Sunday, December 11, 2011

The Eurozone Failure, Here Comes Communism!

Ok, I'm no economist, but I have a fundamental understanding of economics as well as a pretty good understanding of how democratic type government works. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the eurozone is screwed, at least for the next ten years.


Heres the problem, the debt is a symptom of a larger problem (socialism/govt dependence). They (the powers that be) know this. So does anyone who has thought about it. When your government debt is 100, 200, 300 percent or more of your nations GDP, its going to take some time to pay off.

Lets think about it in smaller terms, a household. The household income represents GDP, spending represents spending, and debt represents debt. Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain (PIIGS from here out) all have debt of over 100% of GDP, and government spending of 70+% of their countries GDP.

Alright, So you're household brings in 50k per year, and after taxes 40k (for maths sake), It has a debt over 50k and growing rapidly. Well that's not so bad right? I mean it will only take you 8-10 years to pay off with interest. BUT the problem isn't that it's impossible to pay off, the problem is that the debt will continue to increase because as your kids (citizens) get older, they get more costly in terms of wants and needs (i.e. healthcare, social security, wanting more, etc...).

Unlike a household where those making the money get to decide how to spend it, the government doesn't actually make any money, they take other peoples, and they rely on telling voters that they will take more of other peoples money and give everyone benefits because of it. So its up to the voters to see the problem and stop voting for the guy promising to take other peoples money and give everyone entitlements. This hasn't happened anywhere in the eurozone and the idea is about split even in the states.

One thing we can always count on is that we never believe we have enough. So, couple this with the problem of a democracy above and what happens? Inevitable bankruptcy, UNLESS the people see the error of their ways and change.

I highly doubt that will happen... I mean, look at the riots in greece over the austerity measures. They're not going to change, their only hope is that the next generation will figure it out, but since they have a fertility rate of 1.4 (1.4 kids per couple), that generation is dwindling. So even if they do figure it out, it will take a VERY VERY long time to pay it off. The same can be applied to the rest of the PIIGS.

So this created a new problem, other countries and banks saw the eurozones insolvency and ran as fast as they could (except mf global). That's what any smart investor would do. So liquidity went down the drain (the household income went stagnant). So then they came up with this solution: the ponzi scheme of ponzi schemes! But this is legal because the government is doing it (just like the insider trading). Will it work? Maybe, but it will only solve the liquidity problem. So its another bandaid.

This is where socialism transforms into communism. We've established that this can't be solved while the kids (democracy) are still in charge. So to 'fix' things, they will institute some form of dictatorship, now whether this is through a transformation of government formally, or government signing away the rights of the kids without their knowledge or consent through economic means, is yet to be seen.

One thing is for sure, the current path of the eurozone is unsustainable and will take years to repair, if they even opt to repair it.

Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Obama: The Great Divider

As most of you probably know by now, obama gave his big speech trying to be like a roosevelt. The full, very long winded, speech can be found here. I am just going to go over the highlights and explain how terrible this president really is.

The first false argument he makes is in the first paragraph after the introduction.
Fewer and fewer of the folks who contributed to the success of our economy actually benefitted from that success. Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments than ever before. But everyone else struggled with costs that were growing and paychecks that weren’t – and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up.
"fewer and fewer... benefitted from that success." Well that is just false. In fact, even since the collapse of 2008 the rich have gotten richer and there is a record number of them (so, more and more people are becoming rich).

"Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and investments than every before." Thats correct, the rich are getting richer as pointed out above. But here's the catch, what good does all of that money do people like bill gates? You can only buy so many personal items. so once you've got yor five dream cars five houses and every toy you can think of, you're not even close to 100M. So when you are making billions, like gates, what do you with the rest? INVEST! Now they are trying to make this a dirty word, but it's not at all. It's a wonderful thing. This whole class warfare cry of the liberals and obama is on the premise of "giving back". That's exactly what investing is, they buy parks (zuccotti park is privately owned but reserved for public use), they invest in businesses allowing them to grow more rapidly than they would be able to normally, which increases the number of jobs that are out there. The other thing they do with their money is GIVE TO CHARITIES! Just last year bill gates broke the record for charitable giving. He donated 10 BILLION to a charity for vaccines for children.

So their whole argument is based on the false premise that the rich and ultra rich don't give back. They obviously do, bill gates is not an exception, he is exactly what most rich people are like. He himself said that once you get beyond making a few million, its all the same anyway.

The Oblamer goes on to say that everyone else suffered while the rich got richer, that everyone else had to rack up debt to keep up. Well I'm part of that "everyone else" and since 2008 I have paid off all of my debts and built a savings account the size of about half of my annual income. So no, we didn't ALL struggle. Some did, but they need to take responsibility for their mistakes and improve. If you were living beyond your means prior to the collapse, you probably suffered. The lesson to learn is live within your means and be prepared. Debt is slavery. There are certain things you and I have to go into debt for, but before you go into debt on anything, think long and hard about what it will really cost you and how much it will really benefit you. We all make mistakes and need help sometimes, if this is one of those times for you, seek it. Not from the government (which is just taxpayers) but from family, friends, and charitable organizations.

Of course the rich got richer, how do you think they got rich in the first place? by succeeding when odds were against them. There is no risk free formula to success and riches, otherwise we would all have it.

Moving on, he actually gets something right, but I have to take it out of context slightly for him to be correct:
It combined the breathtaking greed of a few with irresponsibility across the system.
Yes, there are greedy evil rich people. But there are even more greedy evil poor and middle class people. He is correct when he says "...with irresponsibility across the system." Yes, the system screwed us into a recession, but it wasn't the capitalist system, it was the government system. He goes on to admit that government agencies saw the problem and ignored it (their job is to find the problems and out them, not ignore them). Which was irresponsible, but it gets worse. Instead letting these firms fail (which would have hurt our economy a lot, but only for a 6 months or so) the government was even more irresponsible and gave them tax payer dollars to "reward" irresponsibility. Earlier in his speech he was reminiscing upon the old america where; "responsibility was rewarded."

