Is Fidel fi-dumb, or just getting old?

Castro finally admits the Communist system doesn't work. Admits it was stupid to encourage Russia to nuke the U.S. But he's still eating better than the people he rules over. Is Fidel getting soft in his old age, or has the clarity of his own mortality given him pause to reconsider his past actions? Too little, too late. Burn in hell you TYRANT!!!

Hypocrisy In Action: Corralling the Cattle

So they pass this Consumer Protection bill in Congress, the President signs it and now it's law. I see some glaring inconsistencies in logic here, and I'll tell you why. They also want to raise taxes on energy companies, which in turn will raise prices for consumers... drastically. How is that for protection? Now along comes this Livable Communities Act which will cause every homeowner, business owner and landlord to conform to the new energy efficiency standards inherent in the bill. New energy efficiency standards meaning, new windows, insulation, roofing, etc. for the already cash strapped citizens of America. Check it out for yourself, it is Senate bill 1619. Who do you suppose we have to thank for this Socialist garbage? Why, the Progressive Democrats, that's who. Most particularly, Senator Dodd, one of the most corrupt members of Congress out there. Call his office in Washington and ask him about Countrywide, I'm sure he'd be happy to talk to YOU about it.

I view these new energy efficiency standards to be a mandate on consumers to provide a windfall in profits for the Green initiative. How could it be anything else? Same reason Obama put the oil drilling moratorium in place, same reason they will raise taxes on energy companies and it's the same reason why they want their Cap & Trade so bad they can taste the carbon.

CAP/TRADE = Center for American Progress Taking Radical Action to Destabilize the Economy.

Just a little fun with acronyms I had yesterday. I think I'm clever. But I digress...

This Livable Communities Act goes so much further than mandating you have super-ultra-spiffy-quadruple-payne windows. The bill is all about making sure that where you live, work, shop, and recreate (procreate, if it's allowed?) are all centrally located in urban areas and within walking distance of one another. For the express consideration of what are to be called "Green Spaces". Their whole intent, it seems, is to corral, confine and control the citizens of this country. Like an urban internment camp for us dirty humans.

Don't believe me? Take a look, direct from the bill itself.

SEC. 3. PURPOSES.

The purposes of this Act are--

(1) to facilitate and improve the coordination of housing, community development, transportation, energy, and environmental policy in the United States;

1.) This is a consolidation of power. By enacting this law, housing, community development, transportation, energy, and environmental policy will be merged under this new Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities.

(2) to coordinate Federal policies and investments to promote sustainable development;

2.) To funnel the redistribution of wealth into funding their model of conformity. Fun!

(3) to encourage regional planning for livable communities and the adoption of sustainable development techniques, including transit-oriented development;

3.) Regional planning. This is scary. They're planning to cram you into a "livable" space, the development of which is subject to change at any time the Government sees fit. But you'll at least be close enough to public transportation to make your commute to work easier. Heck, the monorail may just go right THROUGH your "livable" space. Now that's convenience.

(4) to provide a variety of safe, reliable transportation choices, with special emphasis on public transportation and complete streets, in order to reduce traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and dependence on foreign oil;

4.) This is a two parter.

a.) Safe, reliable transportation choices, with SPECIAL emphasis on public transportation. Safe? Ever sat next to a crazy or violent, or crazy AND violent person while riding public transportation? You should try it. You haven't lived until you've almost died riding public transportation. I suppose you'll be safer with the new "Open Society" security force on board though. (SS is just too... passe, cliche... we'll call them the OS instead. )

b.) Complete streets. This one requires a definition. Also provided in the bill.
"The term ‘complete street’ means a street that enables all travelers, particularly public transit users, bicyclists, pedestrians (including individuals of all ages and individuals with disabilities), and motorists, to use the street safely and efficiently." This is massive and will cost more than our debt buyers in China will permit. But I suppose the Democrats are counting on all that profit from their Green initiative. Of course they are, that's what rounds out the rest of number four... "in order to reduce traffic congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, and dependence on foreign oil." If they really wanted us to decrease our dependence on foreign oil, they would allow us to drill for it at our leisure.

