Conversation with a Progressive

Liberal Lecture Part 2

 

If you read to the end of Part 1, you know I attached & changed a label. You learned the origin of the term “Progressive Movement”. And now, to a little discussion on economics. According to economist F. A. Hayek “If socialists understood economics they wouldn’t be socialists”. Keep in mind that the original point of agreement is that “There certainly is corruption in our government at all levels due to greed.” Green energy is at the heart of that greed, just follow the money trails (plural) of Solyndra.

But, I really think I’m done talking about an anthropogenic hoax. Let’s see what this progressive has to say about capitalism and come out swinging.

The pic is really what this progressive thinks about capitalism. Of course, by being a progressive he chooses to remain in the singular perspective. Let’s examine this from a capitalist and maybe even a conservative perspective.

• “Before we discuss destroying the competition”, …

If you work for a company that runs itself that well, has a product or service that good, or is ahead of the competitive curve in its field, you are working for a company that is headed for real trouble. From a progressive perspective your company is throwing things out of balance or not equal with its competitors. When the company becomes the best, it is taken to court and found to be in violation of anti-trust laws. (for you progressives that don’t know economics, that would be a monopoly) It must then be brought down to the level of mediocrity. Anyone recall a company like that? This happened to one of the most innovative and forward thinking companies in the world. Our own anti-trust laws literally stunted our technological growth. So, what have you heard from Microsoft lately? It will happen again with others. It’s part of the human condition and it’s called ambition NOT greed.

• …” screwing our customers,” …

In a free market a business will not survive with this type of philosophy. But, in the market of crony capitalism or corrupt government, a business can have this attitude and play the victim card, take no responsibility, and go to the government for a bail out. Now this is troubling because citizens on both sides of the aisle, for the most part, are against bail outs. Unfortunately, the politicians that represent us (supposedly) approve the bail outs with our money. This is where liberals (I do include some Republicans as liberal) waste no time in imposing their will in the form of regulations. I say if businesses want to screw their customers, let them and let the free market take care of it.

• …”and laughing all the way to the bank,” …

I see this as an accomplishment of making the goals and receiving the incentives connected to those goals. This progressive would see this as income inequality and demand compensation be equal, since the work may have been equal. One tiny problem, the results may not have been equal. Incentives, this is a tactic of the strategy within capitalism and unfortunately for progressive’s, profit is involved and results are expected.

 

• …” let’s begin this meeting with a prayer.”

A-MEN!  Ok, not so fast. Does the government contract stipulate that a prayer would be a violation of the separation of church & state?

Now that a cartoon has been dissected, let’s see some progressive thoughts, this time I started a premise to separate the capitalist from the progressive or worse. I started with an introduction of credibility. Mainly the economists and sociologists that I have studied, read, or written about, I listed:                              Adam Smith, Jean Rousseau, Alexis de Tocqueville, David Hume, Herbert Spencer, Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx, F.A. Hayek, John Maynard Keynes, and others including the two books by Obama.

Hey, I have my values and they are conservative and capitalistic. I am fascinatingly curious as to why Americans are turning to a system that has been proven theoretically, historically, and in actuality to be a failure— socialism.

The struggle between free market and government control is one that would make Karl Marx proud. According to Marx, society only grows when there is conflict. The following dialogue is almost laughable as it sounds like the question of which came first the chicken or the egg. I started with a counter to his

…“problems with capitalism with greed and exploitation taking over.”

“That’s the non-existent problem of capitalism.” Capitalism was created to amass wealth and end greed and exploitation; it is the economic basis for helping yourself and your fellow man. Before capitalism you got rich by stealing and plundering from your neighbors. When we allow or promote the force of gov’t to control the free market, we have truly lost faith in our fellow man.”

What comes next from the progressive mind is very convincing as to why this country is on the event horizon of a Coriolis effect. (for you progressive scientists, that means “circling the drain”)

Enjoy:

“I submit that “faith in our fellow man” was lost”

“Enter higher level of thinking from humans like Jesus, Buddha, Gandhi, MLK, Jimmy Carter (yes Jimmy Carter…a truly great human being) and many more.”  