Throughout the speech he claims the free market never worked. That's a lie. The free market has always worked. He states that it didn't work the decade before the depression... Has he ever heard of the roaring twenties??? If he is trying to blame the free market for the depression he is a moron. The fed OPENLY ADMITS that they were responsible for the great depression, not the free market. He then goes on to say that the 50's and 60's prosperity happened during high taxes. Taxes are only part of the equation and in the 50-60's taxes were only 17% of the economy!! Also, in the 1950's one in twenty workers required permission from the government to do their job. Today its one in three. Combine higher taxes with that and we will be unable to ever get ahead.

He continues to say that bush cut taxes in 2001 and 2003 and it led to slow economic growth. Well, he must not believe that because just a couple weeks ago he told congress to extend those same tax cuts! He is a liar, that is that.

Side note: Another constant theme in his speech is that Republicans want 'survival of the fittest,' and that's true to an extent. He says it like it's a bad thing, but I'd like to point out that natural selection is a proven method of improving, while governments have a history of destroying, not improving. (I.e. Greece, Italy, China, Germany 70 years ago, etc...)

Friday, December 2, 2011

America, Morally Obligated

This post was prompted by the bull crap I keep reading about the "illegal" Iraq war. These anti-American, anti-freedom, conspiracy theorists annoy me beyond my limits.

Their entire theory is based upon hatred for America (and the west in general) and freedom. They would rather that people be murdered, raped, and beaten, by a dictator and his regime, rather than free with a functioning government of the people. They hate the idea that others may have freedom which is why they are always looking to take freedoms from their neighbors, but I'll get into that later.

The first argument that they bring up is "bush lied". Well this is a flawed argument in many ways. Their target is one person, but if bush lied, so did most all of the west and many high profile democrats including John Kerry (who they probably voted for in 2004).

"Saddam has been engaged in the development of WMD technology which is
a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the
weapons inspection process."
-- Rep. NANCY PELOSI (D, CA) DEC 16, 1998

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons
programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status......
-- BOB GRAHAM (Democrat FL) DEC 5, 2001

"We KNOW that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical
weapons throughout his country." AL GORE SEPT 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for WMD has proven impossible to deter and we should
assume that is will continue for as long as Saddam is in power"
-- AL GORE SEPT 23, 2002

"We have known for years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing
weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. TEDDY KENNEDY (D, MA) SEPT 27, 2002

"I believe that a deadly arsenal of WMD in his hands is a real and
grave threat to our security."

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime... He represents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation... And now he is miscalculating America's response to
his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for WMD... So the threat
of Saddam Hussein with WMD is real."
-- Sen JOHN KERRY JAN 23, 2003

"We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of
chemical and biological weapons, and has since embarked on a crach
course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports that Saddam is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. ROBERT BYRD (D, PA?) OCT 9, 2002

"He [Saddam Hussein] has systematically violated, over the course of
the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded
that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons and any
nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
-- Rep. HENRY WAXMAN (Democrat, CA) OCT 10, 2002

"We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress
Saddam has made in development of WMD."
-- Sen JAY ROCKEFELLER (Democrat WV) OCT 10, 2002
As we can see, it had been common knowledge for years that Saddam was pursuing a large arsenal of WMD's. Now, they'll usually bring up that the source lied. There were multiple sources that confirmed the same thing, they [the government] just trusted this one the most. When you're misinformed by people you trust, that doesn't make you a liar if you pass on the information, it simply propagates misinformation.

Also, we removed multiple chemical weapons and 550 metric tons of yellow cake from Iraq. Then later, 53 tons more were sent to canada (which was the niger yellow cake, dang it, that destroys the bush lied argument). And lets not forget Iraq had just refused to allow U.N. inspectors in, signaling guilt.

94 countries believed that Iraq had WMD's including Iran and Israel who are enemies, yet their intelligence said the same thing.

So lets move on, bush didn't lie. Now they don't have an argument that it was illegal so they will move on to the idea that we had no business being in there, we aren't the world police. Well I beg to differ, we are the world police, whether we should be or not is up for debate. I think we should be, but only because the world without America is quite scary... just think about it. No America = Germany and Japan winning WWII.

Anyway, this was a very moral war. Saddam gassed the Kurds, tortured his people, killed his people, his sons raped women, killed political dissenters, and in general the Iraqis lived in fear of him daily. We overthrew him and instituted democracy. Ask any Iraqi that lived through the 80's - 90's if Iraq is better now than then, the answer will always be yes. Does Iraq still have problems? Of course it does. But as they evolve into more civil people the (terrorist) problems will dwindle.

Then they'll move on to the war for oil argument, which is absurd. There is ZERO EVIDENCE!! Even if there were some evidence (but there isn't), is it a crime that there was a benefit to overthrowing a vicious dictator? These people hate win-win, they wanted the Iraq war to be a win for Iraq and a loss for America, because they hate America and freedom. Think honestly and rationally, you're overthrowing a dictator, which requires occupation until things settle down. They have natural resources, using them is bad? Why? I mean, if we farmed there would it be stealing too? IF we were using their oil, it was for operations in the region. We weren't shipping it back to the states that's for sure... $4/gallon gas anyone???

So lets reflect,
Bush lied? Nope.
Illegal war? Nope.
Immoral war? Nope.
War for oil? Nope.

A little common sense and research goes a long way.

To use an already overused cliche; "With great power comes great responsibility". America and the west have great power, and thus are required, morally, to police the world to an extent. I wonder what people would say if we didn't help countries in need. Spreading freedom is never a bad thing.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

America, The Fallen

It's been a few days since I posted, but I'm not feeling better about the USA. We aren't run by the corporations, we aren't run by the government, we are run by the media. The media decides everything in our lives (because we let them).