(5) to provide affordable, energy-efficient, and location-efficient housing choices for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities, and to make the combined costs of housing and transportation more affordable to families;

5.) Affordable AND energy efficient? That's an oxymoron. Energy efficient appliances, windows, doors, insulation, etc. are expensive to purchase and install. But I suppose some members of Congress (Dodd) would know little about such trivial simplicities. (Psst... because they're doing it intentionally to pick your pocket and fill their own). "Location-efficient... to make the combined costs of housing and transportation more affordable." This assumes you don't have to commute accross town or to a differnt city for work, as some residents of New Jersey do while working in New York., or residents of Wasilla who work in Anchorage. But the important thing to notice is their inclusion of these particular demographics, "for people of all ages, incomes, races, and ethnicities", as if this new housing choice won't be much of a choice at all.

(6) to support, revitalize, and encourage growth in existing communities, in order to maximize the cost effectiveness of existing infrastructure and preserve undeveloped lands;

6.) Sounds like they want to cram us all in high-rises like the Japanese so they can "preserve undeveloped lands". News Flash: Without developing land, food doesn't get grown, products don't get made, houses don't get built, people don't have jobs and then starve to death like those in Communist Russia under Stalin.

(7) to promote economic development and competitiveness by connecting the housing and employment locations of workers, reducing traffic congestion, and providing families with access to essential services;

7.) Is this some kind of mandate for businesses to provide housing for their workers? Or are they saying you'll be working so many hours you'll have to sleep at the job (not sleep ON the job). "Connecting housing and employment locations of workers". Does this also mean now that your work will tell you where to live? Or will the Government now tell you where to work? Or will the Government just cut out the middle man and be instructing you on BOTH? Well, at least they promise to provide "access to essential services". I guess they have to with their new "complete streets". Maybe that part was implied?

(8) to preserve the environment and natural resources, including agricultural and rural land and green spaces;

8.) Apparently this part is for non-humans. Preserve rural lands? I guess all you people who live in rural areas are gonna have to sheep on down to the city now ya'hear? Can't be outside one o' them "livable communities". Can't be muckin' up the "green spaces" with yer human yuck. Here's a wake up call.... YOU are a natural resource, YOU come from the Earth just like the trees, rocks, oil and soil. Don't for one second believe the hype of this global warming scam and green extortion. Don't give in, don't give up.

(9) to support public health and improve quality of life for the residents of and workers in communities by promoting healthy, walkable neighborhoods, access to green space, and the mobility to pursue greater opportunities.

9.) Only if you live in Shangri-la-la-land. Seems to me, you cram that many people on top of each other and restrict their access to free, open and rural lands, you will have serious problems. Disease (pandemic), violence, looting, starvation, unemployment, corruption, etc., no matter how much "access" you give them to "essential services" in "healthy, walkable neighborhoods".

The Government can't provide for you, nor should you expect them to. Government should get the hell out of your way. Here are a few applicable quotes from President Calvin Coolidge.

"After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world."

"All growth depends upon activity. There is no development physically or intellectually without effort, and effort means work."

"Don't expect to build up the weak by pulling down the strong."

"Duty is not collective; it is personal."

"Economy is the method by which we prepare today to afford the improvements of tomorrow."

Man they just don't make 'em like THAT any more. I would vote for THAT guy. I know, they're great... there are just a few more.

"Industry, thrift and self-control are not sought because they create wealth, but because they create character."

"No enterprise can exist for itself alone. It ministers to some great need, it performs some great service, not for itself, but for others; or failing therein, it ceases to be profitable and ceases to exist."

"Patriotism is easy to understand in America. It means looking out for yourself by looking out for your country."

Thanks for reading.

New Ideas?

Every time I hear Obama talk about Republicans he accuses them of not having any "new ideas". What I find interesting, is that Obama is pushing an agenda that celebrates an idea that is over 150 years old, and has ALWAYS been a failure.

