Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, July 7, 2012
No Web for Hundreds of Thousands on Monday
technology review via Instapundit
Here's a procedure that should work for detecting infection. At least it works on my computer.
Starting that day, computers still infected with the notorious DNSChanger malware will be unable to connect to websites.What to do about this?
Here's a procedure that should work for detecting infection. At least it works on my computer.
- Go here, and it will test your computer. If it passes, you may be ok.
- An alternative is to go to MS-DOS prompt and type ipconfig /all The result will give you some DNS addresses to check.
- To avoid typing in all those addresses in the test below, click in the upper left corner and, then click on edit, and then "select all" which will allow you to copy the text and then paste the addresses into a text file that you can create on the desktop. Then, just copy and paste the DNS addresses in the text box on the FBI website here
An "Economic Quality" Scorecard Of The Obama Administration
zero hedge via Free Republic
He created this chart:
If I had a blog in 2003, I could have predicted all this. But I did have a blog in 2004, and I said back then that there was a weak dollar policy in effect. This is otherwise known as a government that is resorting to the old practice that failed states notorious rely on- which is inflation and debt repudiation. Hence, the bullishness on gold.
As long as these policies continue, there should be no reason to be bullish on anything but gold.
I know gold has dropped, but that is the calm before the storm. Just wait.
He created this chart:
 |
| Top line is food stamp recipients, middle lines part time jobs and disability recipients, lower line full time jobs! |
As long as these policies continue, there should be no reason to be bullish on anything but gold.
I know gold has dropped, but that is the calm before the storm. Just wait.
US Will Sign Gun Control Treaty On July 27!
Dick Morris TV: Lunch Alert!
Obama's war on America continues. Also, this gives the Fast and Furious operation an entirely new perspective.
Obama's war on America continues. Also, this gives the Fast and Furious operation an entirely new perspective.
Ted Nugent: ‘Best’ if South had won Civil War
seattlepi via FreeRepublic
Comment:
The South is the liberals favorite whipping boy. Krugman, in his book, was especially fond of equating the old South with the Republican party. This story quoted above is more in that same malignant spirit.
The answer is to do the modern version of the rebel yell. Hank Williams had a song that covered that.
“The bottom line is that Chief Justice Roberts’ traitor vote will ensure more monumental spending and wasted taxes and put almost 15 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product under one of the world’s most bureaucratic, ineffective, incompetent and grossly expensive systems ever devised by man: our out-of-control federal government.
“Chief Justice Roberts squandered the opportunity to restore judicial, financial and legislative sanity to a government that by any sane person’s standards is insane and addicted to centralized federal control of our lives.
“Because our legislative, judicial and executive branches of government hold the 10th Amendment in contempt, I’m beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War.”
Comment:
The South is the liberals favorite whipping boy. Krugman, in his book, was especially fond of equating the old South with the Republican party. This story quoted above is more in that same malignant spirit.
The answer is to do the modern version of the rebel yell. Hank Williams had a song that covered that.
Next Big Future: Could mining asteroids become a trillion dollar in...
Next Big Future: Could mining asteroids become a trillion dollar in...: There are approximately 1500 asteroids that are close to the earth and relatively easy to access. These asteroids contain substantial quanti...
Question: How much will it cost to harvest the first asteroid?
The cost will probably be into the billions of dollars, similar to large resource projects here on Earth. But given that a single asteroid could easily contain billions of dollars of platinum group metals alone, we are confident that these efforts will be profitable. Planetary Resources will finance our missions using the structures and systems already in place within the resource industry for funding exploration.
DNC Scientists Disprove Existence of Roberts' Taxon
iowahawk
Comment:
I'm glad somebody got that one cleared up.
"Pelosi's Paradox states that in order to find out what is in a health care bill, it would have to be passed," explained physicist Steven Hawking. "But in order to be a law it would have to be constitutional, which means someone would have to know what was in it, which would mean it couldn't have been a bill in the first place...To solve the paradox, Roberts proposed the existence of the Taxon - an ephemeral, mysterious facton particle that in theory would allow the Universal Health System to be constitutional, without directly observing what was in it.
"It was a complete success," said Plouffe. "The collision produced only inert crap particles like Feesons and Penaltyons, obliterating any traces of a single highly radioactive Taxon. What's more, we were thrilled that it also resulted in over 300 milliaxlerods of of positive Fernstroms."
Comment:
I'm glad somebody got that one cleared up.
Revisiting Krugman's "Conscience of a Liberal"
The striking thing about that book is how it kicks conservatism in the scrotum. You would think that someone who claims to be interested in good relations between the liberals and conservatives would take a more conciliatory approach. But this book does not.
He sees nothing good from the Reagan years. But they were a whole lot better than what Carter served up.
My first read of this book engendered a negative response, so I wrote a pretty critical review of it. Going back, I wondered if there was anything in the book that may have some validity.
On the topic of health care, he describes something that can give a clue about how to go forward. But this isn't something he directly advocates, he just meanders around the swamp of big government liberal solutions. The idea that can be useful is the idea of preventive care. It is the one way in which health care costs can be brought down, and it is the one way in which the government might have a useful role, in my opinion.
One problem in the system is that the incentives are out of whack. He does a fair analysis of how that is so, but he is fixated on single payer as a solution. Another solution is just to get everybody on a preventive care program- just have the government set up the tax code so as to incentivize behavior so that everyone will get with that program.
You see, it just isn't necessary for the government to take over. Nor should the government mandate that everybody buy insurance. Just encourage people to do so thorough the tax code. For example, you could give tax credits for people to have certain screens done for health care risks. Two out of three deaths are due to cancer and heart disease. Screen for those risks, and health care risks are reduced substantially. Risks are more manageable if they are known. If they are unknown, how can they be managed at all? It would seem like common sense to have things checked out and then you know where you stand. Why can't something simple like this be done?
Also, don't ask the insurance industry to provide care. That's not their job. Their job is to manage financial risk, not to provide health care. The insurance industry doesn't exist to pay for medical bills. Liberals seem to have a problem with basic concepts like this. No wonder they are anti-business. They just don't understand it. Insurance companies can just manage the financial risk of something that is unexpected. That's what they do and it is all that they should do. If the general population is well-screened for medical risks, then the relative risk for each individual should be manageable and therefore insurable. Just basic common sense.
If Krugman was more interested in actually finding a good solution that everyone could agree on, he may have come up with something like this. Instead, he is more interested in the combat of partisan politics. A more conciliatory approach could lead to some solutions. Or have a better chance of making progress. Blaming others for partisanship when you engage in it yourself is not very persuasive. But persuasion and problem solving is really not his game.
He sees nothing good from the Reagan years. But they were a whole lot better than what Carter served up.
My first read of this book engendered a negative response, so I wrote a pretty critical review of it. Going back, I wondered if there was anything in the book that may have some validity.