I saw the news today about Herman Cains supposed affair. That's when it really hit me, we don't care about facts, we don't care about privacy, all that we care about is comfort. After Herman Cains first four accusers stopped the baseless, brutality (coincidentally when his poll numbers dropped) he plateaued for a while, then his numbers started to rise again. This didn't go without notice to his opposing forces (whether its reps or dems). Suddenly he had a 13-year long affair. Now I don't know if this is true or not, but being that all she can produce are some phone records (and he admits he actually knew this woman, but claims he never had an affair) I have to side with the man that has a faithful wife, who has stood by him for decades.

Never mind the fact that Newt Gingrich (the current front runner in the republican primary) had two affairs he admitted to and many other questionable parts of his past. Never mind the fact that Bill Clinton raped a woman and there is evidence to prove it. Never mind Barack is a not-so-closet communist. Never mind all of this, the important information is that countless accusations with zero evidence have surfaced on Herman Cain.

Now I could get into the type of person it takes to bring an affair into the public view and the motives behind it, but I'm going to let you think about that.

Instead I'm going to talk about the media bias. Why would they be so concerned about Cains past, but not at all concerned about Newt Gingrich's past? I mean really, if we are being honest to ourselves we have to think about why they haven't been running the questionable background of N.G. all over the news, but Cain who is in third is still getting run through the gauntlet.

The answer is simple, they're picking the republican candidate. They're fine with Romney and Gingrich because they fit into the NWO mold, or at least the media believes they do. Gingrich will sell his values in an instant. He is the exact opposite of principled. He has flip flopped on just about every issue there is. From global warming to healthcare. The powers of the NWO know this, they know that Gingrich is easily bought.

They also believe Romney is a closet liberal and I think he is on a few issues, but you can't argue with his handling of the 2002 Olympics or his personal success in business. I also think he is principled. Opposers of Romney like to talk about how the health care law was modeled after his, and thats fine. What they don't think about is that he was running a state, which has those powers. The federal government doesn't and shouldn't have the power to make you purchase something. Also, they like to point out that Romneys healthcare legislation was a failure. So what? People try and fail all of the time. If we are not electing people because something they did, failed, then this nation is not going to be accomplishing much.

Romney and Gingrich are given a free pass by the media because the NWO thinks they can get to them. Cain on the other hand is a rogue to them, they don't know if he can be bought and he brings solutions to the table, even if they're imperfect, they're solutions. The same can't be said of Romney or Gingrich, they just spout rhetoric.

I was thinking about what I would do if I were running for president when I realized, I would be drug through the mud just like Cain. It doesn't matter that I've never done any of the things they'd accuse me of, they would taint my name if they believed I was a threat to their institution. Until we wake up as Americans, demand the truth, and stop patronizing biased media, we are headed down a dark, lonely road. We need to support candidates no matter what the media says about them. If they can provide evidence, then so be it. But we cannot yield to rumors, that gives others power over us, they can lie lie lie and we'll just keep on believing.

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Why I May Vote For Obama in 2012

Ok, no I don't agree with one thing that Obama says or does, so why would I consider voting for him? It all comes down to an idea that I find rattling around in my head quite often.

"Change will happen only when the pain of not changing exceeds the pain of changing"

America does not get it. Some Americans get it, but we are a vast minority. Many people in America identify as conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc... only because of a tagline. Most Americans don't understand a free market economy, the don't trust it because they've been indoctrinated their entire life to believe it has weaknesses. Most Americans don't understand freedom and liberty are 100% perfect as long as the vast majority believe and support it. Most Americans believe in government regulation of the economy, tsa, violation of rights in matters of national security, etc...

Americans have gotten lazy when it comes to politics, not that I can blame them since they're so filled with lies and smear campaigns. In 2008 voter turnout was supposedly massive, it was 56.9% of the nation that was of age to vote. Of that 56.9% that turned out to vote, 53.6% voted Obama. A total of 30.5% of the nation (that were over 18) voted for Obama, and it was similar for bush I am sure. Yet, he is now the president over 100% of the nation. Only approved (at the time of the election) of by 30.5%, not even one third of the nation. You see how this is a problem?

As I have delved into my research and deep thoughts on freedom I have come to realize that we aren't deserving of freedom. We should be ashamed of our fellows who are too busy to vote, too busy to stay informed, too busy to realize that freedom IS personal responsibility. That each new vote for reliance on government is a slap in the face of our founders, our military, and ourselves. How many times do you hear "that's not my job" or "someone else will do it"? That's laziness talking. I'm guilty myself of much of what I've said above.

The king and queen in Denmark go shopping in the local shopping centers unescorted by secret service. When a citizen was asked why they didn't have any protection he replied; "we're the protection, we won't let anything happen to them." (I saw this on an Anthony Bourdain episode.) That, right there, is a nation that supports their leaders. We as Americans can't support our leaders this way because only 30.5% of the population thought he was worth voting for. For every 10 citizens only 3 were willing to put in the effort of going to the ballot box and voting for him. That leaves 7 that will allow or cause harm to him. That's why he runs around with secret service within our nation.

The USA is not the USA, it's the DSA (divided). When our once great nation was founded, it was founded by people with very similar ideals. They were almost all christian, most of which were devout, they all hated taxes, they all believed in hard work and personal responsibility, they were all willing to die for these causes. Today we are still mostly christian, but many are not devout, and if they are, they are ridiculed and belittled by any outsiders. Our christian faith is under constant attack and we just take it every time. Most of our country supports raising taxes in one fashion or another. Very few believe in personal responsibility or hard work, just look at the lawsuits out there, look at the people that are for social security, medicare/medicaid, food stamps, etc... Very few people are willing to die for their country, look at the protests of the recent wars. The draft dodging of the Vietnam war, imagine if they instituted the draft right now, how much havoc and protest would take place?

