Disgruntledpatriot's Blog

October 14, 2009

Assault on Capitalism II: Internal Threats

Filed under: Sick and Tired — Trever Bierschbach @ 8:15 pm
Tags: , , , ,

Remember our definition of Socialism from the other day?  If not, basically socialism is when the central government owns or controls all of the wealth in a country.  Well, anyone that says our government hasn’t been moving toward a socialist model hasn’t been paying attention over the last year or a little more.  According to William Boyes, an economist with Arizona State University, the government now controls 30-40% of private business profits.  The only link I could find for it that seemed to be credible news is from the Washington Times here.  Whether you believe Mr. Boyes or not, or the Washington Times or now the fact remains that the government owns quite a few large businesses.  I first heard this stat this morning while listening to Glenn Beck.  Michelle Bachman went on to say that if the government passed health care and cap and trade it could push the percentage over 50%.  I couldn’t find anything about the last part, and of course that could all be debatable.  It would all depend on the effect a public option, if passed, would have on private insurance, how much of a tax burden private insurers would have to shoulder, and how much of a tax burden business would have to pay for insurance.  Regardless of the debate, the government controlling even 1% of private business profits is 1% too much.

Not only does is the constitution completely devoid of any reference to the government owning businesses, it’s just plain common sense.  Imagine if you will the complex idiocy of it all.  Our tax dollars went to bail out GM, effectively giving control of over half of the business to the government.  The government has a say, through the ‘Pay Czar’, about how much GM employees can make.  The government has control of how the business is run by having appointed the CEO of GM.  Essentially the government is offering you a product, and making a profit from it.  Don’t forget you also pay a sales tax on that vehicle, which then goes to the government.  You might think, “Well, that money, profit and taxes go back to us through the government”.  You would be wrong though.  Remember when they said all that bailout money would get paid back and then go into the treasury to pay down the debt?  Yeah, I do too, but our buddy Barney Frank and his goons want to take those profits and put them into their own little pet projects.  So basically they took our money, without really asking.  Oh, I know they voted, they were elected, blah blah blah.  The majority of the people didn’t want the bailouts, but Washington said, “It’s ok, we have to do this.  We know better than you, but don’t worry, it will all get paid back and the government will make a profit, and we will pay down the debt, and lie, Lie, LIE!!!”

It’s time we open our eyes, and our friends eyes, and our neighbor’s eyes.  Our government isn’t hiding the fact that they don’t care about us anymore.  Politicians are blatantly defying their constituents.  They are blatantly ignoring the people who are supposed to be in charge according to our constitution.  They took that document down off their walls a long time ago and wiped their backsides with it.  Time for us to staple it to their foreheads.

Advertisements

October 7, 2009

Free Press and Net Neutrality

Filed under: Sick and Tired — Trever Bierschbach @ 5:27 pm
Tags: , , , ,

Wow all my years on the internet and I just heard about this group today while watching Glenn Beck.  Generally when he goes on about something that I have never heard of, or something that sounds little ‘crazy’ I tend to look it up.  Usually he is on the money but this time I think he let one issue, lead into another and taint it.  Let me explain.  He was talking about Mark Lloyd and Robert McChesney and their love affair with Hugo Chavez and Marxism.  He was discussing the threat on free speech from them.  He also mentioned Free Press because McChesney is on their board, and he had a guest that mentioned that net neutrality was some sort of socialist scam.  Well, I have read their site, and I know that usually isn’t all that indicative, especially if a group wants to hide their true intentions.  Not like they are going to post it for everyone to see.  From the explanation on their site net neutrality seems like a good idea, and it seems like something that should be protected.  That’s not to say my skeptical mind won’t continue to do some research, but as far as I can tell they were unfairly labelled by Beck’s guest.

Aha, when researching the topic while I was writing this I found what might be considered by some to be the socialism in net neutrality.

“The first issue is the Internet. The battle for network neutrality is to prevent the Internet from being privatized by telephone and cable companies. Privatization would give them control over the Internet, would allow these firms to privilege some information flows over others. We want to keep the Internet open. What we want to have in the U.S. and in every society is an Internet that is not private property, but a public utility. We want an Internet where you don’t have to have a password and that you don’t pay a penny to use. It is your right to use the Internet. The benefits of a public Internet are numerous. It would end the digital divide, which remains a very serious problem in the U.S. and worldwide.”  -Robert McChesney

Ok, first of all the internet is not a ‘right’ it is a service.  Same reason we pay for running water, cable TV, phone service, electricity and so on.  Having the internet requires a whole slew of equipment, and personnel to run, and it isn’t free.  While I agree that the companies that offer it should not be regulating traffic, or what sites are available, or how fast one site loads over another, I do not agree that we need another handout.  In everything we have, whenever it is given to us, instead of paid for, basically what we get is everyone having a whole lot of mediocrity.  The reason the internet keeps getting faster, and more powerful, and more widespread is because it is a business, and improving it means people will make money.  Take out that factor and where is the incentive to improve?  All you have to do is compare the cars built in capitalist countries like the U.S. or Japan to cars built in non-capitalist countries like Russia to see that if you take away the monetary incentive you are left with a product that no one wants even if it is extremely cheap or even free.  At least for something like Universal Health Care you have the argument that people will still do it out of the goodness of their heart, but for the internet, why would anyone care to develop new technology?

The words of Robert McChesney may not reflect what Free Press feels about net neutrality, because I could not find it anywhere on their site.  Granted I didn’t look at the whole thing, but I did read the page about what it is, and the FAQs about it.  With more research maybe I can pare out the difference between what their site says and what one of their board members seems to believe.

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.

Blog at WordPress.com.