“I believe Jesus WAS a socialist / progressive liberal / Democratic Socialist.)…” 

STOP

Oh now wait just a damn minute. Jesus, a socialist? What? After booing God out of the 2012 DNC……

 

 

 

Ok, I’ll run with it. Well, knowing more than my fair share of what socialism is, there just isn’t much in common between Christianity and socialism. According to Karl Marx,

To Marx, this means that religious believers were deluded junkies using religion to ease the pain of their existence. The point comes down to “what are you wanting to change” According to the 2012 DNC, our belief in God has to be questioned and eliminated. How about another approach—acknowledge that individuals suffer because of government intervention of the free market.

It’s true that both sides of the aisle like to cherry pick their passages from the Bible to complete their narrative, Jesus did not appear here to elevate our earthly status, but to redeem mankind. Even though all value is perceived, Jesus perceived the value of everlasting life for mankind to equal his physical life on earth and that’s the exchange he made. That is the ultimate capitalist!

I’m not going to even speculate on what a socialist Jesus would do with terms like shared sacrifice. I think my point is proven and above reproach.

But, here is one of my cherry picked passages, an excerpt from Luke 22:36 “….and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. Wow capitalism and 2nd Amendment all in 1/2 a verse.

But, let’s get to the second part.

…”Honesty and integrity are lost ideals in business and government, yet remain the beacons society follows and seeks.”

Honesty and integrity are NOT lost ideals in business and government. Unfortunately, this validated his lead submission and he has no faith in his fellow man or seemingly anyone else. He must not know that government and business are a part of society. If he did, he would never vote Democrat. But, as a progressive he really does not believe that himself.

“Humans were ripping each other off from the beginning. Some higher thinking human; one that thought beyond them self, said, “This needs to stop!” and government of laws or rules was invented.”

Straight from the progressive, government was created to regulate commerce. The chicken/egg paradox. Which came first government or capitalism. I think governments were plundering each other’s countries before capitalism.

…” you seem to have a disdain for government, and grasp at business or capitalism as the righteous solution to humanities quest in life”

Here it is, this was referenced in Part 1. Yep, I do have a disdain for government, especially when it’s overgrown, over-reaching, and corrupt. I don’t “grasp at capitalism as the righteous solution to humanities quest in life” — I embrace it. I have faith in my fellow man where capitalism is productive and provides. What does government produce? Nothing. This is what progressives have faith in, a collective bureaucracy that produces nothing, but has the power to tell you how to live by restricting, regulating, and controlling.

Actual statement I made: “Capitalism was created to amass wealth and end greed and exploitation; it is the economic basis for helping yourself and your fellow man”

“I believe your statement is a prime example of a oxymoron or cognitive dissonance”

Don’t you know I fell on the floor L M A O. While I’m confident he knows the meaning of cognitive dissonance, I’m quite sure he doesn’t know how to use it. I am finding out how inept this progressive is in certain disciplines, such as economics.

That’s what happens when you live by the narrative.

Let’s talk cognitive dissonance, here are some quotes from my economically illiterate opponent:

“Democratic government WAS created to fight for honesty and integrity.”                                         “Democratic government’s task is to rein-in the exploitation and greed found in the DNA of capitalism seeps into and attempts to spoil the government.”                                                                                              “The money from capitalism infiltrating government is what spoils society, not government infiltrating (regulating) business.”——–

No, No, and No! What manifesto did this come from?

This progressive takes no account of liberty. Democracy is different from liberty. Democracy, in its purest form is little more than mob rule, this is what he puts his faith in. What he omits in all his rhetoric is the sovereignty of the individual. This progressive’s example is using “liberty to a political end…. when in fact liberty is in itself the highest political end” (Lord Acton).

He blames the business for the money offered to government instead of blaming government for accepting the money. Government could not survive without the taxes paid by business and the workers it employs. However, we and business could do just fine without government. Truly our only need for government is to protect its citizens and sovereignty. Frankly, under liberal leadership, this is what has been lost.

Now we have come full circle. We started with us both agreeing that government is corrupt. This progressive abandoned that premise and stated it was the invention of government, not capitalism, that put an end to plundering, and now– government is to fight for honesty and integrity. Wow, what a trip and what a joke.

