Pages

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Election Predictions 2010

Election Predictions:

11 Republican new seats in the Senate, including a win for Dino Rossi in Washington.

70 seat Republican pick-up in the House.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Gorilla Pelosi looking for Revenue

In order to collect taxes for bankrupt California, Senator Pelosi was seen fleecing corporate officers. She wore a Halloween gorilla costume for these effort. It is unclear if she was posing as a PETA community organizer or if her true personality was coming out. In any case, she attacked corporate officials to hide the fact that the taxes would actually be paid by people in their roles as workers and consumers.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKCJHReZPIs&feature=watch_response

Taxen People


Also see remarks of Dr. Milton Friedman for commentary on the end of Golden Ages, applicable to California

Friday, October 29, 2010

The Electorate not Media Matters

According to Glenn Beck, "Media Matters," a liberal blog, has launched an attack against him and the Fox news organisation. Check the following link to see that he is correct:

http://mediamatters.org/columns/201010290036

This blog has no fundamental disagreement with the issues that Media Matters raises in this article. That is, we agree that they are issues. We differ diametrically in our view of these issues. In fact, what Media Matters accuses Fox of is often exactly what this blog (and the Tea Party conservatives) say that they (and the Statist Progressive Left) are doing. For example, Media Matters says:

"They [Fox] do all of this while continuing their time-honored tradition of tearing down liberal initiatives and politicians with shameless smears, lies, misrepresentations, and fabricated stories..."

So, they are correct that Fox attempts to tear down liberal initiatives. Fox does it by telling the truth about liberals and their initiatives. It is the left, presumably with the endorsement of Media Matters, that uses shameless smears and fabricates stories. Just look at the recent statements from the left regarding conservative women candidates, which have been exposed as farcical fabrications and certainly smears and shameless too. Look at all the lies we were told about the Health Care bill with hardly a peep of objection from the mainstream media.

Media Matters' article also states:

"Right out of the gate, Fox led the charge against the stimulus, eschewing the views of economists to attack deficit spending and rewriting history to attack FDR and the New Deal.
The network was certainly "the voice of the opposition" on health care reform, spewing countless falsehoods about both our broken health care system and the proposals to fix it while promoting disruptions of health care town halls and GOP initiatives to kill reform."

Here again we have clear lines of demarcation. We believe one thing and they believe the opposite. Fox, Sarah Palin's Common Sense Conservatives, The Tea Party, me, and innumerable others did not want so called economic stimuli from government spending, which some economist believe in. We have discussed John Maynard Keynes, Paul Samuelson, and Paul Krugman (a real bearded Marxist), for example. Other economists, such as Milton Friedman and Ludvig von Mises, disagree. They do not so much eschew the opposing statist progressive views as they have study them in depth then refute and reject them. That is true of the views and initiatives of FDR and of BHO.


That Fox and the afore mentioned conservatives oppose the so called health care and wall street reforms is also no secret. [Ed Note: This blog opposes Cap-and-Trade most of all.] In a free society with a free press, the public hears both sides and decides. Media Matters would have us hear only their side. It brings to mind the bible story of David and Bathsheba. When David saw Bathsheba and desired her, even though she was married, the prophet Nathan (I think that's who it was) rebuked him. He compared King David to a rich man with many flocks who sees a poor man and wants his only lamb. The left is supported by many large media outlets, the only comparably strong voice of dissent is Fox. To Media Matters and its masters, that is too many.

William F Buckley observed that the left says they want to hear both sides, but they are shocked to hear that there is another side. We know who the other side is and what it stands for and we do not want it.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

YES 1100 --- NO 1105

Regarding the Washington State election, most of the issues are clear. However there are two different initiatives to privatise State liquor stores. (As with soda pop, which another measure wants to stop taxing, I never touch the stuff.) Go to this site to find out the difference.

"http://yes1100no1105.blogspot.com/2010/08/what-are-differences-between-1100-and.html?spref=bl"

Apparently, 1105 designates certain private distributors as the only source for liquor sold in the state. That makes no sense to me. The point is to free it up. As usual, there will be businesses that use the police powers of government to support their enterprises. I never said business is always ethical. I have said that free competition can only come about without government intervention. That is what initiative 1100 aims for and I hope can deliver. Many commentators have the "It's Golden" Blogovich attitude when they see all of the revenue from liquor sales. In other words, they want to skim some off for themselves or for the State. (Which, for state employee unions is the same thing.)

