The Planks of the Nationalist Socialist (NAZI) Party of Germany

The following planks below were adopted by the Nazi Party in Munich on February 24, 1920. Ask yourself what ideology does this sound like the most?

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunity for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and be for the good of all. Therefore, we demand an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand... the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state, and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious (citizen) the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our system of public education... We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

The government must undertake the improvement of public health by protecting mother and child, by prohibiting child labor - by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

We combat the... materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good.

If you said this sounds more like the Left--especially the far Left then you are right. Progressives say that conservatives are Nazi's in their ideology. Really? Name me one conservative that wants profit sharing in business. And after all the word "socialist" is in the word Nazi.

Whether it is fascism, socialism, communism, or statism they all have one thing in common: control and restricting liberty.

The Art of Compromise

In Ayn Rand's book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal she lists three rules about comprising. Any conservative politician running for office (or anyone for that matter who has principles) should read these rules.

1. In any conflict between two men (or two groups) who hold the same basic principles, it is the more consistent one who wins.

2. In any collaboration between two men (or two groups) who hold different basic principles, it is the more evil or irrational one who wins.

3. When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side.

She gives an example of the Republicans compromising with the Democrats about big gov't. I am paraphrasing her point, but if the Dems want big gov't and the GOP wants big gov't lite--it is the Dems that will win because they are more consistent about their big gov't principles.

Be Careful What You Want

In 1917, the Russian peasants were demanding: "Land and Freedom!" But Lenin and Stalin is what they got.
In 1933, the Germans were demanding: "Room to live!" But what they got was Hitler.
In 1793, the French were shouting: "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity!" What they got was Napoleon.
In 1776, the Americans were proclaiming "The Rights of Man" -- and, led by political philosophers, they achieved it.

No revolution, no matter how justified, and no movement, no matter how popular, has ever succeeded without a political philosophy to guide it, to set its direction and goal.

Source: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1966) by Ayn Rand.

America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution

An interesting article written by Angelo M. Codevilla in The American Spectator. This six page column is about how there are two classes in America (or at least this is how Washington sees the country): The Ruling Class and the Country Class. The Ruling Class thinks of itself as "the best and brightest while the rest of Americans are retrograde, racist, and dysfunctional unless properly constrained." The "rest of America" is of course by definition the Country Class. Think elitism.

Some people think term limits for Congress is a good idea. I don't know. But the real problem is the culture in Congress that this article alludes too. No matter who you put in power they will be exposed to that culture. Unless they have very good self-control or just maybe an individualist nature they will be drawn into the Ruling Class' trappings. They will want to be one of the "cool" people--not an outsider. Changing that culture especially the attitude in the culture will be almost impossible.

Hat tip to the Rush Limbaugh show for bringing this article to my attention.

One note. This article parallels my Stereotypes of The Left blog entry on October 2006. Mr. Codevilla article is more flushed out than mine though.

An Illegal Immigration Plan

Below is what I consider a good plan for illegal immigration.

First, put up a wall or a fence or even the National Guard on the border to help out the border control to stop any terrorists or criminals with felonies. We have to screen these risky people out.

Second, fine heavily any business that hires illegal aliens. This will help stop the flood of illegals and it might make the illegals here leave the country. At least will diminish the economic incentive for coming here.

Third, do away with the "anchor baby" law. This law says if an illegal alien gives birth to a baby here then that baby automatically becomes legal. This law was implemented when America had black slaves. Slavery is not illegal, and no other country has this outdated law.

Finally, if you want to become a citizen of this country you have to give at least five different reasons why you like or love America. I think that's fair. When you apply for a job the interviewer asks you why you want to work for the company. Besides we have enough people in this country that don't like this country like the POTUS.

That's the plan. The first two parts should be implemented concurrently if possible.

Salary and Private Property

What's the difference between capping salaries and limiting the number of products a person can own (like Jay Leno's cars)? It's a trick question. There is no difference--both are private property. So, why should the powers-that-be have the right to cap anyone's salary in the private sector? Think about it. Congress does not put any ceiling on their salary. It raises automatically. All they have to do is not to vote for the raise. Also, President Clinton raised the POTUS salary during his term.

