

Prior to ObamaCare taking good care of oneself was reasonable. Now, given that some nameless bureaucrat will be suggesting – nay not suggesting but stipulating treatments, stipulating costs, stipulating medical venues, and then finally “approving” our living wills, why in hell should we bother to take care of ourselves? What would the point be? If we are to die at the hands of our government, why not live like there is no tomorrow?

So from now on, I will have bacon and eggs for breakfast each day, buy a Harley, drink more wine, eat more fat rich, and more flavorful salted foods, lie around the yard and soak up the cancer causing sun, buy a Porsche, and drive the way I really would like to drive, go on hunting trips that require a degree of risk, fly more, sail more and spend my money before the government gets it. Why not? As a Dead Person Walking, it does not matter anymore. In fact a quick death in an airline accident – while traveling to some exotic destination - would be far more enjoyable than being left to rot while a Washington bureaucrat decides what to do with me.

ObamaCare, with its Health Care Commissions and Health care Czars have given me permission to live life as if every day is the last, because if they have anything to do with it, it soon will be!

November 2010

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

The Yoke of Political Correctness...

There is no cogent reason why political correctness exists. The entire notion smacks of hypocrisy, guilt, and a misguided sense of fairness that promotes an insidious false sense of “doing things right”. For reasons not easily explained it has become the sine qua non of fairness in the United States. Actually, most politically correct actions, laws, regulations and stipulations do not reflect anything but someone’s – usually a very liberal someone – idea of what the world should be like. Because they believe that their view of what the world ought to be like, they incrementally change the paradigms of our American culture to reflect that belief.

For example, in a politically correct world there are no Mexican gangs, no Black gangs, no gangs at all that reflect a specific minority. To label gangs as such is unfair, demeaning and politically incorrect. As someone who has a fair amount of experience working with gangs, I can state categorically that Black gangs, White gangs, Mexican gangs, and Asian gangs, among others, do exist, and they are proud of their ethnicity. There is also another gang, rather recently developed and fairly well organized. It is Al Qaeda, and it is a Muslim gang.

Years ago – not really all that long ago actually – it was easy to determine what type of gang one was investigating. Police rounded up suspects from specific areas and questioned them. If the suspects were Mexican and the city was Los Angeles, one went to East Los Angeles neighborhoods and took likely culprits into custody for questioning. There was little reason to go into Watts. Ditto in New York. If a Black gang was active the police went to Harlem. Same reason.

How did the police know where to go? Profiling. The police had gang profiles established and if a gang-banger fit the profile he or she was picked up. Profiling saved a lot of time and a lot of lives. Now it is not accepted practice to profile suspects. Why change something that worked, and has worked for centuries? Political correctness advocates did it.

It became unfair to look for specific ethnic groups, and develop a profile that fit the modus operandi of the crime committed. After all, establishing a profile that reflected the input of victims would be unfair to the perpetrator. How so, you may ask? We are not indicting all Blacks (Mexican, Asians, Whites, Italians) when we establish a profile. We are gathering objective data that provides clues to the type of person that might actually have committed the crime. Are we not using these data to simple say: “If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, it’s a duck.” Yes, because if it barked it would not be a duck! Likewise if the last 28 terrorist acts were perpetrated by Fundamentalist Muslims, it is highly likely that the next terrorist act would be perpetrated by a Fundamentalist Muslim regardless of what CAIR (Council on American Islamic Relations) says!

In fact, perhaps the first Muslim group to be profiled should be CAIR. Any group whose leader said that the only law is the Koran, and who believes in Sharia Law needs to be profiled, because there can be no good in someone whose goal is to replace the U. S. Constitution. (http://www.anti-cair-net.org/)

“Groups like CAIR have a proven record of senior officials being indicted and either imprisoned or deported from the United States," said U.S. Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., co-founder of the House Anti-Terrorism/Jihad Caucus.
CAIR itself recently [2007] was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged scheme to funnel $12 million to the terrorist group Hamas. In the Holy Land Foundation case, federal prosecutors also listed CAIR as a member of the U.S. branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement that gave rise to Hamas, al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. The government will retry the Holy Land case, which ended in a hung jury.

"There was a lot of evidence presented at the recent Holy Land Foundation trial which exposed CAIR and others as front groups for the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States," Myrick said.

