Conservative Opinion Wire
No Voice, No Peace!
May 26, 2016
On May 24, a conservative speaker at DePaul University was forced off stage yet again by more “Black Lives Matter” protesters. As we’ve stated before on Conservative Opinion Wire; it is becoming quite obvious that liberals now have far more rights than conservatives. Liberals control the media. Liberals control entertainment. Liberals control our primary and secondary schools. Liberals control our universities, and liberals control social media trends. Now, it appears that conservatives don’t even have the right to ascend a soap box on a street corner and express their views without being silenced by the radical left.
“Black Lives Matter” and similar paid protest groups can block freeways, prevent people from moving about freely, burn businesses and even incite murder, and absolutely no criticism is heard from the halls of leadership. No one in the Obama Administration or its Justice Department steps forward to defend the First Amendment Rights of conservatives. No one in media or Hollywood speaks out to defend a man’s right to express his views, unless, of course, those views support the liberal agenda.
So what should the conservative do if law enforcement refuses to protect his right to freely assemble and speak while purposely overlooking the illegal actions of the left? Sadly, we can only reach one conclusion: The conservative must defend himself. It is how to defend oneself that is problematic.
If conservatives attempt to forcibly remove a protester who disrupts a speech, the liberal media will label him a criminal and he will likely go to jail. If a conservative engages in the same behavior as “Black Lives Matter,” he will likely be labeled a “domestic terrorist” and he will definitely go to prison. Yet, there is one thing the conservative can do; he can use his voice.
Perhaps it is time for conservative organizations to form “free speech defense units.” These volunteer groups would target liberal events in the same manner their own are targeted. For example, when a liberal is scheduled to speak in a given area, the conservative free speech defense units would mobilize and attend the event. They would sit quietly and politely in the crowd until the speaker begins his talk. Then, they would stand up and begin chanting “no voice, no peace” again and again and again until the event is either cancelled or they are forcibly removed by police.
This should be the battle cry of this new conservative protest movement… “NO VOICE, NO PEACE.” The conservative can append this to his e-mail signature block. The conservative can make bumper-stickers with this slogan. Most importantly, he can yell this phrase over and over again until someone starts to notice.
If conservatives are not allowed to speak, then neither should liberals be allowed to speak. Until the First Amendment is applied equally to both liberals and conservatives and until the conservative is no longer disenfranchised, there should be absolutely NO PEACE at liberal events at any time.
It’s time for conservatives to wake-up. The left long ago declared war on you! They do not want you to speak. They do not want you to transmit your values to you children. They do not want you to have a voice on television, in the newspaper, on the evening news or in the arts. They do not want you to speak, anywhere, anytime, in any form.
Sooner or later, the time will come when conservatives will have to defend themselves. If you do not act now to defend your right to speak, the war on conservatives will likely end up with your enslavement.
NO VOICE. NO PEACE!
Bill Clinton Insults Poland – A Lesson in Multiculturalism
23 May 2016
Bill Clinton recently took time from his busy schedule of manipulating donations to his foundation in order to insult the Polish People. On the surface, it appears the former President is simply unhappy with the Polish electorate, which has chosen the socially right-wing “Law and Justice” party to lead their nation in the coming years. However, there is more here than meets the eye.
In reality, the radical counter-culture left is displeased with the fact that Poland has asserted its right of cultural self-defense. Simply put, the Law and Justice Party has taken a firm stand against the dilution of Polish culture. They have rejected the multiculturalism of the radical left by saying “no” to the injection of Islamic values into the social fabric. They are saying “no” to the security costs associated with open borders. They are saying “no” to the influences of value systems that are contrary to traditions that have sustained the Polish People through so many wars, occupations and outright enslavement by foreign powers. Unlike Americans, Brits, Germans and other Western Democracies, the Poles see value in retaining their proud history, national identity, faith and traditions. The Poles are simply refusing to commit cultural suicide like their neighbors.
For decades now, the Left has been promoting the idea that all cultures are equal. This doctrine of “multiculturalism” applies no moral or ethical calculus to assess the outcome associated with the collective choices or beliefs of a people. Because multiculturalism prohibits assessment based on outcome, it is essentially de-evolutionary in nature. Under this liberal doctrine, it becomes impossible to discern the relative merits of both individual and collective beliefs. Therefore, multiculturalist societies have no data available on which to base broad national policies and individuals within those societies have no ability to make informed decisions about how to live.
Nations, which adopt the doctrine of multiculturalism simply become rudderless. Their philosophical progress is stunted. They descend into a form of tribal hedonism driven by the imitation of celebrity and entertainment culture. The individual ends up defining himself by fashion rather than the content of his character. Body art, piercings, wealth or sexual prowess ultimately defines the individual. It becomes a race to the bottom that ultimately degrades a people.
Of course, ignorant, hedonistic people devoid of an intellectual or spiritual life are easily manipulated and controlled. They can be told what to buy and who to vote for. Invariably, those who promote the hedonistic outlook naturally benefit from the degradation of a people. In the case of the left, the doctrine of multiculturalism ensures continued political and financial control for liberal interests. It is for this reason that Global financial manipulators, such as George Soros, fund initiatives designed to undermine any nation, political agenda or belief system, which strengthens traditional cultural values. It is also for this reason, that Bill Clinton, acting as a proxy for George Soros, has decided to attack Poland.
Fortunately, the Polish People know better. They refuse to surrender a culture and national identity, which has sustained them through more than a thousand years of struggle. Located strategically between East and West, Poland has been repeatedly invaded and occasionally occupied and partitioned by powerful neighbors.
The Poles were one of the first nations to fight to eliminate intolerance and slavery. Few Americans today know that the very word “slave” has its origins in “Slavic.” So many Slavic people, such as the Poles, were hauled into slavery by the Romans and later by invading Islamic armies, their very ethnic name became synonymous with bondage.
In order to defend itself from invading Islamic tribes, the Poles developed their famed “Husaria.” These fast and well trained cavalry units were so effective they were able to defeat an invading Islamic army ten times their size to rescue Vienna from Islam and servitude on September 11, 1683 (Please note that date; September 11. Now you know why Osama Bin Laden chose that date to attack the West). One could go on with details, but suffice to say; if it weren’t for the Poles, there would likely still be a Worldwide slave trade and perhaps Western Civilization would have ceased to exist.
Sadly, Germany and Austria later repaid Poland with occupation and partition, which lasted nearly three hundred years. Along with Russia, they spent approximately three century attempting to stamp out Polish Culture. It wasn’t until 1918 that Poland achieved its independence at the conclusion of World War One. Of course, peace was short-lived. In 1920, Poland successfully repelled an invasion by Soviet Russia, only to be invaded again by Nazi Germany and Russia at the outbreak of World War Two.
After the War, the Poles were betrayed again by the Left. The megalomaniacal FDR, a Democrat, sold out the Poles to Russia and stood by silently while the communists occupied Eastern Europe and Poland was once again enslaved until it finally achieved independence again in 1989.
Yet…through all of this, Polish culture survived. The Polish people drew strength from their Catholic faith. Throughout their history, they placed their trust in the truth first delivered to them by Saints Cyril and Methodius in the year 863. They built and embraced a culture based on faith, education, the arts and tolerance, which managed to survive despite numerous attempts to destroy it.
Unfortunately, it appears today’s Poland has a new enemy. It is neither enslavement by Islam nor is it invading Russian Armies. Rather, it is invading ideas. It is the enemy of multiculturalism promoted by the cultural hegemony of bankrupt Western movies, music and entertainment products. It is tainted money provided by the likes of George Soros and the radical Clinton Foundation.
The counter-culture leftists who control publishing, entertainment and media have always hated the Poles for their adherence to time-tested values. It is for this reason that the left-wing entertainment industry has repeatedly portrayed the Poles as backward, ignorant, stupid, and unworthy of respect. As recently as 2014, the radical leftists of Hollywood insulted the Poles by implying that Alan Turing, a homosexual British cryptanalyst, broke the German Enigma Code during World War Two in the movie entitled “The Imitation Game.” They conveniently ignored the fact that it was actually Poles who achieved this breakthrough. Of course, if the leftists of Hollywood were to tell the truth and credit the Poles, they might inadvertently uplift the reputation of a Christian nation, which does not adhere to their multicultural worldview.
Ultimately, Clinton and his fellow travelers on the left attack the Polish People because they have held closely to their religious faith. The left despises the Polish People because they are not malleable like so many lazy, counter-culture Americans or Brits. The Left also fears Poland because the Poles refuse to devalue their history and traditions. Bill Clinton and his financial backer, George “Schwartz” Soros, are simply afraid that others will discover the incredibly valuable lesson of Poland:
The Polish People have survived and retained their dignity by exercising their right of cultural self-defense despite a difficult and trying history.
Unlike America or Western Europe, the Poles haven’t yet bought into the lie of multiculturalism and the left-wing narcotic. The Polish military motto applies well: “Bog, Honor Olczyna,” or “God, Honor, Fatherland.”
The American People could learn something from the resolve of the Poles.
Google and the Left Wing Agenda
May 19, 2016
“Google” regularly alters its search engine logo to draw attention to historic events or individuals of note. Today, they have honored Yuri Kochiyama.
Kochiyama is described as a “Japanese-American Human Rights Activist,” but, as is often the case with the radical counter-culture agenda, this is actuality a misleading description of Kochiyama.
Throughout her life, Kochiyama carried a profound hatred of America and its values. This profound hatred was likely rooted in the mistreatment of her family by the megalomaniacal FDR Administration during World War Two. While at an impressionable age, Kochiyama saw her father denied medical treatment to the point of death while being held in a Japanese internment camp.