So what keeps us united? It's not our ideals. For a while, 1985-2005ish, it was our greed or love of material goods, but that's all melted away. People have increased from greed to entitlement, they want everything, without working. Only the top 53% of our nation pays any income tax at all, yet, all believe they are equally entitled to public goods.

Side project: think of the nation as a cart filled with and being pulled by citizens. right now there are 53 citizens pulling a cart with 47 citizens in it. Is it a wonder that the economy has slowed down? The productive class is almost equaled by the unproductive class.

Lets get back to the original thought:

"Change will happen only when the pain of not changing exceeds the pain of changing."
Look at the republican primaries, they are all just a little less socialist than Obama, except Ron Paul. Ron Paul has done nothing for 30 years except vote against unconstitutional projects, even if he got elected he would have to deal with the house and senate which are filled with socialists. Ron Paul won't get the nomination anyway, so I won't spend more time on him.

So lets say we vote in any one of the republican nominees, here is what they have to do: repeal obamacare, secure the border, abolish the FDA, abolish the DOE, abolish the EPA, undo the "separation of church and state", abolish the fed, salvage the bailouts, institute a flat tax, overhaul the military, abolish the welfare system, get us out of the UN, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. It is IMPOSSIBLE to do, so they'll do one or two items on that agenda (if we're lucky), and it will cause plenty of pain and suffering, but that's the price of freedom right? Nope, freedom is free (not)! The American people won't put up with ANY pain and suffering, they weren't willing to put up with just HEARING of pain and suffering to our troops on the other side of the globe. Our troops were more than willing to put up with it, but the general public wasn't. So if you actually believe that the public will put up with pain and suffering caused by enacting any set of these laws/repeals, you are delusional. They will go out and vote democrat as fast as they can.

So all we are doing is slowing our descent into socialism, which is exactly what needs to happen to keep people pacified on the ride. As the ride speeds up (like it did when obamacare was forced down our throats) people wake up and look around, wondering where they are at, but if all seems to settle back down (a republican gets elected) they go right back to sleep.

So really there is no saving America. Voting Obama back in is not going to keep us from our doom, but what it will do is wake up the people on this train as it speeds up, allow them to prepare themselves to survive the crash that is upcoming. So that when we do hit the inevitable end of the road, and chaos ensues we can be prepared and survive to rebuild, rewrite, and reinvent the USA, in all of its original glory, only this time we will make the constitution a stronger document for freedom.

Monday, November 21, 2011

Communist Occupation of The USA

The occupy movement has released their mission (for communism) statement. It can be found in full here.

I'm going to go through what I find to be the most disturbing, and while it all is, these parts are the scariest.

"They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right."
Who exactly? It seems to me that the only people "held hostage" are the people that entered willingly into loans. As a student myself, I have gone into zero debt. It's not impossible, it just takes planning and responsibility.

I agree wholeheartedly agree that education is a human right... to an extent. k-12, if you can't get the education you desire in the first 13 years of school, then it is upon yourself to further your education. k-12 needs reform, a voucher program will work. K-12 should be left to the states and counties, it has proven to work best.

"They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workershealthcare and pay."
They (the occupiers) don't want to be paid as little as someone outside the USA, so they unionize. That's all fine and dandy, but when the lowest bidder is outside the USA, guess who is out of a job, the American. There is a way to change this, through personal responsibility. How many of them go out and buy American only? I'd bet almost none. Why? because its expensive. All you have to do is go into walmart or target and find a product. think about how much time went into harvesting the resources, refining them, then combining them to make the product. It doesn't take long to realize, Someone is getting paid very little for their work. These occupiers are mad about outsourcing but they support it daily in the name of greed. They want more for their money, they don't care who they're paying and how little, they want more. But heaven forbid that they make that little of an income! They deserve more, they're Americans! (sarcasm)
"...but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments."

Ok, the first line just makes me laugh. They don't seek consent? How in the world do they come to that conclusion? Did someone force them to work for said corporation? Did someone force them to buy from said corporation? And how exactly is anyone supposed to ask the earth for consent to extract its resources???!?? Does a lion ask for consent to eat the lamb? does a goat seek consent to eat the grass? I mean come on, this is just flat out stupid and false.

"No true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power."
First, we are NOT a democracy. Thank the good lord we aren't, this is what democracy looks like. We are a republic, we believe in law above democracy. We use the democratic process to determine our laws. We appoint people to represent us in this process. This is where the occupiers are mad, they don't like democracy because it means they don't always win, and they actually have to put effort in for it to work.

How exactly is the process determined by economic power? When you go to the ballot box and cast your vote, does your vote only fractionally count if you have less money than someone else? Nope, each vote is equal (unless you're a liberal/dem, then you get acorn to count votes fraudulently or vote via dead/underage people). What they may be getting at here is lobbyists, and while I don't necessarily like lobbyists, it's not their fault if your congressman/senator agrees with them. If your congressman/senator votes for a bill that was lobbied for and you disagree with it, you need to hold their feet to the fire. Point out their bad behavior, and if they have done wrong they will pay dearly. (The libtards will complain that they can't change things, but the tea party sure did. Your cause has to make sense to people, otherwise you lose, that's how it works.)

I am all for getting rid of the corruption between the market and the government, but there is a process already laid out and it is fool proof. Stay informed on your local politicians and show up one day a year and vote. If there are no good candidates running, then run.
"We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments."
Well first off, no, the corporations didn't elect Obama, you (the occupiers) did. And you've stated many times that you'll do it again. You do not hold your government accountable, so they do not hold their donors accountable.

As much as they don't want to believe it, the world runs on GREED! (great video of a liberal, Donahue, getting owned.) There are no angels to run this show, only people, who are subject to corruption and greed. That is why the founding fathers of our country wanted the federal government to be small, to have minimal power, and local/state governments to be what the people of that state wanted. GO BACK TO THE CONSTITUTION! LESS FEDERAL REGULATION!
"They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage."
They are talking about derivatives, its extremely complex and even the most affluent investor barely grasps it. I am against derivatives, and would never do business with a bank that participated in such risky terrible behavior. But these people chose to do business with banks that participated, and are thus liable for the payments on their house regardless of the practices of the banks. Even if the bank doesn't technically own the mortgage because they've sold the debt through derivatives, the bank is still responsible for the collection of the debt. Foreclosure is not illegal, you agree to pay your bill or give the bank the collateral you promised to them. This is not open for discussion, you broke your contract, you suffer the consequences of that action.