On the topic of health care, he describes something that can give a clue about how to go forward. But this isn't something he directly advocates, he just meanders around the swamp of big government liberal solutions. The idea that can be useful is the idea of preventive care. It is the one way in which health care costs can be brought down, and it is the one way in which the government might have a useful role, in my opinion.
One problem in the system is that the incentives are out of whack. He does a fair analysis of how that is so, but he is fixated on single payer as a solution. Another solution is just to get everybody on a preventive care program- just have the government set up the tax code so as to incentivize behavior so that everyone will get with that program.
You see, it just isn't necessary for the government to take over. Nor should the government mandate that everybody buy insurance. Just encourage people to do so thorough the tax code. For example, you could give tax credits for people to have certain screens done for health care risks. Two out of three deaths are due to cancer and heart disease. Screen for those risks, and health care risks are reduced substantially. Risks are more manageable if they are known. If they are unknown, how can they be managed at all? It would seem like common sense to have things checked out and then you know where you stand. Why can't something simple like this be done?
Also, don't ask the insurance industry to provide care. That's not their job. Their job is to manage financial risk, not to provide health care. The insurance industry doesn't exist to pay for medical bills. Liberals seem to have a problem with basic concepts like this. No wonder they are anti-business. They just don't understand it. Insurance companies can just manage the financial risk of something that is unexpected. That's what they do and it is all that they should do. If the general population is well-screened for medical risks, then the relative risk for each individual should be manageable and therefore insurable. Just basic common sense.
If Krugman was more interested in actually finding a good solution that everyone could agree on, he may have come up with something like this. Instead, he is more interested in the combat of partisan politics. A more conciliatory approach could lead to some solutions. Or have a better chance of making progress. Blaming others for partisanship when you engage in it yourself is not very persuasive. But persuasion and problem solving is really not his game.
Ubuntu update
After installing the operating system, I set it aside until the weekend when I had more time. Now it is the weekend, so I fired it up again. Not much to report. I performed some updates which were taking a long time, so I left it running overnight. It didn't have anything new on the wireless problem, so I still don't have a solution for that.
There's no security arrangement that was obvious, so I looked for a firewall and installed it. But it doesn't look like it is doing anything.
After scanning some software titles, I decided I wanted to take screenshots, so I looked into that. But I didn't see any way to install it.
I fooled around with Firefox for awhile. It doesn't look like it has a bookmark importer, so it looks like I have to create an entire new bunch of bookmarks. That isn't the best use of my time.
Overall, the operating system doesn't appear to be too inviting. I'm not going to give up on it, but by the same token, I'm not going to spend a lot of time fooling around with it.
There's no security arrangement that was obvious, so I looked for a firewall and installed it. But it doesn't look like it is doing anything.
After scanning some software titles, I decided I wanted to take screenshots, so I looked into that. But I didn't see any way to install it.
I fooled around with Firefox for awhile. It doesn't look like it has a bookmark importer, so it looks like I have to create an entire new bunch of bookmarks. That isn't the best use of my time.
Overall, the operating system doesn't appear to be too inviting. I'm not going to give up on it, but by the same token, I'm not going to spend a lot of time fooling around with it.
Friday, July 6, 2012
Beware Article V (part 1 of 4)
- Closer look at Article V
- 3 step process
- The convention has all of the authority to decide once convened. Congress can set the details of the convention- such as who will be the delegates, and where they will meet. But Congress nor the states can tell the Convention what to do.
You can't tell an Article V what to do after it has convened. Congress can influence it as much as they can, but once it meets, they have no further control. This entails the risk of a runaway convention that may do anything, including overturning the entire system of government. It could be a revolutionary act. That is the risk. The reward is hoped for, such as a better government, but it is only a hope. Something may happen to dash those hopes.
Those who attempt to frighten everybody with such warnings should also keep in mind that a runaway government could also usurp the Constitution. So, what's the difference?
Obamacare Becomes Obamatax
Dick Morris
Morris compares the recent Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare to the Dred Scott decision. Civil War followed shortly after the Dred Scott decision. Was this forcing of the issue by the court really necessary?
Morris compares the recent Supreme Court ruling on ObamaCare to the Dred Scott decision. Civil War followed shortly after the Dred Scott decision. Was this forcing of the issue by the court really necessary?
All we need is hate
I saw this video on Ann Barnhardt's site. Yeah, if I keep reading her stuff, I may be eating a cookie soon. (That's a joke, by the way)
Anyway, it is an interesting thing to watch and to consider. It works in with my theory that liberals just don't respect the truth. Yes, the truth is a slippery thing.
You have to get back to first principles. If there's no truth, there can be no principles nor morality. If there's no truth, we must be living in an anarchical state of nature.
Anyway, it is an interesting thing to watch and to consider. It works in with my theory that liberals just don't respect the truth. Yes, the truth is a slippery thing.
You have to get back to first principles. If there's no truth, there can be no principles nor morality. If there's no truth, we must be living in an anarchical state of nature.
The Ancients Declare Obamacare Ruling Worse Than Obamacare Itself
Bill Flax, Forbes h/t Free Republic
Here's an essay which expresses perfectly what ails us and why the recent Supreme Court decision was in grave error.
The essay relies upon the basic philosophy upon which this government was based- that is the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. Flax points out that a democracy is only a collection of men-- therefore if you rely upon a group of men to rule, as in a democracy, you still have the rule of men. The safeguard of liberty is in the law, not in men. Therefore, when asked about what kind of government that was created at the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was quoted as saying- "A republic, if you can keep it."
Note: all emphases have been added.
Comment:
Well done. But will mere argument be enough? It is an old argument between the wolf and the lamb. Guess who wins that one.
Here's an essay which expresses perfectly what ails us and why the recent Supreme Court decision was in grave error.
The essay relies upon the basic philosophy upon which this government was based- that is the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. Flax points out that a democracy is only a collection of men-- therefore if you rely upon a group of men to rule, as in a democracy, you still have the rule of men. The safeguard of liberty is in the law, not in men. Therefore, when asked about what kind of government that was created at the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was quoted as saying- "A republic, if you can keep it."
- The Affordable Care Act reflects the logical continuation of a decades-long drift toward domineering by Washington over every facet of life.
- The brake on this zooming locomotive called government should be the rule of law.
- The limiting agent on government cannot be the temporary passions of the crowd, easily bought by bread and circuses; nor subject to the self-aggrandizing whims of public officials, but the Constitution to which Caesar swears subservience. [comment: the oath of office that everyone in government must take-- they have to swear an oath to the Constitution, not to their party or leader.]
- Yet liberty’s safeguard has never been democracy; mob-rule in the Greek, but the Constitution.
- Wherever Law ends, Tyranny begins,” warned John Locke. If rights are subject to majority rule, not law, how are we free? What can’t government do?
- Obama bestows allies with waivers and kickbacks per political calculation.
- With the public dole overflowing, and severe reticence to sensibly control the franchise, democracy as John Adams foresaw, “wastes, exhausts and murders itself.”