The result was a pathological hatred of the United States, which can only be described as irrational. While the roots of this pathology are perhaps understandable, a person must still be measured by the content of her character. Others have suffered great injustices and have emerged as champions of true human rights and have tempered their activism by rejecting violence and hatred. Kochiyama did not. Rather, her idea of “human rights” was to promote an agenda that relied on violence, murder and upheaval.
Let’s examine her record:
* She was a supporter of Maoist philosophy, yet; Mao was one of the World’s worst mass-murderers.
* She supported Mumia Abu Jamal, a black activist who executed a Philadelphia Police Officer.
* She supported Assata Shakur, a violent murderer and member of the Black Liberation Army. Kochiyama described her as “the female Malcolm X.”
* She supported Abimael Guzman and the violent “Shining Path” rebels of Peru, a terrorist organization, which was known for its intense brutality.
* She was an avid supporter of Marilyn Buck, a radical counter-culture poet who was imprisoned for assisting in the escape of Assata Shakur, a 1981 Brinks armored car heist and a 1983 bombing of the US Senate.
* She converted to Islam, and like so many converts to that faith, she conveniently overlooked its extensive history in the slave trade and its long-standing subjugation of non-believers using fire and sword.
Shall we go on?
Kochiyama was no Gandhi or Martin Luther King. She represents the worst the bankrupt counter-culture of the 1960s has to offer. She exemplified a certain philosophical de-evolution of humanity that emerged in the 1960s and her memory should be assigned to the trash heap of history.
The unwarranted respect afforded Kochiyama by Google amounts to little more than another insidious push to the left. It is yet another endorsement of radical counter-culture values designed to alter the worldview of a younger generation conditioned to obtaining its information through 8-second, shallow Google searches.
Perhaps Google will start a trend. Next year, on April 23, perhaps they can create a cute doodle celebrating the birthday of Timothy McVeigh. After all; he was an activist who thought he was doing the right thing. Of course, Google could also “go big.” December 18 is yet to come this year. Perhaps there’s still time to prepare a doodle that promotes that paragon of effective activism, Josef Stalin.
Few want to face the truth, but there is a culture war in progress. The enemy is left-wing media bias, liberal-corporate fascism and the simple dishonesty of countless lies of omission on the part of the left. It is the insidious methods used by the left in media, entertainment, schools and universities through which a selective view of history is taught or promoted. The uneducated and the ignorant fall for it because there are no alternate voices promoting the truth. They simply can’t be heard.
If one wants to understand why conservatives are angry, they need look no further than this war on Western Civilization. There is an illusion of free-speech in this country, but free-speech only counts if one has a platform, which allows their ideas to be heard above the din of countless voices. Without this platform, one is powerless and, sadly, the radical counter-culture has seized all of the important platforms. They control Hollywood, publishing, the news media, the schools, the universities and, it appears, the major players on the Internet.
Conservatives know they are now entirely powerless, and they are devoid of any weapons to challenge the lies of the left. Does anyone really wonder why they are frustrated and acting out in the form of irrational anger?
Religion and Guns
May 1, 2016
A well-known evangelical minister, Reverend Robert Schenck, has come out strongly in favor of gun control. Featured on “CBS Sunday Morning,” Schenck asks “how can evangelicals be pro-life and pro-gun?” He goes on to attack the NRA and even goes so far as to suggest that it might be “God’s will” if he’s murdered during a home invasion.
While Reverend Schenck may believe it’s God’s will if he is murdered in his own home, such simplistic moral pronouncements get a bit fuzzy when one finds it necessary to protect his wife or children. Things look different when one is being robbed at gun-point on a dark inner-city street.
Let’s examine Reverend Schenck’s position further by asking a very basic theoretical question:
“When a crime is committed, who has the right to survive, the thug or the victim?”
The thug has made a choice to commit an immoral act. He understands the potential outcomes associated with his actions. Like a gambler at a casino, he chooses to “roll the dice” with the full understanding that there may be potential negative consequences for his actions. On the other hand, the crime victim has made no choices. More often than not, the crime victim is simply in the wrong place at the wrong time or he is targeted because he has access to money, possessions or because he is the wrong color.
Ultimately, the key to answering this question lies in the concept of “choice.” Individuals can only be held accountable for a conscious choice. In the case of a criminal act, it is the criminal who makes the choice to act and therefore, he bears full responsibility for the outcome associated with his actions. If the criminal roles the dice by choosing to commit a crime and the outcome driven by the victim’s right of self-defense results in his demise, the moral responsibility rests ONLY with the criminal. The crime victim, the gun and the constitutional rights, which protect the victim, simply become instruments of self-defense, devoid of any specific moral consequence.
When Christ asked his followers to “turn the other cheek,” he did not intend for his followers to race to their deaths. The martyr is honored because he held to his profession of faith when the consequence was death. However, one is not a martyr if he willingly steps into the boiling oil simply to prove a point. Such an action would show a profound disrespect for God’s gift of life.
The crime victim who exercises his right of self-defense is simply making a choice between his life and that of the criminal who placed him in the situation. The burden of moral responsibility always rests with the criminal who utilized the gift of free-will to make an immoral choice.
Simply put; Reverend Schenck’s opinion is philosophically bankrupt. It is representative of an insidious disease that permeates our Republic. It is the disease of simplistic thinking and intellectual dishonesty. It is the disease of politics as fashion statement. It is the pathology of opinion built on feelings instead of truth and reason.
Chelsea Clinton and Gun Control
April 23, 2016
By definition, liberals are activist. It is the nature of the liberal mindset. Once the left believes that a specific course of action is justified, they will push their agenda until they succeed, whether this takes one year or one hundred years. This is why compromise always moves to the left and absolutely never moves to the right.
Gun control is a typical liberal issue. The left had been relatively quiet regarding gun control for a period of time, but they never lost sight of their long-term goal. With the taste of blood in the water, thanks to a pending supreme court appointment, the issue is re-emerging in the debates and on the campaign trail. Even Chelsea Clinton is stepping into the political arena, promoting gun control "now that Scalia is dead."
The left would like to blame gun violence on conservatives. Yet, the wise man knows that most gun violence is driven by counter-culture values. The radical left is responsible for the breakdown of the family. The radical left created the drug culture, which drives the cycle of gang violence. The radical left created the modern entertainment culture, which equates gun violence and aggression with power and status. Yet, instead of taking responsibility for the outcome of their bankrupt values, the left instead seeks to blame the law abiding gun owner for the failure of the radical counter-culture.
As we have stated in prior articles on Conservative Opinion Wire, the goal of the left is to first marginalize and then destroy the dominant culture of Western Civilization. Contained within this culture are the concepts of free will and absolute moral accountability, which formerly regulated human behavior. The destruction of these values is at the core of the modern cycle of violence.
For the first 200 years of our nation's life, gun violence was statistically insignificant, despite few restrictions on gun ownership. As a matter of fact, guns were everywhere in the United States throughout much of our history and yet, for most of this time, the United States was an incredibly peaceful place.
It wasn't until the radical counter-culture emerged during the 1960s that violence began to increase. The reasons for this increase in violence are directly related to the breakdown of the family and rampant drug abuse promoted by the Hollywood popular culture. Today, most gun violence is perpetrated not by the occasional psychotic individual, but by feral young men raised in single parent households, which are dominated by a culture of sexual promiscuity, non-existent parenting, non-existent moral instruction and multi-generational drug abuse. Worse yet, these feral young men, lacking structure at home, are instead finding support in a gang culture, which substitutes for the traditional male role models, which were the norm before the left declared war on Western Civilization during the 1960s.
Yet, somehow, conservatives are to blame. The irony here couldn't be more exquisite. The left sows the seeds of cultural upheaval and, when the whirlwind of violence and hedonism destroys countless lives, they seek a scapegoat in the form of those who argued against their misguided agenda in the first place!
Of course, the left controls the media, and as we are fond of saying; perception is reality. The left wing narrative promotes the lie that gun rights are the cause of violence while continuing its relentless attack on traditional values. The average American media junkie accepts the left's narrative without question and yet another keystone of traditional American life is slowly eroded over time.
A society so devoid of intellectual honesty cannot endure. Are we destined for yet more counter-culture values promoted by a "Clinton Dynasty? Are we beyond hope?
We'll let the reader decide.
Harriet Tubman and the 20-Dollar Bill
April 21, 2016
If one is not already convinced that the Obama Administration is all about race, then the recent changes to the United States currency should convince you of this fact.
While there is no doubt that Tubman is a heroic figure, she is just one of many heroic figures of greater or lesser stature in American History. She saved hundreds of slaves from bondage. Yet, there are many others in our history who also engaged in heroic acts or accomplished great things. Why Tubman?
Historically, our currency has been reserved for honoring former Presidents. This was a wise policy. It tended to insulate a very visible and universal document, the Federal Reserve Bank Note, from the fickle winds of present-day politics and hidden agenda. By limiting the portraits to "dead presidents," the pool of available historical figures was sufficiently limited to minimize the political import associated with something so universally used and seen as our currency.
So, let's look at Presidents. How about Herbert Hoover? Tubman saved a few hundred lives, but by the most conservative estimates, Hoover saved tens of millions of lives from starvation. He coordinated the repatriation of 120,000 Americans at the outbreak of World War One. He then coordinated the relief of Europe during the "Great War." Later, despite finding the policies of the nascent Soviet Union abhorrent, he stepped forward to ensure relief was made available to millions of soviet peasants who were being systematically starved by the communists. Hoover saved countless lives during the 1927 Mississippi River floods, including those of thousands of Black Americans. Hoover also laid the framework of administrative law needed to guide many of our modern industries to maturity, including radio and television broadcasting, aviation and similar public services. Hoover never cashed a single check he received from the government, instead donating the proceeds to charity.
