It's My Blog

Still not impressed by Sarah Palin

2010-02-08T22:57:00.001-05:00

Saturday night Sarah Palin gave a speech to a convention in Tennessee calling itself the "Tea Party Convention." Now, it's important to note: the tea party is not one homogeneous organization. The "Tea Party" is actually a collection of various different groups, from libertarians to 9/12'ers to disgruntled Republicans to who knows what. The fact that this organization called themselves the "Tea Party Convention" and charged people $500 to get in the door is a little bit troubling. Then again, they did offer a celebrity appearance, so in that way they did provide consumers with a product that they wanted.

However, that celebrity did not deliver on any sort of substantive Tea Party message. In fact, it sounded like just another Republican campaign rally speech. It could have just as easily been given in 2008 under the "McCain/Palin" banner, as Palin didn't really say anything all that revolutionary and certainly didn't break at all with the Republican establishment.

She started off the speech with a lot of platitudes and cliches. She talked about how Scott Brown symbolizes the tea party movement... I'm not really sure how she came to that conclusion. She talked about how Obama has to use a teleprompter and he doesn't put his talks on CSPAN... typical campaign rhetoric. Then she launched into about 20 minutes worth of talking about foreign policy: something that the Tea Party movement has largely ignored. In fact most war signs at Tea Party events are usually about ending our full time army and closing down our empire of bases around the world.

During this talk she again makes directly contradicting statements. She says at first that she supports the protesters in Iran who are standing up for their freedom. Then she says that the time for talk is over, that we need tough sanctions to bring Iran into line. Now, honestly, doesn't she know that the only result of sanctions is to starve the people of a country? So if we impose sanctions on Iran, those people who are fighting for their freedom are simply going to be massacred or starved to death as a result of our actions? I agree that we need to take action: we need to annihilate the government and the army of Iran, and then leave the country for the Iranians to rebuild.

After her diatribe on terrorism Palin finally got to talking about the economy. For a while she berated "hope and change" and all of the failed and corrupt stimulus projects. I couldn't agree more on this point: the stimulus only hurt, it is a total failure. However the time is right for clear, concise ideas, not just complaining about the current administration. Palin should have used this opportunity to promote laissez faire capitalism and real solutions based on individual rights, not simply rattle off hypocrisies from the Obama cabinet. I mean pointing out hypocrites in the Democrat party is like shooting fish in a barrel, and not as productive.

I actually captured a little bit of the speech and posted to youtube, because this is what I feel is the most important part, the most obvious example of how Palin sounds like a great American, but really has no idea about laissez faire or individual rights: (please note that I did not just extract a soundbyte as I want to fairly quote Palin in-context, unlike most of her critics)

Now, there are so many contradictions in there that my brain is now hurting. However I'll just focus on one. She says that the government shouldn't be picking winners and losers immediately after she talks about how Alaska forced oil companies to give up their leases on oil rights. Now I don't agree with the way the oil has been handled in Alaska at all as it is essentially socialized oil, but even if you look at just the one example that Palin gives herself it is Crony Capitalism, it is the government interfering with the market. Palin just doesn't seem to get this at all. Freedom, AKA Capitalism, exists only when the government does not interfere with business and individuals. Freedom exists when the only purpose the government serves is the protection of businesses and individuals from the use of force or fraud.

Palin seems to think that doling out oil rights and oil money is a perfectly legitimate use of government. She somehow thinks that this is the definition of freedom and the American way. This is why I simply cannot support her politically, and why I think the Tea Party and the Republican Party would be better off without her.

Fundamental Principles

2010-02-06T14:03:00.001-05:00

This post caught my eye today, and since I agree with exactly this set of fundamentals I will repost it here:

It starts with four overarching dicta:
1. Don’t steal.
2. Don’t enslave.
3. Don’t commit fraud.
4. Treat individuals as individuals.

You cannot disagree with my opinions without disagreeing with at least one of these precepts.

On Personal Liberty

No person should initiate the use of force or fraud against any other person. Every person has the right to exercise sole dominion over his own life and property so long as he does not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to do the same.

On Human Governance

In human governance, every effort should be made to maximize individual liberty and protect property rights. However, once any compulsion (force) is introduced to advance any social good, whoever introduced the compulsion has accepted in practice, that the “good” is whatever the strongest (those with the guns, jails and the ability and power to impose fines) say it is.

Regulation, and the voting directly or indirectly for any regulation, is the ethical equivalent of slavery.

Taxation, and the voting directly or indirectly for any taxation, is the ethical equivalent of theft.

There is no alternative, coherent position which, for example, seeks justice, equity or more efficient markets. All other positions are a degradation of individual liberty to one degree or another.

Every other position I hold is founded on, or consistent with these fundamental principles.

link: The DumpDC Fundamental Principles « DumpDC

My Answers for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee

2010-02-02T19:42:00.001-05:00

Last week the DSCC released a memo with several questions designed to pit Republican voters against each other, saying:

“Given the pressure Republican candidates feel from the extreme right in their party, there is a critical — yet time-sensitive — opportunity for Democratic candidates,” the DSCC writes. “We have a finite window when Republicans candidates will feel susceptible to the extremists in their party. Given the urgent nature of this dynamic, we suggest an aggressive effort to get your opponents on the record.”

link: DSCC urges quick offensive for 2010 - John Bresnahan and Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

Apparently these geniuses (who Politico incorrectly asserts have "learned their lesson") think that the Tea Party movement is the extreme right wing of the Republican party. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Tea Party is a multifarious group of individuals who believe in liberty, small government, and freedom. They have voted for Republicans recently simply as a way to stop the out of control train wreck that is the unbridled execution of the Democratic platform. If Republicans don't shape up, they won't continue to get those votes.

Anyway, on to the questions. I'm not a politician or a Republican, but I thought it would be a fun exercise to give my answers to the "divisive" quiz. So, here we go:

Do you believe that Barack Obama is a U.S. citizen?

