Disgruntledpatriot's Blog

September 30, 2009

Arguing With Idiots: A Review

Filed under: Sick and Tired — Trever Bierschbach @ 11:31 am
Tags: , , , ,

Just finished reading Glenn Beck’s new book, and wanted to share my thoughts.  I read a few reviews on Amazon and it was funny how all the reviews from people who actually read it were positive, while all the negative reviews were just attacks on Glenn Beck.  I am a fan of his, but I do take what he says with a grain of salt.  Like many he has a point to make, so I tend to watch his show or listen to him on the radio, and when something comes up that seems way out there, I look it up.  I do some research and some reading and I find that usually he is spot on.  This book is no different.

It is typical Glenn Beck writing, full of biting sarcasm, and plenty of quotes that his critics can take out of context.  It’s what he expects so why fight it?  What it is also full of is facts, with hundreds (no joke) of cites in the back to support them.  It is a good read throughout, with plenty of his patented A.D.D. Moments to break up the text and make the read informative and entertaining.  Some of the facts were hard to swallow, especially for someone who really just started paying attention to politics in the last couple of years.  It’s almost as if an ingrained resistance to the status quo jumps up in some sections, but that’s when I stop.  Read it again.  Check the cite, and then think about it.  Usually it is easier to swallow after that.

I recommend the book to any fan, and non-fan.  I think that if people would just give it a chance they would find that Glenn isn’t as ‘radical’ as they say he is.  He offers sensible arguments that usually support nothing more than our constitution.  His book does not offer solutions, only answers to common questions that you can find on just about any website, Democratic Underground and Free Republic included.  His belief in this country, it’s constitution, and true capitalism show throughout, as does his derision for just about every politician we have had for the last 50 or so years.  If you have ever had a discussion where you knew the person you were talking to was wrong, but you didn’t know how to express it, this book is for you.  If you are someone who gets your view of the author from Media Matters or other ultra-left sites then this book is also for you, you might be surprised.

September 25, 2009

Indoctrination of Our Children

I know, I was going to post a followup to assault on capitalism yesterday.  I may still write it, but I was shocked yesterday to see something in the news and I just could not ignore it.  I am a parent, with a 10-year-old child in school.  I saw a video yesterday that made my blood run cold.  Notice that about 1:38 they launch into a rousing song, the Battle Hymn of The Republic…but, wait a minute.  The lyrics are all about how great Obama is!  THE BATTLE HYMN OF THE REPUBLIC bastardized into a song about how great a president is!  Is this what our tax dollars are going to?  Aren’t our kids supposed to be actually learning something?  If the one line “We are all equal in his sight” doesn’t just make you want to chew the upholstery off your couch then I don’t know what will.  I am not Christian, but I am religious, and this sounds a little bit too much like worship to me.

Top this one off with a video that has been shown in over 7000 schools around the country.  It is called ‘The Story of Stuff’.  Yeah I know, looks like a very good child friendly piece about conservation and the green movement.  Did you watch it close enough?  Does it sound a lot like an attack on Capitalism?  Not only is it an attack on Capitalism, and propaganda about how bad America is, but in many places it is factually wrong.  Check out the response video.

This stuff is scary for a parent.  Take into account President Obama’s buddy Hugo Chavez now openly admitting to indoctrinating kids in Venezuela and it becomes even more terrifying.

September 23, 2009

Assault on Capitalism

Filed under: Sick and Tired — Trever Bierschbach @ 12:15 pm
Tags: , , , ,

I am seeing a disturbing trend going on around the world and here in our own country.  Capitalism is being villified, in may cases by the very people that benefit from it.  I keep hearing how Capitalism is responsible for climate change, oppresion of third-world countries, class warfare, and a long list of other perceived crimes.  I have been thinking for the last couple of days about what I want to write about, and I think I am going to spend the next couple of days dealing with this issue.  I think our first step should be to explore the definition of economic models and the benefits or drawbacks of each one.

