The Population Bomb Book

The Population Bomb was Stanford University professor Paul Ehrlich’s dire and impatient warning to mankind. Ehrlich painted an apocalyptic picture of the future: Too many people were being born and too many resources were drying up. The professor believed this was a fatal scenario for both the planet and humanity. He even went so far as to compare humanity to cancer.

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells. The population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. Treating only the symptoms of cancer may make the victim more comfortable at first, but eventually he dies, often horribly. A similar fate awaits a world with a population explosion, if only the symptoms are treated,” Ehrlich said.

Ehrlich had many actual solutions on how to combat the disease of the surplus population. He was a staunch supporter of families having no more than two children, so much so that he outlined in The Population Bomb how to attack the media for promoting large families. Paul Ehrlich also floated the idea of creating a federal Department of Population and Environment (DPE), arguing that one of the DPE’s main focuses would be encouraging more research on human sex determination to ensure first born children were males.

The Population Bomb proved so popular Paul Ehrlich was able to co-found an activist group named Zero Population Growth (ZPG). Its members were passionate about decreasing the population and expert at using sympathy to get their talking points across. The group still exists as the re-branded Population Connection, continuing to spread their morbid fantasies about who should be born into this world — and who should not.

Source: Environmentalism Part II: The Population Bomb

I wonder if China’s gov’t got the idea of controlling their population from this guy because that’s almost what they are doing.

Hillary Clinton Literally Doesn’t Understand Why Obamacare Caused a $500 Increase in Small Business Owner’s Healthcare Costs

From The Blaze.com (May 10):

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton came clean about Obamacare during a town hall this week, telling one small business owner that she has no idea why the Affordable Care Act has raised her insurance costs by $500.

She was pressed on the issue by the business owner during a campaign stop in Lorton, Virginia, Monday afternoon.

“I have seen our health insurance for my own family go up $500 a month in the last two years, so we went from 400 something to 900 something,” the woman told Clinton. “We’re just fighting to keep benefits for ourselves. The thought of being able to provide benefits to your employees is almost secondary. Yet to keep your employees happy, that’s a question that comes across my desk all the time.”

Because of the large increase, the business owner told the Democratic hopeful that she is forced to keep most of her workers as contractors, adding that many leave for other employers who can provide more benefits.

She went on to say if she can’t provide benefits for herself, there’s no way she can cover her family. She said the reason her health insurance has increased by so much is because she “unfortunately” makes too much money to qualify for a subsidy under Obamacare.

“So, I guess my question to you is not only are you looking out for people that can’t afford health care,” she said. “I’m someone that can afford it, but it’s taking a big chunk out of the money I bring home for myself.”

Clinton responded, “What you’re saying is one of the real worries that we’re facing with the cost of health insurance because the costs are going up in a lot of markets — not all, but many markets. Right now, like with so many of these programs, there’s just a cut off instead of what I would like to see a kind of gradual diminishment.” [read more]

What?! What kind of answer is that? The real reason costs are going up is because that’s the plan—to eventually go to a single-payer system. But no dem candidate will ever say that. The Left want the masses to revolt and demand a single-payer system. The real reason health care costs go up is because when consumers don’t know or care about prices of services and medical products then prices will automatically go up. Obamacare doesn’t change that.

Then again Hillary is economically stupid. That’s why she wants her hubby to be her economic advisor—although he’s not much better.

The Trouble with Making Scientific Hypotheses into National Laws

From David Boaz on FEE.org:

As I wrote a few months ago in response to a Washington Post story on the possibility that decades of government warnings about whole milk may have been in error,

It’s understandable that some scientific studies turn out to be wrong. Science is a process of trial and error, hypothesis and testing. Some studies are bad, some turn out to have missed complicating factors, some just point in the wrong direction. I have no criticism of scientists’ efforts to find evidence about good nutrition and to report what they (think they) have learned.

My concern is that we not use government coercion to tip the scales either in research or in actual bans and mandates and Official Science. Let scientists conduct research, let other scientists examine it, let journalists report it, let doctors give us advice. But let’s keep nutrition – and much else – in the realm of persuasion, not force. First, because it’s wrong to use force against peaceful people, and second, because we might be wrong. ...

Today’s scientific hypotheses may be wrong. Better, then, not to make them law. [read more]

Mr. Boaz is exactly right. Science is never complete and even sometimes can be wrong because scientists are not perfect that’s why laws shouldn’t be based on science alone. In the 70’s scientists talked about global cooling not warming. Science is always influx.

Who Cares about Inequality?

Commentary from Don Watkins from FEE.org:

The division between classical and modern liberals is often represented as paralleling the tension between liberty and equality. Where classical liberalism saw individual liberty as the driving force behind peace and prosperity, the modern variety puts more emphasis on equality. But this is a false dichotomy. The only kind of equality that is possible is also the only kind that matters: political equality.

Political equality refers to equality of rights. Before the creation of the United States, every system of government had taken for granted that some people were entitled to rule others, taking away their freedom and property whenever some allegedly “greater good” demanded it. The Founders rejected that notion. Each individual, they held, is to be regarded by the government as having the same rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as any other individual. So long as he didn’t violate other people’s rights, he was free to set his own course and live on his own terms.

By making the government the guardian of our equal rights rather than a tool for the politically privileged to control and exploit the rest of society, the Founders transformed the state from an instrument of oppression into an instrument of liberation: it liberated the individual so that he was free to make the most of his life. (Unfortunately, they failed to fully implement that principle, above all by allowing the continued existence of slavery, which was a clash of principles that nearly tore the country apart in a civil war.)

Political equality is what made America a land of opportunity. In a world where there were no special privileges and no special obstacles, each individual was free to rise as high as his ability and ambition would take him. This political equality inevitably went hand in hand with economic inequality, as the ability and ambition of some people took them further than others. There was no contradiction in that fact. Political equality has to do with how the government treats individuals. It says that the government should treat all individuals the same — black or white, man or woman, rich or poor. But political equality says nothing about the differences that arise through the voluntary decisions of private individuals. Protecting people’s equal rights invariably leads to differences in economic condition, as some people use their freedom to create modest amounts of wealth while others reach the highest levels of financial success.

……………………………

When a bank or auto company that made irrational decisions gets bailed out at public expense, that is an outrage. But the root of the problem isn’t their executives’ ability to influence Washington; it’s Washington’s power to dispense bailouts.  [read more]

The modern liberals the author is talking about are also called progressives or what I call The Left since they might change their name again. Good article.

Donald Trump’s Idea to Cut National Debt: Get Creditors to Accept Less

From The New York Times (May 6):

After assuring Americans he is not running for president “to make things unstable for the country,” the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald J. Trump, suggested that he might reduce the national debt by persuading creditors to accept something less than full payment.

Asked on Thursday whether the United States needed to pay its debts in full, or whether he could negotiate a partial repayment, Mr. Trump told the cable network CNBC, “I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.”

He added, “And if the economy was good, it was good. So, therefore, you can’t lose.”

Such remarks by a major presidential candidate have no modern precedent. The United States government is able to borrow money at very low interest rates because Treasury securities are regarded as a safe investment, and any cracks in investor confidence have a long history of costing American taxpayers a lot of money. [read more]

Wow! Donald Trump really has confidence in his negotiating ability. We’ll see. Actually, according to FEE.org, Trump is not the first to threaten default on the debt. The first was Obama.

It’s actually better for the powers-to-be have displine and stop spending amd make cuts in gov’t programs than to default on the debt. Donald Trump hasn’t suggested any gov’t program to eliminate or to cut. Ted Cruz on the other hand suggested five programs. Maybe Trump should look at that list programs to cut or to eliminate. He wouldn’t have to choose all five but say two to three would be a good start. I’m sure Ted Cruz wouldn’t mind.