Yes. His citizenship and his age are his only qualifications for being the President of the United Sates. Nothing else in his entire life history would lead a sane person to believe that he is qualified to be President.

Do you think the 10th Amendment bars Congress from issuing regulations like minimum health care coverage standards?

Yes. I also believe that the 10th Amendment (along with the entire Bill of Rights) is a shell game, added on to the constitution to appease the liberty minded Henry and Jefferson (and other anti-federalists), but overruled by other parts of the constitution such as the interstate commerce clause and the general welfare clause. I don't hold the constitution as my standard for moral government, the Declaration of Independence fills that role. I see the constitution as the enslavement of the people of the Confederation of American States to the federal government.

Do you think programs like Social Security and Medicare represent socialism and should never have been created in the first place?

Yes. The state confiscates your property (SS Tax, Medicare Tax) and distributes it as it sees fit. This is the exact definition of socialism.

Do you think President Obama is a socialist?

No. I think he's a totalitarian in the Hitler mode: using the rhetoric of socialism but enacting fascism. Why own the property when you own the people? Fascism is the system of government where the citizen owns "private" property but the government controls its use. That is the Obama platform.

Do you think America should return to a gold standard?

No. I think America should banish the federal reserve and the dollar and allow for competing currencies, simultaneously outlawing fractional reserve banking (AKA counterfeiting.) Our current monetary system is a crime against humanity.

OK so there are my answers. I wonder if there are any politicians out there who come anywhere close to that?

Republicans could learn a lot from Ron Paul

2010-01-30T21:39:00.001-05:00

"Ron Paul" is a four letter word to most Republicans. If you go onto Republican websites like RedState (which is an odd name considering the color red and communist iconography through the years) and you mention any idea that even sounds like anything Ron Paul might say, you are immediately labeled a "paulian" and hundreds of members email the moderators to have your account permanently banned. It is that bad.

This is a tragedy. Ron Paul is right about 99% of the issues facing us today. If Republicans would just listen to him and learn from him, they would have the key to capturing all of the votes from the "tea party" movement and all of the people who have given up on voting because they feel like both parties are out to get their money and control their lives. If they actually took on the platform of real republicanism, laissez faire capitalism, and freedom in general, the elections of 2010 and 2012 would be landslide Republican victories.

Don't believe me? Take a look at this quote from Obama while addressing the GOP caucus:

"I know many of you individually. And the irony, I think, of our political climate right now is that, compared to other countries, the differences between the two major parties on most issues is not as big as it’s represented."

Republicans aren't going to win elections by compromising on their principles. Who wants a watered down Democrat when you can have the full blown Socialist running under the DNC banner? Even if a Republican-in-name-only does win an election (GWB) then what do we win as a country? A slow death. The ideas of liberty and individual rights are our keys to avoiding that scenario. Ron Paul is the only main stream politician supporting those ideas.

That being said, it is important to identify the one area where Ron Paul is wrong: Islamic Totalitarianism. When Ron Paul says that terrorists wouldn't attack us if we would just leave them alone, he is simply incorrect. Islamic Totalitarianism is a real threat, it is spreading all over the world, and if we don't annihilate those who sponsor, equip, and participate in Islamic Jihad then we will turn ourselves into sitting ducks. When Paul says that Blowback is the main reason for attacks on America (both home and abroad) he is simply ignoring the history of the world. Middle East history, according to Paul, started in 1953 when we installed the puppet government in Iran, which lead to their capturing of the US Embassy while Jimmy Carter was president, and has resulted in the back and forth between America and "terrorists" ever since. Paul insists that we maintain an "Empire" in the middle east and if we'd just leave them alone we'd be at peace. History easily refutes that assertion.

I should also note that America's response so far to Islamic Totalitarianism has been a giant fail. Most importantly, we haven't even correctly identified the enemy. We are waging a war on "terror" which is not an enemy but a tactic. We should never have invaded Iraq and we should never have set out to build "democracy" in Afghanistan or Iraq. Those countries have both "democratically" elected Islamic officials who have effectively installed Islamic Theocracy. Isn't that great? Our young men go over there and fight and die and we end up with two new Irans. When Bush made his "Axis of Evil" speech and he identified all terrorist groups and state sponsors of terrorism he was very close to taking the correct actions in our national self defense. We should have eliminated the government and military of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban (acting government of Afghanistan.) We could have easily done this with small deployments of special forces who would "light" targets which would then be bombed into oblivion with all manner of areal weaponry. For a full discussion of the proper response to 9/11 and the threat of Islamic Totalitarianism, I refer you to "Winning the Unwinnable War" by Elan Journo.

So in summary, when Ron Paul says that we should bring our troops home from the hundreds of worldwide bases that we maintain at great expense, he's right. When Paul says we shouldn't participate in nation building, he's right. When Paul says that we have a centrally controlled economy and the federal reserve steals from us on a daily basis, he's right. When Paul says that the drug war is simply a means of control and serves only to enrich drug dealers and bureaucrats, he's right. When Ron Paul talks about the evils of the ability of the President to identify anybody on the planet, civilian or not, as an enemy combatant and strip them of all rights, he's right. When Ron Paul says that the only way to save our Republic is to return to the ideas of laissez faire Capitalism, he's right. The only time Ron Paul is wrong is when he denies the actual and historically proven threat of Islamic Totalitarianism. Republicans need to realize this fact and wake up to the things that Ron Paul is saying or we're all going to find ourselves living under an evil, totalitarian government in the near future.

To get started, here is the State of the Union, according to Ron Paul:

Is Obama purposefully tanking the stock market?

2010-01-22T23:43:00.001-05:00

Just a quick one for today: on Monday when Scott Brown's Republican win in Mass. was all but a done deal the stock market jumped up over 100 points, presumably because investors realized he would represent the one vote that may be able to halt Obama's fascist/socialist agenda.