Capitalism is defined as a social and economic system where individual rights are recognized and private property and capital are privately owned.  Under true capitalism the state is separate from economics.  (Hmm, first observation, America is no longer a true capitalist country but it used to be)

This observation begs the question, in our recent economic problems is capitalism really the problem?  Is it just as possible that because capitalism was corrupted years ago by government involvement it collapsed.

Socialisim carries a few definitions, but what I find is that 1. a system of social organization where the ownership of property and capital is held by the community as a whole.  (Redistribution?) 2. (in marxist socialism) the stage following capitalism that inevitably leads to Communism.

Wait…have we ever heard people defend our current administration by saying “You can’t call them socialist and communist in the same sentence, they are opposites”?  Yeah, opposites if the definition of opposite means a straight line from one to the other.

Communism is defined as a system of social organization where the ownership of property and capital is held by the community as a whole OR by the state.  (hmm, I guess they are almost exactly the same)  It is also defined as a system of social organization where control of all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state.

So, you pick which one we resemble the most, and which one you think we should resemble.  I would argue that we should start to call our current system communist socialism.  Private property and capital are privately owned, BUT most of the economic activity is controlled by the state.
Fascism is defined as a political movement that exalts the nation and often the race, above the rights of the individual and that stands for centralized autocratic government and forced suppression of dissent.  (not really an economic model but because of current discussion it is relevant and should be forefront in the minds of Americans right now.)

Hmm, next time someone says you can’t call a person a communist, a socialist and a fascist at the same time, educate them a little bit.  If the government is run under one person, based on the rights of the nation, and owns all the property and capital, they are fascist and communist.  Since socialism is defined by Karl Marx as a stepping stone to communism, as in it’s root, then they can also be socialist.

Tomorrow we will talk about attacks on Capitalism from the outside.

September 18, 2009

Accusations of Racism Losing Their Punch

Filed under: Sick and Tired — Trever Bierschbach @ 11:34 am
Tags: , , , ,

Racism is a touchy subject, it is a term that shouldn’t be used lightly, and a tag that shouldn’t be laid on people without overwhelming evidence.  I lived in the south for a few years, and where I live now isn’t much better.  One thing I have noticed though, is that racists really aren’t ashamed to come out and say it.  When there are acts of true racism, they are quite evident by the words of the perpetrator.  It has now become the tactic of the left, when losing an argument just brand the opposition as racist.  Let’s take three or four signs in a protest of hundreds of thousands, and brand the whole group racist.  Better yet, let’s take things that are marginally offensive, but don’t refer to race at all, and call it racist.  It is the equivalent of children on the playground having an argument that degenerates into “No, you are!, No, you are!”.

Not only is this practice, that is becoming more and more prevalent, reprehensible.  It demeans real claims of racism.  It will lead to society wondering, “was that act really race related, or is it another case of answering hate with hate?”  Like the boy who cried wolf, eventually people will stop listening, and when something bad really happens no one will pay attention.  Don’t get me wrong, there are real racists out there, and yes some of them are conservatives or Republicans, but there are also really liberal racists out there, and racists in the Democratic party.  Racism is still a problem in this country, but not nearly to the extent that people in the media, and some very hateful left wing groups would have you believe.  I could go on and on listing real examples of racism and attaching them to the political movements they are a part of, but that would do nothing to fix the problem.

The Media would have you believe that the 9/12 marchers in Washington were all racist because their issues don’t make any sense, or that their only doing it now because the President is black.  I am here to tell you, as a member of the 9/12 project, the media is lying to you.  We have known for a long time that politicians, Republican and Democrat, have been selling us up the river.  They have been selling out to special interests and lobbyists for a very long time.  Our ire is directed at the entire government, black, white, democrat, republican and independent.  We believe they are all corrupt, either from direct actions or from the complicity of silence.  Many of us have specific views on how things can change, that is because the 9/12 group is bipartisan.  The vast majority of us want less government control, less spending, fair taxes for all, and a return to the principles in the Constitution.  It is not a document that is ‘fundamentally flawed’, or a ‘living document to be interpreted within our own times’.  The Constitution is a framework of very specific, timeless principles.  It has been amended when needed and never lightly.