From this example you can extract the reason progressives want change. One of the things I have learned from this progressive’s perspective is that: “conservatives cling to the status quo”, that’s because it works! But progressives think there must be change and to replace it with something that sounds good. To think differently makes one short sighted. Personally, I find it fascinating that progressives only think in two dimensions (the big picture X,Y axis) would say I’m short sighted. Here’s what short sighted is, along with being impatient, not letting the free market work…. Oops forgot, there is that faith in fellow man again which “was lost”.

I don’t see government as an integral part of the free market and economic process.

 

No, short sighted is the immediate gratification of a progressive passing a bill in order to see what’s in the bill. Obviously, progressive comprehension & sight isn’t beyond that and when they see the mess they created with their socialistic agenda over time, it’s too late and the cycle continues.

Any & all of those three quotes, I want to know how one would get this idea outside the liberal narrative. Talk about getting your orders from the comrades in the Ministry of Propaganda. The first one is so……it doesn’t deserve any more…… it stands laughable on its own. Now the second one almost has some merit. We do need an element of government to address the exploitation, but then…. how do you define exploitation if you are not referring to slavery? The rest is very disturbing in that if you make it into a math/logic problem, the conclusion would be that government is pure and just without capitalism. That puts us back in the USSR. There it is just, if you were part of the bourgeoisie.

Conclusion:

One of our founders, Thomas Paine, recognized that, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” The intolerable one is where progressives are taking us all. Everyone will be equally miserable, then we will all be happy.

Americans want a free society and unfortunately for this progressive that means less government. I do find it disturbing when one has lost that much of themselves, to place the care of their lives in a faceless collective government rather than their fellow man.

This is a valid indication that progressives are not worthy of liberty and freedom because they are not ready to handle freedom. It takes personal responsibility to be able to handle freedom. This includes the business world also, manage a business properly and profitably-expect no bail out. There is already a safety net for that called Chapter 11 or 13 bankruptcy.

The government has its reach so far in our personal business that we have become dependent on that government and not ourselves. This current path we are on is one of mediocrity and equality designed to lose our American culture and transform us to the level of now third world countries. Progressives have to get us accustomed to this by placing guilt, using terms like “shared sacrifice” and “fair share”. As an American, I never thought I would actually hear any politician use those Soviet type terms. The tax system we have now is already a progressive one. Sacrifice is an individual choice usually connected with an incentive. Since government is amoral, the amount that comes from “fair share” is immoral.

These anti-capitalists are looking for government control of not just our money but our behavior. This is why climate change is such an issue along with health care, gun control, civil asset forfeitures and yes we have seen private property issues. Taxes at immoral levels and regulations designed to repress small businesses from competing with big corporations. Remember it’s the politicians fault for taking the money, not the business for offering it.

There is nothing more balancing for equality than a free market. The only thing unequal is the level of ambition and the drive for results. This is one contributing factor to income inequality, a non-issue, except for progressives. This is where progressives use government as a revolutionary tool to eliminate citizens and create comrades. This is the sad destiny of socialism. Society split into two classes forever in conflict.

People who are greedy (according to progressives) who want a better life—-                                           People who have ambition (according to capitalists) and want a better life—-

—-Are jailed and/or shot as a subversive.

This is not fiction, imagination, or conspiracy theory. This is the actual and historical path of socialism. Americans are embracing this. Why?

Still no one can explain the difference between a Democrat and a socialist.

Conversation with a Liberal

 

Liberal Lecture

Part 1

A few months ago, I engaged in a conversation  with a …. hmm…. a liberal. Now, he had some rather lengthy responses and because of prior commitments I have not been able to respond nor find the original post. However, I did copy down his responses to read at a later date and have now done so. I have a small window of time before I am committed again to writing for other purposes,…. this is for pleasure.  So, I choose to respond here. Mainly to show, in their own words, how a liberal thinks and to respond with how I think. I do this here because, it’s my domain and unlike liberals, I am tolerant to all points of view and welcome another perspective.

