The left's response to the horrific shootings in Orlando is perverse, but predictable.
Here we have:
--A Muslim man, Omar Mateen
--With ties to ISIS
--Who has in the past made comments on Facebook pledging himself to ISIS
--shooting around 100 people in a gay nightclub
--whose widow apparently knew of his plans but said nothing
--etc. (need I dig any further?)
So what's the left's response to date?
--Of course, there were calls by the President on down for disarming Americans
--Hardly any mention of the fact the shooter was Muslim
--emphasis on the fact he was born in America, so he was "American" (read, white)
--A Catholic bishop blames "religion"(code for Christianity), especially Catholicism for the shootings
--Protesters gathered outside a gay bar here in Sodom where I live with shirts saying "Stop Killing Us"
in order to indict heterosexual America for the crime
So, a follower of Mohammed (CBOH) decides to slaughter people in a public venue and succeeds beyond his wildest dreams. The response by the left is to use the occasion as an opportunity to demonize and pound on gun owners, heterosexuals, white people and Christians. Makes perfect sense.
BTW, re his wife keeping quiet--this is something Muslims do very well when they want to. My wife and I had a friend who was assassinated in a women's clinic in Lebanon by what was probably a hired hit man, probably for the crime of giving her Christian testimony to women who came in. My guess is that the entire community knew who the culprit was, but--Surprise, surprise!--the police were seemingly unable to obtain any clues as to his identity. (The police also probably knew who the hit man was. It's possible it was one of them. After all, they're the professionals.) This, despite an outward outpouring of sympathy from said community for the bereaved husband, who afterward wrote a book about the experience and his need to forgive the killer. Muslim killers disappear into their communities like sugar disappears into coffee.
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Sunday, June 5, 2016
Morality of the Left
I'm thinking now about the protest riots and thuggery at the Trump rallies, and how much the police and media are giving the violent protesters a pass. And I'm asking myself why. Why do they get handled with kid gloves like this?
The thought occurred to me that it might partly be due to the fact that they're so morally self-righteous. Leftist protest is always about moral, righteous (or self-righteous) indignation. The left and its henchmen (the brownshirts in the streets) are calling Trump and his followers the worst kinds of pejoratives, characterizing them as morally lacking and utterly without redeeming social value.
The media, who share this self-righteous point of view, mostly are privately or not-so-privately cheering them on. The police, who are government bureaucrats, are captive to the PC which has entirely infected the government at every level. I know. I work for the post office.
But wait! Isn't this the same Left that basically repudiates the idea of moral absolutes, moral CATEGORIES (like good and evil, right and wrong) even?
Aren't these the people who gave us:
--Situational ethics
--Relative morality
--"If it's right for you, it's right"
--"If it feels good, do it"?
In light of this,
Why aren't they being challenged on their hypocrisy?
But as it is, the left recruits, and wages war against society, by means of MORAL arguments. What utter cynicism.
If a true diehard lefty is challenged on a moral point, and he senses he's losing the argument, he'll look you straight in the eye, spit in your face, and say,
TO HELL WITH YOUR OUTMODED BOURGEOIS MORALITY!!
Why don't we call them on this?
Just wondering.
The thought occurred to me that it might partly be due to the fact that they're so morally self-righteous. Leftist protest is always about moral, righteous (or self-righteous) indignation. The left and its henchmen (the brownshirts in the streets) are calling Trump and his followers the worst kinds of pejoratives, characterizing them as morally lacking and utterly without redeeming social value.
The media, who share this self-righteous point of view, mostly are privately or not-so-privately cheering them on. The police, who are government bureaucrats, are captive to the PC which has entirely infected the government at every level. I know. I work for the post office.
But wait! Isn't this the same Left that basically repudiates the idea of moral absolutes, moral CATEGORIES (like good and evil, right and wrong) even?
Aren't these the people who gave us:
--Situational ethics
--Relative morality
--"If it's right for you, it's right"
--"If it feels good, do it"?
In light of this,
Why aren't they being challenged on their hypocrisy?
But as it is, the left recruits, and wages war against society, by means of MORAL arguments. What utter cynicism.