To be fair, Mr. Trump said he like the “penny plan” when Sean Hannity suggested this plan.

An Open Challenge to Liberals: Answer These 3 Questions

From Dan Bongino on Conservative Review.com:

We painfully learned during the presidency of Barack Obama that ideology matters more than words. And now that the 2016 primary season is coming to a close I think it’s appropriate to start asking the remaining candidates questions about the ideology that guides their decision-making. Barack Obama said a lot of things as a candidate but when it mattered (i.e. executive amnesty, Obamacare, foreign policy) he disregarded what he said and took actions guided by his big –government-knows-best ideology.

Here are three questions for liberal candidates I would like to see answered before the November elections.

1. Do you believe in the rule of law? This is an important question because liberals tend to give conflicting answers to this question when it involves specific legislative actions. For example, ask many liberals about Obamacare and they’ll insist that “it’s the law of the land” and can’t be ignored, even though it has imposed devastating penalties on millions of Americans in the form of higher premiums and cancelled insurance plans.But ask liberals about current immigration laws, which are being openly violated by millions of illegal immigrants, and liberals will insist that “the immigration laws are broken,” insinuating that this is a permission slip for people who don’t like immigration laws to ignore them. Which is it though? You can’t be consistent and say that you believe in the rule of law if that belief means you only recommend following the laws that comport with your ideology.
2. What is the safe limit for government debt?
3. What special knowledge do government bureaucrats have about the economy? The modern liberal candidate for public office has largely abandoned the idea that free markets create prosperity. Given this, I would like to hear from liberal candidates what special knowledge government bureaucrats have that enables them to manage the economy?

[read more]

These are good questions for any Left-leaning candidate running for office at any time. As for the questions let me pretend to be a Leftist and answer these questions:

Answer to the first question is no. The Left believes in the rule of elites progressives. The Constitution is a nuisance that gets in the way of the Left’s so-called “compassion.”

The answer to the 2nd question is:  Getting people dependent on gov’t—we (the Left) mean compassion—is the goal then we don’t worry about running out of other peoples money. We will just raise taxes on the rich to cover any expenses since the rich hoard all the money anyway and they don’t deserve to keep it.

The answer to the last question is Marxist economists with a Ph. D.

Southern San Andreas fault in California 'locked and loaded,' warns scientist

From Fox News.com (May 5):

The southern part of the San Andreas fault is "locked, loaded and ready to roll," according to Thomas Jordan, director of the Southern California Earthquake Center.

Jordan issued the warning during a keynote speech at the National Earthquake Conference in Long Beach, Calif. Wednesday, reports Fox 11.

"The pressure has been building on that part of the fault without being relieved for more than a hundred years," he said.

Parts toward the southeast of the San Andreas fault haven't moved since about 1680, according to the report.

"The springs on the San Andreas system have been wound very, very tight,”  Jordan said.

……………….

The L.A. Times cited a 2008 U.S. Geological Survey report, which warned that a 7.8-magnitude quake on the southern San Andreas fault could cause more than 1,800 deaths and 50,000 injuries. [read more]

Scary. Not good at all.

Trump Takes 'New Deal' Approach to Fixing Nation's Infrastructure

From News Max.com (May 5):

One of Donald Trump's campaign promises is one that involves fixing the nation's infrastructure, a claim he compares to the New Deal.

New York Magazine's Eric Levitz writes that Trump's plan to repair the United States' aging infrastructure — which includes roads, bridges, tunnels, and the power grid — could end up moving him left on the political spectrum because of the massive amount of government spending his plan would entail.
"Maybe my greatest strength is the economy, jobs, and building," Trump told CNBC Thursday. "We do have to rebuild our infrastructure."

Trump addressed the issue in his latest book, "Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again."

"Fixing our infrastructure will be one of the biggest projects this country has ever undertaken. There isn't going to be a second chance to get it right," Trump wrote in his book, according to an excerpt published by ABC News last fall. "Let me ask you, if your own house was falling down and you had to hire someone to fix it before it completely collapsed, who would you hire? A guy who tells you what he's planning to do, or a guy who has proven what he can do countless times before? [read more]

I thought Obama fixed the infrastructure already? I guess Trump is showing his progressive side making the infrastructure great again. He’s going to put people back to work by giving them gov’t jobs? Hmmm. Gov’t jobs never really revives the private sector.

Failure Made Disney Great

From Lawrence W. Reed on FEE.org:

What a phenomenal man Walt Disney was! A cartoonist and animator, businessman, filmmaker, theme park pioneer, and cultural icon, he may have manufactured more happiness in the world than any other man or woman of the 20th century. He was an American original and an American patriot, too. He deeply appreciated that liberty in America allowed him to invent, experiment, and ultimately succeed, as evidenced in this remark three years before his death: “To retreat from any of the principles handed down by our forefathers, who shed their blood for the ideals we still embrace, would be a complete victory for those who would destroy liberty and justice for the individual.”

Some people think that entrepreneurs build, innovate, and take risks just for the money they might make. To the imaginative Walt Disney, money was never the prime motivator. Not even close — though what could be wrong about that if it had been? Money paid the bills, but he hired his brother Roy to worry about it. Walt was driven by the sheer joy of creativity and the fulfillment that comes from bringing happiness to others. “It’s kind of fun to do the impossible,” he once said. These words from his dedication speech at the July 1955 opening of Disneyland in Anaheim, California, encapsulate his amazing spirit:

To all who come to this happy place, Welcome! Disneyland is your land. Here, age relives fond memories of the past ... and here youth may savor the challenge and promise of the future. Disneyland is dedicated to the ideals, the dreams, and the hard facts that have created America ... with the hope that it will be a source of joy and inspiration to all the world.

No one could do justice to the life of Walt Disney in a short article, so I won’t even attempt to. Allow me to zero in on one particular aspect that underscores why he’s a hero: he knew failure and how to learn and prosper from it. As he put it himself, “All the adversity I’ve had in my life, all my troubles and obstacles, have strengthened me.… You may not realize it when it happens, but a kick in the teeth may be the best thing in the world for you.”

In “The Importance of Failure” (Freeman, November 2011), economists Steven Horwitz and Jack Knych explained that permitting failure is just as important as allowing success:

For example, in 1921 Walt Disney started a company called the Laugh-O-Gram Corporation, which went bankrupt two years later. If a friend of Disney or the government hadn’t let him fail and move on, he might never have become the Walt Disney we know today.

More important than this individual learning process is the irreplaceable role failure plays in the social learning process of the competitive market. When we refuse to allow failure to happen, or we cushion its blow, we ultimately harm not only the person who failed but also all of society by denying ourselves a key way to learn how best to allocate resources. Without failure there’s no economic growth or improved human well-being.…

Failure drives change. While success is the engine that accelerates us toward our goals, it is failure that steers us toward the most valuable goals possible. Once failure is recognized as being just as important as success in the market process, it should be clear that the goal of a society should be to create an environment that not only allows people to succeed freely but to fail freely as well.

Disney heard a lot about failure at the family dinner table before he ever failed himself. His father, Elias, tried twice to be a successful orange grower in Florida but couldn’t make it work. He flopped as a professional fiddle player in Colorado. He didn’t do much better farming in Missouri. Elias tried a lot of things to keep his family fed. That he never quit trying left a deep impression on young Walt.  [read more]

Legislation Will Curb the Power of Unaccountable Bureaucracy

From The Daily Signal (Apr. 27):

Each year, regulators impose thousands of rules on the American people—over 20,000 during the Obama administration’s tenure alone. The cost is staggering: According to an upcoming Heritage study, the cost of Obama’s new rules alone is over $100 billion each year, and that only counts the biggest regulations.