- To survive, America must restore in Adams’ words, “A government of laws, and not of men.”
- If democracy supersedes legality, two wolves can vote to devour an innocent lamb for lunch assuming they construe the proverbial slaughter as taxation.
Note: all emphases have been added.
Comment:
Well done. But will mere argument be enough? It is an old argument between the wolf and the lamb. Guess who wins that one.
Thursday, July 5, 2012
Roberts, Blankenhorn And The Power Of Liberal Intimidation
By DENNIS PRAGER, IBD
Here's a post on this blog about that article of Krugman's. If you look often enough, you may spot a pattern that this kind of thing represents. It is projection, a psychological phenomenon that Dr. Sanity has written about extensively.
What it amounts to is that the left is attributing their own hatred as hatred coming from their opponents. This enables them to maintain their own sense of self, while the effects of their attacks upon their opponents can break down their own defenses.
The conservatives are not handling this very well. There has to be a better response to what the left is doing. Caving in to them is not the answer.
Update:
This reminds me of the Patty Hearst case many years ago. It was a leftist group that kidnapped Hearst and brainwashed her. Not too many people believe that brainwashing is a real phenomenon. Also, people believe that a person who submits to this is a weak person. But if any person is subjected to this type of treatment over a long enough period of time, that person's defenses will break down. People are vulnerable to this, that's why the tactic is employed.
It is interesting to note that Patty Hearst returned to normalcy when she was separated from the group. This is encouraging because it could mean that the tactics do not necessarily lead to permanent psychological damage.
Update:
Here's another quote from the IBD piece:
Some may try to redirect that back at IBD and call that projection. Just keep in mind though, that Howard Dean, once a Democrat candidate for President, said that he hated Republicans. The hatred is real.
There is no respect for a different point of view. The fault lies with the hater, not the point of view.
Similarly, just one day after a deranged man, Jared Loughner, attempted to kill Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and murdered six people in the process, the New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote that it was right-wing hate that had provoked Loughner.
Bullied Into Quitting
Krugman made it all up. But what matters to most of those who speak for the left is not truth. It is destroying the good name of its opponents. That is the modus operandi of the left. It works.
Here's a post on this blog about that article of Krugman's. If you look often enough, you may spot a pattern that this kind of thing represents. It is projection, a psychological phenomenon that Dr. Sanity has written about extensively.
What it amounts to is that the left is attributing their own hatred as hatred coming from their opponents. This enables them to maintain their own sense of self, while the effects of their attacks upon their opponents can break down their own defenses.
The conservatives are not handling this very well. There has to be a better response to what the left is doing. Caving in to them is not the answer.
Update:
This reminds me of the Patty Hearst case many years ago. It was a leftist group that kidnapped Hearst and brainwashed her. Not too many people believe that brainwashing is a real phenomenon. Also, people believe that a person who submits to this is a weak person. But if any person is subjected to this type of treatment over a long enough period of time, that person's defenses will break down. People are vulnerable to this, that's why the tactic is employed.
It is interesting to note that Patty Hearst returned to normalcy when she was separated from the group. This is encouraging because it could mean that the tactics do not necessarily lead to permanent psychological damage.
Update:
Here's another quote from the IBD piece:
But an even greater explanation is the saturation of Western society by left-wing hate directed at the right.
Some may try to redirect that back at IBD and call that projection. Just keep in mind though, that Howard Dean, once a Democrat candidate for President, said that he hated Republicans. The hatred is real.
There is no respect for a different point of view. The fault lies with the hater, not the point of view.
Higgs Boson Confirmed
Ace of Spades blog
Will this lead to a warp drive? Ok, I'm not really trying to be a smart ass. Just wondering what the significance of this discovery is. There's a lot of work to do to find out, as the video below explains.
Will this lead to a warp drive? Ok, I'm not really trying to be a smart ass. Just wondering what the significance of this discovery is. There's a lot of work to do to find out, as the video below explains.
Ubuntu installed
But this post is being made using Windows. The installation was supposed to be easy, but the process took all day yesterday. It took two attempts to get it to work with the internet. The first installation didn't take, so I started over from scratch.
The results were less than hoped for.
Not that I won't be using it ever, but there are a few things about it that are a bit less than optimal. One is that it can't handle this small screen very well. The netbook has a small screen. It tends not to be easy to scroll around and see everything on a page as you would like. It also changes the appearance of videos. It seems a bit distorted.
The wireless access to the internet is also not working, which makes it impossible to carry around the house as you work. You have to stay at a fixed location while on the computer, just as you would do with a desktop. Evidently, the software to run the wireless part has to be found somewhere and downloaded. Or it isn't working properly.
Another thing is that I wanted a single installation to be usable on multiple computers. That may not fly with this thing, but I haven't tried it yet. I am doubtful that this installation will work on my desktop. We'll see.
I won't be using it again until the weekend when I have more time.
The results were less than hoped for.
Not that I won't be using it ever, but there are a few things about it that are a bit less than optimal. One is that it can't handle this small screen very well. The netbook has a small screen. It tends not to be easy to scroll around and see everything on a page as you would like. It also changes the appearance of videos. It seems a bit distorted.
The wireless access to the internet is also not working, which makes it impossible to carry around the house as you work. You have to stay at a fixed location while on the computer, just as you would do with a desktop. Evidently, the software to run the wireless part has to be found somewhere and downloaded. Or it isn't working properly.
Another thing is that I wanted a single installation to be usable on multiple computers. That may not fly with this thing, but I haven't tried it yet. I am doubtful that this installation will work on my desktop. We'll see.
I won't be using it again until the weekend when I have more time.
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
Wild hair up your ass
My old man used to say "Don't get a wild hair up your ass." He didn't exactly specify in detail what he meant, but I always took that to mean not to do anything amazingly stupid or foolish. Problem with that advice is that you don't know how stupid or foolish something is until afterwards.
So, what did I do? Did I just get a wild hair up my ass? Let me explain. I just downloaded the Ubuntu ( Linux) operating system installation program for my netbook PC. It is installing as I type this out. It is supposed to be safe and it is supposed to be bootable from a memory stick after it is installed. That's the method I chose to install it, and it is installing from Windows. Supposedly, it can be uninstalled if something goes wrong or you don't like it. Which may be possible.
But that is not all. Having a wild hair can go much further than just this example. Another example is this business I've been writing about with respect to a Constitutional Convention. Even though I've been writing about it from time to time since I began this blog, it could still be a wild hair because it is so unpredictable and maybe foolish. Not only that, it could actually work. If it worked, it may be a case of not being careful about what you wish for because you just might get it.
What caused this anyway? Obamacare? That law seems like a wild hair up the Congress's ass. It may have been much better if they hadn't passed this stupid law. Then it gets to the Supreme Court and they go and get a wild hair and uphold the damned thing. Now that has gotten the conservatives and the tea partiers up in arms and who knows where this might end up.