Other great presidents abound. How about Theodore Roosevelt, who created the modern progressive movement, implemented countless important reforms from which we still benefit today, founded our national park system and promoted the nascent conservation and environmental movements? How about Franklin D. Roosevelt? Sure, he had his faults, but he also extrapolated Hoover's policies to create the New Deal, saw America through the dark days of the Great Depression and died in office while guiding the nation through World War Two.
Shall we go on with other examples? Perhaps Truman, who laid the political foundation for post war America and the containment of communism or Eisenhower who served as Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces during World War Two and therefore played a major role in saving the Western World from fascism? How about LBJ, who created the "Great Society" and so many important civil rights reforms? Shall we go on?
The changes to the currency are not being done to honor Tubman. Instead, these changes are being made to keep friction between the races alive. In order for the left to succeed politically, they must promote a narrative designed to isolate the White Man and his historical identity from the broader cultural discussion. This degrades his cultural identity and weakens his resolve to retain conservative values.
Simply put, the left believes that Western Civilization succeeded not because of the benefits of its philosophical and moral evolution, but by theft and subjugation. Western Civilization and European Culture are viewed as the enemy of the left and therefore, the goal is to eliminate its history from the American consciousness. The elimination of existing historical figures is just one cut in a broader death of a thousand cuts targeting our history, morals and traditions. What is being done to the currency is functionally similar to what the Soviet Communists did when they doctored photographs and records to eliminate any evidence of the existence of their political enemies.
The changes to the currency are one more push against the narrative of American History, and if you believe the narrative of a people's history is unimportant, you are severely misguided. The strength of a people is deeply rooted in its historical ideals and accomplishments. Any nation that has honored its history and traditions has survived. Any nation that has failed to do so has died.
Americans need to fight back. We have much to be proud of and our historical record, while occasionally pockmarked with failure, is, overall, a fantastic record of accomplishment in which the rights of man have been protected and tolerance promoted. Let's not let the looney left convince our children that this important aspect of our collective, national identity is unimportant. If we do, we will surely perish from the earth.
April 9, 2016
Hollywood and the music industry have been major players in the counter-culture revolution since the mid-1960s. As soon as these industries identified the connection between youthful rebellion and the natural human desire to differentiate oneself through a perceived collective experience, they went to work undermining traditional values…..while conveniently making incredible profits! The music industry has been particularly insidious.
Pick up a rock and roll album cover from the 1970s, and one will almost invariably see references promoting drug abuse. Pick up a CD cover from the 2000s, and one will often see hypersexualized imagery of women. Watch a music video today or listen to lyrics and one will typically be immersed in messages promoting sex and violence.
Today, very little uplifts in the field of popular music. Rather, most content degrades, and what remains is typically neutral at best. From 1970s rock and roll to today's rap music, the music industry has engaged in a race to the bottom, promoting the destructive drug culture, gang violence and the homogenization of our culture to the point at which many are incapable of functioning at anything but the most base level.
Now, Bruce Springsteen feels he has the right to lecture the Citizens of North Carolina about the so-called "bathroom law."
In his prepared statement, he refers to those who oppose the law as "freedom fighters." He refers to a fight against "bigotry and prejudice." Yet, this self-appointed social justice warrior has remained silent for decades as his industry has promoted behaviors, which have brought us the ravages of drug abuse along with a related gang culture and organized crime syndicate that supports it. He has remained silent while his industry has redefined cultural norms in order to promote promiscuity and the resulting breakdown of the family and its resultant long-term poverty. He has remained silent while his industry has promoted gun violence and other destructive behaviors, which have eviscerated our nation's core urban areas. Now he feels he has the right to lecture us? Physician heal thyself!
The intellectual dishonesty and outright arrogance of Springsteen's statements are insufferable. Apparently, if you agree with Bruce's politics, you are a freedom fighter. If not, then logic dictates that you are an oppressor. Yet, it is Bruce and his industry that are the oppressors, having condemned several generations to modes of human behavior that enslave countless individuals to their base instincts and which casts them adrift in a life consumed by unfulfilling hedonism. Apparently, Bruce is either intellectually dishonest or simply an imbecile. At the minimum, he is a hypocrite and his opinion should carry no weight.
Conservatives should take a stand and stop supporting people like Springsteen and their industry. They should also ensure that their children are taught to exercise discretion when adopting the musical fashions of their day. This starts with a very basic discussion of the purpose of the content. In particular, we must educate future generations about the quiet, social manipulation, which is at work in popular culture. We should not surrender our free-will to a radical counter-culture revolution designed to interrupt the transmission of time-tested values from one generation to the next.
"As a man thinketh in his heart, so is he," or as computer programmers say, "garbage in; garbage out." For too long now, conservatives have allowed the cultural narrative of their times to be hijacked by the radical left. The result has been a society based not on tolerance, but rather, a directionless hedonism devoid of a moral calculus. The result has been little more than drugs, sex and rock and roll.
Take your concert, Bruce, and deposit it where it belongs. Also, please understand that many of us measure the source of an opinion, and quite frankly, you are not qualified to lecture anyone about values.
April 8, 2016
PayPal has halted plans for a new global operations center at Charlotte, North Carolina in response to a law, which would provide certain protections for businesses or individuals who object to homosexuality and related behaviors based on religious grounds.
Whether one agrees with the North Carolina law or not, the actions of Pay Pal certainly reveal the hypocrisy of the left. On one hand, liberals tend to express extreme anger at the Citizens United US Supreme Court case, which allows corporations greater leverage to donate money to political campaigns, but when corporations act to promote the agenda of the radical counter-culture left, everything is, of course, just fine.
Such duplicity in liberal thinking reveals their hypocrisy. Everything is fine when the blunt force of money and finance promotes the hedonism of the counter-culture left, but when it is used to promote conservative policies; it's apparently an entirely different situation!
The recent activism of corporations in support of the radical social agenda should be seen as frightening. Here we have a small group of powerful corporate leaders and a few politicians who seek to significantly redesign a culture, which has naturally evolved over a period of thousands of years. It is an unwarranted level of power concentrated in the hands of a few powerful interests. Conservatives should fear this concentration of power as much as they fear the excessive concentration of power in Washington, D.C. By allowing the individuals who control these corporations to use their money and prestige to reshape our culture, we assent to giving them the status of demigods.
The PayPal situation and other examples of liberal corporate activism also reveal another unspoken reality; the Democrats are actually the party of big business and Wall Street. They are guilty of engaging in an incestuous relationship between big politics and big business. It is evidenced every day by the manner in which big corporations promote left-wing social policies through their actions.
On one hand, the liberals portray Republicans as the party of Wall Street. On the other hand, they portray themselves as the party of the working man. Yet, behind this attractive façade, they climb into bed with the demigods of Wall Street, Hollywood and the media. While engaging in this illicit relationship, the left offers a few table scraps to the working man in order to buy him off, while nonetheless using the power of big finance, big banking, big entertainment and big media to corrupt the values of the working man's children and, in doing so, they redesign society to their liking.
Conservatives need to identify the men and woman behind this curtain. They need to point out this hypocrisy and shine a burning, white-hot spotlight on the nexus of counter-culture radical activism, that is being used to reshape the very foundation of a nation's people. We are in the midst of a revolution, which may not involve guns or Molotov cocktails, but which is equally transformative and far more insidious because it operates on an almost invisible level. This insidious revolution began with the radical counter-culture of the 1960s and it is reshaping the very definition of what it means to be a human being. It is enslaving man to the beliefs of a few. It must be exposed.
The time is now! The time has come for conservatives to wake up and answer the call to arms. It is time to answer these misguided revolutionaries, not with guns or violence, but with the only tools the corporate liberal fascists understand….money. Conservatives must organize. They must coordinate. They must stop doing business with corporations, which destroy their values. They must invoke the right to cultural self-defense and say "NO MORE!" One doesn't need a rifle or a barricade. One simply needs to use his money wisely. We challenge all conservatives to stop using their Pay Pal accounts today! Let's tell PayPal to go to hell and then move on to all of these big liberal corporations that want to tell us how to live and what to believe.
Wake up conservatives, before it's too late!
Job Creation, the Living Wage and Trade
April 6, 2016
Regardless of which candidate the voter supports, trade and jobs are big issues in this year's election. A fairly complex text book could be written about these issues and most journalists lack the experience in economics, industry or international commerce to distill such issues down to their key points. Perhaps no one can. Rather than attempt to put these issues in perspective, perhaps we will just touch on a few economic realities.
The Information Economy?
The Clintons spent two terms repeating the same lie to the American People. This lie can be summarized as follows:
"The new information economy will replace the old manufacturing economy and we will all be better off because of it."
Essentially, the Clintons and their handlers on Wall Street sold the American People on the idea that we could all make money sitting in Internet cafés texting celebrity gossip to each other. As business and industry packed up and moved to Mexico and Asia, few expressed concern because they believed the lie. In their minds, the Internet was going to make everyone rich.
At best, Bill and Hillary were typical of the lawyers who excessively populate our legislatures. Most have never designed or built a product. Most have never run a large industrial operation. Most have no knowledge of the relationship between capital investment, labor and wealth creation. Yet, for some very strange reason, the American voter keeps sending lawyers to our state and Federal legislatures. If the definition of insanity is repeating the same behavior over and over again while nonetheless expecting different results, this process of electing lawyers seems to prove that the American People are totally nuts!
So, for the benefit of those who will be voting this year, both liberal and conservative, here are some basic economic truths, which are immutable:
The export of technology and capital investment is important:
It is the flow of capital investment, which is important. Any nation that exports the majority of its capital investment is doomed to fail. Both the Democrats and Republicans have aided and abetted the Wall Street Investment Bankers who have presided over the greatest phase of de-industrialization in the history of mankind. While this process generated great short-term profits for the Wall Street thieves, it also significantly diminished the capacity of the United States to create long-term wealth.
