Immoral: Taking from Person A to Give to Person B

Most people think charity a good thing in order to help those in need, or to help a cause that one values and finds worthy of giving to in the form of money, time, a place to meet, one’s own expertise, or whatever else they may need.  I too feel this is a great thing, and my wife and I both give to a host of charities for reasons which are our own and we decide which they will be on a number of factors — none of which are the government’s concern.

We, the People of the United States of American are some of the most giving and generous people in the entire world; we know we have a good life and do not mind sharing it with others who, through sudden tragedy, or circumstance of location at birth have lost or simply do not have a chance to attain what we have here in our great country.  Western culture as a broad and general group all feel this way and it shows, and not a shocking surprise it is also Western culture which is the driving force of the entire world.

When one gives his or her wealth, or time, or efforts, freely and without coercion this is a very worth-while endeavour and something that shows the moral fiber of the individual and is a positive reflection of their society as well.  There is another form of giving more akin to Robin Hood, though in the story of Robin Hood is made clear that the money is not so much being taken from the rich a it is being taken from corrupt and abusive merchants and government officials (tax collectors, nobility, etc.) to give back to the down trodden and abused.  This is a story far worse than Robin Hood, this is a story of theft against the populace without regard to how they came about their wealth.

When the government, and federal government particularly, takes money from one person and simply hands that money to another person because the federal government had deemed the receiver more worthy to have that money, this is immoral at its core and unconstitutional to boot.  The Constitution outlines the reasons the federal government may raise taxes, and nowhere is it listed that government financed re-allocation of wealth is permitted.  Whether this is for giving money to a homeless person, or a failing large corporation, there is no enumerated provision listing any such actions as permissible.  Some misguided souls find this government redistribution to the akin to charity, or supplementing charity when we the people have not given enough (an appraisal they made based on what?). Charity stops being charity when the government can come and take your property and your freedom by force if you fail to comply with the edicts issued by our own ‘public servants’.   When the government decides some people are less worthy of their own money than others who have not earned their way the government is in the business of redistribution, of ‘spreading the wealth’ and this is not a function of the federal government.

There is another problem with these government hand outs to those making less money:  If  half the nation pays almost no taxes as it is, where is the money coming from?   The money is coming from a small minority of people who do not have anyone looking out for their own interests.  Both parties do this, but the Democrats have made it into a campaign pillar:  they promise the world of money to the poor and to the ‘forgotten middle class’ the whole time inciting class warfare by railing on about the rich not paying ‘their fair share’.  If the rich, the top 10% pay the majority of the bill, then they are already paying more than the average person and thus their fair share is already done.  But if the top 10% are forced to pay for the vest majority of the social hand-outs, then all the Democrats need to do is bribe (YES, BRIBE) the other 90% to vote for them.   We’ve heard this from the current administration in the form of, 95% of the country will see a tax break (thus 5% will have to make up the difference), to pushing for government hand-outs for health care, to President Obama’s own words about spreading the wealth.

Unfortunately bribing the poor used to be harder because at one time they had pride and dignity and would not take such charity.   Now, they have been conditioned to live off the efforts of the more productive and they have become greedy in their ways wanting more and more, and now we have a substantial portion of the population ready to taken ill-gotten money in order to perpetuate their own lifestyles.  These people rarely ask what is best for their country, they only care for what seems best for their own immediate future.  They willfully drive the nation into debt for their own personal benefit.   not only is this unpatriotic, but completely immoral since it adversely effects us all.

It is immoral for politicians to make the poor become dependent upon those same politicians in order to survive.  This dependency is similar to a drug deal stringing out their customers on addictive substances – the customers become dependent upon these substances and will do whatever it takes to have them continue – including losing their dignity, self-reliance, and any form of pride.

The immorality is obvious, appreciation for the work and efforts of others has diminished, and the idea that getting free money from the efforts of others as a ‘right’ has taken hold.   Pathetic we have become.