However, after losing the election on Tuesday, Obama announced a new slew of regulations on banks and private companies that promises to wreak even more havoc on an already over-regulated and over-bailed out industry. Obviously, and predictably, the market has tanked:

Stocks Turn Negative for Year; GE Gains - CNBC

Is it possible that this was on purpose? I mean what would it look like for the Dems if in the same week a Republican got voted into Ted Kennedy's seat and the stock market had it's best week since the financial crisis? (Not good.)

Objectivist Roundup is up

2010-01-21T18:29:00.001-05:00

The latest Objectivist roundup is posted. Check it out!

Tom Utley presents Will Scott Brown's Election destroy the cause of Liberty? posted at It's My Blog, saying, "The supermajority is over for the Democrats, but will this victory teach the Republican party wrong message and deliver a blow to the cause of freedom?"

Will Scott Brown's Election destroy the cause of Liberty?

2010-01-20T20:18:00.001-05:00

Republicans and Freedom loving people across the internets have been all a buzz for the last 24 hours about the new Senator from MA, Scott Brown, the 41st Republican:

A Brown victory is an extremely positive sign. It sends as strong and clear a signal as any election I can remember. The message is: Government control of people’s lives may prevail everywhere else on earth, but it is still not acceptable in the United States of America.

link: One Reality: Scott Brown, Senator from Massachusetts

While I agree with the sentiments of the above blogger and I hold the same view of the message that was sent by the election yesterday, I just don't have faith in the Republican party to receive that message, understand what it means, and fundamentally change their platform to reflect the voters' wishes. As the aforementioned blogger noted:

A Scott Brown win does not mean that all our problems have gone away. There is still no indication that Republicans, after decades of expanding the regulatory welfare state as if they were Democrats, have suddenly decided to do their job – namely, to safeguard individual rights and to begin the enormous task of unclenching the government’s hold on us. It will take a larger cultural shift to thoroughly convince Republicans to be Republicans.

What happened yesterday was simply the logical result of the growing liberty minded movement in this country which is most often labeled the "tea party" but in actuality is showing up in numerous grassroots organizations. The Democrats, unchecked by any constitutional balances for the last year, have proceeded to steamroll over the people of America in every way possible, and it has motivated liberals, conservatives, independents, etc. to stand up and speak out with one very clear message: "get off our backs!" People are starting to realize that it is us individual Americans that should be running our own lives and not the federal government (and not even the state government.) They are coming to the conclusion that the Constitution was written to limit the government to very specific roles and that the last 100 years of politics have eroded and destroyed those limitations. People are starting to act and to vote not for their party, but for their ideas.

The main idea that got Scott Brown elected was: with a 60 seat supermajority, there is no end to the amount of destruction the Democrats can reap. For this reason, even Democrats voted for Scott Brown. This is not the story the GOP is telling and it's definitely not the story you'll be hearing on the news. The GOP says that this was a clear rejection of Obama's "extremism" and his "idealism" and that people want a more practical, realistic approach to solving the nation's problems. The GOP would have us believe that middle of the road Republicans like Brown were the ultimate rejection of the current Democrats in power and the way of the future to win election after election. This is simply wrong.

Scott Brown won because he represented the only way to stop Obamacare, and this motivated people of all labels and parties to get out and vote for him. Turnout for this election was 54% in a state where the usual senate race only attracts about 40%. In a state where Ted Kennedy (alcoholic, murderer) used to win by 30 points, a Republican won by 5. This didn't happen because of Brown's platform full of populism and platitudes, it happened because of Obama's administration. It happened because the American people have taken the "extremist" and "idealist" position that the government should not be taking over the private industry and that we have to stop such legislation and actions any way we can.

The Republican party better get this message. If they don't, they will not see a continuation of the current trend, but a split of their party. If the Republicans keep offering up Scott Browns in future, non-emergency elections, we will keep getting Democratic leadership. If the Republicans don't wake up to the message of the Tea Party movement, and get the government out of our lives in a very big way, and take the "extremist" position that freedom is the only way, then we might as well just vote Democrat, and hope the collapse of the country isn't a violent one.

Solution to Haiti's Problems

2010-01-15T11:35:00.000-05:00

Let's relocate the UN Headquarters to Haiti. Diplomats from around the world could pour their money into the island nation. Most of the UN Members hate the US, and the tropical climate would be much more relaxing and inviting than NYC. It's a win-win for everybody.

Frequently Asked Questions about Capitalism

2010-01-14T14:59:00.003-05:00

Today I stumbled across a website called Capitalism.org and honestly I'm amazed that I've never seen this before. Apparently it's a function of Capitalism Magazine, which I subscribe to and read quite often. If you aren't sure what exactly Capitalism is, or if you've learned your definition from people who tell you it's some evil monstrosity where the rich rule the poor, then please take the quick Capitalism Visual Tour so that you can learn the truth for yourself.

Anyhow, the best part about the site, in my opinion at least, is the FAQ:

Frequently Asked Questions About Laissez-faire Capitalism, Individual Rights, Free-Markets, Liberty and Freedom

This is simply a great resource for people to use whenever they have a question as to how freedom (capitalism) would address common societal or personal issues. They cover topics from education to antitrust to war etc. I enjoyed reading through the different topics and I wanted to share some of my favorites as well as some of my comments. So, here are a few selections, but I encourage you to explore the entire thing:

- capitalism

What is capitalism?
Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

I bet you never heard that definition in school, or in the pop culture, or on any news program, except for maybe John Stossel's show on Fox Business.

- antitrust

Don't the antitrust laws stop monopolistic practices?
Absolutely not. Harmful monopolies from the old AT&T monopoly (created by government regulations), to the U.S. Post Office monopoly were created by the state. The U.S. Post Office, for example, maintains its monopoly on the lucrative first class mail market by having the state outlaw its competition.