"They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses."
While morally, the banks should not have accepted the money; even more morally, the government should not have been offering the banks our tax dollars to pay for their insolvency. They are protesting symptoms. Had the gov not offered, the banks would not have been able to accept. But their buddy the barackstar can do no wrong.
"They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization."
This is just laughable. It's just like the outsourcing. Hooray for capitalism here, if you want organic non-"poisned" food, you can buy it just about anywhere. But again it does cost more... So for these idiots that's out of the question.
"They have sold our privacy as a commodity."
You always agree to it. Always. If you're too stupid to read before you sign, that's not their problem, its yours.
"They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit."
People hate to hear it, but lives have a price. It's a fact of life. for an exact address of this watch this video.
"They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce."
I missed the memo where our economic policy was determined by people outside of the government. I think we should abolish the fed, since it's unconstitutional, but corporations don't run the fed. an appointee does.
"They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit."
Abolish the FDA, significantly reduce the cost of medical research and lower the amount of years drugs must be patented to further medicine. Again, peoples lives are not infinitely valuable, I know it hurts, but it's true. Who determines how much profit a company should make? It should be the market, not the government.
"They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media."
Boycott the MSM. Get your news from the internet, from multiple sources. The MSM is on its way out the door because of this. (and their treating your disgusting protest with kid gloves). The free market system works. (ironically when searching for the organizers of OWS, the only MSM outlet that came up was, the rest were online blogs, it's no wonder fox is destroying the other news outlets)
"They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts."
Again they show their naivete. The world isn't run by angels. It's run by dictators and evil men/women. These people will kill you (americans) if you give them the opportunity. Take a trip to Iran in an American flag t-shirt, let us know how that goes.

and finally:
"Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone."
Feel free to peaceably assemble. You don't have a right to "occupy" anything public. You have a right to use it as laid out by the government (no camping, quiet hours, closing hours). "create a process", this is useless (except their real goal is to overthrow capitalism as stated by the planners of OWS), there is already a process. It's called being informed and voting out the corrupt.

The occupiers raise a few genuine issues, but ignore the cause. That's because they aren't worried about the corruption. They want to get rid of capitalism, the system of freedom, and replace it with communism, the system of oppression. It's all a power grab. Unions (funded by soros) have planned/paid for/executed the whole occupy movement.

Side note, lets compare the three different types of economy. Free market (capitalism), Communism, and Socialism. Lets see which benefits most.

I went with Russia over china because china began de-regulating their market back in 1992.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

The Atheist Lie

Atheists have long used science to try to disprove God. It’s but a gimmick of Satan.

Atheist scientists are the shortest sighted people on the planet. They insist the world is millions or billions of years old but refuse to look more than a century or two into the future.

They (atheist scientists) also claim to be "free thinkers", but they are boxed into quite a small corner by their beliefs. They can't believe too much in science or they MUST embrace the idea that it's very plausible there is a God. And they refuse to believe in god because that puts moral obligation on them.

You see, when man comes to an understanding of how something works, he then tries to manipulate it to his favor. This applies to everything from electronics, to medicine, to government programs. It is our nature to harness the natural power around us, and exercise dominion (much like god would) over "lower" forms of intelligence. My dog, for example, does exactly what I tell it to do so long as it understands the command. Whether it is telling her to come to me, or to roll over for my entertainment, it’s an exercise of the power of my higher intelligence over her. (All because god created us in his image, so that we could continue to grow and learn)

Throughout the argument of creationism with an atheist, you will get the typical liberal projection; they tell you that you don't understand science if you believe in God. But, they are the ones that do not understand the very, basic nature of science, and how its future is the same as that future which is contained in the bible. The goal of science IS to prove that there is/can be a god (which is just a higher intelligence/power), otherwise there is absolutely no point to furthering our knowledge. Why? Because, in the end, if there is no proof of man or his accomplishments caused by our complete and utter destruction, this is all just a pointless endeavor.

Let me explain. Science says the sun will burn out. It’s a fact, it cannot, scientifically, burn forever. So ask an atheist scientist if he believes in being "green" to save the planet and if he answers yes, he will be in a very tight spot. Why? Because there is no reason (atheists claim to have higher reasoning skills, falsely) to save what will inevitably be destroyed.

See, if there is no God, then there is only one point to preserving the planet long enough to see the sun die out, and that is to hope that science and technology has progressed to a state where we can find a new planet that will sustain our life. And why would we want to do that?Self preservation, and to further our knowledge and power. If there was no hope, there is no reason to not use our resources in whatever manner we can. If there is no hope of continuing life elsewhere, there is zero reason for progressing. But there is hope, even in the world of science; the hope is to escape death (a hope shared by religion).

Once the sun has died and we have safely gotten to our new home, we will then be looking for ways to prolong the life of the sun, or even create our own. Once that is accomplished, we would move on to creating planets, so that we could expand our race of humanity. Once that is complete, we can create a solar system, which leads to the creation of galaxies, and eventually.... Universes. (gasp! creating universes!? that's creationism!) This would be millions and millions of years off, maybe even billions. But don't kid yourself, self preservation would drive us to this were there no God. This ironically, proves that it is very possible there is a god. The only way to completely discount the existence of a creator is to say we are the most intelligent beings anywhere... But Steven Hawking himself believes that there is more advanced, intelligent life out there somewhere.

So what it really boils down to is either they are performing the devils work (ding ding ding!!). Or they want to claim they're the first to ever do it. Which we wouldn't be, because even according to them, we are probably not the most intelligent life out there.