While technology may change throughout time, man's relationship with money is fundamental. Other nations, which exported vast amounts of capital investment, quickly fell in World standing. Perhaps the most famous example is the British Empire, which engaged in this same process during the later half of the 19th century, with the net result being a "nation of shopkeepers" sustained on socialist life support forever thereafter.
How wealth is created:
There are only three efficient methods of creating wealth in a society. These are…..
This may sound like 19th Century orthodoxy, but again, the nature of man and his relationship to money does NOT change. Just because your teenager can send 6000 text messages a month and surf pornography on his or her smart phone while you're not watching does not change the fundamentals of economics.
By far, the most efficient method of creating wealth is manufacturing. Through the process of capital investment, engineering, design and labor, relatively low-value raw materials are transformed into a finished product of far greater value. This increase in value is translated into profits, which are distributed to shareholders, suppliers, labor and, indirectly, the greater body economic. Sure, some get a bit more of the wealth, but the fact that wealth is created tends to drive up the living wage for labor.
Because the Democrat and Republican gangsters aided and abetted the Wall Street strategy of exporting capital investment overseas, our capacity to create wealth has greatly diminished. Therefore, wages and opportunity have also stagnated for many.
The service economy can NOT replace the manufacturing economy!
Service industries are essential. When one needs a plumber, he's a valuable person to know. As your basement fills with water, a good plumber is worth good money! However, the plumber does not create wealth. Rather, in exchange for his useful service, money is transferred from the customer to the plumber, but no wealth is created.
The same is true of lawyers, doctors, dentists and the professions in general. All are important and valuable, but NONE create wealth! Again…only mining, agriculture and manufacturing can create wealth and of these, the most effective wealth creation mechanism is manufacturing.
Where do the profits go?
Americans are often pleased to learn that a foreign manufacturer will build an assembly plant in the United States. This does help somewhat, but consider this basic reality: The profits generated from this operation are not reinvested in the United States economy. Instead, they return to the overseas based company and they are used to create wealth there. Some of these profits are undoubtedly used as capital to build other wealth-creating businesses in that foreign country, which will later compete with the United States and its population.
Government does NOT create wealth!
President Obama does not have a big box of money from which he can distribute free things for everyone. This money comes from one's neighbors. When one accepts social welfare benefits, this is the same as walking door-to-door in one's neighborhood and begging for money. Many Americans cannot see this connection because the process is distant and shrouded in government red tape and bureaucracy. Worse yet, the cost of large social programs results in inefficiency that diminishes the amount of money, which can be distributed. Someone needs to pay for all of those government employees who administer these programs. In other words, for every dollar in direct social welfare benefits, probably two or three dollars are lost to government overhead. If business operated this way, we would all be standing in breadlines.
Simply put, the money people demand from their government comes from their neighbors. In a nation in which wealth is created through good economic policy and a proper, balanced relationship between finance, industry and government economic policy, it becomes possible to carry the burden of social welfare benefits, defense and other big-budget programs. In a nation that doesn't efficiently create wealth, these burdens become excessive and they become a damper on the economy.
America is becoming a "banana republic."
The United States is rapidly becoming a paper tiger. The term "banana republic" exists for a reason. When the only mechanism available to a nation for creating wealth is agriculture, the result is economic stagnation. The lack of other methods of wealth creation means that the nation cannot grow and prosper. The end result is poverty and stagnation.
We have all seen smaller nations turn to socialism in an attempt to equalize wages and raise their standard of living. This approach inevitably fails because, eventually, they run out of other people's money. We are rapidly headed in that direction.
Before you vote in 2016, consider these economic realities and then consider the snake oil you are being sold. Hillary and her husband aided and abetted the greatest de-industrialization in the history of mankind while enriching their Wall Street friends and themselves. Bernie may promise some much-needed Wall Street reforms, but the benefits and social programs he offers cannot be sustained without a high-level manufacturing economy to support them. Donald Trump may be a successful business man, but his background is in entertainment and real estate. He has no prove track-record of experience in wealth-creating industries or international trade.
So…who should you vote for? Who knows? However, a good place to start may be for the American People to measure a candidate not by what he says, but by what he has accomplished in the real world. Perhaps a candidate should be measured by his ability to create real living wage jobs in the private sector, which are driven not by the transfer of wealth, but by the creation of wealth.
Perhaps the time has come for liberals and conservatives to agree on one central point…..let's not elect any more lawyers. Instead, let's populate our legislatures with people who have built businesses, signed paychecks, cured diseases, solved real-world problems and the like. Heck…toss a few skilled tradesmen if you like, but PLEASE….no more lawyers!
The Right of Cultural Self Defense
27 March 2016
Throughout history, most enlightened cultures have generally accepted the belief that one has the right of self-defense. Protecting oneself or one's family from physical harm is hard-wired into our very nature. This same basic principle applies to more complex but less well-defined threats to a man or woman's reputation, identity or property.
While one's physical safety is obviously a fundamental concern, the human being isn't defined by his mere physical existence. Rather, the individual is defined by his beliefs, his philosophical approach to life and his spiritual and moral inner life. Without these things, a man is incomplete. Without this inner life, a man is little more than a higher form of organism, differentiated from the most basic forms of life only by complexity.
While the content of a man's character defines him, it is the culture in which he lives that influences him. Some cultural influences degrade the man, breaking him down to his base instincts whereas other cultural influences add depth and meaning to the human experience, thereby improving him by appealing to the better aspects of his nature.
Just as the prudent man carefully observes and assesses his environment to identify potential threats while walking down a dark, urban street at night, the prudent man also carefully assesses the ideas and influences that affect his character. He also extends this careful assessment to the ideas and beliefs that influence his children. The wise man understands that knowing what ideas one should reject is equally important as knowing what ideas one should accept.
The wise man also understands that he is a very social animal. The desire to belong and share in a collective experience is a basic human instinct. Because of this, the broader culture in which he operates tends to exert a powerful influence on his nature. Even when he understands that a particular belief or behavior promoted by the broader culture is harmful, degrading or morally destructive, he is often afraid to reject it for fear of becoming socially isolated. This desire to "fit in" often overrides the individual's professed belief system and alters his intellectual or spiritual development. Therefore, one might argue that the individual's character can't be entirely separated from the broader cultural environment in which he operates.
In our modern, connected world, the broader popular culture has largely replaced local community, family and church as the primary external influence on the individual's moral development. Today, it is the entertainment industry and electronic media, which holds this position and it is for this reason that the radical counter-culture left infiltrated mass media and popular culture beginning in the 1960s. The left understood a very basic principle:
He who controls the dominant popular culture has the power to shape beliefs and these beliefs have the power to shape a society.
This was, of course, not a new idea. Long before the 1960s, totalitarian regimes understood this concept and used propaganda in the form of newspapers, radio broadcasts, movies and later television to shape the beliefs of their followers. Careful study eventually revealed that the belief systems of entire societies could be incrementally changed over time provided the change was influenced gradually by consistently pushing against the boundaries of existing belief systems until the desired outcome was achieved.
Today, the average American is subject to this careful manipulation. His traditional beliefs are challenged on a day-to-day basis. The entertainment industry regularly challenges long-held beliefs about human sexuality, gender identity, the relationship between a man and his family and widely held beliefs about faith and the very nature of humanity. The emergence of the Internet and social networking now amplifies this process. Celebrity culture and the entertainment industry set the tone while the social networking feedback loop reinforces their agenda. This influence is so incredibly powerful that parents are no longer capable of, or willing to, provide the necessary moral instruction for their children. Instead, they surrender this most important of responsibilities to the music and entertainment industry or the child's peer group. In many cases, the parents themselves have been totally subsumed by the dominant social liberalism promoted by media. Like adolescents, they also crave the collective experience and, like adolescents, they fear being socially isolated.
In recent years, a nexus has emerged between the agenda of the entertainment industry, government and powerful multinational corporations. The radical left, which controls the media narrative, sets the tone, while politicians pander to its appeal in order to appear relevant and attract votes. Meanwhile, powerful corporations, which benefit from the malleability that radical social liberalism inculcates, use their financial influence to punish any individual, community, state, or group, which challenges the left-wing social agenda. One can see this process on their daily newscasts in which corporations use their financial leverage to punish any city or state, which passes a law challenging the dominant left-wing social agenda.
Sadly, far too many Americans appear incapable of identifying this process. It is so carefully crafted it operates at an almost insidious level. Yet, the evidence of the bad fruit of social liberalism is so obvious, it might be likened to the proverbial 500-lb Gorilla in our collective living room. It was the radical counter culture left and the music industry that has brought us an epidemic of drug abuse and lives destroyed by narcotics. It was the entertainment industry that brought us new norms of human sexuality, which continue to promote the destruction of the family unit, bringing poverty, broken homes and unhappiness to millions. The attack on traditional gender roles within popular culture has left many young men devoid of a valid definition of manhood. The result is a generation of grown men who either behave as teenagers or instead measure the extent of their value as men by their sexual adventures or propensity for violence, rather than applying the classical definitions of self-discipline, personal responsibility and rectitude of conduct.
By breaking the individual down to his base level, the left has created the perfect control mechanism. This control mechanism requires neither fire nor sword nor bayonet. By slowly stripping a man or woman of an intellectual and spiritual life he becomes little more than an animal. Like the common horse or dog, he can be lead around by the nose. He can be told what to believe and what to do. He can be told what should make him happy. Most importantly, he can be told what to buy and whom to vote for. He can be convinced to worship man and, like the common horse or dog, he can be trained to beg for the occasional treat from his masters.
Homo hominem deus est! Man is god to man.
Far too many Americans have been convinced to worship celebrities, sports stars and politicians. Far too many Americans perceive themselves as children, turning to the parental state to satisfy their desires. Far too many Americans believe that hedonism and instant gratification will make them happy. As a result, far too many Americans ultimately find themselves unhappy. They have been trained to think like children and therefore, they fail to understand that the source of happiness is not in what others do for you, but in what one does to improve one's self.
