Washington Set to Control Your Light Switch

From BigGovernment.com (Nov. 29):

The next step in Green won’t even require Congressional approval. The Department of Energy recently decided they have authority over appliances in your home. Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently issued five new energy efficiency standards for large appliances, and is reworking the policy to include ten new categories. According to Assistant Energy Secretary Cathy Zoi “…we have a mandate. Where we can actually just issue regulations and do market transformation.”

It is like we are moving backwards in time, seeing modern life outlawed one convenience at a time. Right now social engineers are busy working on “Smart Grid” technology. (The perennial question: if environmental choices are actually so intelligent, why do the marketers have to convince us, with names like “Smart Car,” and “Insight?”) The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 set aside $11 billion dollars to begin construction of that grid.

Smart Grid sounds harmless and modern, but it will be incredibly intrusive. Appliances in the future will have microchips installed; when you plug them in, they will handshake with the grid, and a central authority will determine whether that appliance deserves to get power or not. If a bureaucrat in Washington decides that it’s not hot enough for you to put on the air conditioner, your air conditioner will not work. If the Fed decides that Margaritas lead to too much trouble on Cinco de Mayo, all blenders can be disabled for the day.

They can also turn off radios, televisions and computers. In the era of electronic information, restricting the freedom of the press is as easy as turning off the light. The idea is to conserve power, but a Smart Government will be able to use the technology to retain power as well. [read more]

  This is exactly what a dictatorship wishes it could do. This is close to absolute control as you can get. So, if the Obama administration does not want anyone to listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or anyone else it deems a threat to its policies it can zap the electricity to any radio that is tuned to that station during that time slot. Nice. Real nice.

Why Private Property Rights Matter

If though most readers knows what private property is I’ll explain it anyway for those who don’t. Private property is the clothes you own, the car you own, the house you own, etc. Basically anything that you own is private property including money. The key word here is private. Otherwise the state owns the property and can do what it wants with the property.
Since you own the property you can give it away, loan it out, or even destroy it if you wish. It is yours to do whatever you want with it.  But nobody can take it without your permission. “Thou shall not steal.” as it says in The Ten Commandments. God put that commandment in there for a reason. Owning private property is natural for mankind. It is part of our nature. It is even part of the Buddha’s Five Precepts. In a communal society stealing is not even a concept. How can you steal X from someone when everyone in the society owns X? By that very definition if you own X too then you are not stealing.
You could still get in trouble if you take something from somebody without the state’s permission. Since the state really owns the property it decides who gets what.  You might be taking something that was intended for someone else determined by the state. Or you could take something that was private property of the state and only the state. You really think private property will be  completely abolished in a communal society? The powers-that-be will always own their private property. That’s the way it was in the Soviet Union.
Also, if two or more people want the same object then someone has to determine who gets the object. Who you think that will be? Someone in authority of course like the state. If we are talking about large numbers of people like 10 or more people then the state has to determine who will get the object.  Smaller groups of people could get away with a pure communal society but even that could be problematic unless they are family or close friends.  By the way, if the state wants that object too then guess who gets it. The state of course. It will always get the best of everything.
Here are other things to think about in a communal society: The state could take something from you and give it to someone you don’t like or you don’t think needs it or deserves it. This could happen if the receiver is a friend or relative of the state. Also, if you spend time, effort, and/or money in making a product and then the state takes it from you and gives it to someone else where is the incentive to make it again just to have the state take it away from you again? None, unless you are making it for yourself and doing it for fun.

Soros group maps out Obama strategy for next 2 years

From Wnd.com (November 18):

A George Soros-funded think tank with deep ties to the White House has written a roadmap for President Obama to bypass the new Republican Congress and rule for the next two via executive order.

The plan calls for Obama to push a "progressive agenda" on issues of health care, economy, environment, education, federal government and foreign policy. [read more]

Well, that’s something unexpected. Not! If George Soros is the puppet master as Glenn Beck hypothesizes then who is the puppet? Barack Obama maybe? George Soros has been to the White House a couple of times.

Congressional Pay: A Good Idea

This idea I endorse comes from Glenn Beck. He stated this idea on his TV show on last Friday:

Congressman — here it is — congressman shall not be paid — shall not be paid more than those who are currently serving on the front line of duty. They shall never make more than that.

There's no reason why congressmen should be able to enrich themselves — make more than a guy who's on the front lines fighting, somebody who is in a tank right now, somebody else who is risking his life to save a child in another country. Are you kidding me? There is no justification for congressional salaries, none.

Demand Congress lower their salaries and their benefit to the same benefits offered to our soldiers, period.

