With an Idiot here and an Idiot There…

..Here an idiot there an idiot everywhere an idiot. If Ol’ McDonald were a progressive, he would have a farm full of idiots. Regardless of the fact that there are idiots of every stripe and persuasion, I believe progressivism has cultivated an even higher number of them.

I recently finished reading “Arguing With Idiots” by Glenn Beck. The great thing about this book is the pages and pages of sources in the back. It makes it easy to do your own verification. He tackles many issues from the second amendment to health care to progressive ideals in general. Over all, I would say it is a solid look at how progressives in the past and today’s progressives have constantly fought to erode the constitution and our individual liberties. This of course spoon feeds the arguments your idiot friends may bring about. In opening Beck states that he is not singling out a particular group of people, just the idiotic arguments that are spouted off by whomever in regards to some of these vital issues. It diffuses these arguments with facts and attempts to educate in general on the founding of our country, the rights and responsibilities we have, and to help others realize the government is not there to take care of everyone. People are personally responsible for their lives.

On to the other idiots I have read about recently. I really want to address the elite idiots. These are the people who through either accumulation of money, power, or celebrity feel they are in a position to dictate to the rest of us how things should be. Recently Roman Polanski was arrested on an outstanding U.S. Warrant in Switzerland. The Swiss did the right thing. This man drugged and raped a 13 year old girl in 1977. Although he pled guilty, when it came time to sentencing, Mr. Polanski decided to just skip the country. Now all the elites in Hollywood are saying, oh he served his time, let him go. Served his time? I don’t recall seeing him listed as a resident of the California Penal System. Of course, he probably fled knowing that his fellow residents in the system would treat him just as well as he treated that little girl. The elite say he is an important artist and great director. He has contributed so much to our modern culture. What a load of crap! If you did the crime you have to do the time. Ironically, these elites such as Harvey Weinstein say that if the Swiss don’t release Polanski it would be a miscarriage of justice.

How do the Hollywood Elite and the Political Elite tie in together? They both believe the progressive notion that the general population is too dumb to make decisions for themselves and that they must be directed by a group of “experts.” I really don’t see people like Lindsay Lohan or Britney Spears as “experts” on life and how you should live it. I know that’s a bit of a stretch in my example, but it’s the attitude amongst the elite in general that they know what is best that causes our issues. I believe that entertainers are there to entertain me and not spout political opinions at me in the midst of a performance (Dixie Chicks, U2, and several others). I FIRMLY believe that the representatives we send to run the government are there to do my bidding. They are not there to dictate how I should live my life.

Of course, now I see the fusion of the two. The President is currently in Denmark along with Oprah to try to get the 2016 Olympics brought to Chicago. I think maybe he should be at home discussing strategy with his generals regarding the two wars we are in and the possibility of Iran cause all sorts of chaos. Oh yeah, there is also that tiny little matter of the economy in shambles. Well, I wouldn’t want him to miss the chance to hang out with his buddy Oprah on Air Force One. Maybe they can give each other some book recommendations.

There Ain't No Party Like a Despot Party....

....Cause a Despot Party Don’t Stop!

Today’s post is dedicated to my favorite Garanimals wearing dictator and despot, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I do honestly think he and Kim Jong Il share the same tailor. Today was the big day of giant, fluffy, I’m better than you speeches by world leaders at the U.N. Well, except for our president. He couldn’t help but say everybody is better than us and we’re a bunch of racist nut jobs. Well not exactly, but he did continue the 2009 World Apology Tour. Can’t we all just get along?

So, getting back to the despots, all sorts of them spoke today. In leading up to the day’s speeches our despot of the day continued to deny the holocaust (saying it was a clever Jewish ruse to get the West to set up the State of Israel), called for Israel to be wiped from the map, and mentioned the 12th Imam.

So, what do we know about the 12th Imam?

He is the Shiite Islam Messiah (al Mahdi). It is said that before he returns there must be 3 years of horrendous world chaos, tyranny, and oppression. Mr. Ahmadenijad believes it to be his personal responsibility to help prepare the world for his coming. Hence, he must spread as much chaos and destruction as possible to speed up the Imam’s return. He claims he was “directed by Allah to pave the way for the glorious appearance of the Mahdi.”

There are many in our government who really don’t take this too seriously. Some of our leaders give only lip service to religious beliefs, therefore they think, hey, Garanimals boy is just another politician, he really doesn’t believe in all that stuff. I hate to say it, but this man truly believes in his calling. I think it underscores his obsession with getting the bomb.

I believe we must do everything in our power to keep Iran from getting nukes. They already have great short to medium long range missile capabilities, this allows them to strike Israel (wipe it off the map) and a good portion of Eastern Europe. Good thing we just canceled that missile shield eh. They are just a couple years away from acquiring long range intercontinental ballistic missiles. This would allow them to strike pretty much anyone.

While I do believe we should never take the option of force off the table, there are some things that can be done to stop them in their tracks without military intervention. There is a great deal of political unrest in Iran, particularly amongst the younger generations. By taking the primary opposition group People’s Mujahideen Organization of Iran (PMOI) off the terror list, it would allow them to get the financial support they need to make a difference in Iran. In the 1980’s as a concession to Iran, the U.S. and most of Europe agreed to list them as a terrorist organization. In January of this year the EU delisted them allowing their assets to be unfrozen. There are some in congress calling to do the same but it has not moved forward.

