Although not the least bit religious, K.R. finds the following message and the question raised at its conclusion compelling:
SHALL WE HIRE A MONUMENT ENGRAVER TO GO TO ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY AND ADD THE MISSING WORDS ?
A MESSAGE FROM AN APPALLED OBSERVER:
Today I went to visit the new World War II Memorial in Washington, DC. I got an unexpected history lesson Because I'm a baby boomer, I was one of the youngest in the crowd. Most were the age of my parents, Veterans of 'the greatest war,' with their families. It was a beautiful day, and people were smiling and happy to be there. Hundreds of us milled around the memorial, reading the inspiring words of Eisenhower and Truman that are engraved there.
On the Pacific side of the memorial, a group of us gathered to read the words President Roosevelt used to announce the attack on Pearl Harbor:
"Yesterday, December 7, 1941-- a date which will live in infamy--the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked."
One elderly woman read the words aloud:
"With confidence in our armed forces, with the abounding determination of our people, we will gain the inevitable triumph."
But as she read, she was suddenly turned angry. "Wait a minute,' she said, 'they left out the end of the quote.. They left out the most important part. Roosevelt ended the message with 'so help us God.'"
Her husband said, "You are probably right. We're not supposed to say things like that now."
"I know I'm right," she insisted. "I remember the speech." The two looked dismayed, shook their heads sadly and walked away.
Listening to their conversation, I thought to myself,Well, it has been over 50 years she's probably forgotten.
But she had not forgotten. She was right.
I went home and pulled out the book my book club is reading --- 'Flags of Our Fathers' by James Bradley. It's all about the battle at Iwo Jima . I haven't gotten too far in the book. It's tough to read because it's a graphic description of the WWII battles in the Pacific.
But right there it was on page 58. Roosevelt 's speech to the nation ends in "so help us God."
The people who edited out that part of the speech when they engraved it on the memorial could have fooled me. I was born after the war! But they couldn't fool the people who were there. Roosevelt 's words are engraved on their hearts
Now I ask: 'WHO GAVE THEM THE RIGHT TO CHANGE THE WORDS OF HISTORY?'
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Today's 'Leaders' and Politics
It behooves us to recognize that in the U.S. today there is no meaningful political contest between Democrats and Republicans and little genuine conflict between conservatives and liberals. Our elections have become mere contests between panderers.
The real divide is between, on the one hand, those who control or aspire to control our governmental bodies, the judicial system, the country's major law firms, the politically correct entertainment as well as the establishment media, our elite educational institutions, and the satraps that support this structure, and, on the other hand, the rest of us -- the great unwashed who pay the bills.
For public consumption, members of the ruling elites still talk about "public service" and claim to be "public servants." But this is empty language. Those who use it have morphed themselves into our rulers. They view themselves as permanently entitled to that status. They care not one whit about the common good except to the extent necessary to retain power and to improve or at least maintain their positions at the public trough. Their care about ordinary people is limited to ensuring that we be kept quiescently in line and dutifully paying taxes to keep their trough full.
In this respect our government has become similar to those that exist in third world countries. They perform governmental functions only to the extent necessary to maintain a façade of legitimacy. Their real purpose is to provide a continuing flow of goodies for whichever gang of reprehensibles has seized control of the structure for the time being.
We do in one respect differ from the third world. There, the controlling gang seeks to kill off members of opposing gangs. Here the opposing gang is the public and government unleashes its instruments of violence against ordinary citizens who seem to be stepping out of line or might do so -- as at Kent State, Ruby Ridge, and Waco to cite just a few examples.
What members of the controlling elite are good at it taking care of each other . . . with our tax dollars.
One significant hallmark of the decline of American politics to the level indicated above is the abandonment of an unwritten but long observed tradition of not honoring public officials by naming things after them until after they died. The generations that preceded mine were savvy enough to recognize that even the most favored politician might commit some dastardly act so long as he remained above ground and room temperature. Now, we allow these folks to honor each other hither and yon on a regular basis.