"Throughout history, no tyrant ever rose to power except on the claim of representing the common good" - Ayn Rand

The "common good" or "general welfare" is what Obama has advocated from day one. His form of "Hope" and "Change" are born out of a philosophy that produces chains and shackles. You have only to read the bills coming out of a Progressive Congress to know that. The rhetoric while the cameras roll are fluff for the ignorant masses. Those who only pay attention to soundbites or get their "news" from the Daily Show or Colbert Report. But the demagoguery is what is truly appalling. It's only a matter of time before Obama starts labeling Republicans as racists, bigots or fear-mongers like his disciples at the NY Times, Huffington Post, or Comedy Central.

Do your homework on Collectivism. Read F. A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom". You will find that your freedom is fragile and requires some strong defense. The "central planning" of Collectivism will ALWAYS fail.

Here we go again!

Oil rig, explosion, Gulf of Mexico.... it's like deja vu. Seems Obama's secret ecoterrorists are at it again. So far this year we've had explosions at a coal mine (or more?), a natural gas plant, and two oil rigs. The statistics of this many converging coincidences is astronomically improbable. Especially when you add the environmental Cap & Trade agenda to the mix, and those who wield the power to enact it. Don't be surprised one bit if Obama takes this opportunity (never let a good crisis go to waste) to justify the takeover of all energy industries.

So it leaves us with the only question to ask. Is it coincidence?

Oh sure, it has to be. Who would believe this Administration (or his underlings behind the scenes) would advocate this kind of havok?

Well.... let's think about this. What are we talking about here?

Ecoterrorists - A person who uses violence in order to achieve environmentalist aims. (Dictionary.com)

I'm just coming right out and saying it. This is sabotage, each and every one of them. The coal mine, the natural gas plant, the oil rigs, all of it. Despite what the criminally complicit media tells you or who they blame. They are lying to you!

Would it really be any surprise though? I doubt it. It's the lynchpin in their Socialist plan. That's what kicks the whole thing off. Once the Gov. gets its grubby hands in controlling industry we are all screwed.

It's enough to make you CRAZY!!!!

I had to stop posting about the National Security Strategy because I didn't feel like repeating myself in a never ending cycle of redundancy. The whole thing is like a love letter to the philosophies of Karl Marx.

Prismatic Transparency Pt. 2

Still reading the May 2010 National Security Strategy. It is amazing how aloof our President is. As if he lives in a world of peace, love and cotton candy. Under the section titled "Pursuing Comprehensive Engagement" the following reads

"Succesful engagement will depend upon the effective use and integration of different elements of American power. Our diplomacy and development capabilities must help prevent conflict, spur economic growth, strengthen weak and failing states, lift people out of poverty, combat climate change and epidemic disease, and strengthen institutions of democratic governance."

• Prevent conflict - Why? What's to gain by that? We would still be under the rule of England if our revolutionary conflict were prevented. One of the smartest things ever said by President John F. Kennedy, in reference to the Vietnam conflict before it got fully underway, was "It's their war, let them fight it."
• Spur economic growth - In what way are we talking about? Oh, I get it... globalization. We'll ship more American jobs overseas to spur the economic growth of another country. Is that a great idea or what?
• Strengthen weak and failing states - I believe the "bailout" metaphor works nicely here. If a business is failing, it is best to allow said business to heal itself or die. In the case of a country, the same should hold true. It is up to the peoples of any nation to make due for themselves. Except in such instances where tyranny is the cause for national insolvency. In this regard ONLY, should another government interfere with the sovereignty of another nation.
• Lift people out of poverty - Sounds like welfare to me. Is this an allusion to a new policy of "stimulus" for entitlements? We can't even afford our own welfare entitlements, what makes this administration think it can afford to prop up those of other countries?
• Combat climate change - Interesting choice of words. To combat... does that mean Green Peace will now train as a para-military pressence to enforce cap and trade? I'm sure some of you have seen that cable show "Whale Wars", where animal rights activists COMBAT whaling ships. It seems like it is only a matter of time before environmentalists take up guns and terrorize businesses for their percieved carbon foot print.

