I was having lunch recently with a collegue of mine and the topic of the health care bill came up. Now this friend of is in his middle 50's and is in favor of the health care bill . His logic was that since health care would be paid for by people making over 1 million or more and since he didn't make that much then it was OK since some one else would have to pay for it.
There's at least a few problems with this line of reasoning:
First it perpetuates the states war on private property since the health care will be paid for by monies taken from private citizens in the form of taxes.
Second this continues to give more credence to the ever expanding notion that mob rule is an acceptable form of governance. Under the logic that since there are more of us who want something than those who have it, we have the right to just take it. Given that there are fewer people that make over over a million a year than there are who need health insurance it's only fair that those rich people should pay for it. When the government voluntarily offers itself as a proxy to impose coercion and tyranny this can only lead to greater and greater despotism.
While I'm sure that there are other more minute details and practical issues concerning the implementation of the recent government health care bill. The most important concern is that it continues to propagate the belief that whatever the mob wants the mob gets. History has shown us that once mob rule gains acceptance there is usually an ugly ending coming soon.
Monday, November 23, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
The Problem with Democracy
In America many of us have been ingrained with a communal belief that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Even those of us who have not seen Star Trek II will be familiar with this fundamental statement. In point of fact this maxim was actually postulated by a school of English philosophy know as Utilitarianism. Chiefly among these philosophers is John Stuart Mill, and Jeremy Bentham. While the quote is generally associated with Mills, it may more likely have been Bentham. Regardless, this fundamental belief is a cornerstone to the principals of democracy. Here's why:
Since the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few then it would only follow that the rule of the majority would best be qualified to decide which courses of actions would be best for the group as a whole since they are the many and their desire would be best served through the fulfillment of their needs.
So far everything sounds pretty good right? Wrong. Here's the problem, just because a majority of people want something that doesn't give them the right to impose those wants and desires on those people in the minority. Mills referred to this as the Tyranny of the Majority.
As an example we can take a long and embarrassing look at our own history of slavery here in the United States. Can you imagine that for almost 300 years white people imported black people from the continent of Africa to be used as slaves. How was this even possible? Simple, it was the rule of the white majority. That didn't make it right, but that doesn't matter if you're in the majority. Further even after the slaves were set free African Americans were still denied equal liberties for almost another hundred years, again because of the rule of the majority.
However, even as horrendous as that was it pales in comparison to what the Free and democratic society of Germany did to the Jews simple because of religious beliefs in the years of the second world war. There is no way that would have happened if the Jews had been in the majority. And again we see that just because a society is democratic doesn't mean that there is Justice and Freedom. It just means that majority is in charge.
After reading some of the works of Jefferson and Franklin it becomes quite obvious that they recognized all too clearly that a pure democracy was nothing more mob rule. They realized this in the late 1700's even though this was not stated overtly for almost another 100 year by Alexis de Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America. Which just goes to show how smart Jefferson and Franklin were. And as a consequence they went to great lengths to make sure that the constitution of the United States was designed around the basic premise of the preservation of liberty and not just the will of the angry mob.
The point that I'm trying to get across in this little blog is that just because you have democratic society that does not necessarily mean that you have a free society where the rights and liberties of everyone are protected. It just means that you have little more than a mob rule. Which is why all of us living in America should just be thankful that Jefferson realized that when he penned the Constitution so that these United States should be a constitutional republic and not just a pure democracy.
"A democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what's for dinner." "liberty is well armed sheep contesting the menu" -Benjamin Franklin
Since the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few then it would only follow that the rule of the majority would best be qualified to decide which courses of actions would be best for the group as a whole since they are the many and their desire would be best served through the fulfillment of their needs.
So far everything sounds pretty good right? Wrong. Here's the problem, just because a majority of people want something that doesn't give them the right to impose those wants and desires on those people in the minority. Mills referred to this as the Tyranny of the Majority.
As an example we can take a long and embarrassing look at our own history of slavery here in the United States. Can you imagine that for almost 300 years white people imported black people from the continent of Africa to be used as slaves. How was this even possible? Simple, it was the rule of the white majority. That didn't make it right, but that doesn't matter if you're in the majority. Further even after the slaves were set free African Americans were still denied equal liberties for almost another hundred years, again because of the rule of the majority.