Still, CAIR is lobbying House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers and other sympathetic members of Congress to pressure the Justice Department to expunge its name from the case, arguing the negative publicity has hurt membership and fundraising.”

All persons and organizations who fit into a terrorist profile must be investigated, whether they are Army Majors, or young Muslims traveling from a country far away with no luggage, a one way ticket and an admitted love of Jihad. How can any sane country not do so? Why have Western nations strayed so far from sanity? How can we decide to not “insult” our Muslim brothers, yet risk the lives of our own citizens? Choosing between safety and possibly upsetting any number of Mid-East countries is a no-brainer. Given our superior computer capability, our software programs that use artificial intelligence, we can profile our way to safety far quicker that taking the time to try and convince our enemies that we are nice guys. They have a mission to destroy our way of life and to substitute their way of life for it. They believe that this is the instruction contained in the Koran. Is it? That depends upon whose reading what version of what Koran.

There are a billion or so of peace loving, moderate Muslims. These people are not the enemy, but they are complicit in that they do little to stop the Fundamentalists. Be that as it may, the enemy is the Fundamentalist Muslim. They must be profiled into obsolescence.

Labels: , ,

Friday, October 23, 2009

You stoop to their level and you are no better than they are…

The line in the title of this article was used by an RNC Blog member who disagreed with my approach to recapturing control of the United States Congress. It is used often when strong actions of any kind are either taken or even suggested. Something similar, i.e. “If we do that we will be just like them …”

Why did I decided to write this piece? I logged onto the Facebook GOP/RNC site forum. That was my first mistake. I had imagined that I would find Republicans who were ready to do anything legal to win back the Congress and the Senate. I expected to see rational people questioning the RNC, and asking why their responses to ObamaCare, TARP, Stimulus, Cap and Trade, The UN “One World “ conference, Tax increases, etc have either been tepid or non-existent. I expected a fired up electorate who wanted change – not BO’s change, but real change back to small government, constitutional themes, concerns about the second amendment, the Trillions of dollars in debt that we now owe, the weakened, and soon to be even weaker dollar, The takeover of GM, Chrysler and the banks. Not a word.

I expected to see some support for the tea parties, for the millions who have lost their jobs, often through no fault of their own. I expected to see outrage over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and calls the trial and imprisonment of Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. There was no mention of these criminals, or the lives that they have impacted.

I suggested that the Republican Party had forgotten how to fight, and that they needed to take a few pages from the Democrats vis-à-vis learning more street fighter tactics to counter those of the Rahm Emanuals of the world. I suggested that we needed more of a “Go for the Jugular” attitude, so that we can WIN. I suggested that we be more like THEM.

Not a person agreed. I was accused of being a Democrat, or one who should be. It was said I was one of those people who gave Republicans a bad name. Actually I am a Conservative who belongs to the Republican Party. I am also frustrated that we seem to have grown another generation of country club Republicans. Republicans who actually believe that nothing more than talk, currying favor, keeping quiet, and ignoring the real issues because they may require getting “down and dirty” is the way to get the job done.

Most of what America has suffered at the hands of the Obama Administration in the last 10 months is Obama’s fault. Much is also the fault of Republicans who are in collusion with him. Republicans like those in the RNC.

Often, exploring what person or group of persons responds to something with this comment I find that, more often than not it is a Liberal, a moderate Republican or someone who actually believes that peace can be achieved by apologizing – like President Obama.

The idea that “being just like them” or “stooping to their level”, or anything similar is necessarily bad is an assumption that may not be warranted. The “them” that is discussed is seldom identifies in detail. The things that “them” do, is also many times disregarded.

Let’s start by looking at the current baseball playoff between the LA Dodgers and the Philadelphia Phillies. The Dodgers lost. I imagine that if the Dodgers said “we must be just like them. We must execute better, we must win, and next year we must change how we play this game. We must play like them”. This is not seen as anything but good, clean competition.

What about when a pitcher on one team purposely throws a ball at an opposing pitcher’s head, and the next inning the other pitcher does the same. As a baseball player (in my youth) and a fan now, I have seen this done on a number of occasions, but never have I heard anyone say, “ Now we are just like ‘them’”. Why not? In baseball the second pitcher was sending a message, and that message was if you do this so will we, and we can do it better.