There is a solution: make Congress approve new regulations before they become effective. That would shift responsibility back to where it belongs—in Congress. Regulators would no longer be able to legislate though rule-making without congressional action, and Congress would no longer be able to evade accountability for the rules that are imposed.

The REINS (“Regulations From the Executive in Need of Scrutiny”) Act would implement just such a system, requiring congressional approval for the hundred or so “major” rules each year that cost $100 million or more. Yet, that bill—first introduced seven years ago—has been stalled in Congress. While approved by the House multiple times, it failed to gain any traction in the Senate.

Part of the reason for the stalemate is critics’ concerns over how the system would work in practice. That’s where Lee’s amendment comes in. He would impose REINS Act requirements solely on major rules from the Department of Energy.  [read more]

A good start but the act should cover all gov’t agencies. Obama and Hillary would veto the act. But would Donald Trump sign the bill into law if he became the president? According to the American Commitment presidential survey he said he would and would work hard to get it passed. That’s good to hear.  First of course, the Senate has to pass it.

Why We Need to Make Mistakes

An article by Sandy Ikeda on FEE.org:

But I think innovation, not efficiency, is capitalism’s greatest strength. I’m not saying that the free market can’t be both efficient and innovative, but it does offer people a strong incentive to abandon the pursuit of efficiency in favor of innovation.

What Is Efficiency?

In its simplest form, economic efficiency is about given ends and given means. Economic efficiency requires that you know what end, among all possible ends, is the most worthwhile for you to pursue and what means to use, among all available means, to attain that end. You’re being efficient when you’re getting the highest possible benefit from an activity at the lowest possible cost. That’s a pretty heavy requirement.

What Is Innovation?

Innovation means doing something significantly novel. It could be doing an existing process in a brand new way, such as being the first to use a GPS tracking system in your fleet of taxis. Or, innovation could mean doing something that no one has ever done before, such as using smartphone technology to match car owners with spare time to carless people who need to get somewhere in a hurry, à la Uber.

Innovation, unlike efficiency, entails discovering novel means to achieve a given end, or discovering an entirely new end. And unlike efficiency, in which you already know about all possible ends and means, innovation takes place only when you lack knowledge of all means, all ends, or both.

Where’s the Conflict?

Starting a business that hasn’t been tried before involves a lot of trial and error. Most of the time the trials, no matter how well thought out, turn out to contain errors. The errors may lie in the means you use or in the particular end you’re pursuing.

In most cases, it takes quite a few trials and many, many errors before you hit on an outcome that has a high enough value and low enough costs to make the enterprise profitable.) Is that process of trial and error, of experimentation, an example of economic efficiency? It is not.

…………………………..

Both efficiency and innovation best take place in a free market. But the greatest rewards to buyers and sellers come not from efficiency, but from innovation.  [read more]

The reason why socialistic nations are not innovative is because they focus too much on efficiency at the expence of innovation. Socialists believe the market systems should be perfect (read: efficient) but they never will be perfect because people are not perfect. Also, when beurcrats run the economy they focus more on efficiency rather than innovation. Bureaucrats, let’s face it, are not very creative. Add to this fact that innovation involves risks which scares the crap out of socialists.

10 Reasons You Might Want to Leave North Korea

1. Life expectancy in the North is only 86 percent that of the South, 2013.
2. GDP per capita in the North is only 5 percent that of the South, 2008.
3. Infant mortality in the North is 679 percent that of the South, 2015.
4. Maternal mortality in the North is 322 percent that of the South, 2013.
5. Food consumption in the North was 63 percent that of the South, 2011.
6. Democracy in the South is comparable to Belgium, but non-existent in the North, 2014.
7. Environmental protection in the North lags behind that in the South.
8. Rule of law in the South is on par with Spain; in the North, with Afghanistan, 2014.
9. Internet access in the North is, well…[non-existence].
10. Last, but not least, the colonel's chance of being murdered was almost six times higher in the North than in the South, including on the orders of this psychopath: [Kim Jong-un].

[read more]

The article started with a N. Korean colonel defected to S. Korea for unknown reasons. Well, if I was placing a bet I would say the last reason sounds reasonable.

Top 5 Reasons Congress Should Reject Obama’s Climate Change Treaty

From Nicolas Loris on The Daily Signal.com (Apr. 19):

Secretary of State John Kerry will join leaders from around the world to sign the Paris Protocol global warming agreement this Friday at the United Nations headquarters.

Here are the top five reasons Congress and the next administration should withdraw from the accord:

1. Higher energy bills, fewer jobs and a weaker economy. The economic impact of domestic regulations associated with the Paris agreement will be severe.
2. No impact on climate. Regardless of one’s opinions on the degree to which climate change is occurring, regulations associated with the Paris accord will have no meaningful impact on the planet’s temperature. Even if the government closed the doors to every businesses and CO2-emitting activity in the U.S., there would be less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures.
3. Massive taxpayer-funded wealth transfer for green initiatives. An important part of the Paris agreement for the developing world is money. More specifically, other peoples’ money. In Nov. 2014, President Barack Obama also pledged to commit $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund, an international fund for green projects in the developing world.
4. Avoids review and consent from elected officials. The Paris agreement is in form, in substance, and in the nature of its commitments a treaty and should be submitted to the Senate for review and consent. The executive branch has shown contempt for the U.S. treaty-making process and the role of Congress, particularly the Senate.
5. A top-down, government controlled push for economic transformation. To achieve their global warming goals, international leaders want to control an economic transformation. Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change has said that:

   This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.

[read more]

Just like the unaffordable no-care act this stupid treaty is just another way to control the American people’s lives. Period. It’s not about helping the environment at all.

 

Lessons For Law Enforcement

Following is a list of guidelines that emerged from the successful resolution of these cases of serial murder. While not exhaustive, it’s a start. Hopefully it will inspire both dedication and invention in current and future investigations.

1. Read widely in fields that might seem relevant but have not yet been used in law enforcement. It was a police officer not a scientist who introduced the discrimination of animal and human blood, DNA analysis, and brain fingerprinting into an investigation. This requires creative thinking and awareness of what’s available.
2. Be proactive. Detective William King kept planting items in newspapers, even years after the crime was committed, in order to bait the offender who’d kidnapped Grace Budd. Finally, his effort paid off. The Allentown police set up a sting operation, and Viktor Burakov read up on the FBI’s profiling methods, despite rebuke, to try to stop Chikatilo.
3. Become educated about psychological angles on criminal behavior, which get updated with research on a regular basis. This arena is not reserved for profilers or psychologists. Most good detectives already have a sense of criminal psychology, but psychopathic serial killers require greater savvy. No officer should believe he already knows enough from what he’s picked up on the streets.
4. Be flexible and, in particular, prepare to be wrong. In the Village Path murders in Britain, the interrogators were certain they’d nailed the man who’d killed two young girls, but they were wrong. It’s possible that their misplaced confidence influenced this suspect’s false confession. DNA analysis exonerated him and pointed to another man, but had this case happened only two years earlier, an innocent man would have gone to prison.
5. Be persistent. With cold cases, go over old ground and get a fresh perspective from others not familiar with the crime. Blind spots can trip up investigators who won’t let go. No investigation belongs to a single cop; it’s always a coordinated effort and others might contribute in surprising ways.
6. Be meticulous. Perhaps no case was more painstaking than the Pickton investigation, with all the forensic personnel sifting through piles of dirt and manure and underneath every building to locate fragments of human remains that would yield DNA.
7. Anticipate the future. Future investigations will involve cooperation among seemingly unrelated fields, especially the fields of technology and informatics.

Source: The Devil’s Dozen. How Cutting Edge Forensics Took Down 12 Notorious Serial Killers (2009) by Katherine Ramsland, Ph. D.