They also cover Standard Oil and the "robber barons" of the railroads. Government intervention is the only way for a harmful monopoly to exist, period.

- inflation

What causes inflation?
Inflation is the result of state intervention into the free market for money -- specifically the government 'counterfeiting' of dollars (also fiat dollars) which compete with your earned dollars for goods and services. As the amount of paper money bidding for goods increases and the amount of goods supplied stays relatively the same, the prices of all goods increase. Inflation is like a secret tax that robs you of the value of your money before you have a chance to spend it.

That reminds me, have you seen Obama's latest grandstanding about "fat cat bankers?" He plans to tax the big banks to recoup some of the money from TARP. Isn't that just ingenious? Basically it's as if Obama sold you a bag full of $100 bills and charged you $20 for it, then went and gave a speech touting the fact that he "taxed" you for $20. Nonsense.

- corporation

What is government's role in regards to corporations?
Government's job is not to regulate corporations and manage their affairs, but to protect their rights, just as they would any other member of society. Government's job is to treat a corporation no different than any other citizen, granting it no special favors (corporate welfare is just as wrong as non-corporate welfare).

You have to be very careful here though when you talk about corporate welfare. Bailouts are corporate welfare. When a bank or an airline fail (go bankrupt) they should not get money from the government to save their business. They should file for bankruptcy just like anyone else. However, tax breaks are not corporate welfare. Tax breaks given to certain companies but not other companies are examples of Crony Capitalism, and are evidence that our tax code is immoral and horrendous, not evidence of corporate welfare.

- abortion

What is the essential issue concerning abortion?
The essential question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have an inalienable right to be in the body of its' host against the host's will?

In my opinion this is an error in identification. The fundamental issue concerning abortion is the definition of a human life and more specifically when a human life beings. It's not about fetus rights but about human rights, and so we must define objectively the beginning of a human life. After that point, there can be no moral grounds for the destruction of that life. The authors go on to state two definitions: One that a human is defined as a rational animal, in that it uses its mind to survive, and two that a fetus isn't a human until it is outside of the mother's womb. Those two definitions offer a stark contradiction. Studies have shown time and time again that the fetus is fully developed with a functioning mind after the first trimester, and that these "feti" actually attempt to fend off the instruments of the abortion doctor in a futile attempt to stay alive. It is simply impossible to rationally escape the conclusion then that a fetus becomes a human the moment it develops brain function, and it should so be illegal to murder the fetus after that point.

- profit

What is not profit?
Stealing wealth from others, through fraud or force, is not profit, but theft (an initiation of force). Whether that theft is called a mugging, welfare, or "voluntary" taxation [a contradiction in terms], it is still theft and is always evil. Theft, like loss, is destruction; trade, like profit, is creation. To pursue profit is to pursue creation. It is an act of virtue and not a vice.

Your profit is the symbol and reward for the value of your creation, as judged by the mind's of others who have freely-given given their wealth to you in exchange for it. Do not let the leftist intellectuals who infect our universities persuade you from thinking otherwise. In truth, it is those altruists who condemn the profit motive, who are guilty of evil.

- taxation

How will one support government without taxation?
The removal of all taxation would be the last step to implement in the transition to a free capitalist society. The costs of a proper government -- with an army (engaged only in self-defense and not imperialism), a court system, and a police force -- are very small, and easily paid for by voluntary financing methods. Such methods are used by nonprofit agencies, like churches, to raise billions of dollars. Observe how one "know nothing capitalist" Ted Turner recently gave a billion dollars to a useless, anti-capitalist organization like the United Nations.

As an intermediate step toward no taxation, I support the Fair Tax. It's not truly voluntary: every time you buy something new or purchase a service, you are forced to pay a percentage in taxes. However, you can choose to not buy new things, but buy used things, and you can choose to trade work for work instead of using money to buy services. I believe such a system would free up so much capital by removing all of our existing ridiculous taxes that it is really the only way to save us from total collapse and have a peaceful transition towards Capitalism and Freedom. Otherwise... well there is Secession... but then why secede as a state if your state government is just going to govern under the same premises as the federal government does now?

This is why it is important to educate as many people as possible in the principles of freedom and capitalism. One way or another the fascist empire called the United States of America is going to collapse. I hope we can accomplish a peaceful transition from fascism to capitalism, or that we can peacefully separate like they did in the USSR, so that we can establish capitalism in as many states as possible. If we stick with the ideas of altruism, collectivism and statism though, the collapse will have no chance of occurring without war and bloodshed.

South Carolina Freedom Rally - Jan 9 2010

2010-01-09T22:16:00.001-05:00

Today I attended a freedom rally in Columbia, SC hosted by the South Carolina 9/12 Project and I took several pictures of the event. I don't really like Glenn Beck as I think he's melodramatic and doesn't understand the principles of individual rights and true freedom. However, the cause of liberty is making his ratings go up so he's thrown his weight in the ring and he's gotten people motivated to get out there and be heard. I thought I would go to the event today to talk to people and see who was out there and what they were saying.

It was a pretty good turnout for a freezing (30 degrees F) January afternoon, probably about 2000 people by my unprofessional judgement. There were definitely no government provided busses and nobody was handing out anything for free so everyone in attendance was there on their own accord. There were some pretty good signs there and some pretty inspiring people and thankfully most of them were there with their own ideas and their own concerns, not really championing any of Beck's talking points. Anyway, here are some of the things I saw: (click on any of the pictures for the full version)

This picture strikes me for its subtle, yet powerful meaning. The debt that we are in now, because of years and years of federal tyranny (not just the last 12 months), is definitely treading on this youngster. His entire future consists of being a slave for the federal government, unless we do something.

These guys have the right idea. A lot of the speeches today were about state sovereignty and the fact that the federal government has overstepped its bounds, so we need to "pass resolutions to assert the 10th Amendment." Well, I have news for those people: the tyrant Abraham Lincoln nullified the 10th Amendment. The only way we are going to get out form under the oppressive burden of the federal government is to secede. As Thomas Jefferson said, it is both our right and our obligation to do so.