But you can go further back and see that it started with the election of Obama. Now that is a case of getting a wild hair up your ass on a National level. Because there's no ObamaCare with no Obama.
Maybe all this craziness will end when Obama goes, but what if he is reelected? If that happens, the craziness could go into warp drive.
Update:
Still installing Ubuntu on the netbook. It has successfully loaded the OS from the USB stick drive. So far, so good.
Now the desktop is acting funny. More to the point, it is Firefox. But that is a different subject.
So, what did I do? Did I just get a wild hair up my ass? Let me explain. I just downloaded the Ubuntu ( Linux) operating system installation program for my netbook PC. It is installing as I type this out. It is supposed to be safe and it is supposed to be bootable from a memory stick after it is installed. That's the method I chose to install it, and it is installing from Windows. Supposedly, it can be uninstalled if something goes wrong or you don't like it. Which may be possible.
But that is not all. Having a wild hair can go much further than just this example. Another example is this business I've been writing about with respect to a Constitutional Convention. Even though I've been writing about it from time to time since I began this blog, it could still be a wild hair because it is so unpredictable and maybe foolish. Not only that, it could actually work. If it worked, it may be a case of not being careful about what you wish for because you just might get it.
What caused this anyway? Obamacare? That law seems like a wild hair up the Congress's ass. It may have been much better if they hadn't passed this stupid law. Then it gets to the Supreme Court and they go and get a wild hair and uphold the damned thing. Now that has gotten the conservatives and the tea partiers up in arms and who knows where this might end up.
But you can go further back and see that it started with the election of Obama. Now that is a case of getting a wild hair up your ass on a National level. Because there's no ObamaCare with no Obama.
Maybe all this craziness will end when Obama goes, but what if he is reelected? If that happens, the craziness could go into warp drive.
Update:
Still installing Ubuntu on the netbook. It has successfully loaded the OS from the USB stick drive. So far, so good.
Now the desktop is acting funny. More to the point, it is Firefox. But that is a different subject.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Is the USA in a pre-revolutionary mode?
Ann Barnhardt says:
Perhaps it would be useful to go back to first principles. Number one is the founding documents, such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself.
The Constitution does provide for a means to make significant changes to the government or to even break up the Union. With respect to the Civil War Era, a constitutional convention could have legally accomplished what they tried to do by military force. Going back and repeating that error will likely lead to the same results or worse. If the government is truly oppressive and must be changed, the people still have the right to vote to alter and abolish it. If that is suppressed, and if it is clearly the will of the people to alter and abolish the current system, then we have a revolutionary situation on our hands. At the moment, that does not appear to be the case to me.
However, there was a poll recently which said that we don't have a government that has the consent of the governed. The government tends to ignore what the people want. Those in government are not honoring their oath of office. The respective political parties are showing more loyalty to themselves than to the Constitution for which they have given an oath to support and defend. This is betrayal to their oath and to the Constitution, and to the people. This is inconsistent with principles- among them is the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. Therefore, we may be heading in a revolutionary direction.
The Declaration provides the justification for rebellion should the Constitutional option fail.
Once having decided to rebel, you had better find an organization that can pull it off.
A civil war is not the rule of law. To propose that is to go down a slippery slope towards the rule of men.
You still have a lawful, legal option to deal with this situation as it stands now. That should be attempted first. If that doesn't work, then it means that the rule of law has broken down. Then it is a matter of fighting or surrendering to what is in fact an unlawful authority. Ann Barnhardt is on shaky ground. But the very ground under our feet is shifting.
Everybody knows it.
Update:
With respect to Roberts decision, I think it would have been consistent with the Constitution if the law was actually written as a tax. But is it a tax? Clearly, it wasn't written to be interpreted as a tax. Those who passed this law deny that it is a tax. So how is it a tax?
If it were written as a tax, there would be no argument. But the Court has rewritten the law so that it would be in conformance with the Constitution. That's the problem.
Judge Robert Bork wrote a book in the nineties which, among many things, dealt with how to overturn bad Court decisions. He suggested an amendment that would allow Congress to set aside bad decisions like this one. I note that he suggested supermajorities in Congress could overturn Court decisions. That seems to be too high of a bar to overcome.
But such an amendment, if passed, would not repeal this law. That's because Congress is divided. The House would repeal it, most likely. But the Senate would not.
There is also the possibility of removal from office. But that would be counter productive. A liberal would be appointed in his place.
The only thing left, aside from open rebellion, is the ballot box. If you lose there, you are out of options.
What do you do when the Court exceeds its authority? What do you do when a President exceeds his authority? What do you do when the Congress exceeds its authority?
What do you do if the people don't care if the government is out of control?
Seems like you are running out of options.
That's the issue that may have to be decided extra legally. This is what can happen if you don't play by the rules. The losers see a rigged game and decide not to play this game anymore.
Update:
The term in the title "pre revolution" is discussed here in terms of the American Revolution as a timeline. We are not at the Patrick Henry moment. We may be closer to "No Taxation without Representation" than the Declaration of Independence. There was a revolution over taxes, and this was the kickoff.
ObamaCare is not being repealed. The only way to get rid of it is either a junta or a civil war and establishing a Second American Republic.
Perhaps it would be useful to go back to first principles. Number one is the founding documents, such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself.
The Constitution does provide for a means to make significant changes to the government or to even break up the Union. With respect to the Civil War Era, a constitutional convention could have legally accomplished what they tried to do by military force. Going back and repeating that error will likely lead to the same results or worse. If the government is truly oppressive and must be changed, the people still have the right to vote to alter and abolish it. If that is suppressed, and if it is clearly the will of the people to alter and abolish the current system, then we have a revolutionary situation on our hands. At the moment, that does not appear to be the case to me.
However, there was a poll recently which said that we don't have a government that has the consent of the governed. The government tends to ignore what the people want. Those in government are not honoring their oath of office. The respective political parties are showing more loyalty to themselves than to the Constitution for which they have given an oath to support and defend. This is betrayal to their oath and to the Constitution, and to the people. This is inconsistent with principles- among them is the rule of law as opposed to the rule of men. Therefore, we may be heading in a revolutionary direction.
The Declaration provides the justification for rebellion should the Constitutional option fail.
Once having decided to rebel, you had better find an organization that can pull it off.
A civil war is not the rule of law. To propose that is to go down a slippery slope towards the rule of men.
You still have a lawful, legal option to deal with this situation as it stands now. That should be attempted first. If that doesn't work, then it means that the rule of law has broken down. Then it is a matter of fighting or surrendering to what is in fact an unlawful authority. Ann Barnhardt is on shaky ground. But the very ground under our feet is shifting.
Everybody knows it.
Update:
With respect to Roberts decision, I think it would have been consistent with the Constitution if the law was actually written as a tax. But is it a tax? Clearly, it wasn't written to be interpreted as a tax. Those who passed this law deny that it is a tax. So how is it a tax?