Interjection - Nothing thwarts Earth in her own forces. This world will take care of itself. If man causes too much damage to her, then Earth will let us know by killing off every insectile human who dwells on her surface. That doesn't mean that I think we should allow toxic waste to be dumped in our streams or let the oil in the gulf just sit on the shorelines. But it does mean that man should not hold down man with an iron fist for using Earth's resources to improve life. If a hippie wants to live barefoot and naked in the woods they should be allowed to, but to enforce such a minimalistic lifestyle on the masses is unrealistic and undermines personal freedom.

The next section is titled "Promoting a Just and Sustainable International Order". The first paragraph alone speaks volumes to its intents.

"Our engagement will underpin a just and sustainable international order—just, because it advances mutual interests, protects the rights of all, and holds accountable those who refuse to meet their responsibilities; sustainable because it is based on broadly shared norms and fosters collective action to address common challenges."

Friends and neighbors, this is Socialism on a worldwide scale. Just how just can it be?

• Advances mutual interests - Mutual interests do not exist on a global scale. What's good for one nation is often times bad for another. Like globalization, shipping American jobs overseas is bad for us, but good for the country who is taking them.
• Protects the rights of all - This is an impossibility. Does that mean an international order will protect Israel's right to exist, while simultaneously protecting Hezbollah's "right" to wipe them off the face of the Earth? When enacting laws for one group of people, you oppositely alienate another group of people. It is a paradox.
• Holds accountable those who refuse to meet their responsibilities - So, the responsibility of a sovereign nation to do what it is told by a global authority, thus negating said nation's sovereignty. Another paradox.

Sustainable... yeah, only in political theory, but not in reality.

• Based on broadly shared norms - This means, in socialist parlance, that whatever the majority of a particular issue wants is what is adopted into the plan. That's the democracy part of Democratic-Socialism (an oxymoron in and of itself). But because that becomes the plan, any deviations from the means to that end are disregarded. Because it is impossible to quantify the personal needs of every individual, it is impossible for a one-size-fits-all plan to maintain effectuality, and therefore is unsustainable. The only "broadly shared norm" is that we are human and work toward our own individual ends.
• Fosters collective action - Another allusion to collectivism (as discussed in previous post), which is purposely ambiguous in its usage with "broadly shared norms" to not specify what those particular norms are, or what, if any, "collective action" is to be taken. This is highly important to the function of a socialist system for the sole purpose of my previous point in that not one plan will ever be agreed upon.
• Addresses common challenges - By keeping terms limited to "general welfare", "general interest", "common good", "common purpose", "social goal", etc. it becomes a tool of those in executive power to effect their own idealogical ends. Inevitably it becomes evident that no one can agree on anything (abortion, gay marriage, economy and politics are all good examples of this) and that nothing is getting done. This is when it is deemed neccessary to suspend democratic process in the name of the "common good" to appoint a legislative council or even an autocrat with supreme power to get things done. We've seen this happen before. That's how Germany got Adolph Hitler. And we see it today with the President's commissions and czars on everything from healthcare to the BP debacle.

Below, the President expresses his love for a one world government. Even if he does admit it has its flaws. He seems to believe that those flaws are reconcilable.

"In recent years America’s frustration with international institutions has led us at times to engage the United Nations (U.N.) system on an ad hoc basis. But in a world of transnational challenges, the United States will need to invest in strengthening the international system, working from inside international institutions and frameworks to face their imperfections head on and to mobilize transnational cooperation. We must be clear-eyed about the factors that have impeded effectiveness in the past. In order for collective action to be mobilized, the polarization that persists across region, race, and religion will need to be replaced by a galvanizing sense of shared interest. Swift and effective international action often turns on the political will of coalitions of countries that comprise regional or international institutions. New and emerging powers who seek greater voice and representation will need to accept greater responsibility for meeting global challenges. When nations breach agreed international norms, the countries who espouse those norms must be convinced to band together to enforce them."

Replaced by a galvanizing sense of shared interest? Where is this mythic land where region, race, and religion cease to be polarizing issues? I wanna go there... Do they call it Shangri-la-la land? Has civilization really evolved to such utopian proportions that we would be willing to give up the sovereignty of our nation? And how exactly is this galvanized sense of shared interest suppossed to happen? Well, let's think about this...