On a lighter note, I thought that was a funny sign.

Radio Free Rocky D from WTMA was the MC for the event.

Pretty good crowd I thought.

This is the kind of sign that unfortunately represents the opinion of the majority of the moderates and conservatives. The problem with this attitude is that it fails to realize that the problem isn't the cess, it's the pool. If we clean out the cess pool, then a fresh new batch of cess will just fill it right back up.

Finally, I would like to end with this:

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Stossel on Atlas Shrugged

2010-01-07T23:52:00.002-05:00

John Stossel's show tonight was about Atlas Shrugged and its relevance to today's political climate. Here are a few of the clips from youtube:

Wow, what a great, great answer by Dr. Yaron Brook!

I didn't include the rest of the show because I thought it was boring and irrelevant. However, you can watch it on youtube if you just look for the links in the side bar.

Clemson has an Institute for the (honest) Study of Capitalism!

2010-01-05T22:57:00.002-05:00

Today I received the following email from the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights:

Atlas Shrugged on Stossel

Dear ARI Contributor:

The Ayn Rand Center is excited to announce that Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand’s magnum opus, will be the subject of the Thursday, January 7, edition of Stossel on the Fox Business Network.

The program airs at 8 p.m., eastern time, and features interviews with leading Objectivist intellectuals including Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Center, John Allison, chairman of BB&T Corp., and C. Bradley Thompson, executive director of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism.

If you’re not able to view the upcoming airing, please check your local listing for a possible rebroadcast.

ARC Media

Whoa, whoa, wait, the Clemson what?

The Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism

Wow! How did I not know about this? Oh well, I'm glad that I do now. It turns out they have a weekly seminar for students and people in the area and they have conferences throughout the year. I'm going to make it to one of those and I'm also going to donate to the cause. Complete Laissez-Faire Capitalism is the only moral system of government and I want to do whatever I can to further that cause, and I am absolutely thrilled that Clemson has a group that is carrying the torch! GO TIGERS!!!

For those that want to join me in making a charitable contribution:

Any kind gift contribution is greatly appreciated!!
Checks should be made out to "Clemson University Foundation." The Memo line can be made out to the "Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism."
The check should be mailed to:

Brad Thompson
Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism
325 Sirrine Hall
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina
29634

Read Atlas Shrugged

2009-12-23T11:27:00.001-05:00

Atlas Shrugged is now available on Amazon's Kindle. It's also available in Softcover, Softcover Centennial Edition, Hardcover Centennial Edition, CD Audiobook, MP3 CD Audiobook, Cassette Audiobook, and Spanish-Language Softcover. So, there's no excuse to not read it.

The book is prophetic, first published in 1957, detailing the inevitable collapse of the United States of America because of the prevailing philosophy of altruism and statism. As an example: at least 52 years before the current health care debate, Ayn Rand wrote these words about a Doctor's reasons for retiring:

"I quit when medicine was placed under State control, some years ago," said Dr. Hendricks. "Do you know what it takes to perform a brain operation? Do you know the kind of skill it demands, and the years of passionate, merciless, excruciating devotion that go to acquire that skill? That was what I would not place at the disposal of men whose sole qualification to rule me was their capacity to spout the fraudulent generalities that got them elected to the privilege of enforcing their wishes at the point of a gun. I would not let them dictate the purpose for which my years of study had been spent, or the conditions of my work, or my choice of patients, or the amount of my reward. I observed that in all the discussions that preceded the enslavement of medicine, men discussed everything - except the desires of the doctors. Men considered only the 'welfare' of the patients, with no thought for those who were to provide it. That a doctor should have any right, desire or choice in the matter was regarded as irrelevant selfishness; his is not to choose, they said, only 'to serve.' That a man who's willing to work under compulsion is too dangerous a brute to entrust with a job in the stockyards - never occurred to those who proposed to help the sick by making life impossible for the healthy. I have often wondered at the smugness with which people assert their right to enslave me, to control my work, to force my will, to violate my conscience, to stifle my mind - yet what is it that they expect to depend on, when they lie on an operating table under my hands? Their moral code has taught them to believe that it is safe to rely on the virtue of their victims. Well, that is the virtue I have withdrawn. Let them discover the kind of doctors that their system will now produce. Let them discover, in their operating rooms and hospital wards, that it is not safe to place their lives in the hands of a man whose life they have throttled. It is not safe, if he is the sort of a man who resents it - and still less safe, if he is the sort who doesn't."
Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged

If you look at current events and say "what the heck is going on?" then get this book. It tells you exactly what is happening, exactly what will happen, and exactly why.

Regulating the Free Market in Healthcare

2009-12-22T14:49:00.001-05:00

Ben Nelson recently became famous when he was the 60th vote for cloture on the senate healthcare bill, largely because he was bought and paid for. Not according to Nelson though: he says he now really believes in this bill:

Having said that, I also recognize the legitimate role of government, and the need for governmental regulation…to address the shortcomings of the free market system and the need to reach out and help those who need a helping hand. That is why I support the very significant insurance reforms that are a part of this bill and the subsidies provided to lower-income Americans so they to will have access to affordable and quality health care.

link: Ben Nelson, U.S. Senator for Nebraska: Speech: Nelson Statement on Health Care Deal

There are oh so many things wrong with that statement. Let us count the ways:

"I also recognize the legitimate role of government, and the need for governmental regulation" - Contradiction. If he recognized that the only legitimate role of government was to protect our individual rights, he would recognize that governmental regulation of any of our personal activities is illegitimate.
"... to address the shortcomings of the free market system..." - What free market system? Our economy is controlled by our government through the Federal Reserve (artificially controlling the supply of money), thousands of taxes, a mountain of regulations, etc.
"...and the need to reach out and help those who need a helping hand." - There is no need for the government to do this. Well, if they'd stop taxing the hell out of us there would be no need. Even so, why does someone's need justify enslaving everyone to pay for it? The only "helping hand" should be from voluntary donation or action, period.
"That is why I support... (blah blah)" - Wrong, you support it because you are bought and paid for.