In the 1920’s, through the 70’s the underworld spent a great deal of time eluding the police and law enforcement in general. One reason is that the law enforcement then was very different than now. Police were not loath to “bust a few heads” to solve a crime. They did this for many reasons, but one was to be more like them – the criminals. Anyone who has seen photos of shootouts between police and the underworld saw that force was the rule. The police simply used the same tactics as the criminals, but did it better. They became “Just like them”. Unfortunately activists came along and said we cannot just shoot the bad guys, they need lawyers. What if one was innocent, or not as guilty? He or she needed to be protected from the police. That was necessary because some of the police, in the opinion of the ACLU types.

The police are first responders, and so are our military. They now respond not to nationally recognized force, but to insurgents, Al Qaeda, the Taliban etc. The latter in turn fight us in many ways including mass murder, de-capitation, rape, firing squads, plus the ever present IED’s. We are often at a loss as we try to figure out how to win a war without hurting anyone. We were not always like that. War was seen for what it was – War. The major objective was to kill more of the enemy than they killed of you. It was simple and effective, and usually saved lives in the long run.

The Second World War, and what the Germans did to England is a case in point. They bombed England mercilessly. We eventually bombed Germany quite thoroughly. We did what they did, but better. Anzio was similar. After taking casualties far bar beyond the norm, we simply decide that the best thing to do would be to annihilate the Germans. No quarter was asked, none was taken, Ditto for the entire campaign from Sicily to Rome. We won – they lost. We became like THEM, and we ended that part of the war, by killing more Germans than they did Allied soldiers.

But somehow that did not resonate for long. We fought to a stalemate in Korea, we actually won in Viet Nam, but let Walter Cronkite announce our loss, and Johnson believe him. The entire American government became like them – the media.

Fast Forward. So we now enter the 8th year of a war or two that could have been won in 1 to 2 years. Our forces have fought gallantly, but are hamstrung by lawyers and do-gooders who would see a rabid dog as a mistreated animal who simply need his or her ears scratched. So many atrocities have been perpetrated against our military, and yet we are told, be nice, no strong action, no shooting until you are certain the man with the AK-47 is an enemy, and for sure no torture, no matter what. We don’t want to be like them. Why not? Being like them may have shortened the war, and more importantly saved American lives.

Now all that philosophy is part and parcel of our entire political gestalt.

We will never be able to save a continent again, because we cannot save ourselves from those who have made us but a shadow of the country who set nations free.

I leave with Dante’s great line “Abandon all Hope ye who enter here…”

Tilting @ Windmills…

I have puzzled over the inordinate number of mind boggling, ineffective, time wasting and naïve activities that are used by folks world wide as they deal with some of the issues facing humankind today

This article represents an exploration of the actions of people when faced with difficult, if not intractable problems. Rather than study the problem, determine its significance, and develop a plan to deal with it until solved, we submit that people do what is easiest, rather than what is best or effective. Faced with real and often horrid worldwide problems, people feel the need to do something even if that something is irrelevant. Thus, for instance, they ride bicycles not for exercise, but to do their part to save the planet. They know not how to save the planet, and feel inadequate to do so. Riding their bikes represents, in their minds, a contributed solution regardless of the fact that no planet will be saved by a cadre of well meaning bicycle riders. I submit that they know this, but do not have the ability, or courage, to participate in real solutions.

Let’s explore a number of examples: The major problems we all face include, but are not limited to, global warming, environmental protection acts, a nuclear Iran, an Arabic Israel, race relations, illegal immigration, sexual orientation, gay marriage, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, terrorism in general, racism, socialists in the White House, the First Amendment to the US Constitution, the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, The Constitution itself, obesity, diabetes, trans-fats, energy, energy independence, a free press, the Fairness Doctrine, a country now trillions in debt, health care services, ACORN, CAIR, and so on and so forth.

Watching many of my fellow citizen deal with any of the above is a bit puzzling. The issues are not puzzling. What is puzzling is the unwillingness to do any small amount of research into the problems prior to taking some sort of action. They ignore the effect, if any, that their actions may have on the alleged problem, to wit none.

It is important to explore why people do what they do when faced with a problem. Some people simply deny there is a problem. Others fixate on the problem and obsess on that problem, but never on a solution. Still others, and I believe these are the majority of people, choose a course of action that makes them feel good, but that does not necessarily address any part of the actual problem. What they do simply makes them feel good, and that’s enough. If they actually understood the severity of the problem, depression, angst, anxiety and a farrago of related actions would ensue. Some would suffer panic attacks.