The best argument they can possibly have against this fact, is that it's impossible to create a universe. But this is so easy to debunk. Their lack of scientific understanding hardly proves it’s impossible. 4k years ago they would have thought it "impossible" to talk to (almost) instantaneously, and see what a man on the moon is seeing (almost) instantaneously.

In a few thousand years man has gone from scratching on cave walls, minimal communications, and bludgeoning dinner to death, to writing with sub-atomic particles, instant satellite communication, and farming/shooting/genetically splicing dinner. If you told a cave man this, they would have called you crazy (were there such a word back then) and had you been able to demonstrate the power to them, they would have called it "magic". Magic is the term a lot of atheists use to describe the belief that god created the universe, and their only defense is that we (theists) can't explain how he did it. Much like the caveman wouldn't be able to explain how we can do what we can now, but that doesn't make it any less true that we can do it. But as anyone who has read and understands the bible knows, god doesn't use "magic", he is just smarter than us, which makes it appear (to the dumbest among us) as magic.

This all goes without mentioning singularity, which many believe may happen before this century ends. With singularity, our scientific understanding and technology will grow at an even more rapid rate, since we don't have to re-educate each new generation up to speed to rely on furthering our knowledge as a race. (Singularity, is eternal life, another thing guaranteed by the bible) So what's the point of singularity if not to escape or conquer the guaranteed death of our sun?

In short, the end goal (for now) of science is to understand how the universe works and where it came from. If we understand how it works and where it came from, given enough time and resources, we will be able to reproduce the settings that created it (yay creationism!). Given the likelihood of us not being the most intelligent life out there, we will not be the first to do it, increasing the likelihood that it was created by someone else.


Atheists cannot be "green" (save the planet because CO2 is destroying it, that kind of green). Why?

A true atheist cannot believe in a future (science or religion) since it inevitably leads to a belief that there is a high probability that there is a god. So, to believe in preserving the planet, acknowledges a future, and in turn completely defies atheism.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Minimum Wage = Youth Unemployment

I was recently reading this article over at The author is comparing young people across the world to young people in America, in the fact that they are stricken with higher unemployment. I'm not sure if this is just a typo, or an attempt to paint things as worse than they are, but the author claims, in reference to the U.S.:

"For the first time since the 1960s, when women entering the workforce led to a big increase in youth employment, a majority of young people are out of work."

Then they go on to say that young people in the U.S., ages 16-24, the unemployment rate is 18%. Now, I'm sure the author of this article has some college, but he/she was either terrible at math (18% is no where near a majority), trying to spin things to make them look worse, or just a bad editor.

They also assert that republicans played politics with Obamas jobs bill (which was killed by republicans, but in the democratically controlled senate). Even if they did, it's nothing compared to the 18+ jobs bills that the republican controlled house has sent to the senate, which are now collecting dust in the name of playing politics.

Back to the point. In the world of work, youth are the most inexperienced and least educated. Many of them don't have a work ethic due to television and lax parenting, but a job can fix some of that. A minimum wage furthers the hardship on youth, and it should come as no surprise that as minimum wage rose higher, so did youth unemployment.

When a business has the freedom to pay their employees as they see fit taken away (i.e. minimum wage), they have only a few options. They can either raise the cost of their product or service, which drives demand down in most all minimum wage markets. Or they can hire someone with more experience and education in hopes of having the extra experience/education allow this person to be more productive and actually earn the extra money that the business is forced to pay.

Effectively, minimum wage prices out the young and inexperienced/un(der)educated. Yet, young people are the biggest supporters of minimum wage and minimum wage increases. The folks down at OWS were even calling for an $18/hour minimum wage. (Isn't it ironic how obsessed with the economy they are, but how little they understand its workings?)

Minimum wage is hogwash, and should be abolished.

Side note: what happens when you offer occupiers GREAT JOBS (insurance benefits, good salary, 401k, etc...)!?

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Judge rules against occupiers

photo credit: NY Post/Matthew McDermott

The judge has ruled that the occupiers can NOT stay over night in the park!

Judges and Occupiers

This should be labeled liberal judges, lawyers, and occupiers, but it's not. They believe they are above the law. when the law stands in their way, they don't try to have it changed, they "interpret" it in a new ridiculous manner.

The Judges and lawyers:
The best example off the top of my head is "separation of church and state". Judges and lawyers have used this term for years, to defend the atheists and christian haters. (which ironically, the atheists are pushing for representation among military chaplains. Which would put them subject to their own devices.)

The only part of the constitution that mentions religion is the first amendment, which states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

Now, tell me where it says seperation of church and state...? NOWHERE! They misquote the constitution to please their agenda. This is the most grotesque misinterpretation, it literally disgusts me. We are requiring courthouses to remove the ten commandments, cities to remove crosses from water towers, pulling funding from battered womens shelters that encourage bible study! All of what the judges and lawyers are doing is unconstitutional!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Did congress make a law requiring the posting of the ten commandments in courthouses? Did they make a law requiring crosses be put upon water towers? Did they make a law requiring the funding of christian womens shelters? NOOOOO!!!!

Yes I know they get the phrase from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote, but even there they take it GROSSLY out of context. They use this to remove personal freedom of decoration in public buildings, however when jefferson was PRESIDENT he attended his church meetings in the house of representatives!

Jeffersons actions make it abundantly clear what he meant by "a wall of seperation between church and state." This is a one way wall (because god is not subject to the walls of men), a wall that the state could not, and should not ever attempt to control religious beliefs of its people. However, since the government is by the people, their beliefs would inherently be adapted by the republic. God would shine through into the state, but the state would not impose on any mans free will to worship or not worship god.

The Occupiers:
Freedom of speech or expression and right to assembly have been called upon frequently by the occupiers, when asked to defend their occupation. Are they defending the constitution? Or twisting it for their gain?