Good advice. The boldface highlights are mine.

19 Signs That American Families Are Being Economically Destroyed

From Tyler Durden on Zero Hedge.com:

Even as we stand at the precipice of the next great economic crisis, we continue to make the same mistakes.  In the end, all of us are going to pay a very great price for decades of incredibly foolish decisions.  Of course a tremendous amount of damage has already been done.  The numbers that I am about to share with you are staggering.  The following are 19 signs that American families are being economically destroyed…

1. The poorest 40 percent of all Americans now spend more than 50 percent of their incomes just on food and housing.
2. For those Americans that don’t own a home, 50 percent of them spend more than a third of their incomes just on rent.
3. The price of school lunches has risen to the 3 dollar mark at many public schools across the nation.
4. McDonald’s “Dollar Menu & More” now includes items that cost as much as 5 dollars.
5. The price of ground beef has doubled since 2009.
6. In 1986, child care expenses for families with employed mothers used up 6.3 percent of all income.  Today, that figure is up to 7.2 percent.
7. Incomes fell for the bottom 80 percent of all income earners in the United States during the 12 months leading up to June 2014.
8. At this point, more than 50 percent of all American workers bring home less than $30,000 a year in wages.
9. After adjusting for inflation, median household income has fallen by nearly $5,000 since 2007.
10. According to the New York Times, the “typical American household” is now worth 36 percent less than it was worth a decade ago.

[read more]

Not good at all. Thank you powers-that-be!

ISIS Wants To Attack With WMDs

From Washington Times.com (April 19):

EU and NATO officials confirmed today there is evidence that the Islamic State is plotting nuclear, biological and chemical (NBC) attacks on the European continent and the United Kingdom. Jorge Berto Silva, deputy head of counterterrorism for the European Commission, said at a conference in London that ISIS is constantly evading established security measures and looking for new ways to get explosive and dangerous material into European cities, such as implanting the bombs in human bodies and using driverless cars to ram crowds. There is even evidence ISIS has obtained Iraqi short-range missiles and rockets to attack cities from outside the center.

Dr. Jamie Shea, deputy assistant secretary general for emerging security threats at Nato, reportedly added regarding NBC materials: “We know terrorists are trying to acquire these substances,” reported the Mirror. [read more]

Thank you Obama for making the world unsafer! If IS thugs wants to attack Europe then America is next on their hit list.

Rachel Carson and DDT

The most important day of the entire year is upon us — Earth Day on April 22nd. It’s a day in which environmentalists will overlook and dismiss earth’s inhabitants and literally choose to celebrate the dirt beneath our feet.

Earth Day isn’t really about picking trash in your local park or remembering to recycle your soda can. It isn’t even about hugging a tree. It has never been that innocent. Earth Day is a yearly reminder that humanity must be controlled, manipulated and even destroyed for the good of the planet.

…………………………..

In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, the book credited with igniting environmentalists in the United States. One hundred fifty thousand copies of “Silent Spring” were mailed to Book of the Month members and made their way into suburban America. With chapter titles such as “Elixirs of Death” and “Rivers of Death,” Carson successfully mixed eloquence and horror to instill fear about the popular insecticide Dichloride Diphenyl Triclorethane, better known as DDT.

DDT was considered to be a miracle powder that played an extraordinary role in winning World War II. During the Second World War, DDT was used to protect allied troops and civilians from malaria, typhus and other insect-born diseases.

…………………………….

Rachel Carson’s narrative that DDT was detrimental to both nature and human health was hungrily gobbled up by the public and government officials alike. Within eight years of its publication, Silent Spring was directly credited with the creation of the EPA.

In 1972, only ten years after Silent Spring was published, the U.S. banned DDT and other countries quickly followed suit. Once countries started falling prey to Carson’ misinformation about DDT, malaria ran rampant. The devastating insect-born disease once again ravaged South Africa and South American countries.

Robert Watts of the National Institutes of Health once remarked, “The ban on DDT may have killed 20 million children.”

Source: Environmentalism Part I: The EPA, Silent Spring and DDT

10 Things Leaders Should Never Do

These are behaviors that executives and business leaders should always avoid. They don't just diminish your leadership ability, your presence, your credibility, your reputation. They will come back to haunt you and, ultimately, be your undoing.

1. Kowtow to the status quo.
2. Whine.
3. Deceive.
4. Act like a dictator.
5. Make empty threats.
6. Crave power.
7. Ignore the truth.
8. Make commitments you don't intend to keep.
9. Be grandiose.
10. Do what you know is wrong.

Source: 10 Things Leaders Should Never Do from Inc.com.

Good advice not only for the private sector but for presidents and potential presidents. Obama does 2, 3, 4, and 6. Trump has to watch 2, 4, 6, and 9. When your narcisstic or egotistical 4, 6, 7, and 9 come into play.

Milton Friedman on the Great Depression

Milton Friedman at a conference of bankers:

There is hardly any view that is more widespread than the view that somehow or another the Great Depression was produced by a failure of private business. That view is held, not only by those who are in favor of greater role of government, it is held by almost everybody. I venture to suggest you that if you go to any bankers, the people who are here today at this banking conference, and if you talk to them, I’d venture to say, nine out of ten of them, if they didn’t, hadn’t heard what I’m going to say, that nine out of ten of them would say, “Well, of course, the Great Depression was a failure of private business. It was due to an overextension. Over speculation of the 1920s. Or it was due to an excessive concentration of wealth in the hands of the wealthy at the expense of the poor in the 1920s. Or it was due to speculative investment abroad or whatever. But it was a failure of private business. And government had to step in in order to rescue private business from its own failure.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. …The Great Depression was not [my emphasis] produced by a failure of business. On the contrary, it was [my emphasis]produced by a failure of government and a failure of government in an area in which responsibility had been assigned to governments since the founding of this country. The Constitution of the United States, it gives Congress the power to coin money and set the value thereof. And it was in the management of this fundamental function of government that governments failed and produced the Great Depression.

Source: Milton Friedman Part IV: Unapologetic & Unafraid

Mr. Friedman got it exactly right. The reader might want to refer to my blog entry “FDR, The Great Depression and The New Deal.”

A Peek Inside the IRS and Other Tax Stuff

The Four Protocols:

1. Find where they [the taxpayers] are.
2. Track what they do.
3. Learn what they have.
4. Execute what they fear.

The three Cs in ‘collection’:

• Cause- What did the TP [taxpayer] do—or not do—to fall behind or not file?
• Cure- What can the TP do—or not do—to bring the taxpayer back into compliance?
• Compliance- Is the TP current? If it’s a business, are the owners current? Is every entity they have an interest in current? Check everything, across the board.

Nine simple rules for not getting yourself killed [by a TP]:

1. Treat all taxpayers fairly and courteous.
2. Do not personalize collection efforts.
3. Listen carefully.
4. Do not threaten, scold, or patronize.
5. Recognize your own attitudes and eliminate those that are counterproductive.
6. Treat taxpayers as you would want to be treated.
7. Know where the exits are.
8. Avoid getting trapped.
9. Use force only sufficient to disengage.

Source: Confessions of a Tax Collector. One Man’s Tour of Duty Inside the IRS (2004) by Richard Yancey.

Taxpayer Bill of Rights:

1. The Right to Be Informed.
2. The Right to Quality Service.
3. The Right to Pay No More than the Correct Amount of Tax.
4. The Right to Challenge the IRS’s Position and Be Heard.
5. The Right to Appeal an IRS Decision in an Independent Forum
6. The Right to Finality.
7. The Right to Privacy.
8. The Right to Confidentiality.
9. The Right to Retain Representation.
10. The Right to a Fair and Just Tax System.