While many fail to articulate it; it is this fundamental dichotomy between the agenda of the radical left and the traditional values of Western Civilization that is at the heart of the deep divide that we are witnessing in our nation. Those that would surrender the very essence of their character simply to obtain a sense of belonging to a misguided social movement are surrendering themselves to a form of slavery as member of an undifferentiated mass. The wise man, however, fights the good fight and rejects servitude. He asserts his right to cultural self-defense.
Free TVs for Everyone!
A Democratic Campaign Speech
23 March 2016
The time has come for society to recognize that access to television is a fundamental human right. If I am elected, I promise to provide a television set to every single American who can't afford one. The poor American also deserves access to the same size and quality of television as the rich American. By limiting the defense budget and taxing the sale of firearms, we can bring the best in television viewing to the poorest of Americans.
For too many years now, certain groups have been isolated on the other side of the "video divide." The lack of access to the uplifting and informative entertainment products available on television results in a form of cultural isolation, which leads to economic privation, gun violence and drug abuse. We must put a stop to this and it is the job of the one-percent to pay for this fundamental right.
However, it is not enough to simply provide a television. Like our fine public schools, television offers a great source of education. It shapes our children's values. It defines their Worldview. Is it right for wealthy Americans to have access to 500 channels while so many struggle with just a few off-air programs? Is it right for the children who dwell on the other side of the video divide to enter adult life with such an educational disadvantage? If elected, I will do everything in my power to bring universal television service to the average American, regardless of where he lives.
This is not a new position. It is in keeping with our broader platform in which the rights of man are extended to all. We know that housing is a right. We believe that health insurance is a right. We stand by those who believe a cellular telephone is a right. We long ago accepted the reality that food is a right. It only makes sense that television is a right. Let's step forth boldly into the future and unequivocally reject the intolerance of those who believe that some of us should continue to exist in the shadows far beyond the video divide.
The narrow-minded evangelical zealots who control the Republican Party may claim that there are consequences for a man or woman who fails to educate himself or work hard. In keeping with their ignorance, they argue that some don't deserve a television. They speak of "bad choices." Yet, we know this is untrue. Institutional racism and intolerance has built the Video Divide. It is the modern technological version of Jim Crow, only it affects good people of all ethnic and racial backgrounds.
By unequivocally declaring this right, all can step boldly into the bright blue glow of the future. All can share in the warmth and satisfaction of popular culture. All can be educated by our media in the comfort of their darkened living rooms. All can enjoy vegetating on their sofas. Let's reject the hate of the ignorant, uneducated Republican Party and demand social justice. Let's stamp out the intolerance of the video divide.
America deserves television and they deserve it now! Americans deserve free cable TV and satellite service. America deserves the Democrat Party!
Who was Zemir Begic?
March 15, 2016
During much of 2014 and 2015, "Black Lives Matter," was engaging in protests throughout the United States. Their activities included disrupting air travel, blocking expressways, burning businesses, blocking access to shopping malls and intimidating the average person on the streets of downtown Chicago. In each and every case, the liberal media gave "Black Lives Matter" a pass. Only a few honest newspapers reported on the realities of "Black Lives Matter" as a front organization for the left wing agenda of Internationalists such as George Soros.
When three black teenagers participating in the Ferguson "Black Lives Matter" protests attacked a 32 year old Bosnian man named Zemir Begic and beat him to death with hammers, there was little, if any concern expressed by the national media. The murder was essentially ignored. Mr. Begic was considered disposable because he was of European background. His life meant nothing because he was white. The nature of his death didn't serve the liberal narrative that dominates the media.
Apparently, it's perfectly fine for left wing organizations to engage in violent protest. Apparently, it's OK for left wing organizations to strong-arm, harass and intimidate innocent people. Apparently, it's OK for left wing radical groups to interfere with the delivery of essential services on our nation's public highways or at airports. Apparently, it's OK for left wing radical groups to commit arson and incite murder. However, it is obviously not appropriate for someone who labels himself "conservative" to get up on stage and speak his mind.
Are we the only ones who can see the hypocrisy in this?
Let's examine this in another way. One isn’t required to attend a Donald Trump rally. One isn't forced to listen to his speeches. One can change the channel or tune his radio to a different station. One doesn’t need to view video of Donald Trump. One can vote against Donald Trump. However, if one is attempting to make a flight at an airport or driving to work on Interstate 94 and he is delayed by "Black Lives Matter," or a similar liberal protest group, he has no choices. If a liberal activist group burns his business or, with the support of the liberal media, incites his murder, he can't put a stop to it by simply changing the channel or turning down the volume. In other words; it is fine for liberal protesters to render their foes absolutely powerless, but conservatives aren't even allowed to express their views.
Now, let's take this one step further. Let's imagine that several young white men want to go shopping at the Mall of America and they arrive only to find the doors blockaded by "Black Lives Matter." Do they have the right to enforce their civil rights by demanding access? If they attempt to pass through the blockade and are attacked, do they have the right to defend themselves? Theoretically yes, but in reality, the answer is certainly "NO!" If they were to demand access and an altercation were to ensue, the liberal media would enforce its narrative and label the white victims as "racist." The white men might even be charged with a "hate crime" and go to jail! It's the ideal form of victim blaming but truth doesn't matter because the liberal narrative governs the circumstances.
This contrast in media coverage exposes a painful reality of post counter-culture America:
Liberals have more First Amendment rights than the hated conservative.
The US Constitution may say otherwise, but the Constitution means nothing in an era in which mass media and a popular culture dominate the thinking of the average American. In this brave new world of electronic tyranny, the conservative who holds traditional views and supports the enlightenment of Western Civilization has few, if any rights. He is gagged and bound by the dominant narrative of liberal media. His agenda suffers the death of a thousand cuts through the incessant lies of omission and tainted gate-keeping, which takes place every hour in news and editorial offices throughout the nation. His values are under constant attack by the liberal entertainment industry, which has spent decades promoting bankrupt forms of human behavior.
Conservatives are beginning to understand that they have been silenced by this new form of tyranny. No matter what action they take to defend their values or beliefs, the left will either ignore them or shift the narrative to portray them as ignorant, intolerant, or simply wrong.
Electronic media and the liberal entertainment industry have become so omnipresent and powerful, that they are capable of squelching all dissent. Even within the typical home, our children are connected to a liberal media matrix, which brain washes them with radical values and perspectives on everything from human sexuality to man's relationship with government. It's indoctrination taken to an absolutely Orwellian level.
The left has spent fifty years sowing the wind. They have been incessantly attacking conservative values since the emergence of the liberal counter-culture during the 1960s. However, the faint sound of a distant whirlwind can be heard on the horizon. Something ominous can be sensed in the air. The liberal attacks on the core values of Western Civilization are pushing many conservatives to the point where they have no choice but to take action. Perhaps the decades of conservative retreat are finally coming to an end.
While conservatives would have every right to engage in the same violent and irresponsible behaviors as the liberal activist groups, the liberal media narrative would prevent this. If conservatives were to burn businesses, break windows or intimidate shoppers on the streets of Chicago, they would be labeled as "domestic terrorists," arrested, convicted and imprisoned. However, conservatives still have some power. They can say "Go to Hell!" They can boycott the entertainment industry and the media machine. They can educate their sons and daughters and explain the broad sweep of human history and the realities of the philosophical development of traditional values and Western Civilization. They can challenge the biased content of their children's education in our public schools and colleges.
The time has come for conservatives to take back their voice. We shouldn't tolerate media tyranny. Our battle cry should be "NO MORE!"
March 12, 2016
The news media is full of reports of violence at Donald Trump rallies. The dominant narrative assigns blame for this violence to the supposedly "xenophobic" and "racist" views of Donald Trump. The thinking man can't help but wonder at our tendency to forget history.
The liberal baby boom generation was notorious for violent protest. The 1960s counter-culture created the template for modern protest methods. They have repeatedly used this playbook to promote liberal causes throughout the decades. Every time there is even the perception of an attack on their agenda, they pull out the old playbook and organize a protest. In recent years, their primary area of focus has been organized through the usual race baiters, such as Sharpton, Jackson and others. Yet, the tradition lives on.
They are now using the same playbook at Trump rallies, only the response is suddenly different. Trump supporters are simply saying "we've had enough." They are responding with the very same techniques the left has been using for decades to advance their agenda. Yet, the media seems to apply a different set of standards to Trump supporters than they do to the left.
During the past fifty years or so, conservatives have been too passive. They have stood by silently and they have done nothing while their value system has been under incessant attack by the left. One doesn't see conservatives organizing street protests, shouting down school board meetings or hijacking university board of regents meetings. One doesn't see conservatives blocking the entrances to shopping malls or blocking rush-hour traffic on I-94 in the Twin Cities. Why? The answer is simple. Conservatives believe in free speech and the rights of the individual to go about his or her daily life. Liberals do not. Conservatives are busy accepting responsibility for their lives, working, raising families and the like. They aren't trust fund babies who spend their time traveling around the country causing trouble at mommy and daddy's expense. They don't have plenty of time to protest because they aren't living off the largess of the welfare state.
Perhaps a new age is dawning despite the passive nature of conservatives. Some conservatives have had enough. They are tired of seeing liberals have their way. They are fighting back. They are essentially saying "we don't protest at your events, so get the hell out of ours!" They have a point. Perhaps it's time for conservatives to adopt the techniques of the left. Perhaps conservatives need to organize protests, shout-down liberals, burn cars, throw rocks, break windows and demand that they are heard. Perhaps conservatives should target their political enemies in the form of liberal university regents, radical professors, corrupt news media outlets, the cesspool of entertainment industry offices and other targets associated with the agenda of the counter-culture. Of course, on the other hand, perhaps they shouldn't descend into the gutter like their fellow liberals.