However, even as horrendous as that was it pales in comparison to what the Free and democratic society of Germany did to the Jews simple because of religious beliefs in the years of the second world war. There is no way that would have happened if the Jews had been in the majority. And again we see that just because a society is democratic doesn't mean that there is Justice and Freedom. It just means that majority is in charge.
After reading some of the works of Jefferson and Franklin it becomes quite obvious that they recognized all too clearly that a pure democracy was nothing more mob rule. They realized this in the late 1700's even though this was not stated overtly for almost another 100 year by Alexis de Tocqueville in his book Democracy in America. Which just goes to show how smart Jefferson and Franklin were. And as a consequence they went to great lengths to make sure that the constitution of the United States was designed around the basic premise of the preservation of liberty and not just the will of the angry mob.
The point that I'm trying to get across in this little blog is that just because you have democratic society that does not necessarily mean that you have a free society where the rights and liberties of everyone are protected. It just means that you have little more than a mob rule. Which is why all of us living in America should just be thankful that Jefferson realized that when he penned the Constitution so that these United States should be a constitutional republic and not just a pure democracy.
"A democracy is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep trying to decide what's for dinner." "liberty is well armed sheep contesting the menu" -Benjamin Franklin
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Diseconomies of socialism
A few weeks ago I was having lunch with the some of the Tampa Libertarian folks, and the topic came up of the USPS as a prime example of the diseconomies of socialism. Now I've got to tell you that I've had several bad experiences with the USPS and I make it a point to never use them for anything important, so I do have a clear bias against them.
Now that we've got that out of the way here's the facts. To begin with lets get a definition of what exactly the usps is, from wikipedia we find that the USPS is is "an independent agency of the States government (see 39 U.S.C. § 201) responsible for providing postal service in the United States".
Now here's where it gets ugly, as of March 31 the USPS had lost 1.9 billion in the first quarter of 2009. And this was not unique according to Thomas L. Gallagher at the Journal of commerce http://www.joc.com/node/411196 this is the 10 of 11 straight quarters of increasing losses. In fact while the six month period ending March 31 2009 showed a loss of 2.3 billion the sixth month period of the same time for 2008 was only a loss of 35 million. Only 35 million? Only 35 million???
.......And here's the Kafkaesque rub of it all.
I don't even know anybody that even uses the USPS. We all pay our bills on line. If something is really urgent we pick up a phone. For casual communication we send emails or use internet messaging. If we need to send an important package we use UPS or Fedex. So what do we get from the USPS?
......Hmmmmmmmm ........Oh yes now I remember, about four times a week I find all that junk mail that I immediately throw in the garbage.
So let me get this straight. The U.S. government is taking my hard earned money in the form of various taxes to run a remarkably inefficient business who's primary effect is that they jam my mailbox with stuff not only that I don't want, but also that I now need to take the time to remove from my mailbox so they can refill it with more junk that I still won't want to read. And they are doing it all at a cost of about 400 million a month.
Yeah, I feel much better now, and this thing with G.M. is sure to work out just fine.
I think Mr. Friedman sums this up best.
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer.
A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government. "
-Milton Friedman
Now that we've got that out of the way here's the facts. To begin with lets get a definition of what exactly the usps is, from wikipedia we find that the USPS is is "an independent agency of the States government (see 39 U.S.C. § 201) responsible for providing postal service in the United States".
Now here's where it gets ugly, as of March 31 the USPS had lost 1.9 billion in the first quarter of 2009. And this was not unique according to Thomas L. Gallagher at the Journal of commerce http://www.joc.com/node/411196 this is the 10 of 11 straight quarters of increasing losses. In fact while the six month period ending March 31 2009 showed a loss of 2.3 billion the sixth month period of the same time for 2008 was only a loss of 35 million. Only 35 million? Only 35 million???
.......And here's the Kafkaesque rub of it all.
I don't even know anybody that even uses the USPS. We all pay our bills on line. If something is really urgent we pick up a phone. For casual communication we send emails or use internet messaging. If we need to send an important package we use UPS or Fedex. So what do we get from the USPS?
......Hmmmmmmmm ........Oh yes now I remember, about four times a week I find all that junk mail that I immediately throw in the garbage.
