posted September 07, 2011 11:12 PM            

Imagine there's an elderly widow down the street from you. She has neither the strength to mow her lawn nor enough money to hire someone to do it. Here's my question to you, and I'm almost afraid for the answer: Would you support a government mandate that forces one of your neighbors to mow the lady's lawn each week? If he failed to follow the government orders, would you approve of some kind of punishment ranging from house arrest and fines to imprisonment? I'm hoping that the average American would condemn such a government mandate because it would be a form of slavery, the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Would there be the same condemnation if instead of the government forcing your neighbor to physically mow the widow's lawn, the government forced him to give the lady $40 of his weekly earnings? That way the widow could hire someone to mow her lawn. I'd say that there is little difference between the mandates. While the mandate's mechanism differs, it is nonetheless the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another.

Probably most Americans would have a clearer conscience if all the neighbors were forced to put money in a government pot and a government agency would send the widow a weekly sum of $40 to hire someone to mow her lawn. This mechanism makes the particular victim invisible, but it still boils down to one person being forcibly used to serve the purposes of another. Putting the money into a government pot makes palatable acts that would otherwise be deemed morally offensive.

This is why socialism is evil. It employs evil means, coercion or taking the property of one person, to accomplish good ends, helping one's fellow man. Helping one's fellow man in need, by reaching into one's own pockets, is a laudable and praiseworthy goal. Doing the same through coercion and reaching into another's pockets has no redeeming features and is worthy of condemnation.

Some people might contend that we are a democracy where the majority agrees to the forcible use of one person for the good of another. But does a majority consensus confer morality to an act that would otherwise be deemed as immoral? In other words, if a majority of the widow's neighbors voted to force one neighbor to mow her law, would that make it moral?

I don't believe any moral case can be made for the forcible use of one person to serve the purposes of another. But that conclusion is not nearly as important as the fact that so many of my fellow Americans give wide support to using people. I would like to think it is because they haven't considered that more than $2 trillion of the over $3 trillion federal budget represents Americans using one another. Of course, they might consider it compensatory justice. For example, one American might think, "Farmers get Congress to use me to serve the needs of some farmers. I'm going to get Congress to use someone else to serve my needs by subsidizing my child's college education."

The bottom line is that we've become a nation of thieves, a value rejected by our founders. James Madison, the father of our Constitution, was horrified when Congress appropriated $15,000 to help French refugees. He said, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents." Tragically, today's Americans would run Madison out of town on a rail.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81349

posted September 25, 2011 08:37 AM            

Karl Marx, the 5th rate thinker from the 19th century

If there was one overarching goal of the Marxist project, it was refashioning human nature. Whether in religion or politics, the Marxists argued that an obsession with God and a belief in national identity had to be challenged and defeated.

His beliefs had little confidence in the common man. Marxists maintained they were endowed with an understanding others did not possess. While Marxism is dead, this distaste for the opinion of the common man persists.

Instead of Marxism, this belief now takes the form of "Expert Opinion," or the "Fraternity of Experts," who are eager to regulate human behavior. These are the new progressives, many of them former Marxists, and many who believe that American patriotism should be subordinated to transnational loyalty. Some call these people "Liberal Internationalists." who rely on U.N. prerogatives and other international bodies -- often under the sway of totalitarian governments with not the slightest interest in civil liberties or human rights for guidance.

On the home front, this "Fraternity of Experts" has answers for everything that ails us. If health care is a problem, the experts contend a government engineered system must be put in place, rather than rely on the the marketplace.

If global warming is a problem – a somewhat contentious point – government regulations should be imposed through a "limited carbon footprint" rather than through educating people to deliver restraint. The "Expert" always believes public choices are ignorant and therefore decisions [his) must be imposed.

Another example is the government-imposed minimum wage. Although exploitation and sweatshops are not an acceptable answer, is it not enough to argue that the market, which is primarily based on the combined needs of the producer, the worker and the consumer, is sufficient to determine wages? The experts know better; they actually think they can determine the point at which wages meet labor needs.

Of course the United States is not alone in producing members of the "Fraternity of Experts." If the French are expert at self-proclaimed experts, the European Union is the exemplar of Expert Opinion so confident in its assertions that it seeks to regulate everything from truck tonnage to the size of lawn mowers. Moreover, the EU intends to eliminate national loyalty through the imposition of a transnational entity which not only fails to represent the will of the people, but which fails to note how these "Experts" (read: bureaucrats) in Brussels might be removed should they fail to succeed in their work.

From the ashes of Marxism has emerged a class of elitists not unlike the former members of the Soviet Communist party. They claimed to know what was best for the citizens of Russia; the "Fraternity of Experts" knows what is best for us.

Former Democratic candidate for president John Edwards liked to lecture about two Americas: the privileged and the poor. But this quasi-Marxist theme does not describe the real two Americas: one, managed by "Experts," who believe they possess superior knowledge that translates into engineered regulations; and the other, common sense embodied by the common man.

How can elites demonstrate their "superior" wisdom if they are restrained? How can experts flaunt their expertise if their plans for us are rejected?

posted September 26, 2011 04:49 PM            

this little book (98 smallish pages) was written in 72. it is where david icke jumped off from, as far as i can tell. no aliens, reptilian or otherwise are needed.

a lot of what jwhop calls socialism is explained within. also explained is why socialism is NOT the crux of the matter, and why both parties are party to the progress of the global agenda...including using a perverted form of what people reasonably understand socialism to be.

who do you think bankrolled marx while he wrote his blueprint?

how boom and bust cycles make the bankers rich and powerful, wars ditto, why religions are pitted against each other and who profits from the existence of israel (hint: NOT the jews)

and if you think it is incompetence or LACK of planning (or socialism) that put us where we are today, might give you reason to think again.

posted October 01, 2011 04:23 PM            

------------------
Do You Think This Psychic Is Cute?

posted October 03, 2011 11:54 AM            

We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share. In theory, some of those loopholes were understandable, but in practice they sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying ten percent of his salary, and that’s crazy. [...] Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver or less?
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/03/333912/reagan-tax-loopholes-crazy/

posted October 03, 2011 03:27 PM            

DEDUCTIONS come BEFORE takehome...they are supposed to be MONEY SPENT earning that takehome. what is left AFTER deductions is what we are taxed on, busdriver or ceo. are you telling me the CEO spends his entire income on business expenses and takes home less than the busdriver?

posted October 04, 2011 08:57 AM            

More Marxist math from O'Bomber and the credibility challenged Buffett...who avoids every penny of taxes possible; mainly by taking his income in the form of Capital Gains...instead of paying himself a salary and paying taxes on his income as "Ordinary Income".

Of course, Buffett and his merry little band of billionairs who are in favor of economic insanity could contribute more of their money to government...instead of handing their money off to...for instance...The Gates Foundation in order to create an even bigger TAX DEDUCTION.

I'm sure Treasury Direct at Pay.gov would be more than happy to relieve Buffett and his billionaire buddies of lots of their excess wealth.

https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=23779454

One must wonder why Buffett and his billionaire buds don't take advantage of the opportunity to contribute to reducing the US government debt...instead of seeking ways to further decrease their own tax liability?

posted October 04, 2011 02:07 PM            

do you think a bus driver doesn't have expenses? in my line of work i can deduct my mileage IF i have a home office. if not, the gas i spend going to work is not considered an "expense". ...does that make sense to you?