In Berkeley, California -- the belly of the beast -- where I live we even honor (as well as reelect) living politicians who already have committed dastardly and even criminal acts. A new sports complex here has been named for Berkeley's current mayor notwithstanding the fact that he previously pleaded guilty to stealing and destroying every copy he could get his hands on of a newspaper critical of him. And sections of our crumbling roadways routinely are named for other still breathing members of the ruling class. Think also of the bloated philandering and frequently inebriated Hero of Chappiquiddick and the illustrious but senile former Klansman (who, incidentally, still uses the N word) sitting in the U.S. House of Gasbags, having been reelected repeatedly by their respective home states, which have numerous public facilities bearing their names.
Underlying all this is the fact that these folks require manifestations of public adulation to overcome the recognition that they have at some deep down unconscious level of how contemptible they really are. They therefore provide such manifestations for each other at every opportunity.
Gun control is another aspect of the deserved self-loathing of so many of our 'leaders.' They fear the retribution they know they deserve. The clearest example of this is the apparently nonsensical designation as an assault weapon and ban of .50 caliber rifles in California. This firearm is too heavy to be carried in any assault and there is no record of it ever having been used in a crime. However, the real reason for the designation and ban is logical -- the weapon is lethal, and accurately so, at such a great range that politicians recognize that no practical perimeter can be provided by their security details to protect them from it.
The real divide is between, on the one hand, those who control or aspire to control our governmental bodies, the judicial system, the country's major law firms, the politically correct entertainment as well as the establishment media, our elite educational institutions, and the satraps that support this structure, and, on the other hand, the rest of us -- the great unwashed who pay the bills.
For public consumption, members of the ruling elites still talk about "public service" and claim to be "public servants." But this is empty language. Those who use it have morphed themselves into our rulers. They view themselves as permanently entitled to that status. They care not one whit about the common good except to the extent necessary to retain power and to improve or at least maintain their positions at the public trough. Their care about ordinary people is limited to ensuring that we be kept quiescently in line and dutifully paying taxes to keep their trough full.
In this respect our government has become similar to those that exist in third world countries. They perform governmental functions only to the extent necessary to maintain a façade of legitimacy. Their real purpose is to provide a continuing flow of goodies for whichever gang of reprehensibles has seized control of the structure for the time being.
We do in one respect differ from the third world. There, the controlling gang seeks to kill off members of opposing gangs. Here the opposing gang is the public and government unleashes its instruments of violence against ordinary citizens who seem to be stepping out of line or might do so -- as at Kent State, Ruby Ridge, and Waco to cite just a few examples.
What members of the controlling elite are good at it taking care of each other . . . with our tax dollars.
One significant hallmark of the decline of American politics to the level indicated above is the abandonment of an unwritten but long observed tradition of not honoring public officials by naming things after them until after they died. The generations that preceded mine were savvy enough to recognize that even the most favored politician might commit some dastardly act so long as he remained above ground and room temperature. Now, we allow these folks to honor each other hither and yon on a regular basis.
In Berkeley, California -- the belly of the beast -- where I live we even honor (as well as reelect) living politicians who already have committed dastardly and even criminal acts. A new sports complex here has been named for Berkeley's current mayor notwithstanding the fact that he previously pleaded guilty to stealing and destroying every copy he could get his hands on of a newspaper critical of him. And sections of our crumbling roadways routinely are named for other still breathing members of the ruling class. Think also of the bloated philandering and frequently inebriated Hero of Chappiquiddick and the illustrious but senile former Klansman (who, incidentally, still uses the N word) sitting in the U.S. House of Gasbags, having been reelected repeatedly by their respective home states, which have numerous public facilities bearing their names.
Underlying all this is the fact that these folks require manifestations of public adulation to overcome the recognition that they have at some deep down unconscious level of how contemptible they really are. They therefore provide such manifestations for each other at every opportunity.
Gun control is another aspect of the deserved self-loathing of so many of our 'leaders.' They fear the retribution they know they deserve. The clearest example of this is the apparently nonsensical designation as an assault weapon and ban of .50 caliber rifles in California. This firearm is too heavy to be carried in any assault and there is no record of it ever having been used in a crime. However, the real reason for the designation and ban is logical -- the weapon is lethal, and accurately so, at such a great range that politicians recognize that no practical perimeter can be provided by their security details to protect them from it.