Why Dictators Don't Like the Bill of Rights Part 2

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This would prevent any dictator from having an official enter a person's house without a warrant if the dictator thought a person or business was a threat to the regime ie wanted to overthrow it. The official could just barge into the residence and have a look around.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. A dictator would laugh at all of this. And if the gov't is totalitarian then the concept of private property does not exist. Your life, liberty, and property is at the whim of the dictator. 

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. Again a dictator wold laugh at this. A speedy trial? An accused gets a trial as long as the regime wants it to be. You are lucky if the regime gives you a defense attorney. 

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Civil cases are trivial to a dictator.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. No excessive fines? No cruel and unusual punishment? Where's the fun in that! And as for no excessive bail? What does bail mean? Actually, if the crime is a local matter and not related to the state a dictator probably wouldn't care either way.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Rights would be whatever the dictator says they are. 

States and People The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Again any rights are whatever the dictator says they are.

Why Dictators Don't Like the Bill of Rights Part 1

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Dictators don't like this right because they want to control the dominant religion of the country they rule over or they want to outlaw the religion. Why? Because the religion might not support their plans for the country like the Catholic church in Poland not supporting Communism during the Cold War. China suppresses Christianity and other religions for this reason.  The only religion a dictator would allow is a religion he can control or that supports his regime. Germany does not have freedom of religion as a side note. I am not stating they are a dictatorship--just giving you a comparison.

...or abridging the freedom of speech,  or of the press. Dictators don't want no-one criticizing him or his regime. Dictators don't want outsiders knowing his plans for the country especially when they are not good plans. If people talked about his plans or criticize them or if the press reported what he was up to then the people could rebel. That's why dictators like to control the press and suppress speech. England by the way does not have freedom of speech. I am not saying they are a dictatorship--just stating an interesting side note.

...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. If the people get together and form associations or clubs they can learn what each other thinks about the regime. This could lead to rebellion and a possible overthrow of the current regime. Anyway, this is what a dictator could think. They tend to be paranoid. 

...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Dictators don't care about any grievances from the people. Sort of like America's Congress especially those on the Left.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Dictators don't want rebellion, and they really don't want people rebelling with guns! That could be disastrous to the regime. England does not have the right to bear arms.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. A dictator wouldn't care about this unless he used it as a way to prevent a rebellion. You have soldiers loyal to the regime in a house they can suppress any potential rebellion and also report back to the regime any activities in the house.

There is also a possible downside to this plan. The homeowners could persuade the soldiers to rebel against the regime. President Lincoln suspended this right temporarily during the Civil War.

 

Collectivized "Rights"

The following is an excerpt from Ayn Rand's article by the same name written in June 1963:

A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations. Any group that does not recognize this principle is not an association, but a gang or a mob. The notion of "collective rights" (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that "rights" belong to some men, but not to others---that some men have the "right" to dispose of others in any manner they please---and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.

What she said back then is true today as it was back then. This passage was taken by the way from her book The Virtue of Selfishness.

Congressional Reform Part 2

One, pass a law that says a Congressperson has to read and comprehend a bill before voting on it. This just makes sense. None of this "we must pass the law so we know what's in it" bull crap.

Two, have the Congress work three to four months of the year. They can choose what months they want to work. The rest of the months they cannot pass any laws and they are not paid. This would help reduce the deficit. If a Congressperson cannot survive on three to four months pay well then they can get regular jobs like the people they represent. Maybe just then they'll think twice about passing a stupid bill if the bill affects them too. Also, it's good for them to interact with their constituents. The Founding Fathers never meant for Congress to be separated from the people they represent. They never meant them to be elitists.

Finally, how about this idea. Repeal the 17th amendment and go back to the first part of Article I Section 3. This will bring the Constitution closer to what the Founding fathers meant it to be.

Also, see my previous Congressional Reform blog entry for other suggestions.

Miscellaneous Thoughts Part 17

• The customer is always right unless you belong to Big Labor.
• Remember to never throw a lighted stick of dynamite in front of golden retriever.  
• If you're tired of life's ups, downs & crazy turns maybe it's time to get off of the roller coaster.
• I felt sorry for a man who had no hat. Then I met a man who had no head. 
• Given a choice between completeness & consistency in a formal system since you cannot have both according to Godel's Theorem. I choose consistency. Having an incomplete system won't drive you nuts.
• Life's a journey. Just don't take a wrong turn & get lost. 
• If everyone shows up late for a meeting then does that mean no-one showed up late?
• Change is not always good. There is such a thing as bad change. For instance, making a wrong turn and driving off a cliff while driving home is bad change. 
• Drinking and voting don't mix. You might vote for something or someone by accident you did not mean to vote for.
• On life's journey be sure to stop and smell the flowers. Just be sure to check for bumblebees on them before you smell.