If a true diehard lefty is challenged on a moral point, and he senses he's losing the argument, he'll look you straight in the eye, spit in your face, and say,
TO HELL WITH YOUR OUTMODED BOURGEOIS MORALITY!!
Why don't we call them on this?
Just wondering.
Welcome to America
A thought just occurred to me, regarding the influx of muslim "refugees" into Europe.
Here we have:
--A large, unassimilable minority
--Of a very different ethnicity and culture
--Who, in many cases, have entered through extra-legal means, but
--Who feel perfectly entitled to stay as though their host countries were obligated to them
--Whose worldview and standards are very different from the majority's
--Who largely or entirely live off government (that is, taxpayers') largesse
--Who have a tremendous sense of entitlement
--Who have little or no interest in the cultures of their host countries
--Who not only don't have the best interests of their host countries at heart, but,
--Who are even actively involved in tearing down the host countries and their cultures, and
--Who fully intend, with the help of the Left, to remake said countries and cultures in their own image
--And whose levels of all kinds of crime are way out of proportion to their numbers, but
--Who are vigorously defended and apologized for by the PC establishment, and
--Who are now, because of their numbers, getting a great deal of political "clout".
All I've got to say is,
NOW YOU KNOW HOW IT FEELS, EUROPE!
Here we have:
--A large, unassimilable minority
--Of a very different ethnicity and culture
--Who, in many cases, have entered through extra-legal means, but
--Who feel perfectly entitled to stay as though their host countries were obligated to them
--Whose worldview and standards are very different from the majority's
--Who largely or entirely live off government (that is, taxpayers') largesse
--Who have a tremendous sense of entitlement
--Who have little or no interest in the cultures of their host countries
--Who not only don't have the best interests of their host countries at heart, but,
--Who are even actively involved in tearing down the host countries and their cultures, and
--Who fully intend, with the help of the Left, to remake said countries and cultures in their own image
--And whose levels of all kinds of crime are way out of proportion to their numbers, but
--Who are vigorously defended and apologized for by the PC establishment, and
--Who are now, because of their numbers, getting a great deal of political "clout".
All I've got to say is,
NOW YOU KNOW HOW IT FEELS, EUROPE!
Friday, June 3, 2016
Hillary and Scarface--A Reprise of Sorts?
In an earlier post I noted the irony that Al Capone ("Scarface") was finally nailed by the IRS on tax-evasion charges, because the FBI couldn't seem to get enough evidence to indict him otherwise even though he was connected to dozens, perhaps hundreds of murders. Not to mention all the other mayhem and illegality he was involved in.
Now we have the spectacle of Hillary Clinton's (finally) being very close to indictment by that same FBI, at the end of a very long trail of corpses, rape victims, money laundering and securities fraud for...using an unsecured private email server!
Do I detect a pattern here?
Am I correct in suspecting the Gov puts its own interests WAY, WAY above the interests of the mundane citizenry? I mean, blow a few people away, steal a few million (or billion), dishonor a few unsuspecting women, and if you've got enough clout, the investigators and prosecutors will look the other way.
But you'd better NEVER, EVER try to scam, steal from, threaten, or lie to the US GOVERNMENT. Don't even think about it.
Makes me think of the provisions the Gov has in place for "Continuity-of-Government", or COG. Look it up. They're just making sure that in a worst-case scenario, the FedGov will survive, even if all the citizens of this country perish. They're not important, don'tcha know? It's a question of priorities.
Less money than TPTB have spent on COG would protect our electrical infrastructure from an EMP, whether by nuke (think, North Korea and Iran) or solar flare (which we're overdue for, the last big one being in the 1850s). Such an event would result in the deaths of 90% of the US population within a year. But that's not important.
BTW...the Hillary Clinton saga isn't over yet. It wouldn't surprise me if she got off. She's got way more clout than Capone ever did.
Now we have the spectacle of Hillary Clinton's (finally) being very close to indictment by that same FBI, at the end of a very long trail of corpses, rape victims, money laundering and securities fraud for...using an unsecured private email server!