A Politician Tells the Truth
"My choice early in life was either to be a piano-player in a whorehouse or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference."
. . . Harry Truman
(For recent graduates of government schools -- he was president of the U.S. between FDR and Ike)
. . . Harry Truman
(For recent graduates of government schools -- he was president of the U.S. between FDR and Ike)
Realistic Assessment of Unaccountable Judiciary
See:
http://mfile.akamai.com/12948/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2006/0728/9591734.300k.asx
Wait for it to come up and click on forward arrow to play.
http://mfile.akamai.com/12948/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2006/0728/9591734.300k.asx
Wait for it to come up and click on forward arrow to play.
Scary
The Second Amendment survives . . . but just barely -- it's on a one-vote life support system. And the "reasonable regulations" for which the Supreme Court's majority indicated approval place all meaningful gun rights in serious peril.
Don't let down and don't give up -- the fight must continue.
Don't let down and don't give up -- the fight must continue.
Like or dislike Limbaugh he has a point
Rush Limbaugh on the Midwest Floods:
"I want to know. I look at Iowa, I look at Illinois -- I want to see the murders. I want to see the looting. I want to see all the stuff that happened in New Orleans. I see devastation in Iowa and Illinois that dwarfs what happened in New Orleans . I see people working together. I see people trying to save their property . . . . I don't see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters, I don't see a bunch of people running, shooting cops. I don't see a bunch of people raping people on the street. I don't see a bunch of people doing everything they can . . . whining and moaning -- where's FEMA, where's Bush. I see theheartland of America. When I look at Iowa and when I look at Illinois, I see the backbone of America ."
"I want to know. I look at Iowa, I look at Illinois -- I want to see the murders. I want to see the looting. I want to see all the stuff that happened in New Orleans. I see devastation in Iowa and Illinois that dwarfs what happened in New Orleans . I see people working together. I see people trying to save their property . . . . I don't see a bunch of people running around waving guns at helicopters, I don't see a bunch of people running, shooting cops. I don't see a bunch of people raping people on the street. I don't see a bunch of people doing everything they can . . . whining and moaning -- where's FEMA, where's Bush. I see theheartland of America. When I look at Iowa and when I look at Illinois, I see the backbone of America ."
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
Thursday, June 19, 2008
An Exchange on Oil Prices
What Came In to K.R.:
It is apparently the case that oil speculators are substantially responsible for the current astronomical gas prices. Under current regulations they can buy oil futures by simply putting down 5% of the value of the oil. I am no economist, nor am I sure of the constitutional validity of this – but I suggest a new law providing: (a) that henceforth all oil futures bought or in any way controlled by American investors must be purchased w/ a minimum 60% down; and (b) that all existing oil future contracts purchased for less than that are null and void unless the investor raises the amount paid down to 60% of the value within 60 days.
K.R.'s Response:
It is true that oil "speculators" may be able to take advantage of the imbalance between available supplies for, and escalating demands for oil and by doing so exacerbate the surge in the price of oil. But their actions are a relatively minor component of what we are witnessing. The fact that Democrats are able to evade responsibility for their irresponsibility by blaming those whom they call "speculators" is a testament to the woeful lack of understanding of even the most rudimentary basics of economics by those who have passed through what passes for a system of public education.
And I say this as a registered and true independent. I am completely nonpartisan, hating all politicians equally.
The fact is that the market for oil is a global one, and your proposal would keep Americans out of it and eliminate the competition that their participation brings to the marketplace.
Equally unfortunate is that the output of the world's oil producers began to decline well over a decade ago and with great effort (and expense) they have managed to keep production fairly stable and steady. At the same time, however, demand has been escalating, and it will continue to do so and, in fact, accelerate as backward economies around the world increasingly industrialize. Those referred to as "speculators" buy at (and guarantee producers) current spot prices prior to actual production, and they do so anticipating the ability to profit as the supply vs. demand gap -- and consequently the spot price -- increases in the future. But for the price guarantees that the "speculators" make available to the producers, the oil that is the most expensive to extract would remain in the ground.