We need to, as a country, stop and reverse this trend.

Us Versus Them

With the Obama Administration reaching into the intelligence community and pulling out images and documents in an effort to attack not terrorist acts (or man caused disasters), nor to fight the war on terror (or  Overseas Contingency Operations), but to attack the previous administration and attempt to smear their efforts.

Let us understand one thing without any lack in clarity:  If someone or some group wants to kill you you must take them at their word and kill them first.    If you are entrusted with the care and responsibility to protect someone or some group of people and they are targets to die, then you once again must take the aggressors at their words and kill them first.   If you can not accept this responsibility or feel that taking lesser steps is a worthy endeavor then you are not fit to have the responsibility.

The current administration wants the world to think that it is so nuanced and sensitive to the ways of the world — unlike that last administration — that if we all sit down and talk about it we can find some common ground.  ‘It’ can be anything from nuclear weaponry to soothing the troubled minds of those who wish to destroy our society, culture, and country.  This administration is as foolish as it is bold.

What the administration fails to understand, or decides to ignore, is that there is a cultural element to their actions.  Those who want us eliminated are not doing it because we looked at them sideways, it is because they do not like us at the very core of our being.   This can not be changed by talking, hand shakes, and smiles.   Our culture and by commercialism, our products, end up heading into their culture and this is something many of them will not tolerate.  Let us look at this from the perspective of a moderate, yet relatively conservative member of their society.   We’ll use Afghanistan as the backdrop, though several other nations / cultures could apply, but since that is where al-Qaida found friends in the Taliban, it works well for this example.

So we have a moderate, yet relatively conservative member of any of the various groups in Afghanistan who sees Western culture and particularity American culture seeping into his society.   He sees the blue jeans, T-Shirts, baseball caps, and other non-traditional clothing and accessories coming in and being worn by children, teens, and young adults.  He looks around and also hears American music – loud and noisy to him – and American mannerisms making their their way into the streets and worse yet, homes of all these people.   He sees Hollywood in American movies with all the sex and drugs, the way women are portrayed, the way men are portrayed, and it is disturbing to him. He sees that this own values and beliefs are being marginalized by his own society and his own people.  The same lack of respects for elders and strangers, and even family members he sees in American culture is now beginning to stick in Afghanistan and it is far too much to take.

For the sake of understanding, let us reverse the situation for Western societies and Western culture.  In the midst of our lives a different culture’s elements seeping into our lives without warning or understanding.   Movies, horrible musicals, are on the big screen with women and men all wearing clothing foreign to us, and behaving far too politely for common conversation where asking how one is doing and how one’s family is doing actually is a question where the response matters — unlike here where answering, “How are you?” is practically asking for a place on the shrinks couch, because most people do not care.  In this other culture, if you do not respond honestly, and ask the same in return you are now looked upon as some sort of rude, uncivilized, non-caring cur who is unfit for further conversation.

This affects the way we do business, and in a room with several people, this can make meetings go on longer and longer without any business being done.   This is irksome, but most of us deal with the change in culture and try to make the best of it.  In that same business room, most all of the people (women and men) are wearing different clothing now, the kind of clothing found in Afghanistan and that region, and some women are even wearing full burqas.  Because you still wear a suit and tie, or business casual, you can hear side conversations about this and the looks on some of the peoples’ faces makes it seem like you’re out of touch and even that you are slowing down progress to a better tomorrow.  You’re not with the times anymore.

Churches are closed, and eventually those practicing religions other than Islam are discriminated against, and some even beaten by those more ‘excitable’ types who are tired of people following an obviously wrong religion.   All images of women portraying them as sex objects and otherwise degrading ways have been eliminated and those still holding on to those images are being punished severely.  The local high school stadium is used for a venue to view all the capital punishment cases – which now include adultry (especially if the female seduced the male) drug sellers, some drug users, practitioners of witchcraft (you didn’t even know these people existed), and those who have blasphemed Allah.