So let me get this straight. The U.S. government is taking my hard earned money in the form of various taxes to run a remarkably inefficient business who's primary effect is that they jam my mailbox with stuff not only that I don't want, but also that I now need to take the time to remove from my mailbox so they can refill it with more junk that I still won't want to read. And they are doing it all at a cost of about 400 million a month.
Yeah, I feel much better now, and this thing with G.M. is sure to work out just fine.
I think Mr. Friedman sums this up best.
"Many people want the government to protect the consumer.
A much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government. "
-Milton Friedman
Presidential election spending in 2008
I was speaking with a friend recently regarding how much typically gets spent on presidential elections and decided to do a little research. Here's what I found
Courtesy of opensecrets.org:
Barrack Obama .....raised 745,000,000 and spent 730,000,000
John McCain .....raised 368,000,000 and spent 333,000,000
Ralph Nader .....raised 4,000,000 and spent 4,000,000
Bob Barr .....raised 1,000,000 and spent 1,000,000
Chuck Baldwin .....raised 258,000 and spent 208,000
Cynthia McKinney .....raised 199,000 and spent 145,000
While I was digging into this info out I started to wonder what the final vote tallies were. Here's what I found regarding that, Courtesy of cnn.com
Barrack Obama .....got 69,492,376 votes
John McCain .....got 59,946,378 votes
Ralph Nader .....got 729,733 votes
Bob Barr .....got 523,439 votes
Chuck Baldwin .....got 184,502 votes
Cynthia McKinney .....got 160,015 votes
So this left me with some questions, specifically I was wondering which of the candidates got the most votes relative to dollars spent, ie: who got the most votes per dollars spent. Here's what we get for that one.
Barrack Obama .....spent $10.50 for each vote
John McCain .....spent $ 6.13 for each vote
Ralph Nader .....spent $ 5.46 for each vote
Bob Barr .....spent $ 1.91 for each vote
Chuck Baldwin .....spent $ 1.39 for each vote
Cynthia McKinney .....spent $ .62 for each vote
You can all make your own decision regarding this info, I just thought it was some interesting info.
"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for" -Will Rogers
Courtesy of opensecrets.org:
Barrack Obama .....raised 745,000,000 and spent 730,000,000
John McCain .....raised 368,000,000 and spent 333,000,000
Ralph Nader .....raised 4,000,000 and spent 4,000,000
Bob Barr .....raised 1,000,000 and spent 1,000,000
Chuck Baldwin .....raised 258,000 and spent 208,000
Cynthia McKinney .....raised 199,000 and spent 145,000
While I was digging into this info out I started to wonder what the final vote tallies were. Here's what I found regarding that, Courtesy of cnn.com
Barrack Obama .....got 69,492,376 votes
John McCain .....got 59,946,378 votes
Ralph Nader .....got 729,733 votes
Bob Barr .....got 523,439 votes
Chuck Baldwin .....got 184,502 votes
Cynthia McKinney .....got 160,015 votes
So this left me with some questions, specifically I was wondering which of the candidates got the most votes relative to dollars spent, ie: who got the most votes per dollars spent. Here's what we get for that one.
Barrack Obama .....spent $10.50 for each vote
John McCain .....spent $ 6.13 for each vote
Ralph Nader .....spent $ 5.46 for each vote
Bob Barr .....spent $ 1.91 for each vote
Chuck Baldwin .....spent $ 1.39 for each vote
Cynthia McKinney .....spent $ .62 for each vote
You can all make your own decision regarding this info, I just thought it was some interesting info.
"Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for" -Will Rogers
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
A little rebellion now and then.......
I had the opportunity last weekend to have a most enjoyable lunch with the Tampa Area Libertarians. Before I go any further it's important to point that this group is in no way associated with the Libertarian party of Hillsborough county where they meet. Rather this group is a loose collection of genuinely open minded free thinkers with a strong bent regarding issues of personal liberties, small government, and laissez faire economics.
Several interesting topics were discussed during this lunch, but one in particular stuck with me and I just couldn't get it out of my head. This group is organized by a gentlemen whom I'll refer to as B.G. in a pale attempt to preserve his anonymity in case the boys from Langley come looking for him. At some point B.G. made the statement that "the constitution is really crap". Now this was quite an attention getter coming from someone who is clearly committed to libertarian values. His point was a socio-political statement that he then clarified by stating that if the founding fathers had the right to create their own constitution for themselves why did they presume that they then had the right to impose their constitution on their progeny? From a purely philosophical approach this is an entirely valid question.
