Ambiguity May, or May Not Be The Problem

Any candidate claiming to be “fiscally conservative and socially moderate” is a walking talking contradiction. It’s so ambiguous it’s laughable. For example, does this mean he feels the pain of the entitlement class, yet is reluctant to spend more of the taxpayer’s money on entitlements, or does it mean he’s fiscally conservative, that is until he feels the pain of the entitlement class, at which time he’s willing to spend the taxpayer’s money on entitlements?

 The key word in this bogus line of reasoning is moderate. This is the “I can have my cake and eat it too”, word, the “I can get out of jail free”, card. To incorporate the word moderate into politics means to sit on the political fence; one day you jump off on the left side, another day you get to jump off on the right side, depending of course, which way the political wind is blowing on any given day. To be a moderate is to stand for nothing; one can’t make a conservative decision in politics then divorce themselves from the liberal causality of that decision, and vice versa. There is no moderate causality in politics. Therefore, to claim one is a moderate is an oxymoron. It means not having to declare weather you’re liberal or conservative (how convenient).

 Is the glass half full or half empty? Neither, it’s moderately full, when not empty of course. Is it right or wrong to collect taxes at the point of a gun? Neither, coercion is moderation we can live with, albeit it helps having the gun. Malfeasance can become acceptable too, in moderation of course. The next thing you know politicians will be excused for being moderately promiscuous.

 Moderates cost conservatives the election in 2008. It brought us the likes of John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both of whom need to go the way of the dinosaur, politically speaking. Consider this, Adolf Hitler was a moderate fascist and Joseph Stalin was a moderate communist. Here in this country, you’re either liberal or conservative. So stop the foolishness; we are no longer beguiled by such sophistry.

Opportunity Comes Knocking

There is no mistaking; this government is run by special interest. Until now it has been the politically connected, organized labor, and collectivist entities (thanks to Mccain Feingold) that have been allowed to pour financing into the election process, an election process that perpetuates their power base with tax breaks, subsidies, and lucrative federal contracts. But no more, it’s time to rectify the lopsided partisan flow of special interest money that fills the bureaucratic coffers in Washington.

 The defeat of McCain-Feingold is a constitutional shot in the arm, an inoculation against bias legislation that favors special interest in the political arena. Those most threatened by this first amendment victory decry: “This will open the flood gates to special interest.” DUH! This is exactly the point; to create competition in the lopsided political arena were political pull and favoritism protects the mediocre and the politically connected. For over a century the largesse of government has been sucking the life blood out of the business man, the entrepreneur, the industrialist, these creative individuals whom we owe our jobs our prosperity and our high standard of living.

 The time has come to stop the grift and end political protectionism in Washington. Big government is a malignancy, and capitalism is the cure. Capitalism is the panacea that can stop the flood of industry from leaving our shores; capitalism is the only means of true sustainable job creation, the only way to grow wealth, ensure property ownership, and advance freedom.

 This first amendment victory —handed down from the Supreme Court —is an opportunity for business and industry to pool their fiscal resources and support a pro capitalism candidate. Business consortiums must avoid the trap of special interest that has lead them to ruin; they must not pander for government contracts, privileges or subsidies; they must forsake the notion that government grants privileges to conduct business. It’s time to demand the right to conduct business as free men without government coercion.

 The moral goal of campaign finance should seek legislation that will liberate all business and industry from the oppressive yoke of antitrust. Repeal the antiquated Sherman Act which entitles a parasitic government to attack and bleed the successful producers in society. The economic prosperity of our nation and our freedom as a people depends not on government regulation of industry, with its antitrust and oppressive taxation, but on a free market economy that champions productivity, innovation, and competition. Free these entrepreneurs of business, these geniuses of industry and technology. Cast off their chains, so they can grow this economy once more. Let capitalism restore that which government has stolen and destroyed. Let these champions of industry reinvent our economic power, to carry the beacon of prosperity and freedom so that once again America can lead the world by example.