Pressure has turned to threats from neighbors, co-workers, and even some family members because your wife, nor daughter(s) are wearing the correct attire for this new society and your youngest daughter even seems to want to wear it all voluntarily and asks that you marry her off to a man who can provide for her, but to make sure he isn’t overly abusive if she makes a mistake.  She asks this very politely to you, almost cringing because of the nature of your request.

Eventually you can not take it anymore  — your world has changed and so have too many people you know and love.  This is not the best way for society, this is craziness.   You find a group of people with similar thoughts – those who wish to remove such influences from their lives and society as well.  Protesting results in prison or death in the stadiums, so when you act the actions must be severe and beyond question.   At first you only provide material support and let them meet once in a while in your garage, but this is not getting any results.

Now your children all wear this clothing, have gotten rid of all your CDs, tapes, and records of rock and roll, rap, and any other offensive material that you ‘forgot’ to turn in.  Your frustration builds as you see your daughters fumbling around in burqas, your son turning into a religious zealot who hears nothing in way of contrary ideas and even turns in those for professing them.  Your world is may be too far gone to get back, but you must try.   This can not continue.  And so you do what you feel you must do…

Now let us go back to Afghanistan’s situation and take a look again at how they see us treating our wives, sisters, and daughters — they are objectified, there are places where prostitution is legal, women are called ‘bitches and hos’, and women are forced to work their entire lives in order to provide for their family.  They see drug abuse, the effects on the family and society, they see our problems with the border of Mexico with drugs and cringe.   They see Hollywood pushing movies without substance — movies about dysfunctional families, movies making jokes about the ills of society, not to mention purely pornographic movies where others’ sons and daughters, brothers and sisters, expose themselves in disgusting way all for the camera to see.   How are these things good for the family?   Do Western cultures even care about their own families?  Billboards of practically naked women trying to sell alcohol?   Does anyone really aspire to have that as their future?   Western society has failed in their eyes because the family is of no importance.

Abortion, the killing of the newest members of the family, divorce for no real reason other than becoming bored with each other, and so many other ideas that are common in our society are disgusting to theirs.  Religious views where people do not agree and even question the words in the holy books?   This can not be a good sign.  Homosexuality on display for all to see?   Never.

This is the picture they have.    It is as disturbing to them as the previous picture is to us.   I do not have a daughter, but if I did there is no way she will ever be forced to wear a burqa.  There is no way she’ll ever have to attend an inferior school and then drop out to be married off to someone she doesn’t know and could be two, three or even four times her age.  I will fight those who try to make that happen, and I’ll do anything to make it so she does not have to live in that world.  Wouldn’t most fathers?  Wouldn’t most mothers? Wouldn’t most brothers?

With this understanding of yourself and how you feel about your own family and close friends, and what you would do for them, why is it so hard to see that another culture, quite different from ours but still its own, would also feel the same about change?   This is not a rant about cultural relativism – an idea I find idiotic, this is about understanding that while we appreciate our own culture and ways of living, other feel the same about their own to the point that they feel they have no choice but to take matters into their own hands.

Thus, it does not matter if you call them terrorists, insurgents, freedom-fighters, or anything else.  They want to destroy me and my way of life, they have stated as much and they have even hit us on our soil, and if you look at it as a cultural assault, then you should include London 7/7 bombings, and the 3/11 Madrid bombings as hitting our soil.  They want to remove our direct and indirect ability to influence their society by any means possible.  These people will not stop to talk to us, unless it benefits them to do so.  Would you stop to talk to those who are changing your society so that they can still change it?   There is no way to stop people from importing American culture.  It is found everywhere in the world to a greater or lesser degree.  Since they can not stop the influence they can only stop the originators: US.   You and me.  We are targets.