The first point is (the only) one of agreement and it’s temporary:

There certainly is corruption in our government at all levels due to greed. Most people go into politics because if elected to a federal government position, they are guaranteed to become a gazillionaire.

Here there is no problem, I agree with a liberal. Plus, I am consistent with this premise all during the conversation. He evolves forward from a corrupt government to government having the correct plan of action. He even says that I seem to have a disdain for government. Well, when it’s corrupt …….

It is difficult to know sometimes what the truth is when information presented to the common citizen is innuendo, twisted truth, or just plain lies. I would take exception to the idea of climate change / global warming…. Whether you ascribe to scientific studies and conclusions that support and validate a change in the world’s climate, it’s just good policy to be “conservative” in the use of our planet’s resources.

Well of course climate change had to enter into the conversation and it was my fault. I provided bait to see if there were true agreement with the issue of corrupt government. So, the guy that says you can keep your health care plan is also believable when he says the science is settled. I guess he is referring to the 90%  I mean…97%  consensus of scientists that say climate change is anthropogenic. How do we get to that 90% 97%. Fist step is to find a shred of evidence from the scientific community that fits your narrative. Take note… this is how it started. According to the Wall Street Journal article by Joseph Bast & Roy Spencer “The Myth of the Climate Change 97%” a 2 question online survey from a student writing master’s thesis (“Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union” by Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, a student at the University of Illinois, and her master’s thesis adviser Peter Doran.) received 79 responses from those that claimed climate science was their area of expertise and claimed to have published more than half of their peer-reviewed papers on climate change. That 97% is 76/79 in actual numbers. Now, those that have taken statistics, even at the lower level, know that accuracy comes with a larger sample size. The sample of this survey was intended to be 3146. So, 79/3146 or 2.5% responded. This is actually the norm for respondents to surveys’-and restaurants who mail out coupons. But, somehow this got turned into a worldwide consensus. However, I do “ascribe to scientific studies and conclusion” what I have shown here, this is not a conclusion that can “validate a change in the world’s climate.”

Conclusion: To the liberal, narrative is truth. When presented with evidence, facts, or even absolute proof, the liberal will deny and say it is “innuendo”, “twisted”, “or just plain lies.” While I may agree with that “It is difficult to know sometimes what the truth is when information is presented to the common citizen…” I don’t always accept it as truth, I am sometimes skeptical and question the information presented. But, like the X-Files, the truth is out there and you have to put in some effort to find it or remain skeptical until time reveals the truth. What liberals do (or at least this liberal) is take the information presented, compare it with liberal narrative and only if there is a match of rhetoric will it then be deemed “truth”.

A small dose of proof—In the 70’s liberals would have us believe that an ice age was on the way. Then, Al Gore proclaimed that we are the cause of global warming, which was debunked. Now liberals found the right marketing term that sounds good—climate change. Perfect! Something that is always changing anyways and something that cannot be proven. Liberals are relentless though, the thread in common with all three of these are 1) The Problem—carbon emissions and 2) The Solution— Tax.                Is anyone seeing a pattern?

 

Pollution is an obvious detriment to humanity and this planet. To hide your head in the sand in regards to pollution, climate change, global warming is the most blind, perilous and heinous behavior and attitude. To claim money is the root of the evil in declaring anthropogenic climate change is a simplistic and dangerous diversion from reality and truth.

Do I hide my head in the sand, am blind and have a heinous behavior and attitude? This was his diplomatic way of saying that I do. This actually makes my point in liberal narrative = truth. Money is always involved. I see this paragraph as a liberal looking at an apple and exclaiming “see this orange”. He has rejected truth by totally omitting it. Not even a challenge for the pic above with Soros. Yet Soros (a “hedge funder”) bought a chunk of two energy companies Peabody Energy (BTU) & Arch Coal (ACI). Some would think that the Soros transaction is hypocritical…. Me… I see it as just business. But this liberal ideologue will not touch it because it just does not fit the liberal narrative and… he can’t explain it. Soros funded and used our President to his will. I’m still maintaining “corrupt government”. So, as a visual demonstration he shows me a pic of China with polluted air and this is climate change. No, it’s polluted air. If our president was serious about this, wouldn’t he offer the Chinese the scrubber technology we use? Don’t get me wrong, I’m for green energy. I’m also for cheap energy and when green energy is as cheap a fossil fuel then I will be an advocate for it.