Do I detect a pattern here?
Am I correct in suspecting the Gov puts its own interests WAY, WAY above the interests of the mundane citizenry? I mean, blow a few people away, steal a few million (or billion), dishonor a few unsuspecting women, and if you've got enough clout, the investigators and prosecutors will look the other way.
But you'd better NEVER, EVER try to scam, steal from, threaten, or lie to the US GOVERNMENT. Don't even think about it.
Makes me think of the provisions the Gov has in place for "Continuity-of-Government", or COG. Look it up. They're just making sure that in a worst-case scenario, the FedGov will survive, even if all the citizens of this country perish. They're not important, don'tcha know? It's a question of priorities.
Less money than TPTB have spent on COG would protect our electrical infrastructure from an EMP, whether by nuke (think, North Korea and Iran) or solar flare (which we're overdue for, the last big one being in the 1850s). Such an event would result in the deaths of 90% of the US population within a year. But that's not important.
BTW...the Hillary Clinton saga isn't over yet. It wouldn't surprise me if she got off. She's got way more clout than Capone ever did.
Thursday, June 2, 2016
Obama's blackness
Re my comment in the previous post that O "resembles" a black: Yes, his father was
(supposedly) Kenyan. Although East Africans and West Africans share the
same continent, they are very different peoples. Just ask someone from
either East or West Africa.
Secondly, even if he were half WEST African (which he supposedly is not, Frank Davis rumors notwithstanding), he's culturally not African-American. I know Africans, and I know (non-black) Americans, and I know African-Americans. They are three very distinct groups culturally.
I happen to believe that culture trumps skin color or any other physical characteristic. Yes, there is an average skin-color difference between white Americans and black Americans, but the real difference is culture. I think I stand on pretty firm Biblical ground when I say that. God "created of one blood every nation of men that dwell on the face of the whole earth, and appointed for them the times and boundaries of their habitation", if I remember how it goes. It's in Acts where Paul addresses the Athenians. Also, at the tower of Babel, God confused our speech so that we couldn't communicate effectively to continue building that monstrous idol. And the human race was dispersed from there by language groups. BY LANGUAGE GROUPS, not by physical characteristics. Those characteristics developed later, after people had lived in isolation for centuries.
So, to recap:
Obama: a) is at most only half "black"
b) has ethnic roots in East Africa rather than West like black Americans
c) is culturally not African-American anyway (except, perhaps, for his Marxist politics)
But he does have somewhat dark skin and curly hair, so let's vote for him, right?
I wonder what the reaction would be if the candidate were Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, or Walter Williams? Do I even have to ask? We know what the answer is. These guys don't count as black because they're not in the fold. In order to be full-fledged black in today's climate, you must be far enough left politically to at least be PC. If not, you've forfeited your blackness.
What a joke American political discourse has become.
Secondly, even if he were half WEST African (which he supposedly is not, Frank Davis rumors notwithstanding), he's culturally not African-American. I know Africans, and I know (non-black) Americans, and I know African-Americans. They are three very distinct groups culturally.
I happen to believe that culture trumps skin color or any other physical characteristic. Yes, there is an average skin-color difference between white Americans and black Americans, but the real difference is culture. I think I stand on pretty firm Biblical ground when I say that. God "created of one blood every nation of men that dwell on the face of the whole earth, and appointed for them the times and boundaries of their habitation", if I remember how it goes. It's in Acts where Paul addresses the Athenians. Also, at the tower of Babel, God confused our speech so that we couldn't communicate effectively to continue building that monstrous idol. And the human race was dispersed from there by language groups. BY LANGUAGE GROUPS, not by physical characteristics. Those characteristics developed later, after people had lived in isolation for centuries.
So, to recap:
Obama: a) is at most only half "black"
b) has ethnic roots in East Africa rather than West like black Americans
c) is culturally not African-American anyway (except, perhaps, for his Marxist politics)
But he does have somewhat dark skin and curly hair, so let's vote for him, right?