If it were written as a tax, there would be no argument. But the Court has rewritten the law so that it would be in conformance with the Constitution. That's the problem.
Judge Robert Bork wrote a book in the nineties which, among many things, dealt with how to overturn bad Court decisions. He suggested an amendment that would allow Congress to set aside bad decisions like this one. I note that he suggested supermajorities in Congress could overturn Court decisions. That seems to be too high of a bar to overcome.
But such an amendment, if passed, would not repeal this law. That's because Congress is divided. The House would repeal it, most likely. But the Senate would not.
There is also the possibility of removal from office. But that would be counter productive. A liberal would be appointed in his place.
The only thing left, aside from open rebellion, is the ballot box. If you lose there, you are out of options.
What do you do when the Court exceeds its authority? What do you do when a President exceeds his authority? What do you do when the Congress exceeds its authority?
What do you do if the people don't care if the government is out of control?
Seems like you are running out of options.
That's the issue that may have to be decided extra legally. This is what can happen if you don't play by the rules. The losers see a rigged game and decide not to play this game anymore.
Update:
The term in the title "pre revolution" is discussed here in terms of the American Revolution as a timeline. We are not at the Patrick Henry moment. We may be closer to "No Taxation without Representation" than the Declaration of Independence. There was a revolution over taxes, and this was the kickoff.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Failure to Launch, Failure to Lead
blogs.airspacemag
Wake up. There's not much time.
One doesn’t assume or retain the mantle of leadership by fiat or declaration – it must be earned and exercised. Perhaps the real issue is not whether NASA is up to the task but rather, whether we as Americans are blind to the truth, unable to recognize that by having our nation withdraw from this arena, that we are retreating from our position, thereby ceding our prosperity, leadership and greatness to other nations who do have the will and the vision to press forward.
Wake up. There's not much time.
Cost of Green
Coyote Blog
Do we have to have a major disaster before people realize how utterly stupid this is? This is our military. This is our security. This may be the only thing separating us from destruction, yet these idiots are playing games with it.
...back in 2009, the Navy paid Solazyme (whose strategic advisors included TJ Gaulthier who served on Obama’s White House Transition team) $8.5mm for 20,055 gallons on algae-based biofuel – a snip at just $424-a-gallon.
Do we have to have a major disaster before people realize how utterly stupid this is? This is our military. This is our security. This may be the only thing separating us from destruction, yet these idiots are playing games with it.
Spaniards dish up tasty garbage to fight waste
By Anna Cuenca | AFP
Better to have something to eat than nothing, but that's not the point. Their "solution" is for people to eat garbage, not to attend to the problem that caused them to have to resort to this extremity in the first place.
Nothing wrong with feeding hungry people. Don't misunderstand.
The problem is the notion that resources are limited. If you believe that, then you will act upon that belief. The problematical acts are the ways in which access to resources are being limited. Thus, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Economies falter, people lose jobs, and hunger increases. Then you are reduced to eating garbage. Eventually, even that could go away.
Update:
A similar story from North Korea.
- On a warm summer's evening in a Madrid park about 30 diners enjoy an open-air meal of sauteed vegetables and mixed salad -- all fresh from the waste bin.
- The environmentalists are on a mission to stop wastage. In Spain, the equivalent of 163 kilograms (359 pounds) of food per person are thrown out every year. Across the European Union the wastage is even higher at 179 kilograms (394 pounds).[emphasis added]
- We don't have unlimited resources and we have to share with those who need it more.[emphasis added]
- The movement started off in the United States in the 1990s as "freeganism". But it has taken on a new meaning in Spain, which is in a deepening recession and suffering a financial crisis.
Better to have something to eat than nothing, but that's not the point. Their "solution" is for people to eat garbage, not to attend to the problem that caused them to have to resort to this extremity in the first place.
Nothing wrong with feeding hungry people. Don't misunderstand.
The problem is the notion that resources are limited. If you believe that, then you will act upon that belief. The problematical acts are the ways in which access to resources are being limited. Thus, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Economies falter, people lose jobs, and hunger increases. Then you are reduced to eating garbage. Eventually, even that could go away.
Update:
A similar story from North Korea.
Either-Or Fallacy-- Another Example of Bad Thinking
If Western Civilization collapses, what will be on its tombstone? In a way, that is a whimsical thought. There will be no tombstone if the collapse occurs. But if there were a tombstone, it will have to have something about what contributed to the death. In my opinion, it may well be death by faulty thinking. One manner of faulty thinking is the reliance upon a fallacy of one kind or another. One that I noted in reading Andrea Rossi's blog is that there seems to be that type of fallacy with regards to nuclear power. According to one comment, there needs to be an end to fission power, and have it replaced by a cold fusion device- such as the e-cat.
I am all for the success of the e-cat. But not to the exclusion of all others. There is no either or fallacy here. Both modes of producing power can be acceptable. It is the manner of how fission power is produced today that is a cause of problems- not fission power itself. On the other hand, fission and fusion power is sought as a replacement for fossil fuels. But these have not be perfected yet and we still need the energy.
We are being set up for failure because of this fallacy that one must prevail over the other. Yet all forms of energy are needed now. A high level of civilization requires it. In addition to this, a perfect means of generating energy may not be found, nor found practical. You must demonstrate capability before shutting down a proven source of energy. Therefore, the rush in forcing defeat upon an established means of energy, such as fossil and nuclear is to put the cart before the horse. In so doing, it will subject the West to a risk of economic collapse as insufficient means of energy production will doom its economic prospects.
What I have tried to show on this blog is that solutions exist. There's one that has had a proof of concept verified. Knowledge gained which was nearly lost for all time, yet recently re-discovered. That is the molten salt reactor research done at Oak Ridge nearly a half century ago. In the meantime, cold fusion research has been relegated to the backwaters of scientific research. These two potential game changing technologies were kept down by the same kind of bad thinking- they had to give way to another more favored approach. For the LFTR, it was set aside in favor of the Fast Breeder Reactor. Unfortunately, the Fast Breeder never seemed to work out. For cold fusion, it lost out to hot fusion projects. We are still waiting for the hot fusion concepts to work. In the meantime, cold fusion may be feasible. But if it isn't taken seriously, this knowledge may never be employed just as the LFTR technology has yet to be employed.
Why must this be? Why can't the fallacy be replaced with better thinking? Why depend upon a fallacy? The molten salt reactor technology could have been commercialized by now. Cold fusion technology could have been just as well. It is not the cost of the research that prevents it. It is the quality of the thinking that eliminated these possibilities before they had the chance to demonstrate their worthiness. There is room for all forms of energy production. In the end, we may never know which one may be the best, so we should keep our options open.
I am all for the success of the e-cat. But not to the exclusion of all others. There is no either or fallacy here. Both modes of producing power can be acceptable. It is the manner of how fission power is produced today that is a cause of problems- not fission power itself. On the other hand, fission and fusion power is sought as a replacement for fossil fuels. But these have not be perfected yet and we still need the energy.