A decision to explore for and develop all of our potential sources of domestic oil would narrow the foreseeable supply - demand gap and thus immediately reverse or at least slow oil price increases. Having attended the Colorado School of Mines as an undergraduate I know and keep in touch with quite a few people in every aspect of the oil business -- exploration and extraction, processing, and transportation and storage. My most well informed and astute contacts in the industry estimate that a decision to develop what we have would immediately reduce the price of gasoline at the pump to between $2 and $3 a gallon.
Instead, our "leaders" are intent on appeasing the environmental Luddites who are happy to see our transportation system, industrial output (and employment), and our economy as whole melting down, and our dollars continue to flow overseas to suppliers who have little good will toward the U.S. and supply various portions of their surplus earnings to groups actively seeking to do us harm. None of these elitists have any genuine concern for the hardships their policies are inflicting on American working families.
While alternate sources of energy may fairly soon play a role in reducing the gap and eventually replace oil altogether, this is uncertain and of no immediate help. Also, with the exception of the hydrogen fuel cell, most of the alternate energy sources on the horizon -- solar and wind power, for example -- do not offer any prospect for meeting the need for portable energy sources. Thus it is nonsense for Democratic politicians to keep professing support only for sources of energy that do not actually exist and cannot meet current needs.
Readers who agree with K.R. on this might respond as K.R. now does to requests for political contributions -- sending back the return envelope, enclosing a single sheet bearing following message:
"Will not contribute to, support, work, or vote for the election of any candidate or party that does not actively support exploring for, and and developing all of our potential sources of domestic oil."
It is apparently the case that oil speculators are substantially responsible for the current astronomical gas prices. Under current regulations they can buy oil futures by simply putting down 5% of the value of the oil. I am no economist, nor am I sure of the constitutional validity of this – but I suggest a new law providing: (a) that henceforth all oil futures bought or in any way controlled by American investors must be purchased w/ a minimum 60% down; and (b) that all existing oil future contracts purchased for less than that are null and void unless the investor raises the amount paid down to 60% of the value within 60 days.
K.R.'s Response:
It is true that oil "speculators" may be able to take advantage of the imbalance between available supplies for, and escalating demands for oil and by doing so exacerbate the surge in the price of oil. But their actions are a relatively minor component of what we are witnessing. The fact that Democrats are able to evade responsibility for their irresponsibility by blaming those whom they call "speculators" is a testament to the woeful lack of understanding of even the most rudimentary basics of economics by those who have passed through what passes for a system of public education.
And I say this as a registered and true independent. I am completely nonpartisan, hating all politicians equally.
The fact is that the market for oil is a global one, and your proposal would keep Americans out of it and eliminate the competition that their participation brings to the marketplace.
Equally unfortunate is that the output of the world's oil producers began to decline well over a decade ago and with great effort (and expense) they have managed to keep production fairly stable and steady. At the same time, however, demand has been escalating, and it will continue to do so and, in fact, accelerate as backward economies around the world increasingly industrialize. Those referred to as "speculators" buy at (and guarantee producers) current spot prices prior to actual production, and they do so anticipating the ability to profit as the supply vs. demand gap -- and consequently the spot price -- increases in the future. But for the price guarantees that the "speculators" make available to the producers, the oil that is the most expensive to extract would remain in the ground.
A decision to explore for and develop all of our potential sources of domestic oil would narrow the foreseeable supply - demand gap and thus immediately reverse or at least slow oil price increases. Having attended the Colorado School of Mines as an undergraduate I know and keep in touch with quite a few people in every aspect of the oil business -- exploration and extraction, processing, and transportation and storage. My most well informed and astute contacts in the industry estimate that a decision to develop what we have would immediately reduce the price of gasoline at the pump to between $2 and $3 a gallon.
Instead, our "leaders" are intent on appeasing the environmental Luddites who are happy to see our transportation system, industrial output (and employment), and our economy as whole melting down, and our dollars continue to flow overseas to suppliers who have little good will toward the U.S. and supply various portions of their surplus earnings to groups actively seeking to do us harm. None of these elitists have any genuine concern for the hardships their policies are inflicting on American working families.