I wonder what the reaction would be if the candidate were Alan Keyes, Thomas Sowell, Ben Carson, or Walter Williams? Do I even have to ask? We know what the answer is. These guys don't count as black because they're not in the fold. In order to be full-fledged black in today's climate, you must be far enough left politically to at least be PC. If not, you've forfeited your blackness.
What a joke American political discourse has become.
Clans
I read an article yesterday written by a guy named Frum who basically said that Donald Trump was running as clan leader of the whites. It was supposedly a serious editorial. This is how crazy the left has gotten lately.
My first thought was, okay, what percent of the white vote did/will Trump get? Half? More? Less? (he won't get my vote; I'm not voting in this election for the first time in my 67 years).
What percent of the black vote do you suppose Obama got? Without doing any research, I'm guessing over 90%. Perhaps considerably over (I just did some research--99% for O in 2008, 93% in 2012. My guess was correct). I read somewhere that in some precincts O got over 100% of the black vote--even assuming that EVERYONE in that precinct was black, which is possible, but not very likely. That is to say, there were more Obama votes than registered voters. Hmmm.
But Obama's not a clan leader of the blacks. Nah! Blacks wouldn't possibly be voting for O based upon the fact that he resembles a black, would they?
Furthermore, while whites aren't supposed to be clannish (it's KKK, skinhead, and swastika time if they even show the slightest tendency), blacks are EXPECTED to be clannish. In fact, blacks who aren't clannish are vilified. The terms uncle Tom, oreo, traitor, turncoat, etc. come to mind.
If you're black, you're expected to be black first, then secondarily everything else. Black solidarity is of paramount importance. In other words, if you have the misfortune to be born black in the United States, you're basically doomed to not really have a life. You're expected to spend your life focused on your ethnicity, to the detriment of anything else you might want to be or pursue. Pretty depressing, I'd say.
3/6/17: I thought I'd update this post to demonstrate the truth of my last paragraph. It seems that a young black woman found out she was actually about 1/3 white and was profoundly depressed by this discovery. Much of the edifice upon which she had built her life and worldview was shaken. Here are her words:
"It’s as if I’ve obscured the one thing which has guided me since I was nine years old.”
QED.
My first thought was, okay, what percent of the white vote did/will Trump get? Half? More? Less? (he won't get my vote; I'm not voting in this election for the first time in my 67 years).
What percent of the black vote do you suppose Obama got? Without doing any research, I'm guessing over 90%. Perhaps considerably over (I just did some research--99% for O in 2008, 93% in 2012. My guess was correct). I read somewhere that in some precincts O got over 100% of the black vote--even assuming that EVERYONE in that precinct was black, which is possible, but not very likely. That is to say, there were more Obama votes than registered voters. Hmmm.
But Obama's not a clan leader of the blacks. Nah! Blacks wouldn't possibly be voting for O based upon the fact that he resembles a black, would they?
Furthermore, while whites aren't supposed to be clannish (it's KKK, skinhead, and swastika time if they even show the slightest tendency), blacks are EXPECTED to be clannish. In fact, blacks who aren't clannish are vilified. The terms uncle Tom, oreo, traitor, turncoat, etc. come to mind.
If you're black, you're expected to be black first, then secondarily everything else. Black solidarity is of paramount importance. In other words, if you have the misfortune to be born black in the United States, you're basically doomed to not really have a life. You're expected to spend your life focused on your ethnicity, to the detriment of anything else you might want to be or pursue. Pretty depressing, I'd say.
3/6/17: I thought I'd update this post to demonstrate the truth of my last paragraph. It seems that a young black woman found out she was actually about 1/3 white and was profoundly depressed by this discovery. Much of the edifice upon which she had built her life and worldview was shaken. Here are her words:
"It’s as if I’ve obscured the one thing which has guided me since I was nine years old.”
QED.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
I Needed to Save This One
A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots!