We are being set up for failure because of this fallacy that one must prevail over the other. Yet all forms of energy are needed now. A high level of civilization requires it. In addition to this, a perfect means of generating energy may not be found, nor found practical. You must demonstrate capability before shutting down a proven source of energy. Therefore, the rush in forcing defeat upon an established means of energy, such as fossil and nuclear is to put the cart before the horse. In so doing, it will subject the West to a risk of economic collapse as insufficient means of energy production will doom its economic prospects.
What I have tried to show on this blog is that solutions exist. There's one that has had a proof of concept verified. Knowledge gained which was nearly lost for all time, yet recently re-discovered. That is the molten salt reactor research done at Oak Ridge nearly a half century ago. In the meantime, cold fusion research has been relegated to the backwaters of scientific research. These two potential game changing technologies were kept down by the same kind of bad thinking- they had to give way to another more favored approach. For the LFTR, it was set aside in favor of the Fast Breeder Reactor. Unfortunately, the Fast Breeder never seemed to work out. For cold fusion, it lost out to hot fusion projects. We are still waiting for the hot fusion concepts to work. In the meantime, cold fusion may be feasible. But if it isn't taken seriously, this knowledge may never be employed just as the LFTR technology has yet to be employed.
Why must this be? Why can't the fallacy be replaced with better thinking? Why depend upon a fallacy? The molten salt reactor technology could have been commercialized by now. Cold fusion technology could have been just as well. It is not the cost of the research that prevents it. It is the quality of the thinking that eliminated these possibilities before they had the chance to demonstrate their worthiness. There is room for all forms of energy production. In the end, we may never know which one may be the best, so we should keep our options open.
Next Big Future: Bas Lansdorp wants to establish a Mars outpost by ...
Next Big Future: Bas Lansdorp wants to establish a Mars outpost by ...: One of the main difficulties with any manned Mars mission that aims to land humans on the surface of Mars and return them to Earth is gettin...
In an interview for Next Big Future with Sander Olson, Lansdorp discusses the Mars One project, and how he believes that the Mars One project could be done for $6 billion dollars
In an interview for Next Big Future with Sander Olson, Lansdorp discusses the Mars One project, and how he believes that the Mars One project could be done for $6 billion dollars
- European entrepreneur named Bas Lansdorp wants to send humans on a one-way trip to Mars, and to pay for it as a media event.
- our goal is to have all of the technical work done by suppliers and not Mars one
- Question: Is it feasible to grow food using hydroponics on Mars?
- Question: How will the Mars project meet its water requirements?
- Question: So the mars one project will make extensive use of SpaceX's Falcon heavy?
- Question: So this will be financed through some sort of reality tv show?
- Question: Will this project require any Government financing or support?
- Question: What will be the biggest technical problem for Mars one?
Sunday, July 1, 2012
What Really Makes Us Fat
By GARY TAUBES New York Times Opinion
This has been around the web, so I'm putting it up as a reference and a reminder. Someday I may look into this a bit deeper.
From this perspective, the trial suggests that among the bad decisions we can make to maintain our weight is exactly what the government and medical organizations like the American Heart Association have been telling us to do: eat low-fat, carbohydrate-rich diets, even if those diets include whole grains and fruits and vegetables.
This has been around the web, so I'm putting it up as a reference and a reminder. Someday I may look into this a bit deeper.
Kirk Sorensen tours Lady Bryony Worthington through U.S. Space & Rocket Center in Huntsville
Published on Jun 26, 2012 by gordonmcdowell
Lady Bryony Worthington is an advocate for the adoption of thorium as a nuclear fuel. She was visiting USA to attend TEAC4, visit ORNL, and discuss the challenges facing thorium as an energy resource.
Kirk Sorensen was an aerospace engineer at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center from 2000 to 2010. Kirk recapped America's history of rocket development as an example of America's capability of Getting Big Stuff Done.
Racing into Oblivion: NASCAR's sellout
PJ Media via FreeRepublic
The left is like the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
But on May 21, 2012, NASCAR may have choked off that five-year plan before it could get any traction. On that day, NASCAR inked a deal with the Obama EPA. Under the terms of the three-year pact, NASCAR will “stimulate participation in EPA programs” and “foster greater environmental awareness among NASCAR fans.” The EPA will identify the environmental “programs and messages that are best suited for promoting environmental stewardship and sustainable behavior.” NASCAR is charged with “encouraging greater environmental awareness and sustainable behavior by their fans.”
The left is like the Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Backwards thinking
An Ace post discovers this in the Roberts decision on ObamaCare. You know, the Truthers are the same way.
The Truthers believe that 9/11 was an inside job. But this is backwards thinking. Why? The Truthers assumed that the 9/11 event would invariably lead to the 90% approval rating that Bush had for the time directly afterwards. But why is this assumed? Could a disastrous plunge in political support have been just as possible? You would have to see the future with such clarity that you wouldn't need a crystal ball if you could predict mass behavior with such precision. I strongly doubt that such precision is possible. Hence, the backward thinking.
The Truthers managed to infect the society with doubt about Bush. In time, this led to his fall from favor in public opinion polls.
Bush lied and people died was one of the mottoes of the left. Okay, but how did Bush lie about something that he couldn't have known about? The only way to know if Saddam had WMD was to actually go there and look.
The left needed to get Bush's numbers down. So the Truthers needed to plant the seed of doubt and that doubt had to be nurtured by the Bush lied, people died trope. Both notions require that Bush be godlike in his ability to perceive what no other man can perceive. But Bush is mortal, and the thinking is flawed, as it is a backwards argument based upon a desired outcome.
Yes, it that was an old argument as an example, but the tactic is the same. Now the Chief Justice is doing it too. He is hanging around these people and their bad thinking is infectious:
The Truthers believe that 9/11 was an inside job. But this is backwards thinking. Why? The Truthers assumed that the 9/11 event would invariably lead to the 90% approval rating that Bush had for the time directly afterwards. But why is this assumed? Could a disastrous plunge in political support have been just as possible? You would have to see the future with such clarity that you wouldn't need a crystal ball if you could predict mass behavior with such precision. I strongly doubt that such precision is possible. Hence, the backward thinking.
The Truthers managed to infect the society with doubt about Bush. In time, this led to his fall from favor in public opinion polls.
Bush lied and people died was one of the mottoes of the left. Okay, but how did Bush lie about something that he couldn't have known about? The only way to know if Saddam had WMD was to actually go there and look.
The left needed to get Bush's numbers down. So the Truthers needed to plant the seed of doubt and that doubt had to be nurtured by the Bush lied, people died trope. Both notions require that Bush be godlike in his ability to perceive what no other man can perceive. But Bush is mortal, and the thinking is flawed, as it is a backwards argument based upon a desired outcome.