American Fascism - Detroit

2009-12-22T09:36:00.002-05:00

As a followup to my post on banking yesterday, if you want to see what will happen to the entire country if we continue down the statist path of government regulation, taxing the rich, distributing property, etc, just look at Detroit:

American Fascism - Bailout Edition

2009-12-21T21:18:00.002-05:00

NEW YORK, Dec 21 (Reuters) - U.S. banks that spent more money on lobbying were more likely to get government bailout money, according to a study released on Monday. Banks whose executives served on Federal Reserve boards were more likely to receive government bailout funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, according to the study from Ran Duchin and Denis Sosyura, professors at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business.

link: Banks with political ties got bailouts, study shows | Reuters

Does this surprise anyone? In an economy where the government creates regulations, whimsical laws, oppressive taxes, and then bails out companies that are deemed "too big to fail," does it really surprise anyone that the criteria for receiving taxpayer dollars depends on political back-scratching? This is pure, classic fascism. Just like Hitler used to do, the American Federal Government has played favorites, throwing our stolen wealth at companies who's lobbyists payed off the right people in the right amounts. Instead of stealing the wealth from the "undesirables" of society (as Hitler labeled Jews, Homosexuals, Gypsies, anti-Nazis, etc), our government is stealing from all of us.

You see, the bailout money didn't materialize out of thin air, it was stolen from "we the people" indirectly, and in a couple of ways. First: the money was tacked onto our national debt. If you've never looked into the federal reserve and international currency dealings, I'll make this simple: The government takes out lots of huge loans on the international market and uses us as collateral. Our future tax payments are the income source the government uses to guarantee that debt. Obviously, when you tack on trillions of dollars overnight, those tax payments have to go up.

Second: those trillions of dollars also deface the value of each one individual dollar. So the money you make or have now is worth less that is was previously. If you look at the price of gold in comparison, when the DOW was around 14,000 in the 90's, gold cost $300 an ounce. A few weeks ago there was a big celebration because the DOW got back over 10,000... only what people didn't realize is that the price of gold has shot up to over $1000 an ounce. In other words, DOW 10,000 today is like DOW 3,000 in the 1990's... not all that great. Tragic, in fact.

The problem here is that we have a government which has ruined the American spirit of individualism. This is not just some nostalgic reminiscing on my part, because I identify Americanism as the recognition of individual rights: the right to your own life, the right to use your own mind to reason and communicate, the right to act on your conclusions, and the right to keep the produce of this activity. This is how we were as a young country, when people had actual freedom. Today we have a government that thinks its role is to take the produce of your life and distribute it as they see fit. Since they can't always fully accomplish this out in the open, they create mountains of legislation to control how we can use the property that we are "allowed" to keep. This is something that has been going on in ever increasing amounts since the first days of our conception, which can be clearly seen in the battles between Jefferson and Hamilton around the turn of the 19th century. For more on this, I refer you to Hamilton's Curse.

Whenever the government allows people to own property, yet controls its use either directly or indirectly, that is fascism. This is exactly what has gone on with the banking industry. The government allows us to "own" real estate, meanwhile they have tons of laws and regulations controlling our real estate and controlling the loans and the terms of the loans. They also have the ultimate control through the Federal Reserve of controlling the supply of money and therefore the value of our property.

Socialism is the system where the government owns the property and distributes it as it sees fit. America has been operating under a mix of Socialism and Fascism since about 1913, with the inception of the Federal Reserve and the Income Tax. This was made worse with the "American Society" and the "New Deal" and has grown worse and worse since. As a result, what used to be a country of laissez faire was turned into a country of special interests and perpetual civil war. You see, when the government controls and confiscates our property, it creates a situation where different people or groups of people fight over who gets the payouts. Instead of fighting with weapons, they fight with bribes. Instead of one side winning or losing, we all lose.

An unfortunate side effect of the way these events have played out is that the majority of the people in this country still believe we are the land of the free, and that the spirit of individualism still holds up as the standard of law. It does not. However, whenever the supposed "right" argues for less regulation and less property confiscation (taxes), the "left" immediately accuse them of being capitalist fascists (an oxymoron.) Whenever the "left" argues for more government programs (healthcare) the "right" argues against cutting socialism (medicare.) The issues are muddied and confused to the point that nobody stops and realizes that nobody is standing up for freedom, for the right to decide what to do with your own life and nobody else's.

It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?”—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).

link: Fascism and Communism/Socialism — Ayn Rand Lexicon

If we don't break the mold and elect politicians who stand up for complete laissez faire capitalism (freedom) then we will suffer the same fate, no matter what we call it: slavery. We're already there according to some, but hopefully there is still time to change the course of history.

Climategate just keeps growing

2009-12-20T14:11:00.001-05:00

In case you've been living under a rock the last few weeks, or if you're a believer in the myth of anthropogenic climate change and you're covering your ears and screaming "it's not true, it's not true!", there have been some big time revelations spurred by the release of hacked emails coming from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia and you should start paying attention. Why? Because the leaders of the world are determined to tax and regulate us all into the stone ages while enriching themselves and living as an elite Aristocracy all under the guise of "saving the world."

Well, it's all bullshit.

It turns out, information contained in these emails leads to the revelation that the conspiracy and data manipulation wasn't just limited to one University, but it was in fact affecting the world's foremost authority on the subject, the UN's IPCC:

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.

link: Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming – Telegraph Blogs

Now, I know what you're saying: "but the consensus! but science says it's true! just look at Wikipedia!"