The first amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

By shutting down these encampments have the protestors lost their right to voice their opinion? Nope. Have they been afforded the right to peaceably assemble? Yes. Have they remained peaceful? No. Therefore they are no longer protected by the first amendment.

They don't have the right to assemble, they have the right to peaceably assemble. The heinous crimes committed within these encampments and their inability to drive away the crime makes this movement illegal. there have been rapes, assaults of citizens, assaults of police officers, sexual assaults, harassment of passers by, etc... this is not a peaceful assembly.

The occupiers, lawyers, and judges are twisting the words to fit their agendas. They don't even have the decency to try for an amendment because they cannot stand failure.

A full copy of the constitution can be found here.

Cleaning up ...but stopped by a crazy judge

The filth is getting cleared out of Zucotti park! Hooray!

Some may try to argue that this steps on the right of free speech and freedom of assembly, but they’re as stupid as the people down there protesting. What is the purpose of free speech? To allow all ideas to be discussed in the public square. Did OWS get their ideas out there? They sure think so. Chris Johnson (protestor) said that the protest “has opened up a dialogue that hasn’t existed since I’ve been alive.” Which proves they believe their right to free speech has been satisfied. Now, the reason there hasn’t been a dialogue like this during mikes lifetime is because it’s been played out in the history books, and up until now people were educated enough to understand that. Mikes generation, on the other hand, has been spoon fed liberal lies about how the world works and why. So he (and those like him) believe this is a good dialogue, and so long as they are willing to allow it to be a dialogue, not a one sided scream fest, then it will serve its purpose to educate these foolish people.

What is the purpose of freedom of assembly? To allow people to come together and show unity for or against a cause. Were the occupiers allowed to assemble? YES! So these yells of a “police state” are unfounded, as their rights have not been trampled.

They have been breaking the law (camping in a no camping area) but the government and the people were tolerant and allowed them to share their displeasure. However, the protestors have been anything but tolerant. They have stolen from each other, raped each other, assaulted police officers for upholding the laws, and commenced in hate speech that hasn’t been seen in a protest this big in quite some time.

The article then goes on to say:

“The protest spawned others and attracted celebrities and well-known performers. It became a tourist attraction, inspired more than $500,000 in donations and gained the support of labor unions and elected officials while creating division within City Hall and the Police Department.”

Which is a lie, it didn’t spawn others, they were all planned from the get go. It didn’t “gain” the support of labor unions, it was planned and executed by them. As you can see here

I don’t believe this will be the end of this movement, in fact, I believe this may very well be part of the plan. In the spring, the protestors will return and they will become much more violent and hateful, they will call it the “American Spring” and they will pull out all of the stops. It will be a full on push for revolution, more than likely in a violent manner.

It appears a judge has taken matters into his own hands, playing the mayor. A judge has ordered them to stop the new rules (which are just old rules, being enforced). But it remains unclear what the effects of the ruling will be.

Even though he is a college professor.... He is mostly correct

Monday, November 14, 2011

Freedom and Equality

I'm sure many prior to Milton Freidman used these words, however he is my original exposure to the phrase so he is getting the credit. Milton said this of freedom and equality:

"A country that strives for equality over freedom will end up with neither freedom nor equality. A country that strives for freedom above all, will have a great wealth of both freedom and equality."

This is a bold claim, however it rings very true to me. To understand why this is a truth we have to examine both principles.

Equality is defined as: "The state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities." Seems simple enough 1=1.

So why is it so hard to have both? Because we are human beings. We are by nature NOT equal. The only universal equality from one person to the next is our worth in the eyes of our creator, at the starting line your soul is worth the same to him as every other soul.

At conception we are all equal, but that ends shortly after. As our cells divide, the programming in our DNA decides how to grow this new life form. Some will grow to be 7ft others will grow to be 4ft. Some will have minds capable of solving complex problems while others will have a difficult time performing simple tasks. Some will be able to throw a ball 50 yards with pinpoint accuracy while others will be born not able to throw a ball. Some will be born with attractive features, while others will be born as ugly as can be. And there will be everything in between. This doesn't change our worth in gods eyes, however in the world this drastically changes our worth. Is it fair? No. But unless one wishes for our race to become only as strong or smart as our weakest link, we cannot hold back the gifted to level the playing field.

What some advocate is "equal opportunity". This is folley. In order to give every one an equal opportunity you must smash the rights of others. Take school for example. There are countless after school programs for the challenged. This in and of its self is not fair or equal, this is offering those that are challenged more time to be educated than those that are gifted. So, what most schools do is offer a program for the gifted, which causes them to get further ahead. So what has this accomplished? Nothing. The gap hasn't closed, in fact, it has probably widened since the rate of learning for the gifted is much higher than the rate of learning for the challenged.

Some take equal opportunity into race and gender in the world of careers. They believe that a work place should be required to hire people purely based on their sex or skin color, of course with some qualification. But this steps on the freedom of the employer to hire who is best for the job. Guess who suffers because of it? The consumer. So in the name of equality, someone more qualified and better for the job will be passed by. in mathmatical terms it would look like this 0.9=1 where 1 is the skills required for the job and 0.9 is what the employer had to go with to satisfy his "equal opportunity" clause.

Title IX, Gender Equality:
(The goal of title nine is to allow equal participation for both genders within the education system. For there to be a male athletics scholarship there has to be a female athletics scholarship.) The problem is that men and women are different. It's no secret that men are more physical than women, so naturally there will be more males to participate in sports than there will be to participate in female sports. So when the pool of females who want to and are able to participate in sports there are many males left who are not given the opportunity. The freedoms of the schools has been trampled and the opportunities of the men have been stymied. This is going without mentioning the fact that mens sports pay for the scholarship of the men because they draw the crowd to pay for the scholarship, where womens sports do not.

In each program that strives for equality, not only is freedom lost, but equality is lost as well.

Freedom is defined as: "The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint." This definition goes hand in hand with what the founding fathers of our great American nation tried to guarantee us.