While alternate sources of energy may fairly soon play a role in reducing the gap and eventually replace oil altogether, this is uncertain and of no immediate help. Also, with the exception of the hydrogen fuel cell, most of the alternate energy sources on the horizon -- solar and wind power, for example -- do not offer any prospect for meeting the need for portable energy sources. Thus it is nonsense for Democratic politicians to keep professing support only for sources of energy that do not actually exist and cannot meet current needs.
Readers who agree with K.R. on this might respond as K.R. now does to requests for political contributions -- sending back the return envelope, enclosing a single sheet bearing following message:
"Will not contribute to, support, work, or vote for the election of any candidate or party that does not actively support exploring for, and and developing all of our potential sources of domestic oil."
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
Nutrition Alert
After an exhaustive review of the research literature, here's the final word on nutrition and health:
1. Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
2. Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
3. Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
4. Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
5. Germans drink beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
CONCLUSION: Eat and drink whatever the hell you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you, but the U.S. Government is trying to correct the problem...
1. Japanese eat very little fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
2. Mexicans eat a lot of fat and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
3. Chinese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
4. Italians drink excessive amounts of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
5. Germans drink beer and eat lots of sausages and fats and suffer fewer heart attacks than us.
CONCLUSION: Eat and drink whatever the hell you like. Speaking English is apparently what kills you, but the U.S. Government is trying to correct the problem...
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Soaring Gas Prices -- a Surge the Democrats Favor
Oil is over $130 a barrel and climbing. It is adding to the cost of food and everything else we need, fueling inflation, and driving the dollar down in international trade. And we are at the mercy of Venezula, Iran and other bad actors, as well as Nigeria and other unstable places, due to our huge need for imported oil.
So what has congress done?
ANWR Exploration
-- House Republicans: 91% Supported
-- House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Coal-to-Liquid
-- House Republicans: 97% Supported
-- House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration
-- House Republicans: 90% Supported
-- House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
-- House Republicans: 81% Supported
-- House Democrats: 83% Opposed
(And the Democrats do this as Cuba and China drill for oil barely 50 miles off our shores in South Florida)
Increasing Refinery Capacity
-- House Republicans: 97% Supported
-- House Democrats: 96% Opposed
SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of domestic oil and gas.
86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of domestic oil and gas.
Over the past 30 years:
-- Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum.
-- Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR.
-- Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
-- Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast.
-- Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast.
-- Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast.
-- Democrats have blocked building new oil refineries and expanding existing ones.
-- Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production.
-- Democrats have blocked clean coal production.
-- Democrats believe taxing and suing oil companies somehow will bring down gas prices although such measures obviously will not produce any additional oil.
The Democrats have sold out to radical environmentalists, and in doing so have set in place the conditions that can bring ruin to this nation.
Wonder why your groceries cost more? Why you are paying $4 and soon $5 a gallon for gasoline? Wonder why your power bill is going up?
*Put the blame where it belongs: the Democrats who favor only sources of energy that do not actually exist.
When will people wake up?
So what has congress done?
ANWR Exploration
-- House Republicans: 91% Supported
-- House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Coal-to-Liquid
-- House Republicans: 97% Supported
-- House Democrats: 78% Opposed
Oil Shale Exploration
-- House Republicans: 90% Supported
-- House Democrats: 86% Opposed
Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
-- House Republicans: 81% Supported
-- House Democrats: 83% Opposed
(And the Democrats do this as Cuba and China drill for oil barely 50 miles off our shores in South Florida)
Increasing Refinery Capacity
-- House Republicans: 97% Supported
-- House Democrats: 96% Opposed
SUMMARY
91% of House Republicans have historically voted to increase the production of domestic oil and gas.
86% of House Democrats have historically voted against increasing the production of domestic oil and gas.
Over the past 30 years:
-- Democrats have blocked the development of new sources of petroleum.
-- Democrats have blocked drilling in ANWR.
-- Democrats have blocked drilling off the coast of Florida.
-- Democrats have blocked drilling off of the east coast.
-- Democrats have blocked drilling off of the west coast.
-- Democrats have blocked drilling off the Alaskan coast.
-- Democrats have blocked building new oil refineries and expanding existing ones.