If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not
for entering and remaining in the country illegally —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to
take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a
library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that
hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new
leaders in Egypt —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not
one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you
fat —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair
can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a
burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched—
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of
dollars of debt is to spend trillions more —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher
is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is
perfectly acceptable —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion,
while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid
benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for
not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any
requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn’t be found —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your
neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV
and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on
his mortgage —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes
you more “safe” according to the government —
you mightlive in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If the media panders to your openly socialist leader while the IRS targets groups with
dissenting views—
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If your government ‘cracks down’ on legal gun sales to law abiding citizens while
secretly supplying illegal guns to Mexican drug cartels—
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If your local government (Chicago) outlawed gun ownership for ‘the safety of its
citizens’ and now boasts the worst murder rate in the country —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not
for entering and remaining in the country illegally —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to
take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a
library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that
hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new
leaders in Egypt —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not
one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you
fat —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair
can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a
burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched—
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of
dollars of debt is to spend trillions more —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher
is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is
perfectly acceptable —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion,
while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid
benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for
not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any
requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn’t be found —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your
neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV
and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on
his mortgage —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes
you more “safe” according to the government —
you mightlive in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If the media panders to your openly socialist leader while the IRS targets groups with
dissenting views—
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If your government ‘cracks down’ on legal gun sales to law abiding citizens while
secretly supplying illegal guns to Mexican drug cartels—
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
If your local government (Chicago) outlawed gun ownership for ‘the safety of its
citizens’ and now boasts the worst murder rate in the country —
you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.
Sunday, April 3, 2016
More on Scarface
I read a little on Al Capone after my last post, and it's true: despite being connected with dozens, perhaps hundreds of murders, not to mention other crimes, they finally got Capone on tax evasion. Oh the usefulness of the IRS!
But, if it weren't for prohibition, guys like Capone would have never gone into business. It was the prospect of huge profits from dealing in an illegal substance (that nonetheless was used by the majority of the population for thousands of years) that brought the mob into it. Sure, they could've done the numbers racket or other penny-ante stuff, but organized crime would have never reached the scale that it did without prohibition.
So--create the problem through government stupidity, and solve it with government power. Works for me.
Frankly, I'll take Capone.
But, if it weren't for prohibition, guys like Capone would have never gone into business. It was the prospect of huge profits from dealing in an illegal substance (that nonetheless was used by the majority of the population for thousands of years) that brought the mob into it. Sure, they could've done the numbers racket or other penny-ante stuff, but organized crime would have never reached the scale that it did without prohibition.
So--create the problem through government stupidity, and solve it with government power. Works for me.
Frankly, I'll take Capone.
Saturday, April 2, 2016
Flat tax
Gary North, in an essay entitled, "Tax Payment Calculator (Rigged): 4 Presidential Candidates", opines:
"I would go with Cruz's plan: a flat tax. This honors the principle of the rule of law: all people pay the same percentage. I call it the principle of the tithe. To vote to impose a tax on someone else requires that you vote to pay the same. This principle is never honored in politics...This would involve massive spending cuts. I'm for that, too. But Cruz does not mention this in his speeches."
Yes, I'm for a flat tax too. I agree with Gary's principle of voting for yourself what you vote for others. BUT...I disagree that lower taxes "would involve massive spending cuts".
We'll just do what we've been doing, oh, since the '50s at least, and just paper over the difference between collections and spending with money creation. Don't just take my word for it, here's what Alan Greenspan recently said:
Just to make my position perfectly clear: I think that the income tax is a smokescreen. It's a smokescreen to obscure the amount of money creation that's been going on. If there were no income tax, and government carried on business as usual, people might get wise: "Where's the money coming from?"
To further clarify my position: IMO, tax collection is the least important of the IRS's functions. Its primary purpose is to ride herd on the citizenry, and keep them in line. Case in point: the administration's siccing the IRS on conservative groups they didn't like. If you REALLY want to nail someone, forget the FBI--send the IRS after them. (Didn't they finally get Capone on tax evasion charges? That speaks volumes.)
The income tax is just a not-so-subtle yearly reminder of who's boss.
"I would go with Cruz's plan: a flat tax. This honors the principle of the rule of law: all people pay the same percentage. I call it the principle of the tithe. To vote to impose a tax on someone else requires that you vote to pay the same. This principle is never honored in politics...This would involve massive spending cuts. I'm for that, too. But Cruz does not mention this in his speeches."