Obama to be given the right to shut down the internet with 'kill switch'

From the Daily Mail (June 18):

President Obama will be given the power to shut down the Internet with a 'kill switch' in a new law being proposed in the US.

He would be able to order popular search engines such a Google and Yahoo to suspend access their websites in times of national emergency.

Other US based Internet service providers as well as broadband providers would also come under his control in times of a 'cybersecurity emergency.' Any company that failed to comply would be subject to huge fines.

Critics of the new law, which has been proposed by former presidential candidate Joe Liebermann, said it would be an abuse of power to let the White House control the internet. [read more]

This bill is over-kill. The Emperor would use this switch when the country is under a cyberattack like another country hacking into the US companies. But the question is who is going to determine how severe the emergency is for the 'kill switch' to be flipped? The gov't of course. Or maybe a gov't commission like the one created to handle the oil spill in the Gulf will determine when the kill switch is flipped. That really makes me feel better. Not!

Keep in mind this the same administration that said "never let a good crises go to waste." A cybersecurity emergency would of course be a crises.

Obama's Health Executive Order

From White House.gov Obama issued another executive order. Any highlights are by me. Below is condensed version of the order.

EXECUTIVE ORDER

ESTABLISHING THE NATIONAL PREVENTION, HEALTH PROMOTION, AND PUBLIC HEALTH COUNCIL

Section 1. Establishment. There is established within the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Prevention, Health Promotion, and Public Health Council (Council).

(a) The Surgeon General shall serve as the Chair of the Council, which shall be composed of:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture;
(2) the Secretary of Labor;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Education;
(6) the Secretary of Homeland Security;
(7) the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
(8) the Chair of the Federal Trade Commission;
(9) the Director of National Drug Control Policy;
(10) the Assistant to the President and Director of the Domestic Policy Council;
(11) the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs;
(12) the Chairman of the Corporation for National and Community Service; and
(13) the head of any other executive department or agency that the Chair may, from time to time, determine is appropriate.

Sec. 3. Purposes and Duties. The Council shall:

(c) provide recommendations to the President and the Congress concerning the most pressing health issues confronting the United States and changes in Federal policy to achieve national wellness, health promotion, and public health goals, including the reduction of tobacco use, sedentary behavior, and poor nutrition;

Sec. 4. Advisory Group.

(b) The Advisory Group shall be composed of not more than 25 members or representatives from outside the Federal Government appointed by the President and shall include a diverse group of licensed health professionals, including integrative health practitioners who are representative of or have expertise in:

(1) worksite health promotion;
(2) community services, including community health centers;
(3) preventive medicine;
(4) health coaching;
(5) public health education;
(6) geriatrics; and
(7) rehabilitation medicine.

Section 6.

(c) contains a list of national priorities on health promotion and disease prevention to address lifestyle behavior modification (including smoking cessation, proper nutrition, appropriate exercise, mental health, behavioral health, substance-use disorder, and domestic violence screenings) and the prevention measures for the five leading disease killers in the United States;

I am not sure why the Secretaries of Agriculture, Labor, Transportation, Education, and Homeland Security (this one is really odd) are there. And why is the EPA and FTC included in the membership? Only departments not included is the IRS, CIA and FBI. Notice the Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Indian Affairs. What is with the Left and the Indians? 

Not sure what "health coaching" entails. Hey fatso quit eating so much! Exercise more! Something like that?

Lifestyle behavior modification? Don't like the sound of that. Appropriate exercise? The gov't is going to decide how much exercise you should get? Shouldn't that be between your doctor and you? Oh, I am sorry. I forgot. Obama knows better than any doctor. 

Hat tip to WND.com for this information.

Bribing Candidates

Just because it's been done in the past or "that's the way Washington works" does not mean you can continue the tradition of bribing candidates from running for an elected office. It's wrong then and it's wrong now. And politicians wonder why the American public is fed up with Washington? There should be investigations when this happens. You can't bribe policemen and you definitely shouldn't bribe politicians.

The Left says the Right has done the same thing. That might be true, but if you get caught speeding or rolling through a stop sign and telling the policeman other people do it and don't get caught won't work for an excuse. He'll just tell you, you are the one that got caught this time. 