No taxation without respiration. –  Senator George Allen

Consider this, for starters. Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, which has defined the character of the nation, is all of 268 words. The Declaration of Independence runs about 1,300 words. The Constitution, which has served us for more than two centuries, comes to some 5,000 words. The Holy Bible has 773,000 words. The federal income tax code and all of its attendant rules and regulations: 9 million words and rising.  -- Steve Forbes

Taxation with representation ain't so hot either. - Gerald Barzan

Collecting more taxes than is absolutely necessary is legalized robbery. – Calvin Coolidge

The people suffer from famine because of the multitude of taxes consumed by their superiors. It is through this that they suffer famine. - Lao-Tzu

Capital punishment is when Washington comes up with a new tax. - Van Panopoulos

Here’s a summary of the history of the tax rate:

• 1862-1863: The start of the national income tax. Two tier system. Upper tax rate 5%.
• 1864-1866: Three tier system. Upper tax rate 10%.  Tax rate still not too bad.
• 1867-1869: One tier system. Upper tax rate 5%. By one tier I mean if the income is over a certain amount the taxpayer pays a certain rate. Otherwise the taxpayer pays nothing.  Even better yet.
• 1870-1872: One tier system. Upper tax rate 2.5%. Nice.
• 1873-1893, 1895-1912. No national income tax. This is called the good old days. How did America ever survive? You mean the world for the average American didn’t stop?
• 1894: One tier system. Upper tax rate: 2%.
• 1913-1915: Seven tier system! Upper tax rate: 7%.
• 1916: 14 tier system!! WTF? Upper tax rate: 15%.
• 1917: 21 tier system!!! Upper tax rate: 67%!
• 1918-1921: 56 tier system!!!!  Upper tax rates: 77% and73%

I would go on but you get the idea. The tier system went somewhat down then in 1932 it went to 55. The highest tax rate overall was 94% in 1944. It wasn’t until 1987 the tier system went back to a smaller five tier system with the upper tax rate at 38.5%. The next year the the tax code was a two tier system with upper tax rate set at 28%. The two tier system only lasted until 1991. The upper tax rate went up too. Everyone paid the same rates regardless of marriage status until 1949 where single and head of household paid the same rates as married filing separately. Married filling jointly incomes was split to compare against the brackets. In 1971, every marriage status had different brackets.

It’s interesting to note that througout America’s tax code history there never has been one single flat rate for everyone regardless of income. Probably because if everyone pays the same rate it would be harder for Washington to raise the rate too high otherwise the poor would feel the effect.

I believe the reason the progressive tax system got created is because the progressives believed the more you earn, the more you should be taxed. In other words, they think they were following a law of economics that says “if a seller thinks a buyer has a lot of money to spend then he will raise the price of his product or service.” This is an actual economic law. The problem is when you apply this law to taxing someone they don’t have a choice. They have to pay the tax rate. Or got to jail. Unlike the free-market system where the buyer can choose to pay the price or go on to another seller. But the progs don’t care. They think the rich has an endless supply of money or they hoard all the money.

Glenn Beck series “History of Taxation”:

• Taxes Part I: How Income Tax Began
• Taxes Part II: What Is a ‘Fair’ Income Tax Rate?
• Taxes Part III: The Reagan Years
• Taxes Part IV: The 2016 Candidates

A Tax on Income Attacks Life Itself

9 Charts You Need to See for Tax Day

Some news:

Daily Signal.com (Mar. 18): H&R block Wants to Make It Harder for You to File Taxes. Can you say chrony capitalist?

Five Indispensible Principles of Market Freedom

FEE.org article by Jeffrey Tucker:

Some people like to distinguish between capitalism and crony capitalism. For example, many American retailers these days are hoping for an increase in tariffs and import quotas in a way that will protect their products against foreign competition. That is, they want to use government power to guarantee their profits. It seems to me that this is better described as pure cronyism. Leave the capitalism part out of it.

If a term elucidates an idea with accuracy, great. If it causes confusion, change it. Language is constantly evolving. No particular arrangement of letters embeds an immutable meaning. And what is at stake in this debate about market freedom (or capitalism or laissez faire or the free market) is of profound importance. 

It’s the substance, not the words, we should care about.

Here are five core elements to this idea of market freedom, or whatever you want to call it. It is my short summary of the classical liberal vision of the free society and its functioning, which isn’t just about economics, but the whole of life itself. Call it capitalism if you want to.

I. Volition. Markets are about human choice at every level of society. These choices extend to every sector and every individual. You can choose your work. No one can force you into labor. At the same time, you can’t impose yourself on any employer. No one can force you to buy anything, but neither can you force someone to sell to you. Choice means agreement between all those parties to the exchange.

…………………………..

II. Ownership. In a world of infinite abundance, there would be no need for ownership. But as long as we live in the material world, there will be potential conflicts over scarce resources. These conflicts can be resolved through fighting over things or through the recognition of property rights. If we prefer peace over war, volition over violence, productivity over poverty, all scarce resources -- without exception -- need private owners.

……………………………….

III. Cooperation. Volition and ownership grant the right to anyone to live in a state of pure autarky. On the other hand, that won’t get you very far. You will be poor, and your life will be short. People need people to obtain a better life. We trade to our mutual betterment. We cooperate in work. We develop every form of association with each other: commercial, familial, fraternal, and religious. The lives of all of us are improved by our capacity to cooperate in some form with other people.

………………………………………

IV. Learning. No one is born into this world knowing much of anything. We learn from our parents and teachers, but more importantly, we learn from the infinite bits of information that come to us every instant of the day all throughout our lives. We observe success and failure in others, and we are free to accept or reject these lessons as we see fit. In a free society, we are free to emulate others, accumulate and apply wisdom, read and absorb ideas, and extract information from any source to adapt for our own uses.

…………………………………

V. Competition. When people think of capitalism, competition is perhaps the first idea that comes to mind. But the idea is widely misunderstood. It doesn’t mean that there must be several suppliers of every good or service, or that there must be a certain number of producers of anything. It means only that there should be no legal (coercive) limits on the ways in which we are permitted to serve each other. And there really are infinite ways in which this can take place.  [read more]

Good article. One principle could be added: Ethics. A business shouldn’t lie about its product or service or even lie about its competitors product or service. It’s all about reputation. If a business loses that, it loses everything especially its customers. It shouldn’t also bribe government to gain an advantage over its competitors especially small business competitors that don’t have the resources to bribe the ruling class. This crony capitalism is what gives capitalism a bad name.

The Conservatism of Lord Acton

Lord Acton’s ideas fits pretty well with Russell Kirk’s principles of conservatism:

• Liberty becomes a question of morals more than of politics. [Principle 1]
• Inequality: the Basis of society. We combined and put things in common to protect the weak against the strong. [Principle 2]
• By liberty I mean the assurance that every man shall be protected in doing what he believes is his duty against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion. [Principle 3]
• Property, not conscience, is the basis of liberty. For the defence of conscience need not arise. Property is always exposed to interference. It is the constant object of policy. [Principle 4]
• Federalism is the best curb on democracy. [It] assigns limited powers to the central government. Thereby all power is limited. It excludes absolute power of the majority. [Principle 5]
• Universal History is ... not a burden on the memory but an illumination of the soul. [Principle 6]
• Progress, the religion of those who have none. [Principle 10]

Sources: Lord Acton Quote Archive and Notable quotations.