The anger of trump supporters may be well deserved. Left wing protesters get away with their disruptive behavior again and again and again and again while conservatives are expected to shut-up and take it. Is it any surprise that some white, conservative males are mad as hell and unwilling to take any additional liberal garbage?
We are not advocating violence. However, one can't help but feel some level of sympathy for those who have had enough. After all, what's good for one side is good for the other.
Michigan and Mississippi
An Insight into the Nature of the Left
March 8, 2016
If there is a mystery about the Democrat Party primaries, it certainly surrounds the surprisingly high level of support for Hillary Clinton.
Compared to Hillary, Bernie Sanders is the true liberal. His actions have been in alignment with his beliefs over a period of decades. His words consistently match his actions. He has no hidden agenda. These are all measures of a certain level of honesty that is refreshing in a candidate, even if one doesn't agree with him.
Hillary and her husband, on the other hand, have been operating on hidden agenda since they first entered public life. The intelligent liberal should be able to identify this hidden agenda by the positions Hillary takes during the debates. The Leopard doesn't change its spots and Hillary's spots are not only indelible, but displayed in vivid contrast. Her connections to Wall Street and other powerful business interests are surprisingly overt.
Unfortunately, the Democrat Party is the ideal environment for such duplicity. It has accumulated power by creating a broad, heterogeneous mixture of unrelated philosophies, many of which do not share an ideological foundation. Each of these disparate philosophies is driven by the desires of its unique special interest group, the focus of which is often incredibly narrow. In other words; within this environment, few are measuring policy and actions by standards beyond their own myopic interests. Few are looking for intellectual consistency in behavior.
One such special interest group is the African American community. Hillary won big in Mississippi and similar states due to overwhelming support from black voters. On the other hand, Bernie Sanders does well in states that are predominately white. Undoubtedly, few of these black voters have really examined the economic and regulatory policies supported by the Clintons in order to measure them against their impact on the African American Community. If they were to do so, they might choose a different candidate.
Hillary Clinton might best be described as a "corporate liberal." The Clintons consistently support free-trade, which has exported countless living wage jobs to Asia, effectively removing one of the important stepping-stones out of poverty for many Black Americans. Hillary continues to defend Wall Street despite the fact that Black Americans are often the target of predatory lending practices in the form of exorbitant interest rates, pay-day loan operations, car-title loan operations, flawed credit reporting schemes and similar businesses that target the poor and desperate. Over the years, the Clintons did little to advance the agenda of criminal justice reform and they did much to toughen drug enforcement. Meanwhile, they were weak on other crimes, which were associated with what black activists would call "white privilege," such as financial crimes. Have we forgotten Bill Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich, the notorious tax cheat who stole millions from the US Treasury; millions of dollars the average inner-city resident can only dream of accumulating?
One could go on with numerous examples. We can only assume that many African Americans are voting for Hillary because the counter-culture liberal process of manufacturing a special minority identity for nearly everyone except the white male of European descent has been incredibly successful. For example, the "war on women" meme has worked extremely well by driving a wedge between white men and women and further eroding the conservative vote. This absolutely insane liberal narrative has developed a minority identity for millions of women and undoubtedly, many African Americans now feel a sense of solidarity with Hillary Clinton, who they perceive as a member of a fellow "oppressed" minority group. On the other hand, perhaps they see Bernie as a member of that most hated of all groups; that population of supposedly "privileged" white men.
One can't help but find this situation ironic. The fact that the left's own manipulative and intellectually dishonest narrative is working against a true liberal like Bernie Sanders is a great loss for Democrats. In reality, Bernie would be a far better candidate to advance the causes of true liberalism. Furthermore, his brand of liberalism might actually bring a few benefits in the form of much needed reforms to the banking and financial services industry, which could benefit people of all political persuasions. Nonetheless, it's looking like Hillary is the presumptive candidate for President.
None of this should come as a surprise. The counter-culture left has shaped the dominant narrative for well over 50 years now, and this poisonous snake of their own creation is now biting its handler. One can't help but feel a bit of pleasure at the misfortune of such a dishonest group.
Sadly, don't expect the left to learn any lessons from this experience. The counter-culture brand of liberal ideology only promises more division. Corporate-liberal codependency will continue to enable and promote the unhealthiest choices of the American People. With Hillary, one will find nothing but more corporate whoring disguised by the distribution of a few table scraps to her constituency.
Mornings with Bernie
March 6, 2016
Certainly, socialism is a proven failure. It typically leads to one of two outcomes; economic stagnation or a form of fascism in which government and large corporations control every aspect of national life. The far left often points to Northern European socialist democracies as an example of successful socialism. Yet, they rarely look beneath the surface of these societies to identify its failures.
At best, socialist nations devolve into a form of class stratification. While most citizens may obtain reasonable health care and housing, their opportunities for economic self-determination are few. Few start their own business or innovate outside of the well-established corporate environment. Intense regulation and regressive tax rates stifle individual opportunity and personal options. Those well-established businesses with the capacity to create wealth, such as high-level manufacturing, tend to carry the weight of the nation's standard of living on their backs.
Yet, we've also observed the failures of capitalism. Left unchecked, the marketplace also devolves toward class stratification and inequity. The Republican Party has been too quick to forget (or ignore) the lessons of history. It is one thing to oppose certain aspects of liberalism and the welfare state, but it is quite another to deny the value of some of the classical liberal reforms of the past, which were often implemented in response to the very obvious abuses of powerful financial interests.
Conservatives should pay attention to Bernie Sanders, not because socialism is the proper solution to our nation's problems, but rather, because he clearly outlines the etiology of our current economic problems. These etiological factors are deeply rooted in the infiltration and ultimate corruption of the two political parties by insidious corporate interests. The examples are numerous, ranging from a tax code riddled with special favors for well-connected corporations to a regulatory process in which the various "alphabet agencies" are fully staffed with attorneys, who are essentially on sabbatical from the very same industries these agencies were chartered to regulate. One can go on with numerous examples of this type of corruption, but suffice to say, the marketplace no longer functions properly because corruption has built-in a variety of protections designed to protect corporate market share and stifle competition. This limits innovation and introduces imbalances into the economy, which are reflected in severe inconsistencies between the costs of goods and services, their relative value and the income scale of many Americans.
If conservatives truly believe in the marketplace, they must eliminate the entrenched corruption in government. If conservatives fear the concentration of power in government, they must also fear the concentration of power in the hands of Wall Street. History teaches that corruption naturally follows power. The solutions to this problem are few and perhaps the most effective solution is decentralization. Our founding fathers conducted a thorough study of the history of governance and corruption. They correctly determined that only decentralization could prevent these problems. As a result, their emphasis was on state's rights and local initiative. They didn't want a repeat of the Roman or British Empires. However, they couldn't foresee a modern economy in which incredible power is concentrated in the hands of a privately held financial services industry. Had they been able to envision such a situation, they would have likely attempted to establish protections against this form of concentrated power as well.
In our modern era, Wall Street has nearly as much, if not more power than Washington, and it is this concentration of power and its associated corruption that is now shaping every aspect of our national life. One might even argue that the incestuous relationship between Congress, the White House and Wall Street has created a form of neo-fascism, which is at the root of our economic inequities.
The modern conservative movement is a victim of this corruption. The con-men in the Republican Party have substituted social conservativism for economic conservativism in order to distract the average voter from the economic realities of corruption. Meanwhile, the Democrats have used similar tactics; only they offered hedonism in the form of counter-culture values along with a few table scraps in the form of social welfare benefits as a substitute for the living-wage jobs that are the natural outgrowth of a diverse, vibrant economy.
For a time, it worked. Corporate profits increased dramatically and Wall Street was enriched while the consumer was able to hold his own against a tide of rising prices, decreased employment opportunities, and ever decreasing economic leverage. However, like all versions of the Ponzi scheme, it couldn't go on forever. The average American's buying power has now declined to the point where the economy is stagnating. The wealth creation process has been eviscerated. The former stepping stones out of poverty, which were once provided by a diverse manufacturing economy, have been boxed-up and shipped to Asia in the quest for ever greater profits for the "shareholder." The two-party game has created the economic equivalent of the scheme through which cyber-criminals from some narco-terrorist state obtain one's checking account data and begin to quietly withdraw money, first in small amounts so that it's not noticed, and then in ever-increasing amounts until the victim is left with nothing.
If conservatives really want to transform America for the better, they must adopt a philosophy of "smart regulation;" the goal of which is to encourage diversity in the marketplace. This means moving the concentration of power from Wall Street to Main Street. It means cleaning the corruption out of the tax code. It means building a wall, not on the Mexican Border, but between the administrative law and regulatory agencies and Wall Street. It means restoring Glass-Steagall to separate commercial and investment Banking. It requires the development of incentives to protect and restore high-level manufacturing in the United States, which will bring with it greater wealth-creating opportunity and living wage jobs for many. It includes protecting the working man from the abuses of powerful employers. It means reigning in the economic parasites that feed on the body economic, such as insurance companies, the medical industry, and the legal profession.
Of course, government can't, by itself, fix all of these problems. The demand for individual responsibility and a personal belief in the collective ethical conduct of a people are part of the equation. One can't fully separate the character of a nation's people from its economic success and quality of life. Government can only do so much, and those who promise that government will solve all problems and build a high quality of life for the individual without individual investment in the future are misleading their followers.
Bernie Sanders may be genuine and even likeable in many ways. He also does an excellent job of pointing out some of the ills that face our nation. However, his ultimate solution, which is to concentrate yet more power in Washington, D.C., is incredibly unwise. The end result will be simply more government inefficiency while the left tries desperately to react by redistributing wealth in an economy that will become less diverse with time and ultimately moribund.