Let’s explore one ongoing worldwide problem: Iran and the potential that Iran either has or will have a nuclear weapon capability in the near future. Most folks never think about Iran, the “bomb”, or the potential of Iran using the bomb to annihilate one or more of its neighbors. Why not? That’s simple. This group of people believes that there is nothing they can do about Iran, and if anything is to be done, the government, or some government will do it. This is a form of denial not terribly different from what the Germans, French, and Americans did when faced with the fact that the Nazis intended to kill all Jews, Gypsies, and any non-Aryan chosen to be inferior.

Recently tens of thousands, even millions of people participated in a massive Twitter “attack” on Iran. Why Twitter? It was safe, it was easy, it was quick and it allowed many to send militant messages to the Ayatollahs, the Republican Guard, and the police that said, in effect, “Take that”. Having done that, these people inflated their chests, and said “I did my part for the Iranian People. “

Did this have any impact on the government of Iran? No. Did it have any impact on the Obama Administration’s response to the terror in Iran? No. All the millions of messages - “Twitterese” – and comments were nothing more than feel-good moments.

How about an issue closer to home, i.e. environment extremism? We have been told that we are polluting the planet, that all garbage, excuse me, trash, is bad, and that all trash can or would kill something if not encapsulated. So what do we do? We sort, we use numerous different trash vessels, we never throw anything where it should not be thrown. Why not? That is easy to explain. None of us are able to actually impact our planet. The concept of planetary “trash-less-ness” is too big to get our brains around, and is untenable anyway.

Part of that problem may be that except for a few places in the USA, like Harlem in New York, parts of Los Angeles, Detroit, etc. none of us see any devastation, any rot, akin to the extreme pollution we are told exists everywhere. By the same token, few study the issue, or take the time to see if what is detailed in the news about pollution is actually true. Few question the motives of environmental extremists. It is easier to simply sort our trash, recycle, and feel that we are doing our part for the globe. We walk around and tell ourselves that if it were not for our re-cycling, the planet would be going to hell in a bucket! Actually, if none of us ever re-cycled, not a damn thing would happen to the earth.

Many studies have shown that re-cycling actually uses more energy than simply tossing the articles in a land fill. So while John and Mary Recycle throw fewer plastic things in the trash, they increase global warming related to energy consumption. Of course that assumes that we humans actually have any impact on global warming. We do not. (See scientific literature on this subject.)

Regardless of our inaction, of our willingness to accept nonsense from all the prophets of doom, gloom, planetary disaster, human responsibility for everything, we are not doing anything that affects anything. By never questioning authority and never saying the equal of “The emperor has no cloths” we are not different than the person who is an enabler of an alcoholic or a drug abuser. We silently watch and take the easy way out. We recycle, rather than address the issue; we buy silly cars like the Prius rather than question the real issues behind energy, and energy independence. We never wonder why every President since Jimmy Carter has proclaimed energy independence a goal, but none have moved even an inch toward that goal. If we do wonder we never demand an answer. To hedge our bets some still buy a Prius just in case…

We never attack a problem directly because Americans more often than not take the easy way out – there’s that concept again! Rather than ask tough questions, we became politically correct. Rather than challenge activists groups who believe the constitution is an arcane piece of patter that need not be heeded, we gave in, and in the process give up.

When a gay person first said I have the same rights as a heterosexual person relative to marriage, we never said “No you do not.” When the Black Panthers intimidated voters, in Pennsylvania, we never said, “Stop or you will be arrested and thrown in jail.” When Environmentalists in California said the nonexistent Kit Fox is more important than building homes and businesses for citizens, we did not say “No it is not”. When Code Pink said, the Iraq war is illegal; we never said “No it is not.” We never had the courage to tell them that their peace activisms, and the peace activism of others before them, have killed more people than would have been killed in any war. We never told them that in the history of the world, there has never been a lasting peace without a war. We never told them: Deal with it!

When the Obama administration said we must apologize to the world, we never said “No we do not’. In fact, the world should be apologizing to us. When we see Socialism as a Presidential agenda, we never say “Mr. President, this is America. We are a Representative Republic, and prefer to stay that way.” Ditto to all of our representatives who close their eyes to the shenanigans of the Socialist-Communist-Liberal cabal now in power.