Right on! How’s that for economic justice as the Left likes to say. Congress can either lower their salaries to equal that of the soldiers or raise the soldiers salaries to equal theirs. Or better yet, have Congress and the soldiers swap salaries for awhile. After all America is in debt and Congress can make some sacrifices like they want the taxpayers to do all the time.

Beck also thought that federal employees should not be paid higher than those serving in the front line of duty. Not bad either.

The Benefits of Banning Federal Funding

Ruth Fischbach and John Loike of Columbia University’s Center for Bioethics have noted that the George W. Bush administration’s 2001 federal funding ban on human embryonic stem-cell research led scientists kicking and screaming into developing alternative cell-transformation approaches---approaches that now show tremendous promise for new treatments.
What’s the moral of this story? Even research scientists are human. Instead of looking for alternatives they looked only for one solution because the gov’t discouraged other alternatives by not funding other alternatives—not deliberately but the result was still the same.  But when President Bush banned federal funding (he did not ban all funding, just federal) he made the researchers look for other sources of funding (like investment bankers, wealthy businessmen, etc.) or alternative approaches to the problem. In other words, Bush let the market decide not the government.
The moral above can be applied to other research the gov’t funds. In essence, the gov’t is saying “this research X  is the best research.” Which may or may not be true.  Especially in the long run when we can look at the results later on.
Source of first paragraph: Wrong. Why Experts Keep Failing Us---And How to Know When Not to Trust Them. (2010) by David H. Freedman.

The 15-day Calendar

The following is a 15-day calendar developed by Damon Vickers in his book The Day After the Dollar Crashes: A Survival Guide for the Rise of the New World Order  when America’s debt is monetized:

Day 1: China says no more bonds.

Day 2: Markets are spooked. Little eerie, quiet, but there's a — there's a kind of a hush all over Wall Street.

Day 3:  Rumors are happening.

Day 4:  Asian markets start to fall.

Day 5:  Dow plunges 900, maybe 1,000 points in 20 minutes.

Day 6: Europe raises their interest rates.

Day 7:  The market starts to rally.

Day 8: The market sells off 900 points.

Day 9: Market stabilizes.

Day 10: The dollar plunges. Ten to 15%.

Day 11: The Federal Reserve meet and then raises the interest rates 5 percent to 6 percent.

Day 12: The Dow falls 3,000 points in one day.

Day 13: The IMF and G20 meet.

Day 14: New World Order.

Day 15: People start breaking into the banks.

I haven’t actually read the book, but it sounds interesting and unnerving.  This information comes from a Glenn Beck TV show transcript.

The Things That Are Unseen Speech

The following speech was given by then Vice President Calvin Coolidge in 1923 at Wheaton College:

We do not need more material development, we need more spiritual development. We do not need more intellectual power, we need more  moral power. We do not need more knowledge, we need more character. We do not need more government, we need more culture. We do not need more law, we need more religion. We do not not need more  of the things that are seen, we need more of the things that are unseen. It is on that side of life that it is desirable to put  the emphasis at the present time. If that side be strengthened, the other side will take care of itself. It is that side which is the foundation of all else. If the foundation be firm, the superstructure will stand. The success or failure of liberal education, the justification of its protection and encouragement by the government, and of its support by society, will be measured by its ability to minister to this great cause, to perform the necessary services, to make the required redeeming sacrifices.

This speech should be displayed in the halls of Congress and The White House—especially today—minus the part about liberal education. He could have added  “We need more humility.” Interesting speech.

An Anatomy of a Crisis

This is how the far-Left plan to bring about the New World Order in America:

First, create or exploit a current crises in the country. This can be done by monetizing the debt so the dollar is worthless. No country will want to loan us money or buy any product from us. This will create hyperinflation. Creating high unemployment by high-taxation and over-regulation all businesses. Corrupting main stream religions with Marxism (collective salvation and social justice) and destroying the family—which is basically what welfare did to the black family. In other words create chaos in the country by any means necessary. Even using violence like in Greece.

Two, encourage the citizens to be dependent on gov’t programs like a drug addict. Discourage self-sufficiency and entrepreneurship. Discourage independence. Try to persuade people that the gov’t is a benevolent parent. This is done through public education.

The far-Left hopes there will be enough people in panic mode wanting a savior to help them. That’s where the far-Left says look toward the gov’t. It can save you they will say.  Then martial law will be invoked. Maybe not all at once but slowly.