-- Democrats have blocked clean nuclear energy production.
-- Democrats have blocked clean coal production.
-- Democrats believe taxing and suing oil companies somehow will bring down gas prices although such measures obviously will not produce any additional oil.
The Democrats have sold out to radical environmentalists, and in doing so have set in place the conditions that can bring ruin to this nation.
Wonder why your groceries cost more? Why you are paying $4 and soon $5 a gallon for gasoline? Wonder why your power bill is going up?
*Put the blame where it belongs: the Democrats who favor only sources of energy that do not actually exist.
When will people wake up?
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Grandmas -- Gotta Love 'Em
Here's a story -- unconfirmed but lovely -- from a government employee who claims to have witnessed a recent interaction between an elderly woman and an antiwar protester in a Metro station in DC:
"There were protesters on the train platform handing out pamphlets on the evils of America . I politely declined to take one. "An elderly woman was behind me getting off the escalator and a young (20ish) female protester offered her a pamphlet, which she politely declined. "The young protester put her hand on the old woman's shoulder as a gesture of friendship and in a very soft voice said, 'Lady, don't you care about the children of Iraq ?'
"The old woman looked up at her and said, ' Honey, my father died in France during World War II, I lost my husband in Korea , and a son in Vietnam . All three died so you could have the right to stand here and bad mouth our country. If you touch me again. I'll stick this umbrella up your ass and open it. ' "
~God Bless America ~
"There were protesters on the train platform handing out pamphlets on the evils of America . I politely declined to take one. "An elderly woman was behind me getting off the escalator and a young (20ish) female protester offered her a pamphlet, which she politely declined. "The young protester put her hand on the old woman's shoulder as a gesture of friendship and in a very soft voice said, 'Lady, don't you care about the children of Iraq ?'
"The old woman looked up at her and said, ' Honey, my father died in France during World War II, I lost my husband in Korea , and a son in Vietnam . All three died so you could have the right to stand here and bad mouth our country. If you touch me again. I'll stick this umbrella up your ass and open it. ' "
~God Bless America ~
Two Quotes
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join me as we try to change it." --Barrack Obama
"Life's tough....it's even tougher if you're stupid."---John Wayne
"Life's tough....it's even tougher if you're stupid."---John Wayne
Monday, June 2, 2008
Approaching a Tipping Point?
Subjugating a people is a process. It takes place incrementally, one step at a time. Any one step may be minuscule -- so small as to be almost imperceptible -- but the steps are successive, each building on the prior ones.
It's like the proverbial boiling of a frog. If tossed into boiling water, it is said that the frog will not stand for it and jump out of the pot. But if the water is comfortable, the frog supposedly will relax as the water is slowly heated and become too lethargic to do anything as the water gradually is brought to a boil.
This is not to say that the process, even though quite advanced and accelerating in the U.S., thus far has been the result of the intentional and purposeful actions of any individuals or groups. The process may be a natural one resulting from the enervating effects of wealth and the apparently conflicting senses of guilt and entitlement that result from it.
However, as was the case with the Nazis, who did not create the ruinous post World War I conditions in Germany, there always are individuals and groups prepared to exploit a bad situation to seize power and control of the government for their own purposes.
K. R. is too dubious about the ability of people to keep secrets to subscribe to conspiracy theories and does not believe that anything that has occurred in the U.S. to this point has been the result of any plan or design. On the other hand, we appear to be approaching a tipping point. And, as was stated on a sign posted on a wall from which operations were conducted by the clandestine group with which K. R. served our government in the days of his youth:
Precursors to the approaching tipping point can be seen in the histories of (i) the income tax, and (ii) Social Security. The constitutional amendment that made the income tax possible was adopted with the understanding that only the income of the country's most wealthy citizens would be taxed. Social Security was supposed to be a program through which Americans would save for retirement. Social Security now has been transformed into an income redistribution program and the internal revenue code now impacts everybody and every aspect of everyday life.