President Obama does not understand this, or he chooses to ignore this.   Either way, this is the situation and there is only one group who will win.   This will not be won over night, but we can do what it takes to make certain we do not lose overnight.   The President needs to honor his duty and responsibility to keep Americans alive.  One good way is to eliminate those who have the desire, the will, the determination, and the resolve to kill us.  It is a sign of weakness to negotiate with someone who says they will kill you.   It shows that you are not willing to take action first.

There is a well-known saying that goes something like, “On defense you only need to be wrong once to feel the effects, on offense you can afford to be wrong with much less of an adverse  effect.”

In this battle it is us versus them, our ideas versus theirs, our culture versus theirs, our lives versus theirs.  Where do you stand when it comes to protecting your family, your close friends, your country?  Where does the enemy?   Where does the President?

Small Government is the Only Way

For far too long the federal government has been taking over more and more power and more and more freedom from the people of the United States.   This has happened under Republican and Democrat administrations – neither are immune from criticism.  I have taken time to illustrate many of the actions taking place which are eroding our freedom and I have attempted to explain why it is in our interest to reduce and then enforce the limits put on the federal government by instruments like the Constitution and the judicial system which is supposed to clarify the limit of the federal government.

From many troubling elements of the Patriot Act (most every congressman voted for this without reservation), the Campaign Finance Reform Act (sponsored by John McCain), to most everything President Obama’s administration has done show that were are heading down the road to federal totalitarianism quicker and quicker.    I am not completely against the Patriot Act, and I can even see the need to have passed it in its whole after 11 September and the realization that we were not well equiped to deal with the modern threats to our security, but that time as passed, for a while, it has been an appropriate time to look over all the parts of this legislation – line by line – and get rid of the more questionable and downright unconstitutional elements of the bill.   For instance, the fact that, if I see my neighbor’s house being searched by the feds, the feds can order me to NOT speak about it to anyone or else I myself may face federal charges.   Considering that I am a conservative / libertarian blogger, you can imagine how well that sits with me.

The McCain Feingold Act (Campaign Finance Reform), puts restrictions on both when I can speak and how I can speak regarding a candidate, as well as limiting the amount of money I can give to a candidate directly.   This last part may seem good on the surface, but what needs to be remembered is that the entrenched politicians who cater to the needs of their parties can get soft money from those parties as well as the fact that the parties can run ads and smears against the opponents just fine.   but if I were to run as either an ‘off the reservation’ Republican, or as an Independent, I would not get that money from the party organ, and with the limit people can give me how would I ever be able to compete against the parties in power?  I can not.  I can not get my word out enough, because I can not get money in the same amount as the parties of the status quo.  All this passed with a name as friendly as ‘finance reform’ since so many people thought it was a bad thing to see so much money in politics.   Did it work?  Not at all.  There is more money in politics today than yesterday, and tomorrow will have even more.   The powers-that-be know how to manipulate the system — they wrote the law, but you and I can get hammered if we fall out of line.

President Obama’s administration has taken control of the 19 largest banks, has pushed for the removal of a CEO of a large auto maker, and constantly is having his people push an agenda of growing control — all in the name of us, the people, or more disturbingly, the environment.   This is an incredibly large power grab mixing private business, publically traded corporations, and the government into the same pool where to object is to be moved off the scene.   The same Congress who rallies around these ideas is also the one who gives more money to supporters via pork barrel ear marks, yet complains and fakes outrage when AIG, who was forced to take money, pays some of the better executives it has bonuses that are of a smaller whole value as well as percentage than the pork barrel corruption in congress (versus the bailout money vis a vis budget).  AIG bonuses: Less than 1% of all bailout money given to them, Congress: Pork barrel spending between 1% and 2%.   Millions vs. hundreds of billions.

Complicit in this abuse of power is the media who seem more interested in smearing AIG and the Tea Parties than in asking tough questions and bringing concerns about Congress’ spending and politial theater.  There is a media mentality that truly thinks that it can not be the average citizen who is upset with the government, it must just be those people on DHS’ list of potential threats.    This thought is why they treated the Tea Parties the way they did.

