Gun control

We can expect a lot of calls for more gun control as a result of the Colorado massacre. This is like a bad movie, when you know what is going to happen next. First, attacks upon conservatives to pin the blame upon us. The Tea Party ideology is responsible for the Colorado massacre. Just like when the congresswoman was shot a few years ago. Next, more gun control is necessary to prevent anyone from doing anything like this ever again. As if the supposed ‘safety’ is worth the loss of our freedom to bear arms. Wars are fought over issues like this one. Hey, why don’t we pass a new law that prohibits firearms, so that “You can find out what the law does”? This is another issue that would justify a war. Our republic is in danger the likes of which we have never seen before. This is not because we are becoming more violent, although that is a symptom. It is because we have lost sight of what the historical function of government is. Example: The entire idea of insurance began with groups banding together to protect each other from catastrophic loss. A group of merchant’s band together to protect each other from being wiped out by a single ship being lost. Today, I purchase insurance for my house and car to prevent being wiped out financially by accident. The function of insurance is NOT replacement of loss. It is supposed to protect me from catastrophic loss. Today, many people seem to think that insurance is to replace anything that is lost or to pay for something in advance. The Affordable Health Care ACT is another fine example. This issue not about health nor is it about guns. It is about control and power.

Where did the "Arsenal of Democracy" go?

Although I disagree with FDR’s general economic policies, I can’t help but admire his foreign policy, at least prior to United States involvement in World War II. We needed to be in that war and he helped get us there. Better yet, he was working since 1938 to prepare our armed forces for the struggle. Many of our aircraft and ships that won the war were designed in 1938 and 1939. We must have spent some amount of money to have all of these modern designs ready for production. Did you ever wonder why it was that the U.S. had 3 new fast battleships in 1942? We only had 9 in 1941, yet we had a full 33% more coming in the very first year of the war. It took several years to build one of those things. This is only one of numerous examples. FDR was not just boasting: The U.S. WAS the Arsenal of Democracy. Yet it was private ownership that designed and built that arsenal. It was the very lack of government control of our economy that made us as strong as we were. Where is this arsenal today? Democrats don’t seem to want to have anything to do with it. Not only have Democrats become the party of George McClellan again, but Democrats want to ‘Fundamentally Change’ the economy that maintains our arsenal. President Obama is succeeding. The U.S. economy is staggering. We have not seen any real ‘recovery’ since President Obama ‘saved us from an economic cliff’ in 2009. What we are seeing is a socialist economic result. The low percentage of ‘growth’ that we have been seeing are typical of government run economies. (Actually, pretty good returns for government run economies, probably because we still have some stubborn capitalists who are still driving what little growth we are having.) In other words, the U.S. is NOT the ‘Arsenal of Democracy’ anymore. Not only are we not facing our enemies overseas, we are “Fundamentally CHANGING” our economy away from those very concepts that gave us the strength to win World War II. In 1900, the percentage of our economy that was allocated by the U.S. government was well under 1%. With the takeover of our Health Care system, (plus all of the other takeovers of banks and other companies) this percentage easily tops 50%. If you believe as President Obama does, that government can allocate our national wealth better than if privately controlled; this would make our economy much, much stronger. If he is correct, not only should we begin to see massive growth, but the next war should be a piece of cake as our ‘arsenal’ should become much, much more powerful than it has ever been. The history of our country has demonstrated that this is NOT the case. This will NOT happen if President Obama becomes re-elected and is able to continue his ‘fundamental CHANGING’ of America.

President Bush's policies destroyed our economy

"President Bush’s policies destroyed our economy." I heard this statement on Fox News by a person who was attempting to defend President Obama’s policies. What worries me here is that she must really believe this. Limited government over economic matters (And just about everything else) is what built this country. I have thought that U.S. history had proved beyond doubt that this sound economic principal was the best, more fair and most effective way to allow an economy to run. We kicked the English out because of the effect that taxes were having upon our commerce. Today, it takes the average American until May 15th (Much later after Obama care kicks in) just to pay our Federal taxes. Toss in state and local taxes and that date is pushed back to the end of May or beginning of June. June 30th is the last day of the 1st half of a year. This is close to 50%. (The actual figure I read is 44%) A century ago, this percentage was well under 1%. It will prove impossible (without dictatorial powers) to move our taxes back to 1% again and I am certain that this would not be wise in any case. However, Republicans in general and President Bush in particular attempt to reverse this trend. This interviewee believes that any policy designed to accomplish this is destructive to our economy? The obvious conclusion is that she believes that our government can allocate the national resources of the U.S. more ‘fairly’, wisely and more effectively than we can. Not exactly the concept that our economy was founded upon. And to reverse this or at least slow it down is destroying it? Accusations tend to tell you more about the accuser than the accused. In this case, the accusation is telling us that President Obama is doing the destruction in our economy. He is doing EXACTLY what he said that he would do: “FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE” America. Who is really destroying what? Our health care system is one of the few economic places where America is still leading the world. This is because it was set up to make money, or profit. Now with government in control, we can expect our health care system to run into the same problems that other centrally managed health care systems experience: Shortages and cost overruns followed by austerity and cutbacks in service. Just look at England and Canada’s health care. This is what we can expect in 20 or 30 years. And President Bush destroyed our economy? Oh, I forgot. The booming economy that we enjoy today is all Bush’s fault.