Political bribery should never be done. Period. 

The Power Triangle

On the Sociopathic Style website (sounds like a fun website doesn't it?) it talks about The Power Triangle. The triangle has the components: The Victim, The Rescuer, and The Villain. The relationship is in balance as long as The Victim is powerless and needs The Rescuer. 

Once The Victim stops being a victim, The Rescuer is not needed anymore. This is where the Rescuer becomes The Villain. The once rescuer starts to now shame, diminish, and blame The Victim for The Rescuer's woes. In other words, The Rescuer now perceives The Victim as The Villain and him/her as The Victim now. 

What's interesting is if you substitute Big Gov't politicians (Progressives) for The Rescuer the have a similar situation. Progressives try to convince the voters they cannot live without Big Gov't. For those voters who believe this are The Victims. All the rest who don't believe this are turned into villains. Independence is the enemy of the Progressives.

Doctors to be able to 'print' new organs for transplant patients

From the Daily Mail.co.uk (June 4):

Doctors might one day be able to 'print' living body parts they need for surgery, including blood vessels and entire organs.

The astonishing technique is known as bio-printing and it could make the transplant list a thing of the past.

Currently patients on the transplant list have to wait months or even years before a suitable organ becomes available.

But the 3D bio-printer, developed by US company Organovo, is already capable of growing arteries and its developers say arteries 'printed' by the device could be used in heart bypass surgery in five years.

More complex organs such as hearts, and teeth and bone should be possible within ten years. [read more]

Wow! Someone in the future could destroy his liver by being a chronic drunk and have a new one made. I am not suggesting that someone do this, but if you have the money hey why not.

Woman who walked onto highway sues Google Maps

A woman from Utah is suing Google because she says Google Maps directed her to walk onto a highway. Then a car hit her. Now, I am sorry that the woman got hurt, but is this really Google's fault? Somewhere during her walking I would think survival instincts if not common sense would kick in. 

Let's see now. Her thought processes should go like this: I am near a busy highway. Heavy automobiles can hurt me or even kill me if they run into me. Maybe I should not cross the highway. Yea, that's a good idea.  

No, her thought processes must have been this: I am near a busy highway. Automobiles can hurt me if they run into me. But Google Maps said I can cross the highway. I trust the Maps. Therefore, I am crossing the highway. 

Come on! I've seen the photos of the highway from the article. It's a four-lane highway and there are no sidewalks. When you cross a four-lane highway, you take your life in your own hands. Not a good idea if you don't have to do it. 

A World Government?

The question is does the Left want a one world government? I think they do. Below is the Humanist Manifesto II. Don't let the word "humanist" confuse you. Think "progressive" instead of "humanist." It's just a name game the Left always uses. There is a manifesto I and even a manifesto III. The first one was written in 1933. An extract of the manifesto below was written in 1973. Any highlights are done by me. My comments are in italic.

TWELFTH: We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. 

The Left thinks nationalism is bad. They think nationalism causes wars. All nationalism is, is patriotism. Love of country. Loving your country is as natural as loving your parents or children. It's not nationalism that causes wars. Its power and control of resources that causes wars. You think Hitler wanted to take over countries because he loved Germany? He might have used that as an excuse but that wasn't the only reason. Here is something to think about: If you don't love something you have less of a tendency to protect it. Because the Left in France before WW II thought France's nationalism was bad, they did not teach anything about or downplayed France's historical accomplishments. Hitler knew this so when he invaded France there was hardly no resistance until it was almost too late. 

The people of Iran and N. Korea loving their country does not bother me. Their crazy dictators on the other hand make me nervous. 

THIRTEENTH: This world community must renounce the resort to violence and force as a method of solving international disputes. We believe in the peaceful adjudication of differences by international courts and by the development of the arts of negotiation and compromise. War is obsolete. So is the use of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. It is a planetary imperative to reduce the level of military expenditures and turn these savings to peaceful and people-oriented uses.

War is obsolete? Really? War will only go away when tyrants around the world disappear. Good luck on that one. As Rush Limbaugh once said, the world is ruled by force. Man is imperfect and has free will. He chooses between good and evil. It's his nature that causes wars. Getting rid of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons will not change the nature of man. The ancient Greeks and Romans did not have nuclear weapons and they still fought one another. And so did other ancient cultures. Heck even married couples have fights. 