Let's look at Wikipedia:

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

link: Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor - FP Comment

"But what about the models! The computer models say the world is warming because of CO2!"

What about the models?

Here's the "fudge factor" (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):

yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904] valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor

These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding "fudge factor" (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU's "divergence problem" also includes a minor false incline after 1930.

link: American Thinker: CRU's Source Code: Climategate Uncovered

In other words, when the results didn't match the desired output, they programatically manipulated the data so that it would produce the desired hockey stick graph. They reduced temperatures that they thought were too warm, and they increased temperatures that they thought were too cool. They used computer code to generate computer models that had the mirage of sophistication and objectivity but in actuality invented an increase in temperatures.

This story is only just beginning. In the coming months we will surely see more and more revelations and more and more denials from the "warmers" (people who believe in the religion of mother earth). For me personally, this is just confirmation of what I've always believed: environmentalists don't care about the environment, they just hate capitalism. They either misunderstand what true Laissez Faire is, or they directly hate human freedom. Either way, they are evil, and must be stopped.

Absurdities caused by Global Warming Myth

2009-12-19T13:11:00.001-05:00

Here's yet another example of ridiculous government policies initiated by the myth of anthropogenic climate change:

“Green” stoplights « John Stossel

Guess what? It takes a lot of carbon emissions to truck people out to these stoplights to clear the snow out.

Testing Blogo

2009-12-17T17:19:00.000-05:00

Easily publish text, images, videos, slideshows and more. With a simple, intuitive interface and support for Wordpress, Blogger, Typepad, Typo, Drupal, Joomla, and Expression Engine, Blogo is the best way to maintain your blog and spread the word with Twitter, Ping.fm and other supported services.

link: Blogo: The blog editor for your Mac

Climategate: a green conspiracy?

2009-12-17T00:51:00.000-05:00

Here's an article from "Voices for Reason." I'm testing out Google Reader's "send to" function.

Climategate: a green conspiracy?: "

The Climategate documents—the hundreds of emails and other data hacked from the Climatic Research Unit of England’s East Anglia University—have exposed serious breaches of scientific integrity. They contain evidence of collusion among a small but highly influential group of climate researchers to suppress and even delete key data, to manipulate the scientific peer-review process, to exclude the work of dissenting scientists, and allegedly to evade Freedom of Information requests by destroying requested materials.

Climate alarmists have responded by trying desperately to make the issue go away. They argue that the bad behavior of a few individuals doesn’t invalidate the entire edifice of global warming science. Surely, they ask, you’re not suggesting that the whole theory is just one big massive fraud, are you?

Some are even trying to ridicule the legitimate concerns the documents raise by invoking the specter of some sort of nefarious global conspiracy. At a recent hearing on Capitol Hill, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) sarcastically put the question to a number of testifying scientists:

“I just wanted to ask you if you’re part of that massive international conspiracy,” he said to the witnesses, adding with a note of sarcasm, “Are either one of you members of the Trilateral Commission, SPECTRE or KAOS? I just need an answer.”

Writers for a leftist think tank, the Center for American Progress, have similarly picked up the “conspiracy-theory” theme: “Conservatives immediately claimed that these [hacked emails] proved global warming to be a hoax and part of a worldwide conspiracy run by mad scientists who have quashed debate in order to institute a socialist, business-killing cap-and-trade policy.”

The implication is that the only way the whole edifice of global warming science could be a distortion of reality is if there was a huge, secret conspiracy perpetrated by a fiction-like cabal of mad scientists, hidden away in some smoke-filled room plotting the destruction of the world economy.

Well, the fact is that there is a “massive international conspiracy”—only, it’s not of the secret, smoke-filled-room type. The conspirators are united not by a secret plot, but by a shared philosophy that they promote openly and self-righteously: the philosophy of environmentalism.

In my VfR post on November 10—before the email leak—I wrote:

The fact is that there is a large gap between the scientific claims being advanced regarding the causes and effects of global warming and the political policies being proposed to address it. And that raises a legitimate question about whether the science itself has been corrupted by a questionable moral/political agenda.

Scientists are just as susceptible to the influence of politics and ideology as anyone else in society. And this is an important part of the context that one has to keep in mind in assessing scientific claims. . . We need to keep in mind the long history of scientific distortions that have been used to advance an environmentalist agenda. My position is that global warming is the latest example of this phenomenon.

The fact is that there has been a clear unity of purpose among the proponents of climate fears. There has been a consistent pattern of exaggeration and deception, of context-dropping claims, and of distortion of the facts and the scientific process. And that was clear long before the Climategate documents surfaced.

That unified pattern of distortion has been driven by a widespread commitment to environmentalist ideology. Environmentalism has for decades advanced the idea that any form of human “interference” with nature is inherently wrong, and must therefore be inherently dangerous. It has long advanced a deep animus against industrial capitalism and a desire to see it restrained, undermined, even destroyed.

What explains the massive degree of support for green climate policies and the distorted science used to bolster them is not some sort of secret conspiratorial plot, but the widespread acceptance of green ideology. And the green ideas driving people to distort the truth in the name of “saving the planet” are not hidden, they have been touted openly and proudly for decades in books and newspapers and magazines and documentaries.

In this context, it is worth repeating an infamous statement from 20 years ago from Stephen Schneider, who has for decades been one of the leading proponents of climate alarmism and is one of the people featuring prominently in the leaked emails. In the October 1989 issue of Discover magazine, Schneider was quoted as saying:

On the one hand, as scientists, we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but—which means that we must include all the doubts, caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

If one’s standard of what would make the “world a better place” is out of touch with reality, then it’s not surprising that one will find that one can only advance one’s moral agenda through deception and dishonesty.

The real lesson here is much deeper than some silly conspiracy-theory. It is the role of fundamental ideas in shaping political and cultural events. The real lesson is that ideas matter.