We need less decisions being made in Washington and we need less of our money going to support their spending.   Congress’ addiction to spending our money for what benefits them as well as Congress habit of ignoring their Constitutional limitation shows that the danger is not from extremists on the right or even from the left — the danger lies in the hands and pens of the law makers at the federal level.   We need to remind these politicians who is in charge and who is the servant.

Even Canadians Wonder about Janet

The National Post has an op ed asking:

Can someone please tell us how U. S. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano got her job? She appears to be about as knowledgeable about border issues as a late-night radio call-in yahoo.

In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that “suspected or known terrorists” have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack.

All the 9/11 terrorists, of course, entered the United States directly from overseas. The notion that some arrived via Canada is a myth that briefly popped up in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and was then quickly debunked.

Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: “I can’t talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here’s the future. The future is we have borders.”

Just what does that mean, exactly?

Just a few weeks ago, Ms. Napolitano equated Canada’s border to Mexico’s, suggesting they deserved the same treatment. Mexico is engulfed in a drug war that left more than 5,000 dead last year, and which is spawning a spillover kidnapping epidemic in Arizona. So many Mexicans enter the United States illegally that a multi-billion-dollar barrier has been built from Texas to California to keep them out.

In Canada, on the other hand, the main problem is congestion resulting from cross-border trade. Not quite the same thing, is it?

Good pick President Obama, she’s a complete partisan hack who vilifies conservatives, is too stupid to be able to know the difference between the Canadian border and the Mexico Border, and actually said, “I can’t talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here’s the future. The future is we have borders,” as if that statement has any meaning at all.   It’s a pathetic attempt to blow off a real question.  Of course the attempt succeeds but only because she decides not to answer, not because she was clever or spinning the situation successfully.

How much longer will the people of this country permit idiocy on this level to continue?  We need to take control of the situation and stop such foolishness.

Pirate ‘Duped’, Time to Make Sure Others Don’t Make Same Mistake

The New York Daily News reports that the captured pirate now in New York City didn’t find the booty he was looking for in the end.

He shed some tears, which I’m sure is something not permitted in the Pirate Code.

In all seriousness, his mother said the following:

She said her son should not be held responsible for the Maersk hijacking.

“He was brainwashed. People who are older than him outwitted him, people who are older than him duped him,” she said.

“I cried when I saw the picture of him,” Hassan said of the arrest photo. “Relatives brought a copy of the picture to me. Surely he is telling himself now, ‘My mother’s heart is broken.'”

Surely he should be worrying about more than his mother’s heart.   Here is where the rubber meets the road; and while I’m certain he is younger man and I am also certain he was probably convinced that heading out to become a pirate would be a great thing to do for fun and profit, I am also certain that the best way to dissuade others from following suit is to hammer him to the wall and make sure everyone knows.

The longer people think they have an easy way to make millions of dollars in ransom, the longer people will take ships, crews, and goods.  The idea that they are just misunderstood people trying to get ahead in an area of the world where nothing is too good at all is as foolish as saying a homeless person can take money from someone walking by since, hey, he needed it more.  I know there are some liberals who do believe the above statement, and to be sure, I spend enough time focusing on that idiocy, so for now we should focus on pirates.

Convict this felon as an adult, make an example out of him, and have our navy actively engaging pirates and suspected pirates until the seas are clean.   If you want to carry guns and act tough and threat people with violence and death, then be prepared for someone to call you on it and take you at your word: kill or be killed.   The situation has escalated, and the only way the US Navy can lose is if the White House or lawyers hamper them.

GO NAVY!

Congress and Corruption – A Tradition Renewed

The Washington Post reports that the lovely Senator from California, Ms. Feinstein and her husband made some ‘lucky’ deals:

On the day the new Congress convened this year, Sen. Dianne Feinstein introduced legislation to route $25 billion in taxpayer money to a government agency that had just awarded her husband’s real estate firm a lucrative contract to sell foreclosed properties at compensation rates higher than the industry norms.