Israel is the warmonger and responsible for the conflict

Israel inflicts far more losses and damage upon their enemies, so they must be warmongers. I recently read this most stupid argument again. I guess the idea is that Israel has inflicted more losses and damage when they do decide to wage war or use their military than what they lose themselves. 1) In wartime, this is the idea. As Patton said, nobody ever won a war dying for their country. They won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his. 2) Just because one side is better at waging war does not make them warlike. This would mean that all forces that won wars throughout history were warlike. Maybe some were. Maybe even most, but I doubt that. The winners were just better at it. Maybe they had better weapons or were better led. It does not mean that they were the ‘bad guys’. I like to use the example of the war between Japan and the U.S. 1941-1945. We killed millions of Japanese, soldiers and civilians alike. We lost 40,000 dead. So this makes us warmongers and the ‘bad guys’ who were responsible for the conflict? This argument is so dumb that I am surprised that it is still around. Maybe this is why socialism is still thought of as being a better economic system. People just don’t want to see otherwise. It must be in their interest to believe this way, because balanced assessment would definitely prove otherwise.

President Obama is looking for distractions

Obama to push extension of middle-class tax cuts JULIE PACE Associated Press The Associated Press Monday, July 9, 2012 7:19 AM EDT Obama, in an address from the White House Monday, will call on Congress to pass a one-year extension of tax cuts for households making less than $250,000 a year, The House GOP is expected to make its own push this month for an extension of all the Bush-era tax cuts due to expire at the end of the year, including reductions on wealthier income earners. End article. The extension for one year of these tax ‘cuts’ is just an attempt by President Obama to look like he is moderate. The effort involved would not even be worth it, both to push it through and to fight it. And President Obama certainly can’t care much less if it passes anyway because it goes against what he wants to do, which is why some believe that this is being moderate and considerate of the other side. A year extension is like a one-year raise after which you go back to the same pay? This is an attempt at a distraction, nothing more and nothing else. I love this one. “Wealthier income earners”. These people are wealthier than who? You? Me? What kind of a standard is this? It is always the other guy who makes more than I. It is always the other guy who is greedy or inconsiderate. As a society, we Americans are certainly wealthier than most if not all of the people in the world. At least, we used to be. This is what President Obama is CHANGING. This CHANGE is certainly not for the better, except for those few exemptions that President Obama will expertly install. This is another distraction by placing blame on those ‘wealthy’ people instead of the management of the system itself. After all, President Obama believes that he run our economy much more wisely than we can, so a struggling economy would only point to his economic miscalculations.

Kenneth Waltz is nuts

I read his article in Foreign Affairs. (July August 2012) I know that you can do this to me if you cut up what I write. However, this is too much. He seems to believe that we can have 3 outcomes of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons; I believe that we have almost infinite possibilities and he boils all of human nature down to three outcomes! “Final stages of a decades-long Middle East nuclear crisis that will end only when a balance of military power is restored”. I guess he means that military power is restored in Iran’s favor. And he sees this as a good thing that will lead to the end of the Middle Eastern war that actually has been much longer than a few decades long? “Iranian policy is made not by “mad mullahs” but by perfectly sane ayatollahs who want to survive just like any other leaders. REALLY? The only other time in recorded history that we have seen repeated suicide attack had leaders who committed suicide when they lost. Hitler’s German saw some of this, but Japan made it pale by comparison. And you want to gamble potential nuclear war over the Stability of the leaders of similar groups? In Kenneth Waltz view, the purpose of Iran seeking nuclear weapons is for defense and security. I have to agree with him here: Security from potential counterattacks as a result of Iran become more active in its war against the United States and Israel. Iran began its war against the U.S. almost immediately after they took power in 1979 with the seizure of the U.S. embassy. One of the more recent acts was the planned assassination of the Saudi ambassador in Washington. So Iran will become more cautious if it obtains the bomb? This is because everyone else has done so. Forgetting that the U.S. and Soviet Union engaged in numerous proxy wars directly related to the struggle against each other. And we are all compelled to do what those who have preceded us did. One thing about human nature: People will do the dimmest things. “Their has never been a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed states.” As if this cannot ever happen? And the last sentence takes the cake: “When it comes to nuclear weapons, now as ever, more may be better”. I must be a real idiot. I just cannot see how someone can actually believe this. Iran obtaining nuclear weapons will only add fuel to the fire in the major battleground between Islamic nationalism and Western culture. To the medieval mind, nuclear weapons are just a bigger, better bomb. Pakistan is dangerous enough. If we add Iran in possession of nuclear arms, the threat of them being used only goes up, not down. All we will have to do is wait until the next war, which in the Middle East should not take all that long.

Repeal Health Care

The Health Care system in the United States is something between 15% and 20% of our economy. I have seen estimates as high as 47% of our private economy is now being controlled by our government that was not less than 4 years ago. Even as low as 33% represents an entire third! In less than 4 years? President Obama is doing EXACTLY what he said that he was going to do: “FUNDAMENTALY CHANGE America”. I have a personal stake in this. My oldest son has autism. As much as I want to see it, he will probably not be able to support himself after my wife and I are gone. This will make him directly dependent upon our government. No way in hell will he do nearly as well if I was ALLOWED to set up enough of an account to take care of his needs. I have enough knowledge about English and Canadian experience with government run health care systems to know that all permanently disabled people will be the first to have cost cutting measures enforced. Only those who are not ill will be better off and even then they will be paying more. The quality of care is bound to take a major hit, although most of the loss will not be felt until after the current crop of caretakers have left the field. It will begin with shortages of drugs, although that will become the choice of many physicians as a cost cutting measure. My son will not be handled as an individual with particular needs and will be drugged whenever he becomes disagreeable. He does not become violent, but think that they will know this? The growth of knowledge in the field regarding autism will dry up as cost cutting measures take hold and no money will be available for research and development. It will be cheaper at first, but it will not be long before than changes along with quality. We need to repeal Health Care so that I can figure out a better way to care for my son after he is gone, and not Nancy. She really does not care about my son more than I despite what she claims.