Image: flickr/aburt

Socialized Medicine Will Kill You

2009-12-09T21:54:00.003-05:00

I want you to take a quick look at the following chart:
(click for bigger version)

Do you notice any trends? How about CANCER and HEART DISEASE. Do those jump out at you?

Now, take a look at this article about the National Health Service in Britain, specifically these graphics:

Again, notice anything in particular?

Notice who is #1 in Cancer survival? Notice who isn't on the list of Heart Attack Death Rates?

If you can't put 2 and 2 together at this point, there's just no hope. Just remember this:
Socialized medicine is the more equitable system: under socialized medicine, we'll all die equally fast.

Clemson Football Season Wrapup

2009-12-06T22:19:00.003-05:00

Well, last night Clemson lost to GA Tech 39 to 34 in the ACC Championship. The game was actually a lot more lopsided than the final score as Tech's offense basically had their way with us all night while our offense either sputtered and went nowhere or scored on a quick play. I wouldn't want to take back every quick point we scored but the fact is you have to keep your offense on the field and Tech's off the field if you want to win the game. So if we score quickly on one drive, we have to either score quickly on the next drive or at least put together a couple of first downs.

Instead, we were inconsistent with a few big plays mixed in, just like we have been all year. Only this time, our incredible pass defense was mismatched with an incredible running team. I was disheartened to see that our Defense didn't take the lesson we had learned in the first matchup with GT this year: have the ends play the QB. Instead our ends would crash the inside trying to take the dive, and Nesbit would pop to the outside and be off to the races. He's deadly on the outside but ineffective if you keep him contained. We didn't do that. We did come back in the fourth quarter though and we even had a chance to win it on the last drive, but yet again this season our two minute offense looked like a bunch of beheaded chickens and we totally flubbed that opportunity.

The worst part about the loss was the inconsistent play of the offense, and it was made even worse by the comments made by Dabo Swinney. In his post game presser, Swinney said:

“They really didn’t stop us either; again, we ran out of time,” Swinney said. “Certainly when you can’t stop them, it’s hard to win. They made some critical plays, 4th down, 3rd down. Hard to win. Time of possession had to be way out of whack. Again, I wouldn’t say they stopped us. It was a shootout, but unfortunately we just couldn’t get the ball enough. And then we had a couple of turnovers on offense that allowed them to get a couple of extra possessions in there.”

However, this is factually not the case. The truth of the matter is that we only stopped them on one drive, while they stopped us on four, with two of those being interceptions. Additionally, Swinney is insinuating here that his shoddy offense deserves no blame and that the defense was the cause of the loss.

This is very Tommy Bowden-esque, but what should we expect? Swinney was hand-picked by Bowden, after all. Defensive Coordinator Kevin Steele told reporters that his defense was to blame and that we would have won if we could have just stopped their offense. This is the difference in the two men: Steele is a good coach who takes responsibility; Swinney is a rookie who is in over his head and looking for a way to save his ass. It was reported during the game that Swinney told the defense that if we couldn't stop Tech's last drive then we didn't deserve to win the championship. The nerve of Swinney to say something like that to our defense after our offense kept them on the field all night. Well he was half right: we didn't deserve to win the championship, but it was because we hired a WR coach to lead our team.

This sums up the entire season really. We played a horrible schedule and fell into the ACC Championship game. We lost to any decent team we played and even to a couple of horrible ones. Here we are with another disappointing season and another disappointing bowl. I was optimistic that things had changed with Dabo but I was wrong. I should have known the minute he decided that Napier would be the OC that the mediocrity was going to continue. Dabo and his buddies are having a good time and nothing has changed, we're still the Bowdenesque Tigers of mediocrity, sitting on the sidelines while teams who hire good coaches are actually going somewhere.

Speculation about Tiger Woods

2009-12-01T01:33:00.002-05:00

Here's a quick thought: Tiger's wife assaulted him, he was about to play in a tournament so he would have to explain his injuries, so he hopped in the car and ran it into a tree.

I've got no evidence of this whatsoever. Just a hunch.

South Carolina Wrap Up

2009-11-28T20:14:00.003-05:00

Today Clemson got shocked in Columbia and fell to the Gamecocks 34-17.

I was completely caught off guard by the way we played today. It reminded me of last year's Nebraska debacle, only worse. The game started out great, just like I expected. CJ Spiller had a kickoff return for a touchdown, SC got the ball and Garcia threw an interception, and our offense went on the attack. We were marching right down the field using the intermediate passing game, exploiting the middle of the field...

And then, the ghost of Rob Spence reared his ugly head. I really just don't know what happened, it's like someone hit a switch and Billy Napier reverted back to Fun 'N Punt mode. We ran a fake reverse pass that of course didn't come close to working and it completely destroyed any sort of rythm that we had. That was the turning point in the game, early in the first quarter. Yes, we got a first down out of it because of a late hit, but that play signaled to our players that our coaches are fools and signaled to Steve Spurrier that he was up against an offensive coordinator who had no clue what he was doing.

The rest is history. Screens, pitch outs, receiver tunnel screens, reverses, and no production. Our offense laid a giant egg out there against a decent defense but definitely nothing top-25 worthy. It was almost like we were trying to make them look like world beaters, doing everything left and right, but nothing up the damn field.

Meanwhile, Spurrier noticed that the one pass his QB threw over the middle got intercepted, so he started picking on our corners, especially Chancellor. We didn't adjust to this until the second half, and SC was able to use a mixture of passes to the outside and running to run up the score.

I was starting to think that Napier had learned his lessons this year and was growing as an offensive coordinator but this game proved me completely wrong. Our offensive coaching staff is a huge problem for our team and something needs to be done. I like Dabo as the head coach and I like our defense, but our offense hasn't changed since the days of the Tommy Bowden Fun 'N Punt.

The Money That Is Sold Abroad Is You!

2009-11-19T21:24:00.001-05:00

This is a brilliant video. I wish everyone in the world could watch this.