It’s easy to take a pic and fit it to your narrative. But let’s take a different perspective about this. This is a pic of an industrial complex in Baotau, China. Heavy pollution of air, land, and water. This complex processes rare earth metals. It has been speculated that China holds up to 90% or more of the world’s concentration of rare earth metals. Guess what is made with rare earth metals—

The Top five: dysprosium, terbium, europium, neodymium and yttrium

that’s right, green energy production devices such as those big windmills and solar panels. Our production and use of clean energy makes us feel superior because we can have clean air, water, and land. Liberals have no remorse for the cost of the green energy whether it be dollars out of Americans pocket in the form of higher energy bills, loss of jobs or even the destruction of the Earth in China. Now, that’s hypocritical!

Let’s carry this perspective a little further and get a little darker. China has about 1.6 million deaths per year due to pollution. What if China actually needs these 1.6 million deaths per year in order to sustain their country because of overpopulation. They would refuse our technology. Of course as Americans we find that abhorrent because of our values. From a broad sociological point of view, I submit that we cannot impose our values on another culture, like China because they are in fact different.

There are many progressive ideas that are not only good for humanity, the planet, and other living things, but are also economically rewarding. The problems with capitalism many times is that greed and exploitation take over. People lie to keep the money flowing, no matter the destruction. Profit can be made without abusing labor, gobbling-up mass quantities of resources, laying waste to the planet, and leaving behind toxic by-products, or making-up tricky accounting techniques to maximize gain on an investment. The problem with political conservatism is it most times favors profit over people. It clings to preserving the status quo.

I see an oxymoron here— “progressive ideas” & “economically rewarding.” The only way a progressive idea is economically rewarding is to eliminate the middle class, split society in two classes and make sure you are part of the bourgeoisie. But, his rhetoric leans to remaining a proletariat. I could give a lesson of general economics here but if you believe in a free market you don’t start off a sentence with “The problems with capitalism…” This has one believing that there is a better economic system than capitalism. That’s not to say that capitalism is perfect, but as we all know it is the best economic system currently available. The exploitation that capitalism gets blamed for comes from a corrupt government. By now we see that a liberal will tell you how they are against a corrupt government, but do not even realize much less understand that the government gets corrupt when it wants control.

“PROGRESSIVE”

I have explored this word related to being liberal. Interesting history. Frank Marshall Davis, a past president of Communist Party USA (CPUSA) saw that the term communist was not a marketable term in America. But he found the right word by calling it the “progressive movement”. The big hint was taken from previous and the then current socialist dictators and communists regimes from around the world using the word “FORWARD”. Sound familiar? Obama let us know where his roots are and it has nothing to do with freedom as our nation’s founders envisioned, yet (not me) we voted him a 2^nd term. Probably because “It is difficult to know what the truth is……” Yeah, like not doing your own due diligence, that’s called being lazy and accepting low-information status. I shall no longer refer to this person as a liberal, it would be an insult to those of you that are freedom loving liberals in the classic sense. The reference will now be “this progressive”.

End Part 1

Preview Part 2:

Conversation with a Progressive

Let’s talk cognitive dissonance, here are some quotes from my economically illiterate opponent:

This Fish can Unite us All

People are waking up in America everyday and are wondering “what am I supposed to be offended by today”.  I’m sure if you are looking for an item to be offended about, just check your newsfeed on the popular social media site. Some of the best sources of political correctness can be found on both conservative and liberal pages. The item of what to be offended about is the only thing in common between the two. However, they both will tell you liberal instructions on how and why to be offended. This week there is a push to be offended by the name of a fish. This name is so offensive that the Minnesota legislature has officially changed the name of this fish from “Asian Carp” to the new politically correct name of “Invasive Carp”

Conservatives, seeing an opportunity here, are putting together a case to eventually present to the Supreme Court of the United States. First, Minnesota is not the only state having to deal with Asian Invasive Carp. There will be a national movement to give amnesty to Asian Invasive Carp. We must have acceptance of them and show tolerance of their Asian past, as we cannot have tolerance or acceptance of our own past.