While Bernie at least points out some of the causes of our nation's disease, Hillary offers even less in the form of the same old liberal neo-fascism and Wall Street corruption. Meanwhile, the Republican establishment simply offers greater transfer of power from Washington to Wall Street. Is it any wonder the electorate is grasping at straws and turning to Donald Trump in desperation?
The time has come to redefine conservativism. This likely means the deconstruction of the existing, corrupt Republican Party and the creation of a new conservative movement. It requires recognizing the realities of corruption and the adoption of a philosophy that corruption and the concentration of power are naturally entwined. It means combatting the concentration of power in oligopoly. It requires the development of laws that enforce a separation between the regulatory agencies and the corporations they are supposed to regulate. It requires a complete revamping of the tax code. It requires a new regulatory approach that encourages economic diversity in the marketplace so that natural economic forces can dynamically respond to change.
The wise conservative will take some time to listen to Bernie's complaints. However, he should also take some time to seek solutions that don't involve socialism.
Who Won the Debate?
March 4, 2016
Who won the most recent Republican debate? Perhaps a better question to ask would be "who lost?" The answer to this latter question is quite easy: The American People.
Rarely, if ever, in American History, has a presidential debate rendered such a disservice to the nation. The childish behavior of Donald Trump was insulting and reminiscent of the behavior witnessed on thousands of elementary school playgrounds throughout the nation. Name calling, prurient references to genitalia and the physical characteristics of one's foes, the shouting-down of others, and similar childish outbursts are all classic examples of the behavior of an individual who may be advanced in chronological age, but developmentally stunted at some age roughly between pre-pubescent and early adolescent.
The time has come to face the facts about Trump. The fact that he was given a head start in the form of millions of dollars does not define him as a success. The fact that someone was deemed sufficiently entertaining to be given a role as a "reality TV" star does not serve as a measure of his character, his education or capacity to govern. Success in one narrow area does not translate to success in a job that requires a broad range of knowledge and insight.
Perhaps the strongest indicator of the inherent limitations in Mr. Trump's character is his constant use of the ad hominem attack. Such childish attacks may play well to those who are developmentally stuck in the fourth grade, but they are, in fact, simply a tool for Mr. Trump to avoid substantive discussion of complex policy issues. It's a way of diverting the attention of the audience away from the fact that he has no real knowledge of the important, complex issues that would face the President of the United States.
If one were to look at "The Donald" as a potential employee and compare his credentials against the job description for President, the checklist would look bleak. The man has no military experience, little, if any knowledge of foreign policy, no legislative experience, no executive experience at the state or local government level, and it appears he has no knowledge of the intricacies of global trade or economics.
Perhaps what is so frightening about the rise of Donald Trump is the fact that so many Americans find him appealing. While the anger with the establishment is deserved, it is also irrational. Are the American People now so addled by the same reality TV that created "the Donald" that they are incapable of critical thinking? Are our schools really such a failure that the average high school graduate can't identify a basic fallacy of logic? Are the American People really so intoxicated by a world of juvenile entertainment that are incapable of differentiating between the very serious realities of world power and the emotions of childish fantasy?
The republican debate should be seen as a major warning sign that America is at the precipice of decline. The fact that so little care is being exercised in the selection of a potential leader of the Free World may just indicate that we are now so weakened that the barbarians will soon be at the gates.
Conservatives need to wake up and select a real candidate for President. If Trump prevails, it will, at the very least, signal the end of the Republican Party and at worst, signal the end of the United States as we know it.
False Charges of Racism
March 3, 2016
There is no doubt that racism exists in our society. Like all shortcomings in the character of mankind, some level of racism will likely always be with us. Certainly, a society has a duty to challenge this behavior and ensure that it doesn't become institutionalized. However, society also has a duty to ensure that lies don't become "facts."
Like all decidedly human flaws, racism is universal. While the pseudo-intellectuals of the left try to argue that the existence of racism is predicated on the possession of political and economic power, the realist recognizes that power is a very dynamic force. The possession of power is quite relative, being largely determined by time, place, and control of the narrative. For example, the elderly white woman imprisoned in her home by black gang violence has no power. The white man falsely accused of racism has little power to defend himself because the liberal narrative has (incorrectly) defined racism as a peculiarly white characteristic.
An example of abuse of the liberal narrative is clearly illustrated by recent events at the University of Albany during which three black women took to social media to claim they were attacked by a large group of whites while riding on a public bus. In a subsequent police report, they described the stereotypical "racist" incident during which they were attacked by a group of white men, while an additional large group of whites stood by and did nothing.
Their claim fit the liberal narrative perfectly. Even the fact that the attack took place on a public bus provided the perfect imagery to conjure up images of Rosa Parks and historical discrimination. The results were, of course, predictable. As usual, the liberal university leadership immediately expressed great sympathy and accepted the story without question. The student body, well indoctrinated by their intellectually lazy university professors bought the story "hook, line and sinker" and held a rally in support of the three black women who told the crowd that "they were shocked, upset, but will remain unbroken." Even Hillary Clinton responded via twitter stating "there's no excuse for racism and violence on a college campus."
Unfortunately, it was all a lie! The three young black women who fabricated the story were caught on video, which clearly exposes the reality of the situation. They simply picked a young white man at random and assaulted him. When two white women tried to intervene, they then turned on the white women as well. After viewing the video, it should be obvious to even the most intellectually addled liberal that these young women fabricated the entire incident.
The University of Albany incident clearly illustrates how the simplistic, almost childish liberal narrative of "white privilege" and "institutional racism" can be used to cover a host of crimes and outrages. Blacks can hide behind the narrative and seize its power to excuse any culturally destructive behavior in which they choose to participate. They can use it to leverage political power and create a sense of social identity. As a matter of fact, the abuse of the liberal narrative is so widespread that it is difficult to challenge. Any conservative who objects to such abuses has no voice because his worldview is marginalized by liberal control of the media. In other words, when blacks attack whites, it's labeled as "crime driven by poverty." In the rare cases in which whites attack blacks, it's labeled, and often prosecuted as, a "hate crime." In reality, it's all the excrement of Bos Taurus.
The time has come for society to understand that real power lies in the control of the narrative and the narrative is controlled by liberal domination of our primary and secondary schools, our universities, the media and the entertainment industry. This situation has been allowed to develop because too many Americans are intellectually lazy. They are only interested in being entertained and the total depth of their insight is limited to a vast collection of simplistic 8-second sound-bites and superficial "google" answers.
Will America wake up? Don't bet the farm on it!
Do Chicago Lives Matter?
March 1, 2016
The nature of violence in our large urban areas rarely makes the national news. Take Chicago for example. Between January 1 and March 1 of this year, Chicago has seen 471 shooting victims. This is nearly a 100-percent increase over the same period last year. During all of 2015, there were 2987 shooting victims in Chicago (source: Chicago Tribune).
While the Chicago press covers this issue, the mainstream media tends to ignore these statistics. In fact, the mainstream, liberal-dominated media, has no choice but to suppress the rational discussion of violence in our core urban areas because they know that the root causes would expose the lie that is the liberal narrative.
This biased media gate-keeping should be obvious to even the most minimally informed citizen. While "black lives matter" and the occasional racist police officer (yes, they do exist) dominate discussion within our media, often for weeks, the far more prevalent black-on-black and black-on-white crime is generally ignored, or at least pushed to the margins of the national debate. This is so because the former scenario fits the liberal narrative, whereas the latter reality does not.
Because of the counter-culture hegemony dominating our media, the incredible level of violence in the black community is a third-rail topic that few will touch. Liberals won't touch it because it challenges their worldview. Conservatives won't touch it because they know that the liberal media will instantly marginalize them with false accusations of "racism." For years now, conservatives have been suppressed in all areas of philosophical debate through fear of the "ism." Challenge a radical counter-culture idea and one will be instantly labeled with an "ism," such as "racism," "sexism," or one of their close cousins, such as "homophobia," "intolerance," "greed," or the like. It is this process of marginalization, which suppresses critical thinking and which allows the bankrupt ideas of the 1960s counter-culture to continue unabated in our society.
Yet, the nature of violence in the black community can't be denied. Its causes should also be obvious to the thinking man. It is the reflection of a very basic, universal aspect of human nature. Simply put, it is far easier for the individual to blame others for his destructive behaviors than it is to perform a difficult moral inventory and conduct the critical introspection needed to change one's life. It's much easier to seek an external target of blame for one's behaviors. This universal human condition, when taken in the aggregate, creates a broad cultural reflex. In the case of the Black Community, this reflexive trait results in an environment in which blame is directed outward and this behavior is supported and perpetuated by the left wing narrative of "historical racism," "white privilege" and any number of other pseudo-intellectual concepts.
For too long now, the liberal counter-culture has sold African Americans on the idea that all of the ills that affect their community are the result of "institutional racism." Those raised with this narrative will naturally take the easy course and direct their anger outward at an ill-defined target; an imaginary "bogeyman," if you will. This phenomenon is made even more ironic because, in reality, it is the liberal counter culture values that promote the promiscuity, breakdown of the family unit, drug abuse and other behaviors, that so negatively impact the Black Community. In fact, one might even go so far as to argue that liberals are the true racists, for they care little about the impact of their bankrupt values on historically disadvantaged communities
Complicating matters is the terrible reality that children who grow up in this environment really are historically disadvantaged, not just economically, but morally. Can one blame the child who is raised in an environment in which he has little, if any moral instruction? Can one blame the child for surrendering to his base instincts and adopting a sense of powerlessness when he is taught that all of the ills he observes in his community are the result of external forces beyond his control? Can one blame the child for seeking power in violence and guns when he is taught from the earliest age that he hasn't the power to succeed in constructive ways because external forces are aligned against him? Can one blame the child for growing into a man or woman who predicates his life on instant gratification and hedonism when he is surrounded by a bankrupt popular culture, which promotes violence, selfish sexual behavior and hedonism?