Many ask why now?  Why not during the last presidency, or the one before that?  I have an answer for those people…

“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

The first colonists dealt with a corrupt government for over 150 years before they stood up.  Many believe that our government’s downward spiral began about 60 years ago, I think we are doing pretty good if it only took us this long.  The founding fathers knew the facts of human nature, and so does our government.  They expected us to just sit idly by and take all of this.  Why do you think they introduce socialist legislation in such small amounts over long periods of time?  Yes, some of these programs have been good, and have helped a lot of people, but how many more can we take before we are no longer a capitalist democracy, but a socialist oligarchy?  The problem with socialist programs is that once instilled into our way of life they are almost impossible to remove.  When people grow up with their hands out, it is hard to tell them no, and impossible to slap their hands away.  Well it’s time for us to close our hands, and to look to ourselves to provide.  A society that becomes dependant on the state can depend on a state that will take advantage of that.

September 17, 2009

ACLU Attacks WWI Memorial

Filed under: Sick and Tired — Trever Bierschbach @ 10:29 am
Tags: , , , ,

Ok, let me start by telling you all where I am coming from.  I served in the U.S. Army, though only for a short time.  Injuries and personal issues cut my time short, and I will always regret that I was unable to serve this country during it’s most trying times recently.  I have a very deep seated respect for our service men and women, and those that have given the ultimate sacrifice for people everywhere.  I believe that our military personnel do a great service to us and the world, and when we erect a memorial in honor of those lost to the cause we do the smallest thing in honoring them.  It is keeping, and maintaining those memorials that shows long lasting respect.  It is remember those memorials, from the smallest plaque in an abandoned battlefield to the huge edifices of granite and marble in the nation’s capitol.

In 1934, veterans of World War One raised a memorial in the Mojave desert in honor of their fallen friends and brothers in arms, and the fallen soldiers of all wars.  The has stood for 75 years, alone in the desert, sitting on a rock above a federal reserve.  Recently the ACLU brought suit, representing a retired Park Service employee, who said he was offended by the cross.  So far the lower courts have ruled in favor of the ACLU and at this point the cross is covered by a wooden box, until the Supreme Court hears the appeal in the coming weeks.  The ACLU argues that the cross being on federal land violates the separation of church and state, but when an offer was made to give the government several acres of private land, for one acre of land where the memorial stands.  Congress approved this, as a compromise that should make everyone happy, but the ACLU and the 9th circuit court said this was unacceptable because it may take up to two years for the transfer.  I argue that this is proof that the ACLU and the 9th circuit are not concerned with the separation of church and state, but just want to wipe all evidence of any religious imagery from our nation.

Now I say that, I defend this cross, but make no mistake.  I am not a Christian, and in many cases I think that separation is being violated.  But in this one, I have to disagree.  The court and the ACLU have proven that separation of church and state is of no concern to them.  The cross has been used for ages as a symbol of peace as well as war.  It was used for hundreds of years in the Celtic culture long before the birth of the Christian religion.  It is used as the universal symbol for medics and aid.  It was the symbol of the Templars as well as the Hospitlars during the middle ages.  The men that raised that cross did it for their brothers, their friends, the men that bled and died for another country.  Those men were not thinking about religion.  They didn’t do it because they wanted to promote Christianity.

Now, for the constitutionality of this…

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”

Correct me if I am wrong here, but this memorial in the desert is no law.  Congress didn’t erect it and didn’t pay for it.  This amendment says nothing about whether religious imagery can be on public or federal land.  Christianity, like or not, is part of this country’s history, and to deny it is to deny our history.  Also notice that congress cannot prohibit the free exercise of religion.  Again, it doesn’t say anything about federal land.

I am astounded that anyone can be offended by a religious symbol, especially in this context.  But, I am not surprised that the ACLU wants to get rid of this.  This is just one of the things that makes me sick and tired.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.