The Essence of Conservatism

What follows is what American conversative philosopher Russell Kirk thought through his studies was the essence of conservatism:

1. Men and nations are governed by moral laws; and those laws have their origin in a wisdom that is more than human--in divine justice.
2. Power is full of danger; therefore the good state is one in which power is checked and balanced, restricted by sound constitutions and customs.
3. Men and women are not perfectible, conservatives know; and neither are political institutions.
4. Variety and diversity are the characteristics of a high civilization.
5. Property and freedom are inseparably connected; economic leveling is not economic progress.
6. Modern society urgently needs true community: and true community is a world away from collectivism.
7. Justice means that every man and every woman have the right to what is their own--to the things best suited to their own nature, to the rewards of their ability and integrity, to their property and their personality.
8. The past is a great storehouse of wisdom;
9. In the affairs of nations, the American conservative feels that his country ought to set an example to the world, but ought not to try to remake the world in its image.
10. Change and reform, conservatives are convinced, are not identical: moral and political innovation can be destructive as well as beneficial;

[read more]

I grouped these principles based on similarity. Principles 1 through 3 are what you could call moral/religious/traditional principles. Principles 4 through 7 are principles that most libertarians would agree on. They might agree on principle three but not know why (for the reason see below).

Principle three is connected to principle two and the reason for principle one. Since mankind is not perfect (dare I say fallen from grace?) mankind can be corrupted. And a imperfect person in power without morals (principle one) is dangerous. There are no restrictions on his/her behavior. As Lord Acton* once said “power corrupts.” There was a study (2012) published  in the Journal of Applied Psychology that linked a persons sense of “moral identity” to his/her ethical behavior. The higher a person’s sense of moral identity the more ethical a person would be. It doesn’t have to be moral imperfection that principle three is talking about. There is also mental imperfection. Such as prejudices, biases, memory errors, false memory syndrome, etc. Just pick up a psychological textbook to see how the mind is imperfect.

Principle four is just about individual differences. When people are the same you have boring uniformity—no complexity in civilization. But when people are their noblest natures—motivated, knowledgable, curious, creative, passionate, free—then you have the highest civilization. Also, with individual differences comes different perspectives, different opinions, and different ideas. That’s how knowledge grows. Nobody (not even gov’ts) knows everything. Brian Arthur, Steven N. Durlauf, and David A. Lane describe seven features (like dispersed interaction, no global controller, and ongoing adaptation) of complex systems that deserve greater attention in economics (and possible in other social systems).  Principle seven and principle four are linked together because without justice you don’t have a high civilization.

Principle eight is about learning from elders and ancestors past mistakes and even their successes. That way you don’t learn them anew. The tried and true so to speak.

Change can be bad because of principle three. Also, change can be bad because people don’t foresee what economists call “externalities.” Externalities, or stage two thinking, are events that happen later on in time when a change is made unknown to the changer usually the ruling class. On this principle, it is best to follow the loving resistance fighter principles: “be at least, suspicious of the idea of progress, and who do not confuse information with understanding” and “admire technological ingenuity but do not think it represents the highest possible form of human achievement.” Quiet a few of the other resistance fighter principles are conservative principles.

Reagan conservative believes in most if not all of these principles. For example, Reagan believed in the Founders wisdom and vision (principle 8). In his book, America the Strong: Conservative Ideas to Spark the Next Generation (2015), William J. Bennett defined a conservative as FLINT (Free enterprise, Limited government, Individual liberty, National defense, and Traditional values). These are basically the same principles above. Free enterprise is basically the 5th principle.

The Founders basically followed the above principles.

For example here is John Adams who Russell Kirk calls a conservative in Adams own words:

• We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.
• The dignity and stability of government in all its branches, the morals of the people, and every blessing of society depend so much upon an upright and skillful administration of justice, that the judicial power ought to be distinct from both the legislative and executive, and independent upon both, that so it may be a check upon both, and both should be checks upon that. [Principle 2]
• Mankind pay no Attention to Reason— They are led blindfold by Names, and Signs. [Principle 3]
• [A]ll are subject by nature to equal laws of morality, and in society have a right to equal laws for their government, yet no two men are perfectly equal in person, property, understanding, activity, and virtue, or ever can be made so by any power less than that which created them . . . [Principle 4]
• Property must be secured or liberty cannot exist. [This is obviously principle 5]
• To be good, and to do good, is all we have to do. [Principle 6]
• We hold that each man is the best judge of his own interest. [Principle 7]
• Without wishing to damp the ardor of curiosity or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction that, after the most industrious and impartial researchers, the longest liver of you all will find no principles, institutions or systems of education more fit in general to be transmitted to your posterity than those you have received from your ancestors. [Principle 8]

Then there is Thomas Jefferson:

• God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have removed their only firm basis: a conviction inthe minds of men that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my countrywhen I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever. [Principle 1]
• The concentrating [of powers] in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. [Principle 2]
• Laws provide against injury from others; but not from ourselves. [Principle 3]
• The true foundation of republican government is the equal right of every citizen in his person and property and in their management. [Principle 5]
• Who then can so softly bind up the wound of another as he who has felt the same wound himself.  [Principle 6]
• A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement. [Principle 7]
• History by apprising [citizens] of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views. [Principle 8]

Here is what George Washington said:

• Of all the dispositions and habits which least to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indespensible supports. It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible. [Principle 1]
• Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. [Principle 2]
• We must take human nature as we find it, perfection falls not to the share of mortals. [Principle 3]
• The time is now near at hand which must probably determine whetherAmericans are to be freemen or slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; [Principle 5]
• Let your heart feel for the afflictions and distresses of every one, and let your hand give in proportion to your purse; remembering always the estimation of the widow's mite, but, that it is not every one who asketh that deserveth charity; all, however, are worthy of the inquiry, or the deserving may suffer. [Principle 6]
• At this auspicious period, the United States came into existence as a Nation; and if their Citizens should not be completely free and happy, the fault will be entirely their own. [Principle 7]
• Personal library of George Washington. [Principle 8]
• Our cause is noble; it is the cause of mankind! [Principle 9]

And finally inventor and scientist Benjamin Franklin:

• The longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth:'that God governs in the affairs of men.' And if a sparrow cannot fall tothe ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?
• In reality there is perhaps no one of our natural Passions so hard to subdue as Pride. Disguise it, struggle with it, beat it down, stifle it, mortify it as much as one pleases, it is still alive, and will now and then peek out and show itself. [Principle 3]
• All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: [Principle 5]
• Franklin brought together a group of 30 men in 1736 to form the Union Fire Company to prevent massive fires in Philadelphia. [Principle 6]
• ... as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed:… [Principle 8]
• [I]t is a common ... as all history informs us, there has been in every State & Kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing & governed observation here that our cause is the cause of all mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in defending our own. [Principle 9]

This is just a sampling of the Founding Fathers. If I would have done all the Founding Fathers even the one who signed the Declaration that would be a book itself.

 

*He also said this about the Left: “A liberal is only a bundle of prejudices until he has mastered, has understood, experienced the philosophy of Conservatism.”

10 Things Communist Countries Totally Do Better Than Capitalist Countries

A commentary from Mary Ramirez on The Blaze.com:

Communism gets a tough rap. Stalin, Mao, Castro—not exactly on history’s nice list. But what if history’s got it wrong?