Yes, it that was an old argument as an example, but the tactic is the same. Now the Chief Justice is doing it too. He is hanging around these people and their bad thinking is infectious:
My guess is that Roberts originally wanted to strike down the mandate but keep the ACA by ruling the mandate was severable. But when the four dissenters would not go along with him on severability, he sided with the liberals and wrote a contorted decision to uphold the law. He was arguing backward from a desired outcome.
The New Solid State E-Cat
pesn
Anyway, until Rossi produces a device that can be tested objectively, the controversy will continue. Or, perhaps he will even be ignored. Not a good place to be.
In short, we now know...
- The SS E-Cat no longer needs liquid cooling because the nuclear reactions inside the reactor are precisely controlled.
- The SS E-Cat can reach very high temperatures of well above 600C.
- Even though steam is not being produced in this test, high temperature steam can be produced. This is a thermodynamic fact due to the high temperatures the SS E-Cat can reach.
Anyway, until Rossi produces a device that can be tested objectively, the controversy will continue. Or, perhaps he will even be ignored. Not a good place to be.
Terraform cycler asteroids, part 7
Speculation alert
In the last post, the problem how to handle nuclear waste was discussed. What was overlooked was that it uses so little fuel that the amount of waste is not nearly so critical as thought. Consequently, the idea to use a LFTR in space cannot be eliminated on that basis alone.
The artificial gravity proposition seems good too, because lunar levels of artificial gravity can be achieved at a small scale. For example, at a radius of 35 meters, and an RPM of only 2, an artificial gravity roughly equal to the moon can be attained. In the scheme put forward so far, that would mean 7 tubes of 10 meters each could be constructed. It could be spun up at only 2 RPM for the lunar gravity emulation. This can coincide with human tolerance of 2 RPM, so a crew can reside at the opposite end of the device.
But this is all theoretical since a LFTR does not yet exist. But plans do exist to fire up one by 2015. These could range in size from 20-50 MW, which could fit with the ideas expressed here. A 20 MW should not be all that big, since it has been claimed that a 100 MW plant could fit on an 18 wheeler. So a 20 MW should be significantly smaller. Probably small enough to be put on a rocket and blasted into space. It could also launched with the tubes to make the tether and all the materials needed to get it fired up and producing energy. Crew can be launched separately--- perhaps as a Bigelow space hab. The hab will be attached at one end and the LFTR at the other.
How to get to an asteroid? With 20 MW of power, a VASIMR may be employed. At 20 MW, the power source would be 10 times what is envisioned for the VASIMR as a space tug between the Earth and Moon. Presumably, that would give the necessary thrust for a deep space mission.
Update:
Next in Series, Part 8
In the last post, the problem how to handle nuclear waste was discussed. What was overlooked was that it uses so little fuel that the amount of waste is not nearly so critical as thought. Consequently, the idea to use a LFTR in space cannot be eliminated on that basis alone.
The artificial gravity proposition seems good too, because lunar levels of artificial gravity can be achieved at a small scale. For example, at a radius of 35 meters, and an RPM of only 2, an artificial gravity roughly equal to the moon can be attained. In the scheme put forward so far, that would mean 7 tubes of 10 meters each could be constructed. It could be spun up at only 2 RPM for the lunar gravity emulation. This can coincide with human tolerance of 2 RPM, so a crew can reside at the opposite end of the device.
But this is all theoretical since a LFTR does not yet exist. But plans do exist to fire up one by 2015. These could range in size from 20-50 MW, which could fit with the ideas expressed here. A 20 MW should not be all that big, since it has been claimed that a 100 MW plant could fit on an 18 wheeler. So a 20 MW should be significantly smaller. Probably small enough to be put on a rocket and blasted into space. It could also launched with the tubes to make the tether and all the materials needed to get it fired up and producing energy. Crew can be launched separately--- perhaps as a Bigelow space hab. The hab will be attached at one end and the LFTR at the other.
How to get to an asteroid? With 20 MW of power, a VASIMR may be employed. At 20 MW, the power source would be 10 times what is envisioned for the VASIMR as a space tug between the Earth and Moon. Presumably, that would give the necessary thrust for a deep space mission.
Update:
Next in Series, Part 8
Message to Barack Obama: Unlike you, the Entrepreneur is a bona fide hero.
By Robert Ringer - Monday, June 25, 2012
Watching the U.S., the EU, Japan, and other once prosperous countries going broke is a sad sight to behold. And what they all have in common is that they’ve tried state capitalism — a shotgun marriage between capitalism and socialism — and found that Margaret Thatcher was right when she said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Now, spoiled parasites everywhere are angry because their hosts have run out of other people’s money. The message of the parasites is straightforward: “We don’t give a damn if you don’t have enough money to pay our entitlements. We want them anyway!”
For convenience, in this article I will lump together all left-wing state capitalists — liberals, progressives, socialists, communists — under the umbrella of “progressivism.” In fact, let’s make that “retrogressivism,” because the term progressivism is a misnomer. Progressives are really Retrogressives, because their words and actions make it clear that they hate progress.
By contrast, the Entrepreneur thrives on progress. As a result, his creativity, efforts, and willingness to take risks have resulted in Western civilization having the highest standard of living mankind has ever known.
Because the Retrogressive is an enemy of human progress, he is also the natural enemy of the Entrepreneur. The Retrogressive harbors enormous disdain for the Entrepreneur because of his annoying habit of creating products that people want rather than those the Retrogressive believes they should want.
Given that a hero is a person who accomplishes extraordinary feats under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, I would argue that the Entrepreneur is a bona fide hero. After all, he makes a living accomplishing extraordinary feats under extraordinarily difficult circumstances (think government taxes, regulation, and harassment).
But isn’t the Entrepreneur driven by a desire to create wealth for himself? Absolutely. So how does that make him a hero? For one thing, successful Entrepreneurs stay in business and, as a result, create jobs, produce products and services that people want, and do the one thing government can never do: stimulate the economy.
The Founders did not give the federal government the authority to “create jobs,” “get the economy moving,” or “strengthen the middle class.” These are nothing more than Retrogressive euphemisms for increasing government power and crowding out Entrepreneurs who create real wealth, real jobs, and a fundamentally strong economy.
Further, the Entrepreneur’s eating habits are directly tied to results. Many of the most successful people in our nation’s history have lost everything, or come close to it, by putting everything they owned on the line to take the entrepreneurial plunge.
Thomas Jefferson struggled financially throughout his life and died broke, but it never dampened his enthusiasm for entrepreneurial pursuits. Through all his financial difficulties, he not only was instrumental in helping to create “the great American experiment,” he also founded one of America’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning, the University of Virginia.
Again, making money is what motivates Entrepreneurs. Not helping people . . . not “saving the world” . . . not protecting the human race from “climate change.” This does not mean that he doesn’t care about these things. It’s just that none of them have anything to do with his chief business objective — making money.
The bonus to all this is that the invisible hand of the marketplace guarantees that an unintended consequence of his actions is that others will benefit from his efforts. The smart Entrepreneur realizes that in order to achieve his financial objectives, he must create value for others.