... I remember the morning of September 11th, 2001 very clearly, and even the few months following. It sure seemed then that there was a galvanizing sense of shared interest to go kick the sh!t out of some terrorist cowards. Or possibly this administration's moratorium on offshore drilling because of the galvanizing sense of shared interest that we could suffer another catastrophe.

Both of these scenarios have multiple conspiracy theories attached to them. Some say the Bush administration worked in collusion with al-qaida to mobilize the military industrial complex. Some say that Obama had the Deep Water Horizon rig sabotaged (and possibly the West Virginia coal mine incident) to advance the progressive cap and trade agenda.

A galvanizing sense of shared interest. Man, what on Earth could invoke such a sense? There are only two things I can think of that would transcend the issues of region, race, and religion and cause a galvanizing sense of shared interest.

1. An asteroid hurtling toward Earth that would wipe out mankind indeffinitely.
2. Jesus drives a shiny white Cadillac back to Earth to clean house.

Unless of course what causes the galvinization is in response to a threat of worldly origin. Such as the deliberate collapse of a national economy for the purposes of driving the masses into the embrace of Socialism.

Ever heard of the Cloward-Piven Strategy? Look it up, it will explain a lot. Basically, the strategy is to "organize" poor and ethnic communities for the sake of getting them on welfare. This "community organizing" educates the people... not on how to better themselves, no... it educates them on how to drain the system. Once enough people are on welfare it will bankrupt the nation, thus causing mass panic and rioting due to hunger and homelessness, at which time the progressives believe the conditions will be ripe for Socialism.

The last sentence of the paragragh, "When nations breach agreed international norms, the countries who espouse those norms must be convinced to band together to enforce them.", is a very dangerous proposition. In advancing this international order or one world government, we give up our rights to govern ourselves. If the central body of government is the United Nations, then those international norms will be based on what the majority of countries deem them to be. Unfortunately, America's "norms" vastly differ from those of most other countries.

There is a lot in the National Security Strategy that I do agree with, and I believe that our President has good intentions... or at least, I hope and pray he does. For as intelligent as he seems to be, you'd think that he'd have researched Socialism and its pitfalls before acting in a way that advances its principles. Hmm... food for thought.

Thanks for reading.... more to come later.

Prismatic Transparency

I'm currently reading the President's National Security Strategy from Whitehouse.gov, drafted May 2010. With curious concepts like "international order" and "international norm" it reads more like a Global Security Strategy. However, I believe that "security", in this regard, is a concept invoked in the interest of Government rather than that of its people.



While it is true that global economy, finance and trade are interconnected, it is not true that "international order" will help to bring prosperity to the masses. In fact, it will only serve to limit production, increase tax burdens and create a new caste system in which personal freedom and liberty will give way to abuse, corruption and tyranny. The words used in this National Security Strategy of good intentions may be eloquently written, and posting this document to Whitehouse.gov may be an effort at transparency, but the only thing transparent about this administration's strategy are the lies that can be seen through its prism.



An excerpt from the text reads "Engagement is the active participation of the United States in relationships beyond our borders. It is, quite simply, the opposite of a self-imposed isolation that denies us the ability to shape outcomes. Indeed, America has never succeeded through isolationism. As the nation that helped to build our international system after World War II and to bring about the globalization that came with the end of the Cold War, we must reengage the world on a comprehensive and sustained basis."

Interjection-
[Globalization is a controversial subject. Proponents believe that it helps poor countries to modernize in order to compete globally with industrialized nations through employment and technology. Critics believe it undermines national sovereignty by outsourcing industry overseas where labor is cheaper (or done by slaves, sweatshop workers, or children).]

Another excerpt reads "Today, we need to be clear-eyed about the strengths and shortcomings of international institutions that were developed to deal with the challenges of an earlier time and the shortage of political will that has at times stymied the enforcement of international norms."

There is that concept again "international norms". Is that a reference to laws? What else would there be to enforce? Hmm.... curious. Go on....