Other Washington State Ballot Measures:

Initiative #1053 -- The voters keep passing initiates requiring two-thirds legislative votes or voter approval to raise taxes. The legislature keeps repealing the peoples wishes. (and you wonder why this is called chickenshitnewworld). Vote yes to reinstate the requirement. (The legislature MUST cut spending, not raise taxes, get it?)

Initiative #1082 Vote Yes to end the state monopoly on workers compensation insurance. Companies would be able to purchase private insurance, which would have to comply with state guidelines. This would eliminate the higher cost of inefficient government services and save the state and businesses money. It is a step in the right direction.

Initiative #1098 No, a thousand times no on state income tax. (I suggest a voluntary state income tax for a few millionaires who have publicly supported it. Oh, excuse me Mr. Gates, I meant billionaires.)

Initiative #1107 - Yes, obviously. This would reverse interesting government attempts to nudge us by tax laws into "green" or other "socially desirable" behavior. (Tax on candy and carbonated beverages and a few other benign sounding recent legislative enactments. Kick that camel in the noise. There's no room for him in this big tent.)

Referendum #52 To authorise funds, via a bond issue, for "energy efficient" construction projects in schools. I am surprised they let us vote on this. Vote no, no, no. Do not trust anything that they call energy efficient. That would no doubt include every lamebrain "green" proposal that their brother-in-law's company came up with. Environmentalist seem incapable or unwilling to make break-even calculations to determine what is actually efficient. This smells like another environmental boondoggle scam.

Senate Joint Resolution #8225 would amend the State Constitution to use an accounting gimmick to raise the State debt limit. The Statement For in the voter pamphlet is either disingenuous or leaves something out. This, I believe, has nothing to do with whether the State receives federal money as they seem to suggest. The federal government is, for now, giving states money for shovel ready projects. This will not last long (we hope). The resolution would allow more state borrowing, based upon receipt of those funds. The payments on that borrowing would last a long time. As Rep. Jim McCune in the Argument Against states, "Change our addiction to spending, not our constitution. Vote no."

House Joint Resolution #4220 would amend the constitution to allow courts to deny bail to those accused of a crime possibility punishable with a life sentence. I do not like the idea of legislation tying the hands of the court regarding sentencing or bail. It would be reasonable to deny bail to anyone who is likely to commit other violent crimes. I think I will vote yes on this because it is not mandatory on the court. On the other hand, it could encourage changing sentencing guidelines toward more life sentences. I do not support mandatory sentencing either. The constitution should not be amended lightly. Courts already are able to impose very high bail requirements in cases where there is a propensity to violence. Maybe it should stay as it is for now. Your choice.

The Federal Offices:

Dino Rossi over Patty Murray, of course. In Dino's radio and television spots, he comes across like a candidate for Certified Public Accountant. He says the right things in a passionless way. That seems to be his only weakness. (I do not think he would ever vote for Cap-and-Trade, which was my only fear about him originally.) In any case, he gets a score of 95 to Patty Murray's 0. If she ever voted other that liberal statist progressive down the line, I do not know when. (Not that she seems to know what Statist Progressivism is. She needs to educate herself regarding the other side of the argument. The argument between freedom and tyranny, that is.)


Doug Cloud to replace Norm Dicks

Keep Dave Reichert, instead of Suzan DelBene

Dick Muri, not Adam Smith

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Unlikely Saviors of Capitalism and the Nation

Tonight Washington State Senatorial candidates Pattie Murray (D) and Dino Rossi (R) debated. Mr. Rossi has a record in the Washington State Legislature of cost cutting to balance the budget. Senator Murray has a voting record in the US Senate making her the most liberal member of that body. She is running away from that record to a certain extent while also reminding voters of government money that she brought to the state. Dino reminded us of the practice in congress that our representatives use to get support for spending in their state. They vote for projects in other states in exchange. Dino Rossi is no RINO (Republican in Name only), but neither is he a Tea Partier. He seemed to be lack-luster in his early TV spots denouncing the Obama policies. He seems to be only half-heartedly against Cap-and-Trade, if he is against it at all. Nevertheless, his vote will be 90% conservative as apposed to Murray's 99% in favor of BHO and Majority Leader Harry Reid's agenda. Several other House and Senate races involve similar match ups. The Republicans and the nation need to win a majority of those races.