Anyone that keeps his cool and says don’t trust the gov’t  will be treated as an enemy of the state.  Also, there will be scapegoats like big business or any big business that is not a friend of the state. The government will say big business caused this crises even if they didn’t.  Any conservative that wants to cut the budget like Social Security,  Medicare or any progressive gov’t program will be scapegoated.  The far-Left will say the Right wants to do harm to the elderly, etc. Then again the far-Left always does this. The State can never have anyone know they are the cause of the crises. Then you have a situation like in the French Revolution.

Don’t think this scenario can come true? It happen during the 1930’s in Germany and in Russia when the Soviet Union ruled.

One final note: George Soros said: “So, an orderly decline of the dollar is actually desirable [my italics].” Refer back to the First Step.

Also President Obama said before he got elected: “We are five days away from fundamentally changing the United States of America.” If that doesn’t give you chills I don’t know what will.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 18

• The socialist's/Marxist's motto: One nation under Government with equal misery for all. Or at least that's their unofficial motto.
• Ayn Rand said that the individual is the smallest minority. In mathematics there is a parallel. Single numbers are random by themselves because they cannot be compressed down to an equation. For example, 1, 5, 9, 12 is not a random sequence because it can be compressed to x = x + 4.
• If George Soros wants to spread the wealth around why doesn't he start with himself. He can give 1/3 of his wealth to the citizens of America.
• There should be a DVD called: "The Communists: A Warning from History" too.
• Next on The SyFy Channel: Killer Bees versus Fire Ants. Just joking. No such movie. Beside the bees would probably win anyway.
• The Left saying that the economy could be worse is like telling a car accident victim who has a broken rib and two broken legs it could be worse. He could have been run over by a steamroller. It doesn't make the victim feel any better.
• If the Left think big gov't is wonderful I wonder if they would use a public defender instead of a private one if they ever have to go to trial. Because even lawyers need incentive to do a decent job.
• If every country were free like America then you wouldn't need the UN. Or put it another way if every country had a constitution like America's then the UN would be obsolete.
• Randomness may just be complexity misinterpreted.
• Insane thought: Accordions in marching bands. Why not? They already have tubas. You could the marching band play polka songs then.

Laissez-Faire Evolution?

Instead of tinkering with evolution like the Intelligent Designers believe, I believe God instead built inside organisms a “program” that evolves organisms to higher complexity. This way evolution is directed, creative and takes a lot less energy. He doesn’t always have to be modifying the genes all the time.

In other words evolution would be like the free-market system. Free to evolve without much intervention.

Actually the idea about evolution going from lower to higher complexity is not new.  French Jesuit Pierre Teilhard de Chardin proposed that the universe evolves to a point called the Omega Point.  Of course, that’s just a theory like my idea of evolution. Knowing the mind of God is always a tricky business.

A Personal Congressional Pledge

The following is what I think a pledge from congressional candidate should give to voters. Some of these promises could even be given from a presidential candidate. None of the promises I think are partisan. Any party can state these promises. They are not unreasonable. Here are the promises:

While in office:

I will only raise my salary if the budget is balanced.

I will read the entire bill I vote on. If not given enough reasonable time to read the bill then I will vote against it.

If I don’t understand any bill or any repercussions of any bill I read then I will vote against it.

I will thoroughly research any bill I write or co-sponsor.

I will not add any riders on any bill.

I will not take any money, trips or any other gifts from any organization.

I will not pit one group of Americans against another.

I will show up for every vote on any bill. I will not vote abstain.

I will not lie to or mislead the American people about the contents any bill I write or sponsor.

I will not vote for, sponsor, or co-sponsor any bill that violates the Constitution.

I will not call my political opponents “enemies.”

I believe this is a good start for promises. Some of them might be tough to do. Then again it is always the politicians that say the American people have to sacrifice.

Democrats pressing Obama not to run again

From WND.com (Oct. 27):

Some senior personalities in the Democratic Party have discussed with President Obama's advisers the possibility of him not running for re-election in 2012, according to an influential Democratic Party operative speaking on condition of anonymity.

The operative, who is close to the Democratic leadership, did not indicate whether Obama was undecided about running again. [read more]

I wonder who is going to run for president in his place? Hillary possibly? Dick Morris has speculated that if the Dems lose both houses by record margins, and Obama’s approval falls below 40% that the party leadership will look for another presidential contender ie Hillary.

Ratings might not be the real reason Obama might not run again. He might not like being president—he likes the power and prestige but that’s all. Also, Michelle Obama might not want him to run again either. That’s the rumor anyway.

Either way it would have to be a personal reason. After all it was Harry Reid’s idea for him to run in the first place.