Americans do the things they do because they are powerless, or at least feel powerless to do anything meaningful. So they sort trash, add bumper stickers to their cars, never read the news because it is upsetting, and never complain publically because we do not want to be seen as troublemakers.

Sadly, we need millions of troublemakers to save the United States of America, and even more sadly, it may be too late to find them. They have all been labeled Domestic Terrorists, and are in hiding.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

ObamaCare - Response to a Liberal

This article represents the response of Stan C., our guest author, to a Liberal acquaintance – The latter a man who has turned so many corners that he has ended up where he began – confused.

Nick, how could you possibly not agree that the process is awful? For openers, the democrats in both the House and the Senate have voted NOT to produce the final legislation on the internet 72 hours before hearing it. What are they afraid of? I hope you remember that Obama categorically stated that he would do this in the name of transparency, and Nancy Pelosi agreed. They have not followed through on this promise on any of the bills they have passed. Max Baucus stated that it would take him 2 weeks to get the bill on line, therefore he voted against doing so. Let him give me the bill and I will have it on line within 24 hours. What a bunch of bullshit! Do you want people who are either lying or have no ability whatsoever to be creating legislation that affects your health?

Have you forgotten how the stimulus package was approved without the legislators having read it? Can you name a major bill passed this year that was published on the web and that citizens as well as members of the House and Senate had an opportunity to read?

Of course just about everyone agrees that some type of reform is needed, but we don't need a government takeover of health insurance. Do you think the government run post office is more efficient than UPS or FEDEX? How long do you think it would take the federal government to bankrupt the 1/6 of our economy represented by health care? Are you not aware of the looming bankruptcy of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security? Can you name a single government owned industry that runs efficiently and in the black? I can't! Why in the world would you want to turn any industry over to the government?

Do you really believe that Obama can cut $500 billion out of Medicare? If so, what is he waiting for? A legislative bill is not required to correct the fraud to which he refers. Why should those of us on Medicare be penalized and have $500 billion in cuts affect our quality of medical insurance? Are you foolish enough to believe that one-half a trillion dollars can be cut from Medicare, and that somewhere between 30,000,000 and 50,000,000 people are added to the health care rolls without any reduction in medical benefits? If so, perhaps you and I should talk about your buying Hubbard Park ( A park in Nick & Stan’s home town) from me for an agreed upon price!

Do you not think the already projected debt of $ 10 trillion dollars over the next 10 years isn't enough? How many more bonds are you willing to sell to China? How much more devalued are you willing to allow the dollar to become, before you say enough?

Thanks to those who voted for Obama and democrats in the House and Senate, the federal government now controls the banking industry, most of the insurance industry, and most of the automobile industry. They are now telling companies how much money their employees can earn? Do you wish to do the same for the health industry?

Do you think the present administration understands economics? Has it passed, or even recommended any legislation that would help the economy? I haven't seen any such legislation! What happened to "You must immediately approve the stimulus package in order to avoid Armageddon, and if you do we promise unemployment will not rise beyond 8%." Have you checked the unemployment numbers lately? And of course, Cap & Trade is a great example of legislation that has the potential to wreck havoc with our economy and cause a significant increase in energy costs? Do you think the energy providers are going to eat the additional costs? You know that they are going to pass them on to the consumers. As of this date it is estimated that at the least, Cap and Trade will add a dollar to each gallon of gasoline purchased by the American consumer. Am I to assume that is just fine with you and your Liberal friends?

Let me get back to health care legislation. Do you think it is fair for that those who have worked hard and have high incomes should be required to pay for others? Is there no limit to how much the government should be allowed to tax?

Obama's statement that the existing legislation does not represent a takeover of health care by the government is a flat out lie. I haven't read the most recent legislation because those that have created it refuse to make it available; but I have read previous versions. Please trust me when I say -- IT IS A TOTAL TAKEOVER OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY -- private companies will not be allowed to make a move without government approval. The government will determine what kind of procedures is appropriate and how much doctors and hospitals can charge for them.