After all, it’s an impressive list of accomplishments:

1. They know how to get really creative with food. Nina Karpenko and her fellow Ukrainians enjoyed such delicacies [cornmeal, wheat chaff, dried nettle leaves, weeds, and mixed with water and a little salt] while learning valuable lessons from their leaders in the communist Soviet Union; lessons like, “it’s probably not a good idea to resist Joseph Stalin’s polite request that everyone move into a collective farming model, or he’ll have to correct your ways with a forced famine or ‘Holodomor.’”
2. The population never gets out of control. [Communism] and its responsibility for nearly 100 million deaths worldwide certainly seems to do the trick.
3. Everyone’s educated. …if you hold out and attend another “kind” of school, they’ll make sure you quickly see the error of your ways.
4. There’s a place to live for everyone. Nothing says uniformity like city block after city block of the same kind of building with the same paper thin walls, unreliable heat and less than 55 square feet of living space per person.
5. There’s always something entertaining to watch/look at/listen to. And especially when you don’t have to deal with scads of unnecessary search results that the Chinese government happily filters out for you, you can surf the internet far more easily.
6. They’ve got criminal justice down to a well-oiled machine. From 300 unruly Cuban protestors getting in the way of an American president’s visit, to pro-democracy agitators in China—you can be sure this public nuisance is handily whisked away.
7. Religion’s so complicated—they make it simple. Still, there are plenty of people who still cling to the archaic trappings of “god.” Not to worry; communism has generally been able to handle it quite well. From intimidation to arrests; from torture to extermination—there’s always a way to deal with the holdouts.
8. They’ve done tons for the environment. …what other system could so wonderfully deal with the waste issues in East Germany, where “42 percent of moving water and 24 percent of still waters were so polluted [at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall] that they could not be used to process drinking water”?
9. Their people are so selfless. The beauty of communism is that it totally rids a person of the need to strive towards unachievable greatness.
10. They’ve failed more than capitalist countries ever POSSIBLY could.

Satire aside, the reality is that this is serious stuff—especially as growing numbers of Americans look favorably on all kinds of collectivism. So let me be very clear:

Communism has never worked.

………….

And socialism? Just communism’s less violent, slightly more palatable cousin.

…………..

So by all means, Mr. President, let’s do choose what works.

I believe it’s pronounced “ca-pit-al-ism.”  [read more]

Good article by Miss Ramirez. She could have added a 11th thing: Everyone has a job. According to the 1977 Soviet Constitution Chapter 7 Article 40 which says:  

Citizens of the USSR have the right to work (that is, to guaranteed employment and pay in accordance with the quantity and quality of their work, and not below the state-established minimum), including the right to choose their trade or profession, type of job and work in accordance with their inclinations, abilities, training and education, with due account of the needs of society.

Sounds great? Right? Think again. The State tells you where to work and what your job is going to be. Probably what your hours are. Definitely what your wages are. The article says you have the right to choose your profession but then it adds a caveat—“with due account of the needs of society.” That’s what Karl Marx meant by “from each according to his ability to each according to his needs.” Your passions, wants and happiness is not important. Just your abilities. If you don’t like or hate your job, too bad. You can’t quit unless you get permission from the State. All the Soviet Union cared about and other communist countries care about is full employment. Period. It makes them look good. But cheer up. The Soviet Union had a mininum wage and you had a right to rest and leisure. Oh, wait. The leisure time was determined by the collective farms.

“Democratic Socialism” Is a Contradiction in Terms

Written by Sandy Ikeda on FEE.org:

Why are so many young Americans suddenly calling themselves democratic socialists? I think many of them simply want to distinguish themselves from socialists who might have supported dictatorial regimes such as the former USSR and Maoist China, or who today might support North Korea. They want to signal that for them, political liberty is just as important as, say, economic justice.

But are the concepts of democracy and socialism even compatible?

No. While socialism’s goals may be lofty, its means are inherently at odds with democracy. In the end, “democratic socialism” makes no more sense than “voluntary slavery.”

Democracy

……………………

But I think most of us can agree that the ordinary meaning of democracy is at least tied to the concepts of political self-determination and freedom of expression. In this way, people tend to think of democracy as a shield against others more powerful than themselves.

Socialism

………………………

Or, you can think of socialism as a form of collectivism that uses a particular set of means — political control over the means of labor, capital, and land — to implement a large-scale economic plan that directs people to do things they might not have chosen. In its use of collectivist means, this kind of socialism has much in common with fascism, even if the two differ strongly in the ends they seek to achieve.

Democratic Socialism

What happens when you try to combine democracy with socialism?

Let’s say a socialist government has to choose between only two ends: greater income equality or greater racial justice. Even in this simple, two-alternative case, it has to define clearly what equality and justice mean in terms that everyone can agree on. What counts as income? What constitutes racial justice? What constitutes more equal income or justice? At what point has equality been achieved or justice served: perfect equality or perfect justice? If less than perfection, how much less?

………………………………………………..

How much individual self-expression, how much self-determination can a central authority tolerate, democratic or not, when it seeks to impose an overarching economic plan? Planning on this scale requires the suppression of the petty plans and personal aspirations of mere individuals, and the submission of personal values to those of the collective.

Tocqueville said it well:

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.

The system may grind along this way for a while, but the temptation to abandon true democracy — by transferring decision-making authority to smaller groups of experts in each field, for example — becomes harder and harder to resist. In such circumstances, making swift, effective decisions becomes more desirable and less possible. The lofty goals of theoretical socialism — the international brotherhood of workers and global economic justice — tend to be swept aside by local concerns of hunger and security, opening the door to (nonproletarian) dictatorship. [read more]

Tocqueville has it exactly right. What eventually happens is that democratic socialism becomes just socialism just like national socialism became just socialism. Actually, Nazism had a lot in common with Communism. Remember Hitler broke off the pack with the Soviet Union—not the other way around.  Everyone should read this article especially the Bernie Sanders groupies because they are the ones who don’t understand what socialism is.

Defeating Fundamentalistic Islam

From The Blaze.com (Mar. 23):

If the United States and its allies want to defeat radical Islamic terror and stop its growing threat worldwide, one former Islamic extremist says the way to accomplish that is by challenging extremists both ideologically and militarily.

Speaking on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends” Wednesday morning, Maajid Nawaz — who lived with world-renowned Islamists and jihadis in Egypt from 2002-2006 — reminded the show’s hosts that Tuesday’s attack in Brussels was actually the eighth attack by radical Islamic terrorists in March.

“What we’re witnessing, actually on a global level, is something unprecedented. I call it the ‘global jihadist insurgency,’” Nawaz said. “And it’s, in fact, an ideological struggle as well as a military struggle.”

…………….

When asked what the solution to the problem of radical Islamic terror is, Nawaz explained that first the problem must be identified then it needs to be challenged both ideologically and then militarily. However, according to Nawaz, President Barack Obama’s policy against radical Islamic terrorist groups isn’t correctly addressing the problem.  [read more]

Make sense to me. Wikapedia entry for him says “As a solution, Nawaz suggests building of global youth-led democratic movements that are above politics, and that build demand for democracy at the civilisational level.” He also says in that same article that the ideas, narratives, symbols and leaders of the Jihad movement need to be substituted with better ones. (Actually, the same argument can be applied to the Leftist movement too. But I digress.)

First, America has to define the problem as being Islamic. You don’t see Buddhists or Hindus blowing up people. Then you deal with challenging the extremism. Glenn Beck thinks we shouldn’t call these thugs belonging to “radical Islam” but to “traditional Islam.” He says Martin Luther in his day was called a radical Christian. True. Then there is Jesus. The Pharisees probably classified Jesus as a radical.  I remember watching the Lincoln movie in 2012 where the Democrats in the U.S. senate called the Republicans “radicals” because the Republicans were against slavery. Funny how things change. Beck has a point though. But instead of calling the Islamists “tradionalists” call them “fundamentalists.” That’s a more accurate term to use. In my readings of Islam I learned that traditional Islam is basically Sufism- a more mystical kind of Islam. The fundamentalists don’t care much for these Muslims either.

I suppose you could try to convert a muslim to a Christian by saying if the Quran is true, then Islam is false (I don’t know if this is what Nawaz meant by “challenging”) because the Quran says to trust the Gospels, but the four Gospels contradict the Quran.* The problem with this idea is that it is provocative and might get you killed especially if the Muslim you are talking to is a fundamentalist. Maybe a better idea is to talk a Muslim into being a traditionalist or a modern or Western muslim than a fundamentalist. At least he won’t be blowing himself up. That ideological shift would be easier than converting him to a Christian. Although, he or she would be more peaceful if he was a Christian I would think.