Unfortunately, as Tocqueville put it, “There exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.”
Barack Obama and his cadre of Obamaviks are counting on this depravity to win in November and finish the job of burying the remnants of America’s great experiment. Our government is now saturated with Retrogressive politicians and bureaucrats who view the Entrepreneur as the evil enemy because he stands in the way of their desire to control all aspects of every individual’s life.
Retrogressives are dangerous people. They lie; they steal; and, above all, they believe in the use of force. You cannot change them. You cannot reason with them. The only solution is to defeat them.
The reality is that the United States is now embroiled in a second civil war. The divide between liberty and tyranny is irreconcilable, and it’s time for those who believe in liberty to come to grips with the reality that the agenda of the Retrogressive is to transform the United States into a collectivist utopia where the government plans, controls, and, yes, owns everything.
Thus, the major question of our time is, which side shall prevail? Will it be the Retrogressive, who extols the virtues of a collectivist society in which men and women are living, breathing automatons? Or will it be the Entrepreneur, who believes passionately in the right of the individual to determine his own destiny, to work as hard as he chooses, to earn as much as he possibly can, and to keep the fruits of his labor?
It is the Entrepreneur, not the government, who built America and made it the most prosperous country in the history of the world. And the only way the U.S. can be rebuilt is for government to get out of the way and allow the Entrepreneur to move the country forward.
Economic growth and stability can come about only by unleashing the creative genius of the Entrepreneur, allowing the market to take its natural course, and ridding the economy of artificially created wealth. And a good start on that would be to vote out of office in November all Retrogressive members of Congress — both Democrats and Republicans — who are standing in the way of progress.
To preorder Robert Ringer’s new book, The Entrepreneur: The Way Back for the U.S. Economy, Click Here.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Watching the U.S., the EU, Japan, and other once prosperous countries going broke is a sad sight to behold. And what they all have in common is that they’ve tried state capitalism — a shotgun marriage between capitalism and socialism — and found that Margaret Thatcher was right when she said, “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money.”
Now, spoiled parasites everywhere are angry because their hosts have run out of other people’s money. The message of the parasites is straightforward: “We don’t give a damn if you don’t have enough money to pay our entitlements. We want them anyway!”
For convenience, in this article I will lump together all left-wing state capitalists — liberals, progressives, socialists, communists — under the umbrella of “progressivism.” In fact, let’s make that “retrogressivism,” because the term progressivism is a misnomer. Progressives are really Retrogressives, because their words and actions make it clear that they hate progress.
By contrast, the Entrepreneur thrives on progress. As a result, his creativity, efforts, and willingness to take risks have resulted in Western civilization having the highest standard of living mankind has ever known.
Because the Retrogressive is an enemy of human progress, he is also the natural enemy of the Entrepreneur. The Retrogressive harbors enormous disdain for the Entrepreneur because of his annoying habit of creating products that people want rather than those the Retrogressive believes they should want.
Given that a hero is a person who accomplishes extraordinary feats under extraordinarily difficult circumstances, I would argue that the Entrepreneur is a bona fide hero. After all, he makes a living accomplishing extraordinary feats under extraordinarily difficult circumstances (think government taxes, regulation, and harassment).
But isn’t the Entrepreneur driven by a desire to create wealth for himself? Absolutely. So how does that make him a hero? For one thing, successful Entrepreneurs stay in business and, as a result, create jobs, produce products and services that people want, and do the one thing government can never do: stimulate the economy.
The Founders did not give the federal government the authority to “create jobs,” “get the economy moving,” or “strengthen the middle class.” These are nothing more than Retrogressive euphemisms for increasing government power and crowding out Entrepreneurs who create real wealth, real jobs, and a fundamentally strong economy.
Further, the Entrepreneur’s eating habits are directly tied to results. Many of the most successful people in our nation’s history have lost everything, or come close to it, by putting everything they owned on the line to take the entrepreneurial plunge.
Thomas Jefferson struggled financially throughout his life and died broke, but it never dampened his enthusiasm for entrepreneurial pursuits. Through all his financial difficulties, he not only was instrumental in helping to create “the great American experiment,” he also founded one of America’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning, the University of Virginia.
Again, making money is what motivates Entrepreneurs. Not helping people . . . not “saving the world” . . . not protecting the human race from “climate change.” This does not mean that he doesn’t care about these things. It’s just that none of them have anything to do with his chief business objective — making money.
The bonus to all this is that the invisible hand of the marketplace guarantees that an unintended consequence of his actions is that others will benefit from his efforts. The smart Entrepreneur realizes that in order to achieve his financial objectives, he must create value for others.
Unfortunately, as Tocqueville put it, “There exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level, and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom.”
Barack Obama and his cadre of Obamaviks are counting on this depravity to win in November and finish the job of burying the remnants of America’s great experiment. Our government is now saturated with Retrogressive politicians and bureaucrats who view the Entrepreneur as the evil enemy because he stands in the way of their desire to control all aspects of every individual’s life.
Retrogressives are dangerous people. They lie; they steal; and, above all, they believe in the use of force. You cannot change them. You cannot reason with them. The only solution is to defeat them.
The reality is that the United States is now embroiled in a second civil war. The divide between liberty and tyranny is irreconcilable, and it’s time for those who believe in liberty to come to grips with the reality that the agenda of the Retrogressive is to transform the United States into a collectivist utopia where the government plans, controls, and, yes, owns everything.
Thus, the major question of our time is, which side shall prevail? Will it be the Retrogressive, who extols the virtues of a collectivist society in which men and women are living, breathing automatons? Or will it be the Entrepreneur, who believes passionately in the right of the individual to determine his own destiny, to work as hard as he chooses, to earn as much as he possibly can, and to keep the fruits of his labor?
It is the Entrepreneur, not the government, who built America and made it the most prosperous country in the history of the world. And the only way the U.S. can be rebuilt is for government to get out of the way and allow the Entrepreneur to move the country forward.
Economic growth and stability can come about only by unleashing the creative genius of the Entrepreneur, allowing the market to take its natural course, and ridding the economy of artificially created wealth. And a good start on that would be to vote out of office in November all Retrogressive members of Congress — both Democrats and Republicans — who are standing in the way of progress.
To preorder Robert Ringer’s new book, The Entrepreneur: The Way Back for the U.S. Economy, Click Here.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.
Ann Barnhardt Visits The Batcave 9/1/2011
Uploaded by BatcaveonBlogtalk on Dec 2, 2011
She put up her Patrick Henry speech today.
A constitutional convention is the way to go before you go all out with a rebellion. That is the mistake the South made.
American Patriot, Ann Barnhardt enters "The Batcave" to speak her mind about Islam, Sharia Law, Communism, our military, our treasonous politicians, the usurper, and how to prepare for what's about to happen to America!
She put up her Patrick Henry speech today.
A constitutional convention is the way to go before you go all out with a rebellion. That is the mistake the South made.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)