Speaking of lies, have you noticed how the number of uninsured miraculously dropped from 50,000,000 to 30,000,000 during Obama's prime time speech. Can you explain that? I can! Even the 30,000,000 is inflated. It includes at least 6,000,000 immigrants (mostly illegal). It also includes about 10,000,000 people (mostly young and feeling immortal--Do you remember those days?) who are uninsured by choice. There are millions more who qualify for already existing programs. The real number of uninsured is probably 15,000,000 or less when one considers that many of these are eligible to be treated by existing Medicare and Medicaid programs.. Do we need to destroy the best system in the world to cover them? NO! NO! NO! Just about everyone agrees, so let's simply provide government subsidies for these people to purchase private insurance plans. We don't need a government run plan.

Congress should pass legislation that allows insurance companies to cross state lines. That would create competition. Companies should be required to offer a variety of plans. Insurers are allowed to sell automobile insurance across state lines, why shouldn't they be allowed to do the same with health insurance. With automobile policies one can purchase $500 deductible, $1,000 deductible, etc. One can choose the limits for liability and for collision. Why shouldn't an individual be given the choice of a policy only for catastrophic health problems? Must every health insurance policy cover every doctor's visit? Let the individual choose what is best for that person or family. Requiring health insurance policies to cover doctor's visits and all medications is comparable to having automobile insurance cover oil changes, and battery replacements.

Insurance companies should be required to create a pool for those with pre-existing conditions. Let all companies share the costs of such patients.

Individual citizens should be allowed to purchase insurance plans at the same cost as large corporations. Congress should do what it can to make individuals responsible for their own health care plans. Too many don't care about the costs because they never see them. The return to non-taxable medical accounts would help to stimulate this.

Portability should be required in all plans. Someone who is released from a job should be able to stay with the same plan while searching for a new job. Perhaps the company should be required to provide the same coverage for the released worker that is provided for other employees. This is a point where the government could reimburse the company for added expenses.

Nick, as you can see, I could go on for quite some time, but suffice repeat the some reform is needed, but we don't need to destroy the best medical system in the world, and we certainly don't need to add one more component to "government run."

One point I have not mentioned is the issue of including illegal immigrants in the health care plan. This is really a moot point. There is no doubt in my mind that the administration supported by the House and the Senate will pass an Immigration "Reform" Bill this year or next, and that it will provide a wide open door for moving illegal immigrants to citizenship, and do so in a very expedited way. Therefore more than 12,000,000 additional people will be added to the coverage. What will this do to an already overburdened, government run, inefficient system? The first thought that comes to mind, and it should come to yours also, is that it will make matters worse, and ultimately deny care to millions of people, especially those who are actually citizens.

Finally, if the proposed plan is so good, why has the president required that it not go into effect until 2013—a year AFTER his re-election bid? And if it is so good why have both the House and the Senate chosen to exempt themselves from the requirements of the bill?

I must say that although I appreciate your wanting to view all sides of an issue, I am quite surprised and disappointed that you would take any issue whatsoever with my statement that the present administration is following an awful process and that this is terrible legislation.

Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, April 25, 2009

The Americas Jounal...

Date line…April 25, 3009…The Americas Journal

Filed from: Washonstan – Capital of the Americas

The Council on Human Elations (CHE) met today in Washonstan to discuss a recent development in the under developed parts of The Americas. The Director of the Council, Ibn Raan E-Manuelle, requested that the council meet in special session when he was informed that the middle countries of The Americas, formerly known as the Mid-West in the now largely uninhabited central part of the former United States, were demanding to be heard.

Council members were at first unwilling to meet given the relative unimportance of this part of The Americas. One member, Lesbie Frank, could see no reason to discuss anything even remotely related to the middle of this now desolate, minimally populated area of a financially and morally bankrupt country. Even more importantly she questioned why the Council should take the time to hear any request from the last area in the world that was home to those who still practiced what is generally alluded to as conservative values. Ms. Frank is the adopted, wonderfully Lesbian, great, great, great granddaughter of the now deceased Congressman, Mr. Barney Frank, and the leader of the “Gays in Banking Movement” during the 21st century. Mr. Frank is also remembered as the fellow who started the “Who Need Morals?” movement. Lesbie Frank is proud to continue the “family” tradition of putting the Gay & Lesbian community’s needs before the countries needs, and if necessary placing Gay issues before any need, including the economy or safety of The Americas. [Note: The American Journal is planning an in-depth, detailed analysis of the role of the Frank family in the politics of the Western world. This will soon be available at http://www.theamericas-journal.com.]