Small Victories

Congratulations are in order for the populous movement that put Scott Brown in the senate; this is the same populous movement that put a black man in the white house last year, the same movement that will remove both if they do not heed the populous call of the people to abandon the path of socialism and once again defend the constitution and the individual rights of free men.

 This is much more than a victory for Scott Brown; he just happened to be in the right place at the right time to ride the wave of social unrest in this country. By now, all politicians should understand this same populous movement is about to change the composition of this government. We can and will command this government through the election process to serve the peoples agenda once more; for we are a waking giant and this is but a yawn, wait until we stretch and flex our muscles.

 This is a victory over the progressive movement, which abandoned reason in favor of subjectivism, rationalism, and pragmatism. This is a victory over the irrational intelligentsia that has dominated academia for the last century poisoning the minds of those they were entrusted to teach. This is a victory over the political elite, the entitled few who actually thought they could quash the fortune and the will of the American people, by leading them down the path of socialist ruin.

 This is a victory against irrational Keynesian economics that states government must spend its way out of a recession. This is a victory against a pragmatic foreign policy insistent on closing Gitmo, a foreign policy that ascribes to the doctrine of Just War theory, a foreign policy that wages an unwinnable war of sacrifice in the Middle East. This is a victory against socialized medicine, which has been an oppressive failure wherever adopted. This is a victory against an altruistic environmental movement that demands national sacrifice and wealth redistribution, destroying our standard of living while simultaneously impoverishing our children for generations, all to bolster their fallacious argument of man made climate change. This is a victory against a tyrannical government which assumes it knows how to spend the people’s money better than the people themselves. This is a victory against special interest in favor of free market capitalism, a victory against government subjugation of business and industry, a victory against government control of our fortune and lives.

 This is a victory for the Tea Party Patriots, the 9 12 organization, and every American who spoke out at town hall meetings, and called their congressmen to demand fiscal responsibility and free market alternatives to government run health care. This is a victory for every American who spoke with their neighbors to concur that American government has gone astray, and the progressive trend of socialist democracy must end. Above all this is a victory for a proper philosophic doctrine, one founded on reason and logic, one governed by the metaphysical nature of reality. This is a victory of the mind, a mind bound by reason that comprehends reality in practice and application.

Philanthropy vs Altruism

Philanthropy is a moral volitional act. It is moral precisely because it is volitional. The donation could be monetary, equipment or art; it could be voluntary service to a cause deemed worthy by the individual. The cause may be to feed the poor, or help battered woman, build a library or museum, or it may be a donation that benefits a civilized organization or business.  The choice belongs to the benefactor.

Groups that fundraise or solicit donations for specific causes may or may not be moral in action. This is for the benefactor to decide based on his or her values and preference. If a group raises funds by expounding the merits of a cause, expounding the merits of the beneficiary, and those merits align with the benefactor’s ethos, by all means, this is a moral endeavor. However, if the soliciting group uses guilt, intimidation or force to obtain the donation, this is immoral. For example: “What do you mean you won’t donate to the poor victims of the Katrina Hurricane tragedy. What are you selfish?” or “What do you mean you won’t donate to The United Negro College Fund, what are you an Uncle Tom?” Likewise philanthropy should not be confused with the religious doctrine of self sacrifice, often hiding behind the guise of charity. Philanthropy is moral; self sacrifice is not.

 If philanthropy is your bag, by all means do it, but do it at your own expense, don’t collectivize the rest of us in an act of sacrifice for what the collective perceives as a moral pursuit. This will only result in the sacrifice of some men for the benefit of other men, the enslavement of productive men, to be sacrificed for those whom cannot or will not produce for themselves. This ladies and gentlemen is beyond immoral; this is altruism.