Mrs. Feinstein’s intervention on behalf of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. was unusual: the California Democrat isn’t a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs with jurisdiction over FDIC; and the agency is supposed to operate from money it raises from bank-paid insurance payments – not direct federal dollars.

Documents reviewed by The Washington Times show Mrs. Feinstein first offered Oct. 30 to help the FDIC secure money for its effort to stem the rise of home foreclosures. Her letter was sent just days before the agency determined that CB Richard Ellis Group (CBRE) – the commercial real estate firm that her husband Richard Blum heads as board chairman – had won the competitive bidding for a contract to sell foreclosed properties that FDIC had inherited from failed banks.

About the same time of the contract award, Mr. Blum’s private investment firm reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission that it and related affiliates had purchased more than 10 million new shares in CBRE. The shares were purchased for the going price of $3.77; CBRE’s stock closed Monday at $5.14.

Wow.   Feinstein gives some money to the FDIC, despite not being a member fo the group that determines their funding, magically her husband’s business gets a deal with the FDIC, and then Feinstein’s hubby invests and the stocks magically go up about 40%… in this economy.

In other news, another Democrat (Hope and Change didn’t motivate them I guess), likes to sell out to Israel.

Rep. Jane Harman , the California Democrat with a longtime involvement in intelligence issues, was overheard on an NSA wiretap telling a suspected Israeli agent that she would lobby the Justice Department reduce espionage-related charges against two officials of the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the most powerful pro-Israel organization in Washington.

Harman was recorded saying she would “waddle into” the AIPAC case “if you think it’ll make a difference,” according to two former senior national security officials familiar with the NSA transcript.

The phone call ended with her stating, “This conversation doesn’t exist.”  Seems strange to say that if the conversation was above board.  She is denying that all this took place and is trying to act as if it’s all one big conspiracy against HER.  No doubt that it is, and she is a mark of the Republican Smear Machine.

Anti-American former Marine Murtha (wait, ANOTHER Democrat?) seems to be in hot water too:

Spring in Washington is “earmark season” – a busy time for Congressman John Murtha.

“That’s my business,” Murtha said. “I’ve been in it for 35 years.”

As head of a powerful Defense committee, Murtha controls hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, reports CBS News investigative correspondent Sharyl Attkisson. And he’s not shy about directing money to those who give generously to his election campaigns.

CBS News has learned that this month, Murtha is steering new earmarks toward 10 companies that recently donated to his campaign.

Murtha wants $8 million for Argon ST, a defense contractor whose CEO gave Murtha the maximum allowed by law – $2,400 by an individual. He’s directing a $5 million earmark toward Advanced Acoustic Concepts, which also gave the max – $5,000 for a political action committee – to his campaign. In all, 10 recent Murtha donors are slated to receive $31 million in Murtha earmarks for 2010.

Impressive.  Nice return on another investment by Democrats giving money to or through Congress.  Again, it is to be noted that over 75% of all money from lawyers goes to Democrats, and it is lawyers who write the laws and chase the ambulances LOOKING for ways to swindle.

All of this is happening under the nose of the President of the Hope and Change Club, Barry Obama — and in his own party from his own supporters.   I guess the support is on the surface only because they certainly did not take the idea to heart.  Spread the wealth sure does apply if you’re a member of Congress.

How much longer will we, as Americans, put up with this corruption and elitism?   America voted, and now America is getting exactly what it asked for.

Corporations: Neither an Enemy nor a Friend

Far too often corporations are demonized for making money and are called greedy, selfish, and even oppressive.  They have people at the top who make far more money in a one or a few years than most people will make in their lifetime.   Corporations seem not to care about any individual employee in the workforce because there are just so many that they can either be replaced or ignored without too much of a problem at any given time.   Corporations look for the way to make the most money and will up and leave any current location to go to any other if wages and other costs tend to be less.  To a certain extent, all of the above can be true.  All of these reasons and many other lead some people to say that corporations are an enemy.