Mr. E-Manuelle briefed the Council on the request sent to him in the form of a petition from the people populating the mid-western part of the former United States. Said petition demands that marriage between heterosexuals be recognized by The Americas. This group, Adults for Heterosexual Marriage (AHM), admits that men and women have been clandestinely marrying for centuries, in spite of the fact that heterosexual marriage was banned since 2059 in both the former United States, and The Americas.

This reporter has been told that some mid-westerners have chosen to marry both a member of the same, as well as a member of the opposite sex in order to pass the occasional inspections carried out by the Homosexual Marriage Protection Force (HMPF). Making matters worse for this group was the difficulty of hiding the occasional child born to the heterosexual couples. Prior to 3001, when asexual birth became possible, no one was to have a child without permission from CHE. This hardship, coupled to the fact that this group has somehow decided that heterosexual relations, especially sexual relations, were far more interesting when engaged in by couples owning different anatomies, has finally become too much to bear. Thus, the petition.

Mr. E-Manuelle will suggest to the Council that a Commission (some things never change) be formed to investigate this matter. His major concern is that this small group will act up to such an extent that they will perhaps galvanize any other radical pro-heterosexual marriage groups. Should this happen, The Americas could be facing a challenge to the status quo, and that could mean a decrease in the harmony and world view that has pervaded for some time now. Once the Commission’s findings are finalized they will be submitted to the New World Order Action Group. What action would, or could, be taken against these radical heterosexual conservatives is yet to be determined.

It is our understanding that findings will be presented to the Ruler of the Americas, King Barack Hussein Obama III.

Filed April 25th, 3009
The America's Journal

Labels: , , , ,

Friday, March 27, 2009

The ACLU/Communist Manifesto Meets its Match…

“In 1963 the Congressional Report below detailed how The Communist Party and Moscow planned to undermine the economy, security, business and freedom in the United States of America.” Thus began an email I received that detailed the congressional investigation of the Communist Party in America. Reading the original statements is not only instructive in a historical sense, but puzzling. Why puzzling? To me it is why our government did and those who watch over our republic, see these Communist statements, subsequently assigned to the ACLU, for what they are – a declaration of war against Capitalism, the United States and freedom.

In 1954 Congress passed the Communist Control Act. The Congressional investigation into the Communist Party manifesto below took place in 1963. It would seem to anyone who can count that the 1963 investigation was unnecessary, and that all that needed to be done was to reiterate the fact that the United States of America was not going to allow subversion, nor anything that was subversive to be promulgated. Yet what did Congress do? They investigated and reported. Subsequently Roger Baldwin started the ACLU.

Again citing the person (Maryanne) who was kind enough to send me Communist/ACLU manifesto stated: “Look up what the self-professed Communist founder of the ACLU, Roger Nash Baldwin, stated… It will shock you. He defines socialism as the MEANS, and Communism as the GOAL…. the ACLU was founded by Communists for the express purpose of undoing America from the inside out. It seems that Baldwin and his successors have has been pretty successful given the ACLU of today, and their constant interference with the legitimate goals and objectives defined by our Founding Fathers and memorialized in the constitution.

Why they were not stopped as soon as they were organized? I imagine that the beginning of Political Correctness occurred when we “looked the other” way when groups like the nascent ACLU began their attack on our society. We probably said, “What harm can they do? Oh, certainly we believe in civil liberties.”

I doubt that we would ask those same questions today. The harm is all around us. The ACLU along with its support groups, the Main Stream Media, and The Democratic controlled Congress and Senate, are systematically dismantling the constitution al basis of our country, and substituting government tyranny in place of liberty and justice.

We can fight this. It takes a simple notion to start that process. Take a look below and the differences, however slight in what the ACLU wants to do, and what Speriamo proposes. Let’s start now to take control.

Original Communist/ACLU Statements Speriamo’ s Alternative Manifesto

[Note that the original ACLU points are in RED and our alternative statements in BLACK.]

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
1. U.S. stipulates that coexistence is not an alternative to atomic war.

2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
2. U.S. will never capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
3. Develop the position that total disarmament (by) the U.S. would be a demonstration of moral weakness.