This will not be just relegated to wildlife. It is imperative we follow through with the liberal agenda of equality. In an effort to unite the country once again, somehow we must all be called Americans. This should not present a problem to either liberal or conservative. Only the future in America will a citizen be identified without a hyphen in front of American. The presentation of facts will be presented in a way that disagreement means “you are not American”. No longer will there be:

Black-American          Native-American

Hispanic-American     Latino-American

Asian-American          White-American

Just:     AMERICAN

Those that insist on having a hyphen to separate themselves from full Americans will be identified as:

INVASIVE AMERICANS

Surely, the Supreme Court would not rule against being American. Would they?

When did the Earth start to experience climate change?

If our civilization existed during the era of Pangaea, I can hear Obama saying “we need to heal the continent and prevent its drifting apart. Continental drift is a national security issue.” Does this sound like the climate change issue?

Why would anyone deny climate change? The climate of the Earth began a cycle of change as soon as an atmosphere formed and the Earth started its rotation. So, climate change—let me count the ways. But, let’s not. We all should know that man is not the single most contributors to planetary climate change. After all, we banned chlorofluorocarbons (CFC) in the 70’s, you know, things like Freon and propellants in hairspray, all in an effort to close the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica. This is a time when we are being warned about an impending ice age. When the truth about that came, we found out that there has always been a hole in the ozone at that location and it changes shape. We also find out that one volcano eruption spews more CFC’s into the atmosphere than all of mankind in the history of our existence. But, we ban CFC’s, when we should be putting efforts into controlling volcano outputs (LOL). Banning CFC’s make us feel good and it’s easier than controlling volcanoes and —they are both ridiculous.

The evidence of an impending ice age faded and gave way to the idle hands of AlGore in the form of a documentary called an “Inconvenient Truth”. Instead of an ice age, we are according to the documentary, faced with global warming and it’s ALL our (mankind) fault. The only truth that is inconvenient is that 97% of the documentary has been debunked. Since neither model of global cooling or warming can be substantiated as valid models, the new marketing term is now “climate change”. This is the safe alternative term in case the weather happens to change. Enough of the short history.

One has to wonder why it’s still a polarizing issue. The real amazing part is that there are people consistently gullible and truly believe that we are causing damage on a planetary scale. You know you have heard it several times; when you look for truth, just follow the money. In this case, money flows to alternative energy companies in the form of government subsidies and goes bankrupt. The main culprit would be Solyndra, which was a sweet deal. Solyndra gets millions in subsidies, tax credits, and loan guarantees then gets tax benefits from millions in operating losses. The speculation is that these failed alternative energy companies became shell companies for political campaign financing. In other words, the taxpayer paid for political campaigns. Now, I know that oil & gas companies receive subsidies and loans also, but these are established industries not speculative. Economically, the free market has determined that fossil fuels are the most efficient. If alternative or green energy became competitive we would see a massive shift in preference. I would prefer no government loans or subsidies or even bailouts. Still, you can hear the cry “heal the planet”.

Obama has declared the science behind climate change is settled. Well, that might be enough for some, but with the acknowledged and documented record of statements from our president on previous subject matters, we see ignorance, incompetence, or manipulation. There is certainty that climate change falls into one of those categories. When you have scientists that depend on government grants for their livelihood, the results of the research can become transparent well before they are presented. You can think of it as “Make the facts fit my narrative, if you want to continue receiving grant money.”

Now we have to do our fair share. What the hell is that supposed to mean? Do I have to buy carbon credits to ease my conscience for turning on the ignition in my car? I still don’t understand why this issue has taken hold. The EPA is one of the bureaucracies in competition to be the leader of the 4^th branch of government since Nixon created it. I acknowledge that without the EPA, we may have environments similar to India and China does today. The United States has done an exemplary job of protecting our human habitat. Yet, we are now led to believe that when the weather changes, it’s the Americans fault.