The conservative view is that economic difficulties stem from government intervention in the economy. Rossi gives this view lip service. Senator Murray does not seem to even understand the concept. Our current national economic problems were caused not only by decades of government actions but specifically by laws requiring banks to loan to bad credit risks. Because Freddy and Fanny were buying most of these loans from the banks, the banks were not too worried. The government was implicitly promising a bail-out if needed, and it was needed. All kinds of other bail-outs and government 'stimulus' spending followed. Those government actions are what is causing the current economic slow-down. It will turn into economic collapse unless we change course immediately.

BHO and his allies in congress have taken over the domestic auto industry, except for Ford Motor Company. They have taken over the biggest insurance company directly, and through the health care law, have taken over all of the health insurance industry. They have directly taken over many banks and investment companies and through the Wall Street 'Reform' bill, have effectively taken over all of the rest of that industry. In the Health Care bill there were provisions to take over more aspects of the economy, student loans, for instance. The laws granting bail-outs to state teachers and other government employees, have taken more control from the states over these employees. Many, many, laws and obscure provisions hidden in the massive Wall Street and Health Care monstrosities, set up new government agencies to control the people even more. Now, with Cap-and-Trade, they plan on controlling energy production, use, and distribution. Those industries are already highly regulated. To help them gain and keep control over the people, they want even more control over the Internet and talk radio. Since they already have control of the mainstream TV and print media, they will gain virtual complete say over what we, the people, are told to believe.

These massive government actions, most of which are for political not economic purposed, will not help the economy. In fact they are causing many problems that continue to get worse. As stated here and elsewhere, prices must lower and bankrupt concerns must be liquidated for markets to return to normal functioning. That is not happening. Government is creating money and debt at breakneck speed to shore-up housing prices, wages, and many industries (such as banking). This is postponing the inevitable and making the inevitable worse. Even if Republicans were to gain control in congress, there would likely be a long uphill climb.

Regarding Senate races, after the debacle of Reid's performance in his debate with Sharon Angle today, his chances of retaining his seat declined dramatically.

Friday, October 15, 2010

The People Know Best

The economy will be the issue in the upcoming election. It is nothing new that the voting public will be concerned about whether they will keep their job or find a job. That is normal in a down economy. What is new, is that voters will see economic issues as a choice between competing economic theories. Republicans, in spite of some watered-down specimens, are seen as favoring laissez faire capitalism. The image of Democrats is not so clear. The press characterises the policies of Obama and his majority congressional party as moderate and free of ideology. The voters know that this is far from true. The public has not been blind and deaf and sees Democrats as favoring one form of socialism or another.

The media seldom frames the choices this clearly and the messages from politicians skirt this fundamental debate. Nevertheless, the public knows that change is afoot. The question is whether we want to endorse the changes implemented by the Democrats or to change directions. At long last, this is how it should be. We have never had that choice presented so starkly before. Laissez faire implies freedom, some will fear the personal responsibility that it also implies. However, more of us fear the emphasise on state and collective power and welfare in place of of the individual that socialism implies.

To what extent we will get change along free market lines even with the Republicans is problematic. Even with a slim majority, the president would still have veto power. Unfortunately also, far to many Republicans still want to compromise the principles of our constitution. Old political habits are hard to break. However, even modest Republicans gains, will show that the public at least has turned the corner. If we can do that, economic confidence will build. We will be heading in the right direction and can drag our lawmakers along.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

Two Person Poll

I have been speaking to people about the upcoming election. My brother seemed typical of many who have switch allegiance from Obama and his Democrats. As usual, it didn't take any encouragement for him to let me know that he didn't like certain economic developments. He said he had supported Obama only because of the alternative. He seemed to think that McCain was lack-luster with no personal appeal (I don't recall the exact word he used). He didn't have anything good to say about unions, especially government unions. This was surprising because, besides having his Alaskan fishing business in the Summer, he often has had a union job. Even union workers understand the distinction between unions that negotiate with management and those that negotiate with politicians. The biggest difference is that the politicians are not paying the workers' with their own money but with ours.

Another fellow with whom I communicated, was of another opinion regarding Obama and his administration. He was surprisingly insulting to me personally regarding my intelligence, sanity, and morality for things he read on this blog. He especially found fault with anyone who would speak badly of such a decent guy as our president. He said something about him not being a tyrant and nothing at all like Stalin. I do not recall how or if I have said BHO was like Stalin but the comparison does fit in a myriad of ways.