Those who support corporations tend to say that corporations provide jobs for many people and thus having a corporation in your community increases the income of the entire town / region because of people having jobs and thus money to spend in their own towns.  Corporations, unlike small shops, can afford the lofty costs of research and development in order to make advances in technology and refine existing methods and processes which cost vast sums of money and promise no guarantee of a return on such an  initial investment.  Corporations also buy failing small companies who have good ideas / employees but for some reason are failing (mismanagement, no marketable product, etc.) thus keeping ideas and workers employed.  Those who make these and other similar claims are also correct.

Corporations are really no different than an individual in that we all look for a good deal, do not want to spend a lot, decide on a mixture of quality vs. costliness and want to do more with less.  Many people frequent corporations and corporate enterprises like WalMart, Target, and so on because of the prices and possibly the selection.  When people continue to frequent such places there is only one thing that can happen:  the corporation makes a profit and thus grows.   Then people, many times the same people who shop there, manufacture outrage at the idea of such a mega-corporation like WalMart who ‘puts smaller stores out of business’.    So, as many people shop at the corporation we are reminded that they provide a service to people and the people respond to the offer of service by frequenting the stores; then we are reminded of the evils of the corporation as some smaller businesses fail because they can not compete.

Now let’s take a look at this situation as if you owned a small business, or if you work of any business at all.  You have a product or service you wish to sell.  You have a price which is competitive.  You have either a marketing team or hire a marketing firm too help advertise to get your name and product / service know to the town / region.   The competition revises their strategies as appropriate.   You do well and take market-share away from some of the competition, resulting in one of your competitors to close their door.   You and the rest of the remaining competition pick up that market share they still had as well as you hire some of the more adept staff from the old business in order to assist you in making money.   This goes on for a few cycles and another competitor fall to the way side.   You open up a larger web-presence and have people ordering from online.   This online ordering can affect sales from around the country and indeed possibly the world.  Competition is pinched again.   You expand to a second location, forcing the competitors to take even more notice.   You hire more people, sell more product, and things are good.

Question 1:  When is it your duty, responsibility, or concern to help out the competition to keep them in business?

Question 2: Would your own employees like it if you couldn’t pay them, give them raises, etc. because you didn’t want to make more money?

Question 3: If you’re a publicly owned company, would your shareholders (read: partial OWNERS) appreciate you giving quarter to competition who would take your market share if possible?

Question 4:  Would the town / region appreciate losing the jobs and tax revenue because you didn’t take the idea of making a profit seriously?  There’s never a promise when a business leaves that another will take its place.

Some will argue that my scenario is for a more local or regional business and not a multinational corporation.   They are wrong.   The same situations apply, but they are on a larger scale.   The worst thing we are seeing now is that we have loads of politicians, from both parties in the US, falling over themselves to give the money of the citizenry into the hands of either the inept or the corrupt in business.   Two things should be remembered about why having a business go broke is not a bad thing:  Either the business is not competitive and this the product should either be made elsewhere or not at all, or when the failing / corrupt are removed an entrepreneurial force may reform the business / product and bring new life and ideas to the table.   Either way, the death of a business is a natural thing.   Is anyone upset that the government didn’t bail out the horse-drawn buggy business because of the competition from the automotive industry?   Should we have fed money to home-delivered milk services when they declined?   Did people lose their jobs, career, and means of living?  Did we, as a whole, do just fine in the end?

I’m opposed to government intervention on behalf of businesses because of that:   The market (read: WE the people) speaks and if those listening are too slow / stupid / corrupt to act upon our words and actions, then we will go elsewhere until those businesses catch on, or fail and others come in and are more receptive.   No business has my ‘loyalty’ because no business would ever be ‘loyal’ to me.  They are not friends, though the people who work in one may be.  They are not my enemies; I understand their purpose and function and know how to deal with them.