 

*Or you could tell the Muslim that Jesus received his instructions directly from God. Muhammed only through an archangel who was supposedly Gabriel. Who knows where the angel was actually from. Muhammed assumed it was Gabriel.

Lessons Learned in Science

1. Choose an objective apparently ahead of its time.
2. Work on problems only when you feel tangible success may come in several years.
3. Never be the brightest person in a room. Nothing can replace the company of others who have the background to catch errors in your reasoning or provide facts that may either prove or disprove your argument of the moment. And the sharper those around you, the sharper you will become.
4. Stay in close contact with your intellectual competition. The presence of worthy competitors is an assurance that the prize ahead is worth winning. The smaller the field, the better you can size it up, and the better the chance you will run an intelligent race.
5. Work with a teammate who is your intellectual equal. Two scientists acting together usually accomplish more than two loners each going their own way. The best scientific pairings are marriages of convenience in that they bring together the complementary talents of those involved.
6. Always have someone to save you. In trying to be ahead of your time, you are bound to annoy some people inclined to see you as too big for your britches. So it always pays to know someone of consequence—other than your parents—who is on your side.

Source: Avoid Boring People.

Lessons Learned as an Undergraduate

These lessons are from James D. Watson:

1. College is for learning how to think.
2. Knowing “why” (an idea) is more important than learning “what” (a fact).
3. New ideas usually need new facts.
4. Think like your teachers.
5. Pursue courses where you get top grades. After you’ve satisfied requirements, choose courses that naturally interest you, not ones someone else thinks you should care about. Then give these courses your all.
6. Seek out bright as opposed to popular friends.
7. Have teachers who like you intellectually.
8. Narrow down your intellectual (career) objectives while still in college.

Source: Avoid Boring People (Lessons from a Life in Science) (2007) by James D. Watson.

Great advice especially #1 and #2. It seems in todays universities campus life is more about propaganda and shutting down “questionable” speech that might offend students than about critical thinking skills and listening to opposing view points. If you can’t listen to another viewpoint you never will learn. Yes, the truth can shock and sometimes turn your world around but eventually you will be okay. The key here is how to think and not what to think. I am not talking about facts—that’s okay. What I am talking about here is the professors opinions, biases and prejudices. Professors are authority figures. Even role models. They are responsible for what they teach their students. So, if professors are teaching students their biases and prejudices—that’s the very definition of brain washing.  Students are not learning what they need to learn. 

The “why” in lesson two reminds of learning how to document programming code in college. The instructor said when you document a subroutine you put why you wrote it instead of what it does. The code itself takes care of the what. Maybe that’s what congress should do when it makes a law—explain why they wrote the law. Then again that might too much of their time and they don’t consider that important.

Thoughts of Marx, Lenin and Hillary Clinton

First the thoughts of Karl Marx:

• There are, besides, eternal truths, such as Freedom, Justice, etc., that are common to all states of society. But Communism abolishes eternal truths, it abolishes all religion, and all morality, instead of constituting them on a new basis; it therefore acts in contradiction to all past historical experience.
• The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all private property.
• From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
• The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care, shall be in state institutions at state expense.
• The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to Socialism.¹
• Machines were, it may be said, the weapon employed by the capitalists to quell the revolt of specialized labor.
• Capital is dead labor, which, vampire-like, lives only by sucking living labor, and lives the more, the more labor it sucks.

Now the thoughts of Vladimir Ilyich Lenin:

• We do not have time to play at “oppositions” at “conferences.” We will keep our political opponents... whether open or disguised as “nonparty,” in prison.
• No amount of political freedom will satisfy the hungry masses.
• The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them.¹
• The surest way to destroy a nation is to debauch its currency.²
• Destroy the family, you destroy the country.
• A system of licensing and registration is the perfect device to deny gun ownership to the bourgeoisie.
• Only an armed people can be the real bulwark of popular liberty.³
• The way to crush the bourgeoisie is to grind them between the millstones of taxation and inflation.²
• Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.
• The Capitalists will sell us the rope with which we will hang them.
• We can and must write in a language which sows among the masses hate, revulsion, and scorn toward those who disagree with us.
• While the State exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State.
• All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person, and long ago we were over and done with the business of a hero, and here it comes up again: the glorification of one personality. This is not good at all.
• One of the basic conditions for the victory of socialism is the arming of the workers (Communist) and the disarming of the bourgeoisie (the middle class).

How many of you Leftists believe this crap? Please raise your hands. Wow, that’s quite a few people. Okay, Hillary and Obama you don’t need to jump and down with excitement. I get it. You are Marxists. And now Hillary Clinton wants to say something:

• Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you. We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.
• We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.
• I'm undaunted in my quest to amuse myself by constantly changing my hair.⁴
• The American people are tired of liars and people who pretend to be something they're not.⁵
• Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman. ⁶
• I think we sort of have lost track of the fact this is a government that has to be accountable to the people of our country. ⁷
• Where's the goddamn f***ing flag? I want the goddamn f***ing flag up every f***ing morning at f***ing sunrise.

¹ I wonder if Bernie Sanders believes this.

² Congress is already doing this.

³ I believe the Founders would have agreed with this. “To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”  - George Mason.

⁴ Do you amuse yourself by changing your pants suits?

⁵ Does this include Bubba and yourself? Or does that fall into “at this point what difference does it make?”

⁶ Unless I am running for president.

⁷ Unless I am destroying classified emails.

Can a Christian Be a Communist?

This excerpt is from Martin Luther King in September 30, 1962:

Now, let us begin by answering the question which our sermon topic raises: Can a Christian be a communist? I answer that question with an emphatic “no.” These two philosophies are diametrically opposed. The basic philosophy of Christianity is unalterably opposed to the basic philosophy of communism, and all of the dialectics of the logician cannot make them lie down together. They are contrary philosophies.

How, then, is communism irreconcilable with Christianity? In the first place, it leaves out God and Jesus Christ. Communism is avowedly secularistic and materialist. The great philosopher of communism, Karl Marx, based his total philosophy on what he called dialectical materialism. There was a philosopher by the name of Hegel who had used what he called the dialectical system to analyze concepts, and Karl Marx was willing to take Hegel’s dialectic. And then he studied another man by the name of Feuerbach, a German philosopher. This man was a materialist. And so he took the materialism of this man and added it to the dialectic that he got from Hegel, and this is why his system is called dialectic materialism.

Now, what is materialism? It says in substance that the whole of reality can be explained in terms of matter in motion. In other words, it says that the basic stuff of reality is the material stuff. Materialism says, in substance, that idealism is wrong when it talks about the ultimate reality of mind and spirit and all of that. Karl Marx was a materialist, and he believed that the whole of human history moved on, driven by economic forces. This was his idea. There was no place in that system for God, and so from that moment on, communism became an atheistic system. And to this very day it is atheistic. It denies the existence of God. And if one goes to Russia, even today, he will find many of the churches fill on Sunday morning, but we know that in spite of that, the Russian government has had a campaign against religion, and against God and belief in God, ever since the revolution in 1917.  [read more]

Interesting essay. He got it exactly right. Communism cannot coexist with Christianity (or for that matter any religion) because Communism is a religion itself.  That’s why Christianity isn’t allowed in China or N. Korea today. It wants to remake man in its own image.

Here is what Karl Marx said about religion in general: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people". He also said: “My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.” Get the point?

I wonder what his thoughts are on socialism. Because I don’t think you can be socialist either and be a Christian. Socialism according to Marxism is the economic system right before Communism. The stages go like this: Feudalism –> Capitalism –> Socialism –> Communism.