4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
4. Permit free trade between all nations. Trade with nations affiliating with Communists and Communism is banned if items could be used for war.

5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
5. Ban long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites, unless loan terms benefit the USA.

6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
6. Provide American aid to all nations. Communist dominated nations excepted.

7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
7. Grant recognition to China and admit of Red China to the U.N., but grant it no more authority than that given to the United States.

8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
8. Dissolve East and West Germany as separate states. Promote a unified Germany.

9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
9. Limit conferences to ban atomic tests. The U.S. rescinds its promise to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.

10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
10. Allow no Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
11. Expose the U.N. as a fraud, and not the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it exclude language for a one-world government with its own independent armed forces

12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
12. Outlaw the Communist Party, or limit its existence severely.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
13. Demand loyalty oaths from every citizen.

14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
14. Immediately stop giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
15. Establish United States laws which will never allow capture one or both of the political parties in the U.S.

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
16. Eliminate technical decisions of the courts that are targeted at weakening basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
17. Keep control of the schools. Use them to educate children about the dangers of Socialism and Communist propaganda. Protect teachers’ associations from infiltration by Socialist and Communist Labor Unions and groups. Put the U.S Constitution in textbooks, and demand that it be taught.

18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
18. Maintain control of all student newspapers, and protect them from Socialist and Communist infiltration.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
19. Use student assemblies to foment public protests against programs, or
organizations which are promoted by Socialists or Communists.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy making positions.
20. Expose the press. Suggest book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions that maintain the Constitution and do this to promote American Capitalism.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures. Do this to tell the American people the truth about the Left, Socialism and Communism.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
22. Promote American culture by lauding all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms." Stop this from happening at every turn.

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote beauty, artistic wonder and, meaningful art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
24. Promote new laws governing obscenity by calling them "values". Promote free speech and free press, but never let them change the American value system.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
25. Maintain cultural standards of morality by eliminating pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as sometimes basic human behavior, but do not call them "normal, natural, or healthy".

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
27. Support places of religious worship, and promote revealed religions. Compare them with “social" religion, and discredit the latter. Promote the Bible, the Torah and the Koran, and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity in all of these.

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
28. Support prayer and religious expression in the schools on the ground that it does not violate the principle of "separation of church and state".

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
29. Memorize the American Constitution. It is an amazing document that has built the most fair, most equal and most free society on earth.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
30. Revere the American Founding Fathers. Present them as citizens who had every concern for the "common man", and acted upon them.

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
31. Promote American culture and encourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was a major part of the "big picture".

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
32. Defeat any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture - education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which promote the operation of the Socialist or Communist apparatus.

34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
34. Re-Institute the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
35. Enhance and enlarge the FBI.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
36. Infiltrate more unions in order to see how they consistently violate election and fund raising laws. Also explore how they violate their own charters.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
37. Do everything possible to promote the engine of wealth in America - big business.

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
38. Maintain the powers of arrest with the police. Do not allow social
agencies to attain these powers. Treat all behavioral problems as social, psychiatric or family disorders, which can be understood and treated by a wide variety of helping professionals.

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
39. Assist the psychiatric profession and mental health laws to ferret out those Socialists and Communists who would like to gain coercive control over the United States.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
40. Promote and support the family the most basic and most necessary institution. Encourage faithfulness; oppose promiscuity, support abstinence and all marriages between a man and a woman.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children under the influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of non-parent groups, and a poor education system.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["united force"] to solve economic, political or social problems.
42. Destroy the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition. Demonstrate that student and special-interest groups can help solve economic, political or social problems if they study them and act in good faith.

43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
43. Support all colonial governments while also promoting native populations to be ready for self-government.

44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
44. Protect and defend the Panama Canal from being taken over by any one country (other than the United States.)

45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.

45. Support the Connelly reservation so the U.S. can prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction (over domestic problems). Never give the World Court jurisdiction over nations and individuals alike.

Given that the Communists, and the ACLU - one and the same - have managed to accomplish some of their ends, it seems to me that another group, Conservatives and loyal Americans who are opposed to this type of governance can do the same. We can refute these tenants. In doing so, we can undo much of what has been destroyed by the enemies of our Constitution, and the Capitalist nation we are, always have been and always want to be.

April 10, 2009

Labels: , , , ,