Yes, I'm for a flat tax too. I agree with Gary's principle of voting for yourself what you vote for others. BUT...I disagree that lower taxes "would involve massive spending cuts".
We'll just do what we've been doing, oh, since the '50s at least, and just paper over the difference between collections and spending with money creation. Don't just take my word for it, here's what Alan Greenspan recently said:
Interviewer: Are you optimistic going forward here?
Alan Greenspan: No, I haven't been for quite a while and I won't be until we can resolve the entitlement programs. Nobody wants to touch it, but it's gradually crowding out capital investment, and that's crowding out productivity, and that's crowding out the standards of living… and you get an extraordinary demand for entitlements and all sorts of programs which are not funded. Why? Because why do they need to be funded? We just print the money.
And frankly, if that flat ten percent leaves NO loopholes at all, except for the $10k deduction for everyone, I think that perhaps revenue collection will be "enhanced", to use a governmental term. And, more importantly, 95% of the IRS will be left without justification for its existence. Just the prospect of putting 95% of that organization's bureaucratic parasites out on the street is enough for me to vote for the flat tax (but not for Cruz).Just to make my position perfectly clear: I think that the income tax is a smokescreen. It's a smokescreen to obscure the amount of money creation that's been going on. If there were no income tax, and government carried on business as usual, people might get wise: "Where's the money coming from?"
To further clarify my position: IMO, tax collection is the least important of the IRS's functions. Its primary purpose is to ride herd on the citizenry, and keep them in line. Case in point: the administration's siccing the IRS on conservative groups they didn't like. If you REALLY want to nail someone, forget the FBI--send the IRS after them. (Didn't they finally get Capone on tax evasion charges? That speaks volumes.)
The income tax is just a not-so-subtle yearly reminder of who's boss.
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Scorn of the Left
I've noticed that when someone on the left debates someone on the right, the arguments of the lefty most often consist of sarcasm, sneers, belittlement, name-calling, and scorn rather than substance. I've often wondered why--outside of the fact that they've given themselves over to an anti-God worldview and philosophy and therefore it's not surprising that they should display such odious behavior.
But just now I read an essay by Thomas Sowell which explains it. I reproduce the key passage:
"What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.
Thank you, Dr. Sowell! This makes sense. It explains the intellectual snobbery of those on the left, their obvious attitude that anyone who disagrees with them just can't be too bright, that their opponents are lesser beings--perhaps even subhuman!--and needn't be treated with the respect one would extend to a fellow human being.
"And the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3:4,5)
But just now I read an essay by Thomas Sowell which explains it. I reproduce the key passage:
"What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.
The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision
of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United
States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins,
"We the People..."
That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the
Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges'
new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that
will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer
those decisions to our betters.
The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true
believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts
are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles
up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous
consequences." (emphasis mine)
Thank you, Dr. Sowell! This makes sense. It explains the intellectual snobbery of those on the left, their obvious attitude that anyone who disagrees with them just can't be too bright, that their opponents are lesser beings--perhaps even subhuman!--and needn't be treated with the respect one would extend to a fellow human being.
"And the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (Gen. 3:4,5)
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Re: The Jehovah vs. Yahweh "Controversy"
The following is a response to one person who took exception to another's use of "Jehovah" in reference to the great I AM, insisting that Yahweh is the correct way to render it:
That's okay...we're English speakers. We allow speakers of other languages considerable latitude in their pronunciation and spelling of names, places, etc. Why shouldn't that same forbearance be extended to us?
I'm reminded of the name "James". In other languages it's rendered Jakob, Jacobus, Iago, etc. How we came up with James I don't know! But would you deny parents the right to name their child James because it doesn't conform to the original language?
In German and some Slavic languages that J is pronounced like we English speakers pronounce the letter Y. (Go ahead, take a crack at Ljubljana!) Hence the perfectly logical Iago in Spanish. I don't know for certain, but suspect that the Hebrew letter we use the V or W for (depending on how you pronounce it) has an actual pronunciation midway between the two. I've heard that pronunciation in Urdu, for instance.