The next thing we can do is to enact an embargo against their imported gasoline supplies. I know it sounds weird, but one of the world’s largest oil producers lacks the refining capacity to support their own needs. They have to import a large portion of their gasoline supplies. This would create an already more difficult situation for the current regime as there are already gasoline shortages.

Although this last one would do wonders and be a good non-military option it most likely will not happen. Russia has said they will no longer support any more sanctions against Iran and we just kowtowed to their request to scrap our missile shield in Europe without getting anything in return. Oh, except for GE getting a high level meeting with Vlad that very afternoon. Why would Russia cut off one of its biggest trading partners? They are supplying the Iranians with nuclear technology and the surface to air missile systems necessary to protect the facilities.

As the President continues to display weakness and give away our bargaining chips for nothing in return and Israel prepares to take the only option left to protect themselves; the world’s leading dictators are getting together at a Starbucks in Manhattan to plot out the end of Western Civilization.

The Cost of Progressive Ideals

As has previously been mentioned, I am currently writing a research paper on Progressivism. Although I am taking a general approach to flushing out some of my ideas through this blog, I won’t post my paper until after it is graded. I would hate for the graders to do a Google search and find my own paper, on my own blog, and think I plagiarized it. That being said, I think I will just throw out some similar ideas to the ones I am incorporating into the paper and flush them out a bit here.

One of the tenants of Progressivism is to use the general rally cry of war to further social causes and attempt to treat social ills. In their early days they discovered that nothing rallied a nation together as the cry of war. It allows the government to access the great resources of the nation to push towards a common goal. At that point in history, people didn’t look to the national government to help cure social ills. They rightly felt it was the responsibility of their local community to address any social problems that may arise (poverty, crime, etc.).

With the above strategy in mind, Progressives set out to cure the modern social ills of the day. Their first major success in getting the nation to agree on the solution of a problem was met with prohibition. Progressive politicians with the help of pressure put on the U.S. Senate from the Temperance Movement passed the 18th Amendment on January 16, 1919 and it took effect a year later. We can see that “The Noble Experiment” although well intentioned was a failure in the end. It was repealed by the ratification of the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933. If you doubt Prohibition failed to have the effect they intended, remember the decade in which it was active has been dubbed “The Roaring 20’s.” It was a time when bootleg licker and speakeasy’s were the norm for many cities.

The Temperance Movement was the first social “war” against anything. As you move through the history of the 20th century you can see other wars; the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on terror are just a few. To get a look at the modern cost of one of these “wars”, let’s take a look at the War on Poverty.

Welfare spending has grown enormously since President Johnson declared a war on poverty in 1964. For our analysis we will look at means-tested welfare; aid that provides assistance deliberately and exclusively to poor and lower-income people. The examples would be food stamps, public housing, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Although this all works towards a noble cause, it puts much more of a strain on the nation than if these issues were handled in our local communities.

The data discussed is from a Heritage Foundation report published this morning by Robert Rector, Katherine Bradley, Rachel Sheffield, and Helen DeVos. On average, welfare spending comes out to about $7,000 per year for each poor person or $28,000 for a low income family of four. When President Johnson started the war on poverty, means-tested welfare spending was 1.2% of GDP. In FY 2008 it reached 5% of GDP. This is obviously a significant increase. If total means-tested welfare spending were given to those below the poverty line in cash, the amount spent would equal 4 times the amount needed to bring these families above the poverty line.

Why do they not just give the families cash and save the taxpayer some money? It comes down to control. Remember that progressives believe that the people are either too stupid to know what is best for them or too selfish to do what would be in the best interest of their community, or in their view, the nation. If they just gave the cash to the poor, at some point they might not be as dependant on the state to fulfill the needs that some of those programs fill. For instance, if someone had the money to choose where they wanted to live, why would they want to live in a government housing project? Another component is public opinion. If the average taxpayer discovered the government was giving these people cash, they would demand accountability and an end to those people being on the government dole. They would demand these people pick themselves up and improve their own situation. If that were the case, the progressive elements in the government would lose their influence over a substantial portion of their voting bloc.

“Since 1964, the government has spent $15.9 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) on means-tested welfare. In comparison, the cost of all other wars in U.S. history was $6.4 trillion (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars).” I really can’t see the “progress” touted in this “war” nor can I see any potential sign of victory in the near future if this particular “war” is continued in the manner as it is now. That is because progressives believe that everything should be “fair.” You have to redistribute the wealth of others to those that don’t have as much.

Speaking of “spreading the wealth,” “Under President Obama, government will spend more on welfare in a single year than President George W. Bush spent on the war in Iraq during his entire presidency. According to the Congressional Research Service, the cost of the Iraq war through the end of the Bush Administration was around $622 billion. By contrast, annual federal and state means-tested welfare spending will reach $888 billion in FY 2010. Federal welfare spending alone will equal $697 billion in that year.”