"Yet it would be destructive to both American national security and global security if the United States used the emergence of new challenges and the shortcomings of the international system as a reason to walk away from it. Instead, we must focus American engagement on strengthening international institutions and galvanizing the collective action that can serve common interests such as combating violent extremism; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; achieving balanced and sustainable economic growth; and forging cooperative solutions to the threat of climate change, armed conflict and pandemic disease."

Well, at least the text affirms that there are shortcomings in the international system, but the important phrase to note is italicized in bold. To strenghthen international institutions would be to give greater power and authority to the United Nations and NATO (further undermining national sovereignty). To galvanize collective action is akin to "central planning", a tenet of Collectivism (which to the uninformed is a political system upon which socialism, communism, and fascism are based). This is fun... I feel like I'm learning something. Let's go on....

"The starting point for that collective action will be our engagement with other countries. The cornerstone of this engagement is the relationship between the United States and our close friends and allies in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and the Middle East - ties which are rooted in shared interests and shared values, and which serve our mutual security and the broader security and prosperity of the world. We are working to build deeper and more effective partnerships with other key centers of influence - including China, India, and Russia, as well as increasingly influential nations such as Brazil, South Africa, and Indonesia - so that we can cooperate on issues of bilateral and global concern, with the recognition that power, in an interconnected world, in no longer a zero sum game. We are expanding our outreach to emerging nations, particularly those that can be models of regional success and stability, from the Americas to Africa to Southeast Asia. And we will pursue engagement with hostile nations to test their intentions, give their governments the opportunity to change course, reach out to their people, and mobilize international coalitions."

I have to disagree with the above italicized statment in bold. To engage in this collective action for international order, power would become confined to a zero sum game. America has long been the brightest beacon of individual freedom and liberty in world history. We have also been uniquely positioned as the mightiest nation on Earth. We have used our power in the world to overthrow oppressive despots, tyrants and sycophants, rescue Europe in its darkest hour, and cause the collapse of a communist giant (U.S.S.R.). It would be foolish for the United States to cede that power to anyone. An international order would allot zero power to any one nation, in effect making it near impossible to get anything accomplished. This brings us to the concept of Collectivism.

Collectivism can only work with "central planning", meaning that a central body dictates what is produced and how it is equitably distributed. But it breaks down in that it presupposes that a single plan of action will work for everyone. I'm sure you've heard the idiom "opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one". But under collectivism, the only asshole farting will be that of the central governing body. Tasteless joke, I know, but so is Socialism. A single plan of action doesn't take any individual concerns into account. Which means that if the gov is set up as christian, then all other religions will not be tolerated. If you are gay in a straight nation, you're screwed. If you're ethnicity differs from that of the "norm", then you will be removed or eliminated. Okay.... let's move on...

"This engagement will underpin our commitment to an international order based upon rights and responsibilities. International institutions must more effectively represent the world of the 21st century, with a broader voice - and greater responsibilities - for emerging powers, and they must be modernized to more effectively generate results on issues of global interest."

The text seems to suggest that we should modernize third world countries to ensure they produce for the benefit of the global interest. That's interesting... that sounds just like the downside to globalization that I was talking about earlier. Weird.

"Constructive national steps on issues ranging from nuclear security to climate change must be incentivized, so nations that choose to do their part see the benefits of responsible action. Rules of the road must be followed, and there must be consequences for those nations that break the rules - whether they are nonproliferation obligations, trade agreements, or human rights commitments."

This just keeps getting better. Incentivized... I like it. We create incentives for them to do the right thing. Obviously they won't do the right thing without incentive to do so. How do we create those incentives? Well, we impose sanctions, cut off trade, threaten military action. Oh wait, that sounds an awful lot like coercion. Like a shakedown or other mafia tactics. What else is interesting about the last paragraph? In the italicized bold above we see that there will be consequences for those nations who do not abide by the rules of (radicals) the road. Wasn't it mentioned earlier though about China and the Middle East? Aren't those some of the worst human rights offenders around? It seems the muck just gets thicker as you go along.

More to come later..... I've got a lot of research to do in order to do this right, so check back often. Thanks for reading.