Obama is like Stalin in both his methods and his goals. Stalin robbed banks with a six-gun, Obama, with a fountain pen. Both wanted the money to finance the socialist revolution. Both were willing to disregard the law for the sake of socialism. There is Obama's famous statement about the Supreme Court's view of the constitution not being radical enough thus far because the Court has stood in the way of redistribution of wealth. That is, the constitution gets in the way of confiscation of private property. This sound like a good communist to me. From the early days when Obama's name came up as a candidate, his "palling around" with socialists (not to mention terrorists)was pointed out by the alternative media. Of course, the main stream media ridiculed that viewpoint as guilt by association. Appointments of Van Jones and others by Obama are evidence of his approval of self-avoid communists. The recent Washington rally of the democrats and leftist organizations (to counter the earlier Glenn Beck rally) was attended by many communist and socialist groups that voiced their approval of Obama and he returned the favor.

An argument in favor of Obama is that his policies and actions are not nearly as drastic as comrade Stalin's or V. Lenin's. It is true that Stalin killed millions of people (many millions more than Hitler). He killed intellectuals, the rich, business people, rivals, and even small farmer owners. He imprisoned many more in slave labor camps. If complete Communism were adopted here, similar things would probably happen because they have happened wherever communism has been tried. Currently, under Obama, we have only the "soft" tyranny referred to by de Tocqueville.

See the new book about Obama: Crimes Against Liberty for many more examples of Stalinist tactics and aspirations of BHO and his Party.)

More broadly, the less extreme and slower operations of the progressives that have resulted in our present welfare state, are no less to be avoided. Progressives are those who want more and more government control because they say it is for our own ultimate good. Now they are saying that the current vast expansions of government powers are needed to avoid complete economic collapse. However, I have seen no progressive forbearance in good times either. Then they tell us that in the richest country on earth, we certainly can afford a small expenditure to help some particular group. Trouble is that they are usually not small expenditures and thousands upon thousands of those expenditures add up. This has resulted in the Tea Party phenomenon, thank God. They are saying: "We actually never trusted you but were willing to go along to get along, and because we thought we truly were helping. Now we see that it was a sham. You wanted complete control, little by little. You knew your little by little would destroy us eventually and then we would come to you for our rescue. You would then gladly take full-blown socialistic control. We won't go along anymore. We hope it is not too late"

This is what Rudyard Kipling had to say about collectivism over 100 years ago. How true it is. See his poem: The Gods of the Copybook Headings, on this blog. At first I wondered who the gods of the copybook headings were. It is clear that they are the Progressive Statists. Ayn Rand also understood this. Having lived in the Soviet Union during the time of Stalin, she understood that collectivism is path to serfdom and misery. She, as Ludvig von Mises, also understood that the greatest benefactors of humanity are the businessmen, who harness technology to constantly improve our lot. They also are the primary target of the socialists. Only free market capitalism has ever made a significant lasting improvement to the material lot of humanity. (And, as Kipling seems to be saying, to the spiritual lot of mankind also.)

As to attacks upon my insanity, I do feel a certain bit of a manic phase that does not slacken very often. That's because of my hopes for the coming resounding reversal of our socialistic ways.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Conservative Women

I don't have time to write much but I wanted to post some links. I have been talking to a few people who are are supporters of Obama and the Democrats. That was depressing. Also, some opponents of the Obama crowd and their policies seem quite confused about just what they believe. That is a little discouraging to hear also.

Tonight I was listening to some You-tube's that cheered me up. Everything that Ayn Rand said, I agreed with, except her opinion that a woman should not be president. She said a woman would not be a fit commander-in-chief. She said that before Maggy Thatcher and Goldie Mayer. I listened to another woman who calls her video blog site, "Atlas Shrugs." She is the real thing. I also enjoy reading the blogs of "Liberty Belle." My point is that the women conservatives have always had more balls that most of the men.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz8VbtHJp3M&feature=related

--conservative lady, Atlas Shrugs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ycPSsERhbo&feature=related

--on Sarah Palin


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5Bl5OKVjpM&feature=related

--Ayn Rand -- v. Obama and McCain


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jcwTdWAEIc&feature=related

A. Rand interview on free society


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydF8YL0iDeY&NR=1&feature=fvwp

--A nice sensible lady

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Hostility against Every Tyranny over the Mind of Man

Regarding the Party Like and Obamaton video, the argument has been advanced that its heart is in the right place but not its ‘head’. That is, (I restate the argument): the intellectual underpinnings of free market conservatism are deficient, even though the principal of liberty that it enthusiastically espouses has universal truth and appeals to the human spirit. That argument is also made with regard to the Tea Party.