Government intervention to preserve failing businesses is an act of idiocy – this fact remains the same regardless of which party is for it.  One of the biggest reasons that business is LESS dangerous than the government is that when a business is so obviously inept or corrupt the business will go under and die.  When the government suffers from such ailments taxes are raised, services cut and excuses made.  Both entities, government and businesses, want to preserve their being, but only one will fold under normal conditions, and so that is the one I will favor because of this mortality.

Remember these things when the government wants to get involved with businesses and provide services to us, the people.  The government looks to preserve and for many, expand its existence — for better and worse.

The EPA to Regulate our Lives in the Name of Protecting the Weather

It’s reported that the EPA has declared, “that greenhouse gases linked to climate change “endanger public health and welfare,”“.   Because of this bold statement the EPA is set to regulate CO2 emissions (yes, the stuff we and all animals exhale).
The EPA’s report is foolish as quoted, “[t]he agency said in its finding that “in both magnitude and probability, climate change is an enormous problem”” .   Probability?   Does that sentence even make sense?  It is something to note that climate change is still only a probable happening — even to those who swear by it, it is not definate, just probable.   Of course, how does one measure the magnitude of something which is only probable?   The wording is as shaky as the premise itself since Denver is expecting snowfall of up to two feet this weekend, and even Las Vegas is getting snow.  A funny thing to quote from there as well is that, “[t]he National Weather Service said Wednesday’s high was 59 degrees, which fell short of the record low high of 56 degrees set in 1998.”

Wow, two of the coldest days EVER this late in April happening only 11 years apart…  both during this period of ‘global warming’??!?!?!   How is this possible?   We know how:  Global Warming needed to be changed to ‘Climate Change’ so that any notable weather could be made to fit the agenda because global warming as a whole isn’t so dangerous and isn’t man-made.

Now that we have President Obama’s Administration to limit our activities and control more industries that he already is with the bail out money, he’ll get right on with more control with scare tactics related to freezing or dying of heat exhaustion.

Keep on voting for these types and keep watching the control increase.

Susan Roesgen, CNN and Bias

Here’s the video

Susan’s comments are telling for certain.

After interrupting someone while asking for their response, Susan then went off talking about how the man is eligible for $400. Not too long afterward the she talks about how Illinois is going to get $50 billion in stimulus.   What is wrong with these two statements?

Susan assumes that people should be happy to get money from other people.   She is confused as to why anyone would turn down money.   She can’t seem to figure out why people would not want handouts.   She is a liberal, she is the problem with America’s mentality.

I’d love dearest Susan to tell us all where, in the Constitution, it says the federal government can take money from person A and hand it to person B.  Liberals do not get the Constitution I guess.

Susan goes out of her way to show her bias in the most pathetic of ways as she acts offended by a portrayal of President Obama as Hitler.  She even mentions that it is offense since he is the president.   Yet as posted on NewsBusters, a big-headed mask of President Bush with a Hitler mustache and devil horns is, to her, a ‘look-alike’ to the actual president.  Not so offensive then?   Any who is hypocritical?

She is a mockery to the idea of being a reporter with her huge bias getting in the way of anything resembling neutrality.   Also, as a side note, she was doing a story about people asking for government handouts and the lack of enough government handouts from Bush.   See a pattern?   Taking money from person A to give to person B is a delightful idea to them, Constitution be damned.

Texas!

The Governor of Texas has spoken!

There’s a lot of different scenarios,” Perry said. “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that. But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.”

Texas is a delightful place where people are not afraid to speak their minds, nor are they afraid to dissolve ties when those ties are more like shackles than willful and mutually beneficial connections.  People, all people, need to remember that the United States implies the State are united for a common cause.   As we move forward in time it becomes harder and harder to see what that common cause is.   The Constitution, this document, is an agreement amongst the states and it has less and less place in America, and with that, the union becomes less and less viable.