Now a new scheme that purportedly will impact only the most wealthy Americans is being fashioned. It is patterned after legislation enacted in the early days of Nazi rule in Germany. The Nazi scheme permitted Jews to flee the country but required that they leave behind for the regime virtually all of their assets. With the passage of time, the Jews who remained were enslaved and huge numbers of them were murdered by their own government. The new American legislation will require wealthy citizens who want to get out from under what many see as an increasingly authoritarian and oppressive regime to forfeit the bulk of their assets to the Internal Revenue Service in order to leave the country. We may not call it enslavement, but implicit in the legislation is the notion that our most productive and successful citizens and their assets belong to the government and must continue to fill its coffers one way or another.
Any bets on how long it will take for this scheme, once it is put into effect, to expand to cover middle class Americans?
It also is worth noting that we have a charismatic major party presidential candidate openly stating that Americans cannot continue to drive SUVs or keep their homes at 72 degrees because people in other countries cannot afford to do so. This can only mean that he envisions and favors governmental actions that will prevent those of us who can afford these things from enjoying benefits we have worked and saved to obtain. The goal appears to be to lower our standard of living to a level that is uniform around the world.
As someone once observed, capitalism is the unequal sharing of wealth and socialism is the universal sharing of misery -- although, as George Orwell noted, some animals such as the pigs at the top somehow end up being more equal than others.
The other major party's standard bearer deserves admiration and respect for his military service but his political record is dismal. He fervently supports open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants, and he is economically ignorant and no regard for free market capitalism. In addition he has exhibited little understanding and less appreciation and support for our bedrock civil liberties, having sponsored incumbent protection legislation -- a modern day version of the alien and sedition laws that curbs political speech and empowers the government to regulate when we can effectively criticize and what we can effectively say about federal office holders.
The sad fact is that our elites and the institutions they control -- academia and the education establishment, most of the mass media, many of our churches, the bulk of the judiciary and the nation's major law firms, and the government at the federal and many state and local levels -- reject and seek to dispel the concept of American exceptionalism. They want to make us just like every other sorry country in the world.
Ordinary Americans, especially those living outside our chic coastal enclaves -- in what the elitists refer to as "flyover country" -- know that America is, and want it to remain special. They continue to resist the blandishments of the increasingly corrupt elites and they still have the means to do so. Underlying the unceasing efforts to undermine the second amendment is the desire of the elitists to strip common people of the means to resist anything the government may wish to do to, and impose on the country. The elitists' goal is to give the government and its agents a monopoly on the tools of violence essential to effective resistance and rebellion that -- as was foreseen by Thomas Jefferson -- may become necessary if individual freedom and liberty is to be preserved.
It's like the proverbial boiling of a frog. If tossed into boiling water, it is said that the frog will not stand for it and jump out of the pot. But if the water is comfortable, the frog supposedly will relax as the water is slowly heated and become too lethargic to do anything as the water gradually is brought to a boil.
This is not to say that the process, even though quite advanced and accelerating in the U.S., thus far has been the result of the intentional and purposeful actions of any individuals or groups. The process may be a natural one resulting from the enervating effects of wealth and the apparently conflicting senses of guilt and entitlement that result from it.
However, as was the case with the Nazis, who did not create the ruinous post World War I conditions in Germany, there always are individuals and groups prepared to exploit a bad situation to seize power and control of the government for their own purposes.
K. R. is too dubious about the ability of people to keep secrets to subscribe to conspiracy theories and does not believe that anything that has occurred in the U.S. to this point has been the result of any plan or design. On the other hand, we appear to be approaching a tipping point. And, as was stated on a sign posted on a wall from which operations were conducted by the clandestine group with which K. R. served our government in the days of his youth:
"Even Paranoids Have Real Enemies"
Precursors to the approaching tipping point can be seen in the histories of (i) the income tax, and (ii) Social Security. The constitutional amendment that made the income tax possible was adopted with the understanding that only the income of the country's most wealthy citizens would be taxed. Social Security was supposed to be a program through which Americans would save for retirement. Social Security now has been transformed into an income redistribution program and the internal revenue code now impacts everybody and every aspect of everyday life.