This seems to me a reversal of the ‘mean spirited conservative' claim but oh well, it certainly deserves to be address. Unfortunately, It has been addressed but to no avail. The corpus of classical liberalism with its ‘heart’ roots in the human spirit yearning to be free, and its ‘head’ roots in the writings of the Age of Enlightenment, which hearkened back to the democratic principles of ancient Greece, the egalitarianism of the Gospel, and the humanism best articulated by Erasmus of Rotterdam, first gave it voice. Its salient political principal may be that 'no man is above the law.' That is, that those in power cannot bend the law to their will, but must abide by it themselves: they rule at the pleasure of the governed. The economic voice of this 'liberalism' reached its heights in the theories and restatements of the ‘Last Knight of Freedom,’ Ludwig von Mises. Professor Mises, Austrian by birth, immigrated (escaped) to the US in the 1930’s. He is the intellectual guiding light of the Libertarian Party, conservative free market thought, and of this blog. His great work, Human Action, summarizes and systematizes most of the ideas of the 'Austrian School' of economics. Professor von Mises wrote many other books on specific political and economic topics, (such as Socialism and Bureaucracy, which have been quoted in this blog). The von Mises Institute has free on-line versions of most of his works along with daily essays.

I could go on at length, but the point is that the free market and the primacy of law are two of Western Civilizations treasured principals. These are what the Tea Party believes in and what they believe are in danger of being lost. Agree with them or not, it seems that these principals are the intellectual match of any tradition in learning. Those who dismiss them out of hand surly have not delved deep enough to realize the majesty of that which they are addressing. Whether they know it of not, it is the classical liberal tradition that the Tea Party espouses. Tyranny, of course, is an older tradition. It is Statist Progresivism, the modern progeny of that tradition, that the present darkness embraces.

Monday, October 4, 2010

Yes They Can Take Our Liberty

A caller to the Billy Cunningham radio show recommended the following You-Tube (Mark Levin may have mentioned it too):


Party Like An Obamaton By The Silent DoGooders; search it on youtube paste into your browser:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqiAhW4YejA


I hope some of those who get their political news and ideas from John Stewart and Stéphan Colbert listen to this. They should listen to Mark Levin and Billy Cunningham a few times too. They might have a better idea who and what they voted for when they pulled the lever for Obama (if they haven't figured it out yet).

Friday, October 1, 2010

What We Need to Know about PBS

Tonight the PBS program, Need to Know ran an expose type story on what they consider abuses in campaign contributions. They mentioned contributions to Democrats once. They mentioned that government workers' unions made contributions to organizations that supported Democrats. That statement, took about 10 seconds of the 15 minute piece. The rest was all about donations to Republican organizations. No mention of George Soros and the hundreds or thousands of liberal, progressive, socialist, and communist organizations that accept contributions to support Democrat candidates. They did not discuss the undisclosed sources of President Obama's campaign contributions. (Most people are not even aware that the sources of BHO's presidential campaign funds have been called into questions.) Lastly, there was no mention of the political support of Democrats on the major television news and entertainment programing. Why? Because they categorise the sources of contributions in such a way that the Republican supporters are unfair, unprincipled, and corrupt, while ignoring the categories into which the Democrat contributors fall. Why is that? Simple, because they themselves are Democrat political supporters. Why should public financed television be allowed to support one party over another? You got me there.

It seems obvious that contributions to the our local Public Broadcasting Corporation should be reported under campaign contribution laws. Another source of Democrat political support by organizations and corporations that is not in one of the "suspect" categories is entertainment programing. Why shouldn't the contributions in kind of David Letterman and the other latenight hosts whose names I do not recall, be covered by campaign contribution law? The answer, in my opinion, is that they should. Furthermore, if PBS does not give equal time to exposing the Democrats, they should be taken to court and their favorable tax status along with public funding should be ended.