I thought about this for a few days and I came up with at least one possible answer.
As I've grown older I've acquired a small collection of very nice guitars, and more and more I wonder what will happen to those guitars after I've passed away. My plan of course is to give those guitars to people whom I believe will take good care of these instruments and treat them as I have. However, I have to wonder how many generations removed will those guitars go and still be cared for as I have cared for them. Then I came to the realization that the reason I scrimped and saved and worked to buy those guitars were purely for my own selfish reasons. I wanted them for myself so that I could play them and enjoy them. The best that I can hope for is that whomever I give them to after I'm gone will cherish them as I have and they might last a few generations down.
Given my recent revelations I have to believe that our founding fathers acted with similar motivations and I suspect that altruism regarding their progeny 20 generations removed was probably a somewhat distant concern. The reason the founding fathers risked THEIR lives, THEIR families, and THEIR fortunes in a war with the greatest world power of the time, Great Britain was to secure THEIR freedom. The reason Jefferson wrote the constitution was to lay out a plan for THEIR OWN self governance. Certainly they were also concerned with their children and maybe even their grand children. But as with my guitars these guys must have recognized that there is a limit to how far down the road any person or persons can reasonably expect those things that they cherish to be cared for and taken care of.
Ultimately the founding fathers, acting like a collection of characters from an Ayn Rand book fought overwhelming and seemingly unsurmountable odds and risked everything to gain their freedom from an oppressive tyrannical government. The fact that we in modern America are the distant beneficiaries of their actions is just our dumb good luck. If we aren't happy with the hands we've been dealt then it would be a disservice to them to act with any less zeal than they did regarding their freedoms.
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Thomas Jefferson Jan 30 1787.
Several interesting topics were discussed during this lunch, but one in particular stuck with me and I just couldn't get it out of my head. This group is organized by a gentlemen whom I'll refer to as B.G. in a pale attempt to preserve his anonymity in case the boys from Langley come looking for him. At some point B.G. made the statement that "the constitution is really crap". Now this was quite an attention getter coming from someone who is clearly committed to libertarian values. His point was a socio-political statement that he then clarified by stating that if the founding fathers had the right to create their own constitution for themselves why did they presume that they then had the right to impose their constitution on their progeny? From a purely philosophical approach this is an entirely valid question.
I thought about this for a few days and I came up with at least one possible answer.
As I've grown older I've acquired a small collection of very nice guitars, and more and more I wonder what will happen to those guitars after I've passed away. My plan of course is to give those guitars to people whom I believe will take good care of these instruments and treat them as I have. However, I have to wonder how many generations removed will those guitars go and still be cared for as I have cared for them. Then I came to the realization that the reason I scrimped and saved and worked to buy those guitars were purely for my own selfish reasons. I wanted them for myself so that I could play them and enjoy them. The best that I can hope for is that whomever I give them to after I'm gone will cherish them as I have and they might last a few generations down.
Given my recent revelations I have to believe that our founding fathers acted with similar motivations and I suspect that altruism regarding their progeny 20 generations removed was probably a somewhat distant concern. The reason the founding fathers risked THEIR lives, THEIR families, and THEIR fortunes in a war with the greatest world power of the time, Great Britain was to secure THEIR freedom. The reason Jefferson wrote the constitution was to lay out a plan for THEIR OWN self governance. Certainly they were also concerned with their children and maybe even their grand children. But as with my guitars these guys must have recognized that there is a limit to how far down the road any person or persons can reasonably expect those things that they cherish to be cared for and taken care of.
Ultimately the founding fathers, acting like a collection of characters from an Ayn Rand book fought overwhelming and seemingly unsurmountable odds and risked everything to gain their freedom from an oppressive tyrannical government. The fact that we in modern America are the distant beneficiaries of their actions is just our dumb good luck. If we aren't happy with the hands we've been dealt then it would be a disservice to them to act with any less zeal than they did regarding their freedoms.
"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical." Thomas Jefferson Jan 30 1787.
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Liberal Fascism in America today
As someone who's an admitted politics junkie I am constantly trying to keep up with everything that's going on in the media today. In fact one of the things that has drawn me into this fight is what I've come to see a tendency toward outright fascism in the liberal media. While critics of my opinion would ask the question "Isn't that contradictory, given the strength of the conservative media, and the nature of liberal concerns ?". Let me assure you that it is not. Other critics might argue " The conservatives are just as bad!!!". Again I would say that is demonstrably false.