 Altruism is an immoral lie masquerading as philanthropy. We have been taught in public schools for generations that morality lies in the act of selfless giving. This opens the floodgates for a creed of self sacrifice, the creed of altruism. This is written in scripture; it is the commanding doctrine of religion. This same doctrine has been adopted by government and enforced by the omnipotent power of the state. However, instead of conformity by guilt which is the credo of religion, the state demands compliance at the point of a gun. This begs the question: if the benefactor doesn’t choose who or what is worthy of their selfless giving then who does? The collective decides who is to benefit; the state decides who is worthy of their patronage, a patronage extorted from the wealth of the masses, under the disguise of moral righteousness. The state tells us that the recipient of our sacrifice is always worthy, and we the benefactors are bound by moral duty to sacrifice.

 There is nothing moral about confiscating personal wealth in the form of taxes to distribute to any social cause the state deems worthy. There is nothing moral about forced servitude into a government program the state considers just. There is nothing moral about seizing personal property, destroying the individual rights of man, sacrificing them on the altar of altruism for any capricious notion the state desires. There is no poor, no victim class, no environmental catastrophe, no social burden here in the states or in the world at large that can justify the seizure of individual wealth, properly, and the rights of free men.

For decades, progressive government has twisted our language, perverted our nomenclature, obscuring the definitions between philanthropy and altruism in a con-game, trying to convince the masses that altruism is moral. This is the greatest hoax perpetrated upon man since the dawn of civilization. The state has corrupted charity, corrupted philanthropy, corrupted that which was and still is the moral pursuit of individual men. They have monopolized altruism for the benefit of the state, empowering themselves as politicians, growing their bureaucracies to unsustainable proportions, enriching themselves, their families and constituents, by sacrificing the common man for those “Moral Purposes” they, the chosen few, feel it is our obligation to serve.

 The insidious consequence of altruism is the notion that if mans duty is to sacrifice for others. If this is what’s moral, then mans right to live for his own benefit is immoral. Man has no right to live for his own purpose, for his own productive nature, for his own happiness. If mans moral duty is to sacrifice and die for others, he has no right to live for himself. This is philosophical suicide; this is the immoral creed of sadists, of Attila’s, of fascist, and socialist, this is the immoral creed of socialist democracy in America today.

The Moral War

In order to examine American foreign policy, it is imperative to examine the morality of war. A moral war is one fought in self-defense. This could be to defend our national sovereignty, or to protect the citizens of the United States from foreign aggressions. These aforementioned conditions include threats of aggression from hostile regimes, in which case, preemption would be a moral option for self-defense. A moral war is one that holds victory its primary objective.

 The last moral war this government fought was with feudal Japan during World War II. Destroying Nazi Germany’s quest for world domination, ethnic cleansing and eugenic tampering, was indeed a moral endeavor; however, Japan is the perfect example of how to fight and win a moral war.

 Back then we had the intellectual capacity to identify the enemy, its strengths and weaknesses, along with its enabling enemy population that not only supported the regime, but spread the ideology of imperialism. Back then we knew the key to victory was the total destruction of the aggressor nation, its political structure, its infrastructure, and the will of the enabling masses that supported the ideology of imperialism. Back then, we fought to win.

 We bombed temples, schools, and hospitals, we allowed no safe haven. This aggressive campaign destroyed their country, crushing the will of the people to fight and support their hostile ideology. And when the Japanese wanted a conditional surrender, our foreign policy advisors realized that would result in a long and bloody protracted war on foreign soil, costing thousands of American military lives, and quiet possibly, end in a resurgence of the regime, inevitably handing us defeat. So we did the morally expedient thing; we dropped two atomic bombs. This saved the lives of thousands of American servicemen and women. This remains a sterling example of how to fight and win a war based on the moral prerogative of self preservation.

 Today we are engaged in an immoral war with battle lines drawn in Iraq and Afghanistan. This war is immoral because we do not seek victory. This administration has yet to even identify the enemy. We are told by today’s leaders, the enemy is al-Qaida and the Taliban, granted these are enemy factions; they are just splinter groups, tentacles of a much larger monster. The real enemy, our leaders fail to identify is the radical nation of Islam, or Islamic Totalitarianism. The Nations that harbor this monster, train and arm militias and fund terrorism around the world, spreading the Islamic ideology of Jihad, is Iran and Saudi Arabia.