FOURTEENTH: The world community must engage in cooperative planning concerning the use of rapidly depleting resources. The planet earth must be considered a single ecosystem. Ecological damage, resource depletion, and excessive population growth must be checked by international concord. The cultivation and conservation of nature is a moral value; we should perceive ourselves as integral to the sources of our being in nature. We must free our world from needless pollution and waste, responsibly guarding and creating wealth, both natural and human. Exploitation of natural resources, uncurbed by social conscience, must end.

Cap-and-tax anyone? 

FIFTEENTH: The problems of economic growth and development can no longer be resolved by one nation alone; they are worldwide in scope. It is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide - through an international authority that safeguards human rights - massive technical, agricultural, medical, and economic assistance, including birth control techniques, to the developing portions of the globe. World poverty must cease. Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basis.

This is what the Left calls "economic justice."

SIXTEENTH: Technology is a vital key to human progress and development. We deplore any neo-romantic efforts to condemn indiscriminately all technology and science or to counsel retreat from its further extension and use for the good of humankind. We would resist any moves to censor basic scientific research on moral, political, or social grounds. Technology must, however, be carefully judged by the consequences of its use; harmful and destructive changes should be avoided. We are particularly disturbed when technology and bureaucracy control, manipulate, or modify human beings without their consent. Technological feasibility does not imply social or cultural desirability.

Kind of confusing provision. First, it says scientific research should not be censored based on moral, political, or social grounds. So human cloning is okay? I get the political and social grounds though. Then the provision says harmful changes should be avoided. So, we should not clone people? I think what the provision is saying is that as long as technology does not harm the environment it is fine. That's okay, but the word "harm" is the key here. Is CO₂ harmful to the world? I don't believe it is. Grass and green plants need it.

SEVENTEENTH: We must expand communication and transportation across frontiers. Travel restrictions must cease. The world must be open to diverse political, ideological, and moral viewpoints and evolve a worldwide system of television and radio for information and education. We thus call for full international cooperation in culture, science, the arts, and technology across ideological borders. We must learn to live openly together or we shall perish together.

Read: Open borders.. In other words the world is just one happy family. Your country is my country. Come visit anytime without any kind of restrictions. I wonder if the Left will let any stranger set up a tent and live on their property without their permission. Probably not.

There is more to the manifesto than these provisions. The manifesto also talks about religion, ethics, the individual, and the democratic society. You can read the rest if you want. 

President Martin Van Buren and A Banking Crisis

During President Martin Van Buren's term the country experienced a major banking crises just two months into his term. Welcome to the presidency! Well, you know not all terms go smoothly. It's part of the job. Anyway, what happened was all but six of the nation's 800 or so banks had ceased redeeming their bank notes in gold or silver. Van Buren, a strong believer in Jefferson's dictum "that government is best which governs least," refused to suggest to Congress any specific plan for gov't intervention to attempt to alleviate the efforts of the depression. The big-gov't interventionists of the day denounced him, but he stuck to his principles. (Good for him!) Rather than intervening, Van Buren fought for financial deregulation, ushering in the Independent Treasury System, a new national banking system under which all bank notes were redeemable in gold and silver. This financial deregulation produced what was arguably the most stable monetary system the U. S. has ever had.

Thanks to Van Buren's laissez-faire policies, the depression of 1837 ended very quickly. 

By the way, all this history comes from the book How Capitalism Saved America (2004) by Thomas J. DiLorenzo. Interesting book.

Explaining the Riots in Greece

When an addict does not have his/her fix anymore, he/she gets anxious, agitated, mad and even violent. This is exactly what is happening in Greece. The addict is the people rioting in Greece, and the pusher is the government of Greece. Specifically, big gov't programs are the "fix." This is exactly what socialism does--it makes people addicts. People get used to receiving handouts and when the handouts stop or even decreases, they get anxious. 

Enter the enabling agitators--Communist, Marxists, etc.--who tell the addicts they deserve these fixes. The agitators stir the emotions of the addicts until they become violent. They tell the addicts to revolt--it's their right to have these gov't services. The addicts may become violent without the agitators actions--but the agitators don't help the situation. And they don't intend to help the situation. 

Socialists say they are only there to make life easier for people. "Social justice" is the term they use. But they are only in power to gain more power and control. That is their true purpose. 

If America is not careful they could become another Greece.