First, let me start by stating that the only truly honest and impartial news media in the United states is CNN. Cambell Brown, Lou Dobbs, John King, and Fareed Zakharia are the only genuinely unbiased folks out there. I hope this fact would be obvious to everyone. Then on the right we have Fox, and on the far far left we have MSNBC. I would hope this would be equally obvious to everyone.
Now we all realize that journalist are supposed to be honest and report the truth. Yet clearly that's not what's happening at all. What we are seeing here is not unlike what another group of socialist did in Germany in the late 1930's and 1940's. Through the clever use of propaganda, lies, and scapegoating the liberals on the left are trying to create the view that certain groups are evil and that the views which the hold should not be permitted. Further, just like the those German socialists of the 1930's and 1940's these current liberals are using the same techniques of slandering demonization.
So basically under the current administration you are free to exercise your right to free speech and express your views, provided of course that those views are the same as the administration now in control. If however, you should question the policies that could destroy us all, then you must be an evil vile miscreant, or a greedy elitist. All of which is very ironic, because the whole ideas surrounding the liberal left is that they are supposed to these educated, open minded, egalitarian types who are predisposed towards open minded debate. Yet what we see could not be further from the truth.
During the 2008 presidential campaign we witnessed a propaganda machine the likes of which I could not imagine. And as proof of the gullibility of the American people we fell for it. Well some of us did. Then candidate Obama was painted as some sort of savior like character who would solve all of the worlds problems, while anyone who asked even a question regarding his positions was instantly destroyed using whatever collection of lies they could come up with.
The classic example was Joe the plumber who asked a simple question. That being; "Isn't the redistribution of wealth just socialism ?". As soon as he asked that question rumors were spread that he was being investigated for non payment of child support and alimony. And as soon as that happened people did no further digging into the rumors, they just accepted the fact that if you questioned Obama and his policies then there must be something wrong with you and here was the proof. There was of course no basis in fact for these lies since Joe the plumber was a happily married man who had never been divorced. But it just goes to show the level that the liberal fascist on the left are willing to go.
So if there is anybody out there who actually reads this blog what I ask of you is this. Try not to be so damn gullible. When you hear something that sounds like it might be a little far fetched look into it. Don't just take the half truths and twisted lies that you are being fed from the internet, the radio, and the cable news. The truth is that there are factions on both sides of the political fence who are perfectly willing to tell you whatever they think you will want to hear, just so they can get in power and stay in power. And once they are in power the damage is very difficult to roll back.
This weeks quote is another from Adolf Hitler:
"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. "
First, let me start by stating that the only truly honest and impartial news media in the United states is CNN. Cambell Brown, Lou Dobbs, John King, and Fareed Zakharia are the only genuinely unbiased folks out there. I hope this fact would be obvious to everyone. Then on the right we have Fox, and on the far far left we have MSNBC. I would hope this would be equally obvious to everyone.
Now we all realize that journalist are supposed to be honest and report the truth. Yet clearly that's not what's happening at all. What we are seeing here is not unlike what another group of socialist did in Germany in the late 1930's and 1940's. Through the clever use of propaganda, lies, and scapegoating the liberals on the left are trying to create the view that certain groups are evil and that the views which the hold should not be permitted. Further, just like the those German socialists of the 1930's and 1940's these current liberals are using the same techniques of slandering demonization.
So basically under the current administration you are free to exercise your right to free speech and express your views, provided of course that those views are the same as the administration now in control. If however, you should question the policies that could destroy us all, then you must be an evil vile miscreant, or a greedy elitist. All of which is very ironic, because the whole ideas surrounding the liberal left is that they are supposed to these educated, open minded, egalitarian types who are predisposed towards open minded debate. Yet what we see could not be further from the truth.
During the 2008 presidential campaign we witnessed a propaganda machine the likes of which I could not imagine. And as proof of the gullibility of the American people we fell for it. Well some of us did. Then candidate Obama was painted as some sort of savior like character who would solve all of the worlds problems, while anyone who asked even a question regarding his positions was instantly destroyed using whatever collection of lies they could come up with.