 The Iraq war is immoral because we invaded a country not to defend our freedom, not to ensure safety for America and its people, but to spread democracy. Our service men and women have died in Iraq so the Muslim people of Iraq could vote themselves Islamic Fundamentalism. We have taken radical Islam out of the shadows and alley ways and empowered them in the new parliamentary government of Iraq. This act of democracy has legitimized radical Islam, emboldening the terrorists that threaten the foundation of our civilization.

 This war is immoral. Instead of defeating the enemy we have elevated them with rights and privileges which is the corner stone of America’s Just War Theory. It is this failed intellectual strategy that now dominates our nations foreign policy. Observe the three navy seals now facing court-martial for capturing the murdering terrorist Ahmed Hasham Abed, who incidentally busted his lip during apprehension and cried foul. This spurred the state department into action, condemning our own servicemen over the perceived rights of the enemy. Or more recently, the Christmas Day air line bomber who was Mirandized and allowed to lawyer up, halting our efforts to gain valuable intelligence of impending attacks, thwarting our ability to keep Americans safe. Imagine for a moment, you’re a soldier on the battlefield, but you are apprehensive to use your weapon, for to kill or injure the enemy may buy you a life sentence in Leavenworth back in the states. This is the immorality of American foreign policy today.

 Instead of killing the enemy we are building them roads and power grids, hospitals and schools. We are squandering our nation’s fortune, impoverishing future generations to lift a tribal people (who despise us) out of poverty. We do this with the arcane hope that if enough sacrifice is made, if enough American blood is spilled and enough fortune squanderd, these thugs who danced in the streets on 9/11 will embrace us and abandon their religious fervor for conquest. This is the immoral war we wage with the same ineptitude in Afghanistan.

 This war is immoral because victory is not, nor was it ever the goal. The goal was to improve the lives of the Iraqi citizens based on the neoconservative ideology of Just War Theory. This Social Service War is founded on a creed of altruism and self sacrifice. This war with its various front lines is not only unwinnable, but will eventually end in Americas defeat at a price paid in American blood and fortune.

 End notes:

1 Winning the Unwinnable War (Elan Journo)

Liberal Epidemic

Liberalism is a disease; it’s a psychosis that stems from the philosophical realm of pragmatism. The pragmatic doctrine insists that facts don’t exist, that the human mind can’t comprehend reality. Therefore, whatever one wishes to be true is true, whatever one wishes to exist does exist, that reality is whatever the pragmatist chooses it to be at any given moment. For example, liberals believe in global warming, although objective science contradicts every fallacious argument that suggests climate change is a man made phenomenon. Scientific evidence demonstrates the earth is getting cooler not warmer. Another pragmatic misconception is that democracy is somehow synonymous with freedom, but in reality the two are polar opposites. Freedom comes with individual rights characterized by property ownership. The proper role of government in a free society is to protect the rights of men from coercion both domestic and foreign; the only form of government compatible with freedom is a constitutional republic. Democracy on the other hand is tyranny by the mob. Remember it was a democracy that elected the Nazi party into power and elevated Chancellor Hitler to prominence. It was democracy that delivered us Hamas and Hezbollah, and more recently the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. We gave them democracy and they elected Islamic totalitarianism.

 It is this same psychosis adopted by both liberals and neoconservatives alike, that believes America can somehow win a politically correct war; that somehow waging war based on altruism and a creed of self sacrifice can turn a totalitarian theocracy into a peace loving, freedom seeking democracy. This same psychotic foreign policy praises the religious diversity of the enemy, and grants rights to enemy combatants while persecuting its own military for their moral imperative of self preservation. This psychotic liberal foreign policy, founded on self sacrifice believes that somehow— through osmosis maybe — the enemy will capitulate, embrace our civilization, and our culture of freedom, so we as a nation will be saved from Islamic Fundamentalism.