Now a new scheme that purportedly will impact only the most wealthy Americans is being fashioned. It is patterned after legislation enacted in the early days of Nazi rule in Germany. The Nazi scheme permitted Jews to flee the country but required that they leave behind for the regime virtually all of their assets. With the passage of time, the Jews who remained were enslaved and huge numbers of them were murdered by their own government. The new American legislation will require wealthy citizens who want to get out from under what many see as an increasingly authoritarian and oppressive regime to forfeit the bulk of their assets to the Internal Revenue Service in order to leave the country. We may not call it enslavement, but implicit in the legislation is the notion that our most productive and successful citizens and their assets belong to the government and must continue to fill its coffers one way or another.
Any bets on how long it will take for this scheme, once it is put into effect, to expand to cover middle class Americans?
It also is worth noting that we have a charismatic major party presidential candidate openly stating that Americans cannot continue to drive SUVs or keep their homes at 72 degrees because people in other countries cannot afford to do so. This can only mean that he envisions and favors governmental actions that will prevent those of us who can afford these things from enjoying benefits we have worked and saved to obtain. The goal appears to be to lower our standard of living to a level that is uniform around the world.
As someone once observed, capitalism is the unequal sharing of wealth and socialism is the universal sharing of misery -- although, as George Orwell noted, some animals such as the pigs at the top somehow end up being more equal than others.
The other major party's standard bearer deserves admiration and respect for his military service but his political record is dismal. He fervently supports open borders and amnesty for illegal immigrants, and he is economically ignorant and no regard for free market capitalism. In addition he has exhibited little understanding and less appreciation and support for our bedrock civil liberties, having sponsored incumbent protection legislation -- a modern day version of the alien and sedition laws that curbs political speech and empowers the government to regulate when we can effectively criticize and what we can effectively say about federal office holders.
The sad fact is that our elites and the institutions they control -- academia and the education establishment, most of the mass media, many of our churches, the bulk of the judiciary and the nation's major law firms, and the government at the federal and many state and local levels -- reject and seek to dispel the concept of American exceptionalism. They want to make us just like every other sorry country in the world.
Ordinary Americans, especially those living outside our chic coastal enclaves -- in what the elitists refer to as "flyover country" -- know that America is, and want it to remain special. They continue to resist the blandishments of the increasingly corrupt elites and they still have the means to do so. Underlying the unceasing efforts to undermine the second amendment is the desire of the elitists to strip common people of the means to resist anything the government may wish to do to, and impose on the country. The elitists' goal is to give the government and its agents a monopoly on the tools of violence essential to effective resistance and rebellion that -- as was foreseen by Thomas Jefferson -- may become necessary if individual freedom and liberty is to be preserved.
Erecting U.S. Version of Berlin Wall to Enslave the Productive
It hasn't received a lot of attention but our rulers (a.k.a. the inside-the-beltway tax consuming parasites) are getting ready to build a wall. Not one to keep illegal immigrants out but one to function as did the Berlin Wall that the East German communists put up to keep their subjects from escaping their rule.
The U.S. version that Congress is fashioning for well to do Americans actually is more closely patterned after the one that the Nazis put in place for German Jews in the early 1930s. Well off Americans will be permitted to depart from the country just as Jews initially were permitted to leave Nazi Germany. The wall in Germany was, and the U.S. version will be a financial one -- the price of departing was and is to be essentially all of the assets of citizens wishing to leave.
Jews wishing to flee Germany had to leave all of their assets behind.
Under the U.S. version on which Congress is working, well to do Americans will be free to emigrate but virtually all of their assets will be forfeited to the IRS if they choose to do so. It appears that we need to keep the most productive among us filling the public trough one way or another.
The U.S. version that Congress is fashioning for well to do Americans actually is more closely patterned after the one that the Nazis put in place for German Jews in the early 1930s. Well off Americans will be permitted to depart from the country just as Jews initially were permitted to leave Nazi Germany. The wall in Germany was, and the U.S. version will be a financial one -- the price of departing was and is to be essentially all of the assets of citizens wishing to leave.
Jews wishing to flee Germany had to leave all of their assets behind.
Under the U.S. version on which Congress is working, well to do Americans will be free to emigrate but virtually all of their assets will be forfeited to the IRS if they choose to do so. It appears that we need to keep the most productive among us filling the public trough one way or another.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)