There is a quote penned by Adrian Rogers in 1931 that has gained a lot of traction recently by those concerned with spending on this particular war.

“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. No government can give anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

For a great breakdown of what it means to be poor in America, read this additional article by Mr. Rector that reveals these stunning facts:

Nearly 40 percent of all poor households actu­ally own their own homes. On average, this is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Eighty-four percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Nearly two-thirds of the poor have cable or satellite TV.

Only 6 percent of poor households are over­crowded; two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The typical poor American has as much or more living space than the average individual living in most European countries. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-eight percent of poor households have a color television; two-thirds own two or more color televisions.

Eighty-two percent own microwave ovens; 67 percent have a DVD player; 73 percent have a VCR; 47 percent have a computer.

As a closing thought, consider the following statement from Benjamin Franklin.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

As noted, one of the major “wars” launched by progressives failed and things were sent back to how they were, and another is failing miserably. Be careful for their next war which appears to be the War on Obesity. I don’t believe they will all out ban certain things, but I do believe they will attempt to regulate these items in a way to make them more costly; therefore “nudging” us away from them. Progressives may be good at the touchy feely, but their basic ideas and beliefs work to strip away the freedoms we have for the benefit of the all knowing state.

Chain Letter

Although this came in via email, I think it sums up the feelings of a large number of Americans.

Dear Mr. President:

I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me. We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico , and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements. We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, thatI'm on my way over?

Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.
4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico , but, I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put U S. flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I'll need Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $ 4,500 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.

I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U.S. from Mexico . I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely.

Thank you so much for your kind help.

You're the man!!!

Progressive Research Paper

I am currently starting a research paper for my English class. I have decided to carry on the theme I started with my last post and address Progressivism. As it goes along with the intent of my blog I figured I would share my research and paper with you. I also figured it would be good to get as much feedback as possible.

Here is my general thesis as it stands.

Progressive Ideals Are At Odds With The Intent of The Founding Fathers

I have drafted out the following as some potential talking points or areas to cover.

What are the tenants of progressivism?
What is the history of progressivism?
What was the intent of the founding fathers regarding the scope of national/central government?
What were poverty levels before progressivism flourished?
What was community involvement like before progressivism flourished?
What are poverty levels like now?
What is community involvement like now?
How have both major political parties used progressive ideals to push their agendas?
How do the ideals of progressivism affect individual rights?
What was the intent of the founding fathers in regards to individual rights? Are they more important than the rights of the state?
How did natural law formulate the beliefs of the founders in regards to individual rights?
How does this contrast with the progressive belief that there is no natural law?

Some of the above ideas have been drafted out as I read some of my research. As this is a fluid project I am working on across the next month it will obviously change. Any of your ideas on the above mentioned topics and anything else I post would be greatly appreciated.

Progressives and Free Choice

I have been looking into and doing a lot of thinking on the origin of some people's ideas that the principles enshrined in the Constitution are outdated. It comes down to the Progressive Movement which started in the late 19th century. I think the following quote captures the thoughts of Progressives quite well.

Seventy-two years ago, in 1937 at the height of the New Deal, Walter Lippmann, a repentant Progressive, noted that:

"[W]hile the partisans who are now fighting for the mastery of the modern world wear shirts of different colors, their weapons are drawn from the same armory, their doctrines are variations of the same theme and they go forth to battle singing the same tune with slightly different words....

Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion, must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come.... [T]he premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.

So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide. Though despotism is no novelty in human affairs, it is probably true that at no time in twenty-five hundred years has any western government claimed for itself a jurisdiction over men's lives comparable with that which is officially attempted in totalitarian states....

But it is even more significant that in other lands where men shrink from the ruthless policy of these regimes, it is commonly assumed that the movement of events must be in the same direction. Nearly everywhere, the mark of a progressive is that he relies at last upon an increased power of officials to improve the condition of men."

Does the reaction to dissent and other ideas opposed to their own by the progressives back then seem familiar today?

I found this great bit of information in a piece posted by the Heritage foundation.

This is what it comes down to; progressives believe that people do not have the ability to choose what is best for them in leading their lives, therefore the state and the elite political culture should choose for them. After all, the state knows what is best for everyone and therefore can make a paradise for everyone all at once. What a load of crap! Free choice is our greatest God given gift. Although Progressives preach the touchy feely we are trying to help everyone and do it for their own good, they are intent on taking away that God given right. You can see the progressive thread in every major issue being debated on the political scene today; health care, cap and trade, junk food taxes, and economic stimulus.

DON'T LET THEM FOOL YOU!!

Remember that our rights come directly from God to us, we then loan a couple of those rights to the government to assist in providing for the common defense and providing an environment that allows us to determine our own destiny.

Central planning and collectivism for the common good has NEVER worked in history. The current crop of progressives claim they can make it work cause they are much "cleverer" than those before them. You will find them in both of the major political parties.

Read The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Federalist Papers, and I would even say Tocqueville's "Democracy in America". Although he wrote it for a French audience in the mid-19th century, it shows we are on the same path the French were back then. Frankly, that scares the crepes out of me.

Educate yourself and be active in your community so we do not repeat the mistakes of the past.