What about the name Jesus? It's actually Yeshua, or Joshua in our rendering. Again the Y sound has been replaced by our J sound. Is that blasphemous? I think Yeshua would be very tolerant!
So what I'm trying to say is, be forbearing and allow people their linguistic/cultural differences. Even our own.
That's okay...we're English speakers. We allow speakers of other languages considerable latitude in their pronunciation and spelling of names, places, etc. Why shouldn't that same forbearance be extended to us?
I'm reminded of the name "James". In other languages it's rendered Jakob, Jacobus, Iago, etc. How we came up with James I don't know! But would you deny parents the right to name their child James because it doesn't conform to the original language?
In German and some Slavic languages that J is pronounced like we English speakers pronounce the letter Y. (Go ahead, take a crack at Ljubljana!) Hence the perfectly logical Iago in Spanish. I don't know for certain, but suspect that the Hebrew letter we use the V or W for (depending on how you pronounce it) has an actual pronunciation midway between the two. I've heard that pronunciation in Urdu, for instance.
What about the name Jesus? It's actually Yeshua, or Joshua in our rendering. Again the Y sound has been replaced by our J sound. Is that blasphemous? I think Yeshua would be very tolerant!
So what I'm trying to say is, be forbearing and allow people their linguistic/cultural differences. Even our own.
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Re: BLM takeover of ranchers' lands
"What do you think about the federal Bureau of Land Management staking claim to land that has been owned by Texas ranchers for over 70 years? Should the BLM take into consideration that the land owners have deeds handed out by the State of Texas and that they have been paying property taxes on the land over the years?"
This comment at the end of the article really burned me. "Should the BLM take into consideration..."! In other words, the BLM is the arbiter of this affair! There wouldn't possibly be a conflict of interest, would there?
I'd like the sentence to read, "Should the BLM take into consideration...that with the wide dissemination of happenings like this on the internet, their chances of burying this whole affair may be greatly limited compared with past years, and could set off a firestorm of outrage not only against the BLM but against federal agencies in general, and against the whole idea of immunity from prosecution for federal officials that only dates back to a 1970s decision which, if reversed, could result in a number of bureaucrats having their butts thrown into the slammer for long periods of time, not to mention the public infamy brought upon them and their families?" That's what it SHOULD read.
Whew, that felt good.
This comment at the end of the article really burned me. "Should the BLM take into consideration..."! In other words, the BLM is the arbiter of this affair! There wouldn't possibly be a conflict of interest, would there?
I'd like the sentence to read, "Should the BLM take into consideration...that with the wide dissemination of happenings like this on the internet, their chances of burying this whole affair may be greatly limited compared with past years, and could set off a firestorm of outrage not only against the BLM but against federal agencies in general, and against the whole idea of immunity from prosecution for federal officials that only dates back to a 1970s decision which, if reversed, could result in a number of bureaucrats having their butts thrown into the slammer for long periods of time, not to mention the public infamy brought upon them and their families?" That's what it SHOULD read.
Whew, that felt good.
Wednesday, February 3, 2016
The Left and Morality--Response to John Little of Omega Shock
Re those voting for Hillary: "We are so dumbed-down, that we will vote for her, without realizing how important all this is."
John,
I believe that it's worse than that. It's that many if not most of the
people voting for Hillary won't even care about the moral issue because
their primary desire is for political power. The Democrat party "has
become a habitation of demons, a prison for every foul spirit, and a
cage for every unclean and hated bird!" (Rev. 18:2) If you survey the university scene, you'll find that objective morality basically ceased to exist there decades ago. And it's at the universities--with the intellectuals and the future leaders--that the direction of society is determined. The contempt on the campuses for traditional values and morality is stunning. These are the strongholds of the left, and this is the intellectual and philosophical base of Hillary's supporters.
If you
really pin a lefty down on a moral issue, and he finds no way to
escape, he'll just look you in the eye, spit in your face, and say "To
h--l with your outmoded, bourgeois morality!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)