If we strive for freedom, inherently equality will follow.

If the employer from the above scenario was able to hire freely, that is to hire a 1 to fill a position that required a 1, the consumer would benefit. And what would happen to the 0.9? The 0.9 would have to find a job that only required a 0.9, in which the consumer would benefit because now instead of having to hire a 0.75 for a job that required a 0.9. OR the 0.9 would have to complete the education or training necessary to make them a 1. If the employer chooses to hire a white person who is a 0.9 over a black person who is a 1, they do so to their own and their consumers detriment. And the business that does not discriminate will be able to provide the best product or service at a better price, which will drive business away from the racism.

both freedom and equality are preserved.

Another example is sports. The three biggest sports in america are Basketball, Football, and Golf (in no particular order). Basketball and football are dominated by non-white folks. Golf is dominated by white folks. Do the fans complain? No. Why? Because it provides the most competitive experience in the relative fields. Does a white person have less opportunity to become a football player? no. in fact they have more opportunity because as the sport grows more investors will build teams, drawing from the current pool of athletes, providing more opportunity for them in the future.

Now imagine if the NFL required the same number of white people on a football team as they have black people? The competition and skill level would drop dramatically, so we as viewers would become less interested, which would drive their paychecks down, which in turn would make for a smaller pool of athletes to choose from, which in turn would force the skill level down, which in turn viewers would become less interested. And the cycle would so continue.

In freedom, both freedom and equality grow.

Lazy America

Obama has decided that we as Americans are lazy. We don’t really want to bring business to America.,0,7516042.story

Well Mr. President, that is simply untrue… for the most part. But he manages to hit one solid truth:

“But we’ve been a little bit lazy, I think, over the last couple of decades,’’ the president said. “We’ve kind of taken for granted -- well, people will want to come here and we aren’t out there hungry, selling America and trying to attract new business into America.”

I don’t think he meant to say the important part which is, “we aren’t out there hungry”. He nailed it. Nothing motivates more than not knowing where the next meal is going to come from. Luckily, people don’t have to worry about that anymore as I pointed out in my previous post. There is no motivating survival instinct that kicks in anymore, because you will be taken care of. While that makes your heart all warm and fuzzy, knowing that people won’t starve to death, it should alarm you. What happens when we all become as lazy as the bottom feeders? Who will feed us? The world doesn’t work on freebies, someone has to be around to produce them.

Couple this growing population of the lazy with the following:

In October, the president told donors in San Francisco that Americans “have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge and Hoover Dam and unleashed all the potential in this country.”

First let me say “NO!” this is not true. We haven’t lost our imagination or willingness, or even our ambition. We have lost our right to do great things. The green energy scam that plagues the world is the driving force behind the assault on this right. If we wanted to build another Hoover dam today, there would be a bazillion (yes, bazillion) green group, tree hugging, hippies standing in our way. Not only that, but the courts have sided with these anti-progress progressives. So it wouldn’t be allowed. This is not to say that the ambition, imagination, or willingness wasn’t there, rather that our right to exercise said ambition, imagination, and willingness has been taken away.

So combine these two things, our right to work hard and build/do great things been taken away by the bureaucratic government and environment, plus the instinctual motivations to work hard being suppressed by the fact that they aren’t required and what do we get? A growingly dependent generation.

The hatred of the occupiers

Take a look at this article:

This is a classic liberal move. They push, push, push, until someone does exactly what they want (torches cars, carves swastikas into benches, writes kkk everywhere, etc…) then they get a group to go out and protest against these actions. Just like the fake arrests, this is nothing more than showmanship. Notice that they could only get 25 people to rally together AGAINST REPEATING THE HOLOCAUST!!! But, when it comes to a successful banker, making more than they see fit, they rally up 10,000 people.

This is exactly what the left wants. Why? Because they’re America apologists. They are sorry that we are America, that we offend people with our Christian values, that we offend people with our wealth, that we offend other countries by providing them a chance at the American dream. The left, and Obama especially, are sorry that we are the greatest nation on the planet. Just yesterday he was saying America has gotten lazy. REALLY?!? Wait a minute, Americans work 40+ hours, 5 days per week, with three major holidays that they get off, an average of 14 days of vacation per year, and retirement is at 65. Does that seem lazy to you?!? Most of Europe works 35 hours or less, 5 days a week, with about 10 major holidays where everything shuts down, 1-2 months of vacation per year, and retirement at 60 or less.

Now, this doesn’t mean that America hasn’t gotten into MORE lazy ways. We used to be much harder workers, with no government retirement. So some people worked until they died, while others planned for retirement and saved. The root of our lazier state is government programs. You don’t have to work for food anymore, because those that do work will pay for your food stamps. You don’t have to work for housing anymore, because those that do work will pay for your rent. You don’t have to work for your vices (beer, cigs, etc…) anymore, because those that do work will pay for them as well. So where is the motivation to work? The only people that work are those that want to make a better life for themselves, the ones that want more for their children and families. The selfish folks, who don’t care about their kids or their families, no longer have motivation to work. They don’t need to, because they will be taken care of and that’s all that matters to them.

Back to the point, take a look at the list I posted earlier of those in support of the OWS movement. Now, is there any doubt in your mind that this hateful attack on Jews came from outside of this movement? It’s abundantly more clear (at least it should be) to you, why they were only able to rally 25 marchers for a good cause.

The media claims over and over, “this is a mostly peaceful movement”, but this stands against them as a testament. If this were a mostly peaceful movement they would have been able to rally more support for this march. They were able to rally 5,000 for a police hatred march, 10,000-15,000 for their banker hatred march, and thousands more for their “day of rage”. What do these supported marches all have in common??? HATRED AND RAGE!!!! That’s what these people are full of. Hatred and rage. This just goes to show how much of the movement is peaceful, 25 people. Meanwhile, they’re dominated by thousands who hate.