Please don't misunderstand the message here. This situation is not unique to the Black Community. Many whites engage in the same behaviors. Many whites are equally degraded by the bankrupt values of the liberal counter-culture or cursed from childhood by parents who provide little or no moral instruction. However, there is no broad cultural narrative that provides the white man with a simplistic excuse to justify his culturally destructive behaviors. In his case, there is no racist "bogeyman" to point to. There is no organization, such as the intellectually bankrupt left, which has constructed a narrative that excuses violent and destructive behavior in the white community.
The wise man understands that Whites and Blacks are not fundamentally different. The only difference is the existence of an excuse perpetuated by the racist left, which, when marketed to a community that was historically weakened by racism, renders it more vulnerable to the destructive forces of the bankrupt liberal counter-culture. These same counter-culture forces are at work in the White Community but it is just taking longer for Whites to be equally degraded by the immorality of the left.
Finally, it's important to stress that racism does exist in our society. No one is denying this fact. There is much work to be done to reach true equal opportunity between the races. However, it's also important to understand that racism works in many ways. It can be driven by a sense of racial supremacy (e.g. "Jim Crow" and the like), or it can be driven by a deep well of anger (as in the argument of "white privilege" or the like). In the end, all racism is destructive, not just to society at large, but to the man or woman who carries the hatred. There is no place for racism in our society just as there is no place for the overt intellectual dishonesty of the left. There is only room for a shared moral calculus, which calls for individual responsibility, constructive cultural behaviors and a belief that all men must struggle to rise above their base nature.
The time has come to stop blaming others. We must all work together to build a better society, but this can't start until the majority of us understand what it means to live a life based on morals and personal responsibility. Once both Blacks and Whites recognize that a society of moral imbeciles can't function, it will be a simple process to discard the corrupt counter-culture narrative of media, the entertainment industry and our schools. Perhaps then, cities such as Chicago won't see thousands of shootings each year.
February 28, 2016
Love him or hate him, Republicans can't avoid a very fundamental question about Donald Trump:
Is he qualified to be President of the United States?
This question goes deeper than simply asking if he can win. Historically, the success or failure of a President has less to do with his convictions or ethics and far more to do with his ability to manipulate the legislative process. Consider a highly effective president, such as LBJ. While the benefits of the "Great Society" can be argued, the effectiveness of LBJ is difficult to argue. His years of experience in Congress gave him not just an intimate knowledge of the methods needed to accomplish his goals, but the leverage needed to do so. Listen to tapes of his phone conversations, and one quickly realizes that LBJ's success was largely the result of a very unique type of "political intelligence" not found in many Presidents. One might even argue that had it not been for the Vietnam War, LBJ might have been remembered as one of the most effective presidents in history.
As an exercise in contrast, consider President Obama. Again, whether one agrees with his policies or not, President Obama can only be described as an incredibly ineffective president. He had almost no sense of political tactics because he had no executive or legislative experience. During his first year in office, he spent all of his political capital on his landmark "Obama Care" legislation, leaving nothing in reserve to accomplish other much needed reforms, which could have proven of benefit to millions of Americans. Even the final version of Obama Care came out of the legislative sausage grinder so corrupt and full of loop-holes that it is essentially a failure. The fact that Obama had no executive or legislative experience should be obvious to all.
Success in business also translates poorly to politics. Even if we give Donald Trump the benefit of the doubt by assuming he's a genuinely brilliant executive, we can't deny the fact that a business executive operates in a hierarchical environment in which he has the authority to issue directives and bend a business organization to his will. However, the legislative environment is fraught with the complexity of multiple agendas, all of which must be reconciled. It's a messy "give and take," for which most business executives have little patience. If one pays close attention to Trump on the campaign trail, one can hear a certain presumption in his speech. He claims he can "fix this," and "do that," but in fact, such initiatives are impossible without the support of the legislature and the approval of the courts. It is likely a safe bet that, if elected, Trump will prove to be just another in a series of ineffective Presidents at a time when we can't afford mediocrity.
If Republicans want to see "President Hillary Clinton," the best way to accomplish this is by voting for Trump during the primary elections. Republicans must set aside their anger with the party establishment and select a qualified candidate based on his ability to govern. Additionally, electability during the general election should also be a determining factor. There is too much at stake. If Trump becomes the Republican Nominee, Ms. Clinton will likely win and conservatives can then kiss their civil rights goodbye. Our nation will be saddled with a deadly combination of a far left Supreme Court, which will last more than a generation, combined with a form of Wall Street liberal Fascism, which will continue to exacerbate the inequities in the body economic.
Republicans should consider a highly qualified, practical candidate who not only shares their values but who also offers the needed legislative and executive experience. He must also have a high level of political intelligence.
The time has come for Republicans to "dump Trump." It's now or never!
Why Americans are Angry as Hell
February 25, 2016
In case you haven't noticed, Americans are angry. They are so angry, they are voting for anyone they perceive as a political outsider. Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders may offer radically different solutions, but they are actually two sides of the same coin.
For decades now, the Democrats and Republicans have been conducting a good old-fashioned pick-pocket operation. One politician distracts the mark while the other politician reaches into his pocket and seizes his wallet. The process is also somewhat in keeping with the old "divide and conquer" policy of great empires. For too many decades now, the Democrat and Republican gangsters have kept Americans at each other's throats on social issues, racial matters and other divisive topics. While these differences are real, Americans of all political, ethnic and racial backgrounds are waking up to realize that, while they were distracted, their wallet went missing. In fact, the greatest fear of both the Democrat and Republican gangsters is an America in which people of all ethnic, racial and philosophical backgrounds develop real consensus on matters of governance.
The anger of the masses may seem irrational to some, such as the spoiled ivy league attorneys and the other parasites that populate our legislatures, but it's a well-deserved anger. It's an anger that is driven by a sense of powerlessness. In a complex World, the average American realizes he has no economic rights and he has no voice. For example, a reader recently related a story about an employer who stole tens of thousands of dollars from his paycheck. He eventually learned that the former employer had been guilty of a variety of misconduct over the years, ranging from contract fixing and fraud to misconduct as an elected official. He had even been investigated for bankruptcy fraud and other possible crimes. Yet, he was never prosecuted. In each case, prosecutors performed a "cost benefit analysis" and, when they learned that this person was worth millions, they let him off through a series of consent decrees and non-disclosure agreements. In other words, in America, rich people don't go to jail, unless they screw other rich and powerful people!
The same former employer has a history of harassing his business enemies using his own private police department, which he controls by exploiting a loop-hole in the law. He uses his personal law enforcement officers to serve process and harass his enemies with frivolous lawsuits. When he sues, his victims often settle out of court because the lack the financial resources to fight the criminal. Once the case settles, the court records are then purchased by a sleazy third party business, which sells them to the credit reporting agencies. When the victim tries to challenge the supposed "derogatory public record" under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, he discovers that the law was drafted in such a way that it give the appearance of protecting the consumer, while nonetheless containing numerous loop-holes designed to protect only the Credit Reporting Agency. It's a David versus Goliath situation in which the citizen has no rights thanks to a Congress that is little more than a group of corporate whores pandering to big money. In the end, the individual is victimized five times, once by a corrupt businessman, then by a sleazy third party records vendor, followed by a corrupt credit reporting process, then by a corrupt, sleazy two-party system, which says one thing, but actually does another, and finally, through years of higher interest rates, which, of course, benefits the whores of Wall Street at the expense of the working man. In simple terms, the sleazy business man and Wall Street investment bankers go to their lake homes while the working man is sentenced to a virtual debtor's prison, which harkens back to Victorian times.
Americans are beginning to realize that such a society cannot endure. How does a society tell the impoverished child to respect our laws and institutions when it is obvious that the woman wearing the blindfold and holding the scale in front of the courthouse is actually peeking through the blindfold? How can one expect society to function based on a shared moral calculus when it is so obvious that those in power have absolutely no morals. It’s a recipe that will result in one of two outcomes; slavery or anarchy. Both outcomes are very undesirable and both lead to a new dark age.
There are millions of stories like this in the "naked congress." Our two-party con-game has resulted in the best government money can buy. Liberals and conservatives may differ when it comes to developing solutions and a vision for the future of America, but they finally have consensus on one important point: they have awakened to the realization that they have no real power. They ask themselves "where's my bailout?" They wonder "why can't I gamble with other people's money like the investment bankers on Wall Street?" They ask themselves why they can't create an "interpersonal loan" in the same way government prints money. They wonder why wealthy Wall Street investment bankers can borrow money from the Federal Reserve at the discount rate of near zero percent, but many Americans must pay 25-percent or more to borrow the same money. The African American shakes his head in disbelief when he realizes that the wealthy corporate attorney or Wall Street banker can rob you with a fountain pen and get away with it, but the young black man goes to prison for selling some illegal narcotics. Shall we go on?
The anger in American is very understandable, but it is also important to understand that it is rarely tempered with foresight and thoughtfulness, Anger is potentially damaging, not just to the target of the anger, but also to the person who carries the anger. The acid of anger tends to eat the vessel that contains it and choices based on anger are often irrational.
Republicans in particular would do well to ask themselves why they are supporting a particular candidate. Do they really believe he is well qualified for the Office of President of the United States or are they simply so blinded by years of frustration, powerlessness and anger that they feel they should vote for anyone perceived as an outsider.
The Republican Party certainly stinks like a pig pen. It reeks of corruption, greed and dishonesty. Of course, the Democrats aren't any better. The only difference is that they toss a few table scraps into the average American's dog bowl while they feast at a banquet table stocked with a feast beyond the wildest dreams of their constituents.
Has the time come for the filthy, neglected dog to bite its master?