 Amnesia is another symptom of the liberal disease. They have forgotten all historical precedence. Primarily, the way to win a war is to identify the enemy and kill them, destroy their hostile government, destroy their hostile enabling civilian masses, only then will they abandon their oppressive ideology of religious conquest. We did this successfully during WWII, defeating Japan, and Germany, Only through total destruction did the enemy forsake their ambition for world dominance; only through military superiority was victory possible. Only in the jaws of defeat did the vanquished adopt peace; only then did they rebuild their culture to flourish amongst civilized nations.

 These diseased liberals forgot that expansive entitlement programs, government regulation, union monopolies, protectionism, and antitrust turned a recession into a depression and a depression into the great depression under FDR’s socialist administration. These liberals forgot that collectivism and totalitarianism has failed everywhere, every time throughout history, yet this is what they seek, a repeat of history for the citizens of the United States. It is their hallucination that socialism can exist in a one world order, that somehow, someway, this time things will be different, this time it will work. Why? Because they said so.

 Pathological lying is another virulent symptom of liberalism.  “The CIA never told us they were going to water board the terrorists.”  “I will not raise taxes.”  “I never endorsed a government run health care option.” “The economy grew by 3.5% the last quarter.” “The stimulus is working.” The list of lies stretches into infinity. Watch the news on any given day and you will be bombarded with equivocation and lies, emanating from the halls of Congress, the Senate, the White House, the media, and of coarse academia, where the pragmatic liberal monster breeds. In the liberal world, lying is justified to rationalize their antipathy towards reality and freedom; it’s how they perpetuate myth and subjugate the masses.

 Hostility is another manifestation of the liberal disease. Liberals vehemently oppose rational debate. For example, they always escalate an argument and make it personnel; they employ vitriol and intimidation to advance their irrational hypothesis. They make arbitrary assertions, and create straw men villains whom they collectively attack.

 Fear is what drives the liberal disease, fear of the truth. Imagine you’re a liberal and one day you wake up and realize you spent your entire life chasing your tail in a dogmatic dance of wish worship. Imagine the fear realizing you squandered a fortune on an education that left you in a pragmatic fog. Imagine the fear of discovering your pseudo-intellectualism has not brought you favor, you were never an elite; it was just a dream you entertained thinking you were above the fray of the masses. Imagine the fear of realizing you have been instrumental in your own destruction, and now, looking down the barrel of a gun you are about to reap what you have sown.

 Unlike a virus that runs its course, this disease is not going away. Inoculation is essential to wipe out the spread of this epidemic. The vaccine is a proper philosophy grounded in reality, founded on truth, a philosophy supported by egoism with reason and logic its only absolutes, with the moral imperative of self preservation and freedom at its core, with individual rights its highest moral aspiration.

Winning The Debate

Should you have the unfortunate task of engaging a member of the left in a debate about universal healthcare, I recommend the following talking points. Ask these pertinent questions and demand answers. Do not let them evade reason, context drop, or appeal to altruism. Don’t be drawn into argument; you are far too wise to engage in a power struggle with a subjectivist.

  These questions are straight forward and have only one correct answer.  You will soon discover whether you are speaking to a rational individual, a pathological liar, or a pragmatist, who insists reality is malleable and subject to their whim.

•  How can rationing healthcare improve the quality of healthcare?
•  How can waiting months for life saving treatments and drugs, improve someone’s quality of life? 
•  If a layperson bureaucrat intervenes between me and my physician on behalf of the government, and tells my physician how to proceed with my care, does this improve the quality of my care?
•  How can the government claim to make healthcare more affordable and “budget neutral” buy adding layer upon layer of bureaucracy to manage socialize medicine?
•  How can insurance industry compete with a government that monopolizes healthcare and imposes antitrust legislation on insurance companies?
•  When the government creates another monopoly and selectively awards lucrative federal contracts to hospitals, unions, GE, and their political cronies, won’t this drive up the cost of healthcare?
•  How can the government rationalize seizing control of 6% of the GDP on behalf of only 13 million uninsured individuals?
•  Who is going to pay for this massive entitlement spending?