The classic example was Joe the plumber who asked a simple question. That being; "Isn't the redistribution of wealth just socialism ?". As soon as he asked that question rumors were spread that he was being investigated for non payment of child support and alimony. And as soon as that happened people did no further digging into the rumors, they just accepted the fact that if you questioned Obama and his policies then there must be something wrong with you and here was the proof. There was of course no basis in fact for these lies since Joe the plumber was a happily married man who had never been divorced. But it just goes to show the level that the liberal fascist on the left are willing to go.
So if there is anybody out there who actually reads this blog what I ask of you is this. Try not to be so damn gullible. When you hear something that sounds like it might be a little far fetched look into it. Don't just take the half truths and twisted lies that you are being fed from the internet, the radio, and the cable news. The truth is that there are factions on both sides of the political fence who are perfectly willing to tell you whatever they think you will want to hear, just so they can get in power and stay in power. And once they are in power the damage is very difficult to roll back.
This weeks quote is another from Adolf Hitler:
"The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. "
Monday, March 9, 2009
Lies from the left #1 and #2
Recently a number of democratic propagandist have been throwing out two truly ridiculous lies. I would call them mistakes, or errors, but given the gravity and the collection of perpetrators they can only be called lies and propaganda.
The first is that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the republican party. Now it is a matter of fact Mr. Limbaugh has not been elected to any positions in the republican party. I know this as a fact because I pay attention to what's going on, and if he had been elected or even if had run I probably would have gotten wind of it. And while I am not a republican I do try and keep abreast of what those guys are doing, just so I know who's truly to blame for the latest mess. The fact is that Mr. Limbaugh is a radio personality who has a great many conservative followers. He is also a republican with a lot sway in the public view. It is also true that his view are probably mirroring the views of a great many other conservative republicans. However, that is the extent of his power in this area.
The second fabrication is that Rush Limbaugh, and guilty by association the rest of the republicans, now are hoping and even waiting for Barrack Obama to fail. To that end I am reprinting here the whole quote that was twisted around, from Sean Hannity's show Hannity on January 21, 2009
"So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?"
Given the full quote who would not want a move towards socialism to fail. Anybody who want otherwise can only be an idiot or a sad pathetic wretch of a human or both. What we have seen is that whenever socialism is put in place it fails, and eventually turns to fascism.
The problem is that there are a lot of far left crazy people who think that socialism is good, and the redistribution of wealth is good. I do however, find it quite interesting that those are frequently the people who have no wealth to redistribute from. They might feel a little different if they were the ones who's work were being redistributed from instead of being the ones on the receiving end of the redistributions.
And here's a great quote from another of the great propagandists of our time,
Joseph Goebbels:
" It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion"
The first is that Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the republican party. Now it is a matter of fact Mr. Limbaugh has not been elected to any positions in the republican party. I know this as a fact because I pay attention to what's going on, and if he had been elected or even if had run I probably would have gotten wind of it. And while I am not a republican I do try and keep abreast of what those guys are doing, just so I know who's truly to blame for the latest mess. The fact is that Mr. Limbaugh is a radio personality who has a great many conservative followers. He is also a republican with a lot sway in the public view. It is also true that his view are probably mirroring the views of a great many other conservative republicans. However, that is the extent of his power in this area.
The second fabrication is that Rush Limbaugh, and guilty by association the rest of the republicans, now are hoping and even waiting for Barrack Obama to fail. To that end I am reprinting here the whole quote that was twisted around, from Sean Hannity's show Hannity on January 21, 2009
"So I shamelessly say, no, I want him to fail, if his agenda is a far- left collectivism, some people say socialism, as a conservative heartfelt, deeply, why would I want socialism to succeed?"
Given the full quote who would not want a move towards socialism to fail. Anybody who want otherwise can only be an idiot or a sad pathetic wretch of a human or both. What we have seen is that whenever socialism is put in place it fails, and eventually turns to fascism.
The problem is that there are a lot of far left crazy people who think that socialism is good, and the redistribution of wealth is good. I do however, find it quite interesting that those are frequently the people who have no wealth to redistribute from. They might feel a little different if they were the ones who's work were being redistributed from instead of being the ones on the receiving end of the redistributions.
And here's a great quote from another of the great propagandists of our time,
Joseph Goebbels:
" It is the absolute right of the state to supervise the formation of public opinion"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