Ever wonder what goes into one of those big windmills you see when driving through the South Plains? Or, what material makes a solar panel work? It’s called “rare earth elements”. You can find some in Canada but 80% – 90% of all “rare earth elements” are found in China. Here is the difficult part- processing these “rare earth elements” decimates an environment- air, land, and water. India is using coal without the scrubbing technology we employ. In fact, of the top 20 polluted cities, India shows up in 13 of them. We only know this because of the expensive sensors located in such places. We don’t know about other emerging cities such as Lagos, Nigeria.

Don’t get me wrong, I would like to see fossil fuels take an exit of necessity. The so called “green energy’ is the future. But, having the government shove it down our throats (like healthcare) is not how Americans like to do things. For this new clean energy technology to take hold it has to be viable and economical. Fossil fuels have already set the baseline for cost and efficiency- green just isn’t there yet.

Attacking environmental concerns with a false narrative like climate change only serves to create a mountain of money, nothing more. When this is realized, it will be too late and government gains more power and control over our lives. If there were genuine concerns over the environment, this would be met with how to maintain clean air and clean water. But that is too passé, and just isn’t exciting. We need a global cause to be a part of that is larger than our self, makes us feel good, and does absolutely nothing.

Do I really want a Champion?

In the American society where “all men are created equal”, we forget what that really means, concerning our inalienable Rights. No one really seems to understand what a Right is anymore. If you have a right to something that puts an obligation on your fellow citizen, that is not a Right. According to our Founders, our Rights are given to us by our Creator, and there is no obligation on our fellow citizens to exercise those rights. We have allowed our government to create a zero sum game out of equality. The rich have to pay their fair share. The tax on income is already a progressive tax. Meaning, the more you make, the higher the percentage goes. The top 10% of wage earners pay 84% of all taxes collected and 47% pay no taxes. That leaves a shrinking middle-class of 43% to pay 16% of all taxes collected. No one discusses broadening the tax base, but will bitch about the rich. Raising tax on the rich only serves as an added expense on the middle-class. Narrowing the tax base only serves to raise or create new taxes, mostly on the middle class.  The rich will be rich. They know how to be rich and stay rich. The term “pay their fair share” only promotes division and creates economic envy.

The middle-class has been largest and strongest part of our economy, despite the efforts of government to regulate and tax it to submission. The middle-class is innovative and sometimes defiant on the legal side of regulation. In other words, the middle-class always finds a way. Unfortunately, that way has been more of survival rather than example of the American Dream. The middle-class folks are the Champions, this is important—THE MIDDLE-CLASS FOLKS ARE THE CHAMPIONS. When I see a politician telling me I need a champion, hopefully Americans can see through that and be insulted by such arrogance, and take such a remark as a challenge. Make no mistake, if this political challenger for the championship wins, the middle-class will lose.

From the party that desires equality, in all forms, from cradle to grave, this is the most “in your face” inequality promotion presented to the American people. By its very nature a politician raising themselves to the rank of champion, makes the middle-class nothing but serfs and squires to be looked down upon and be in service the champion and their minions. So, I guess it’s no secret that I’m talking about Hillary Clinton. This woman has said some of the most egregious statements against capitalism, the middle-class, and our way of life.

Example:

“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking what is best for society.” (Hillary Clinton)

OK, this sounds nice and clean on the surface. However, it is a foreign concept made to look home grown. It is a blatant attack on capitalism and our way of life in America. Capitalism is based on the individual in service to other individuals. This is how society is built and this is how society takes care of itself. Hillary, and others, have come to the conclusion that only government can solve the problems of society and we should elect those that know what’s best for us all. This is what we have done and this is why there is such poverty in such a rich country as America. Hillary’s quote actually describes a government that has been proven a failure. When you really get down to it, the individual is the minority. You can’t trust a government that cares nothing for the minority, and then it’s no longer America. With this type of thinking, equality and society are split in two. Sociologists would call these two groups the bourgeoisie and the proletariats  – the owners and the workers. This is what invariably happens. All “prols” are equal in the eyes of the champion bourgeoisie rulers. Quality of work becomes average, innovation becomes extinct and all that is needed by the individual in society is rationed—that’s called equality.

This is a champion only Karl Marx could be proud of.