 Congratulations! You now know more about heath care reform than most congressmen. It wasn’t as complex as the government, and the left would have you believe. The answer to these questions is obvious to any rational person. It should be easy to identify your adversary. Most likely they will be a statist with a socialistic agenda, or a shiftless entitlement recipient who believes the working class is at their disposal or a pragmatist — most likely a politician — trying to stay in office by buying votes through entitlement spending.

 If the government can’t fund existing entitlement obligations like Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, if the government can’t run a cash for clunkers program, or an H1N1 vaccination program, how can it expect to run a massive government health care program?

Politically Correct Insanity

The recent massacre at Fort Hood is just another in a series of attacks on military personnel perpetrated by the jihadist enemy within. Kuwait, March 23, 2003, Camp Pennsylvania, Sergeant Hassan Akbar killed two enlisted men and wounded 14 in a premeditated grenade attack on his fellow officers.

 Not once have I heard this mentioned in light of the recent attack at Fort Hood. Political pundits, the media, and politicians alike are all reluctant to step forward and acknowledge, this is not an isolated incident. They are afraid their reputation and careers may suffer at the hands of the politically correct who now control the media, academia, the courts, and the government of the United States.

 Turning back a page in history, we discover the poster boy of the left, the champion of socialism and the progressive movement, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, issued executive order #9066, interning some 120,000 Japanese Americans in “relocation camps” for fear of espionage during WW II. Back then, we were still a nation of Americans, and the mere threat of an enemy population on our shores during time of war was enough to incarcerate 120,000 civilians, whom, because of nationality, may have been Japanese sympathizers.

 What we are witnessing is the vitriol of the progressive movement; it employs political correctness, and altruism to advance its irrational ideology. What’s the difference between a jihadist in our military and a jihadist on the battle fields of the Middle East; are they not both the enemy? Apparently, our politically correct military cannot identify who the enemy is anymore, if they cannot identify the enemy, let alone destroy them, one must conclude: this country has no business waging any war.  

 Why do we tolerate the evident threat of radical Islam on our shores? Is it because we are afraid to offend them or the politically correct element within our government?  “Oh, did I offend you? I am truly sorry; here, by all means, chop off my head.”

 It seems some would rather sacrifice us to the sword than be politically incorrect, if this be the case, than I want to denounce political correctness in favor of my life, in favor of my liberty, in favor of our civilization.

 

 

WTF!

What in the hell is a Muslim jihadist doing in our military? These jihadists are the enemy! Why are they allowed to enlist, or worse, convert to Islam while serving in the armed forces of this nation?  This is not the first time a Muslim jihadist serviceman has turned and killed fellow soldiers. How many Americans must die, how many families must bleed, must grieve, to satisfy the progressive movement and political correctness of this cancerous government?

Conspiracy Theory

The words “conspiracy theory,” have become a trendy liberal bromide. This cliché has joined the ranks along side: political correctness, racist, social justice, and environmentally friendly. The left loves to trot out these trite phrases, usually when they are loosing a fallacious argument. We hear them used arbitrarily to collectively demonize those who oppose the flawed ideology of the progressives.

 The left employs altruism as a social weapon to inflict guilt and gain the moral high ground. From there, they demand ideological conformity, as though our moral duty were servitude to their social causes.

 Bear in mind, that every day in America people stand trial for conspiracy to commit a felony, conspiracy to defraud the government, conspiracy to commit murder, and the list goes on. Think about it, the CIA, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the US Treasury, we are told: “That’s classified,” and “Those records have been sealed.” Most of what the government does is clandestine. Conspiracy theory? You bet!

 The United Nations, The Counsel on Foreign Relations, The Trilateral Commission, The Federal Reserve, these organizations invented conspiracy, and their members have become uber wealthy because of it.

 The next time a liberal tries to torpedo your argument with “conspiracy theory,” remind them; government’s primary role is conspiracy. However, if you believe that our own government flew those planes into the twin trade towers on 9-11, you really do need to see a psychiatrist.