Obama has been labeled a fascist incorrectly. Many Americans believe, after the strange youtube videos that have been popping up of an "Obama Youth" that he is the next Hitler.
I would have to argue that he isn't a Fascist. State Socialism (lets not forget that Hitlers political party was a State Socialist Party) emphasizes the state as supreme, even above all foreign powers. They view themselves as superiors in every way.
Why?
Simply because they are Germans, or they are Americans, or they are Spanish, or they are Italians. There is little rationale other than there ethnicity or state.
Obama is different.
He want's the nation to be proud that America is apart of the Global Community. Remember his speech in Germany. Obama is for Germany as much as he is for America. That is not Fascism. It is International Socialism, or Communism.
The only thing standing in his, and others like-minded, way is a few (possibly only one) Senators and Reps (And no: John McCain is not the Senator I am referring to).
The fact of the matter is, there is few choices. The Republicans have became increasingly Liberal, the Democrats have switch there position as a party so much that the people that have worked and founded it (Jefferson and Jackson among others) would be shocked by it.
I would have to say that Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr are the best choices. I am voting for Chuck Baldwin.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Barrack Obama and John McCain will RAISE your taxes!
Hello everyone,
Today I am going to state the obvious. John McCain and Barrack Obama will raise your taxes. Despite there ads, speeches, and overall campaign, they will both be another four years of Bush...
...Sr.
They both will raise your taxes, they both will increase spending, they both will lead America into the next depression. It is an economic fact that they cannot ignore.
According to the Austrian School of Economics, there is only three ways to increase the national "wealth." One is by borrowing. This is unlikely because we have already borrowed billions. The other two are taxes. The fist of these is a direct raising of taxes. This might not happen. If it doesn't the only way that Barrack Obama and John McCain could pay for there "plans" is by increasing the money supply. This is the INFLATION TAX. This tax devalues your currency. It is because of inflation that gas prices are high; the dollar is simply not worth what it used to be.
There are only two presidential candidate with some economic sense; Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party. They will not increase any of the taxes because they have plans to decrease spending. They understand economics. Of these two,
Chuck Baldwin has my vote.
Also, become a "reader" today. Click the link on the right panel.
Thanks
Today I am going to state the obvious. John McCain and Barrack Obama will raise your taxes. Despite there ads, speeches, and overall campaign, they will both be another four years of Bush...
...Sr.
They both will raise your taxes, they both will increase spending, they both will lead America into the next depression. It is an economic fact that they cannot ignore.
According to the Austrian School of Economics, there is only three ways to increase the national "wealth." One is by borrowing. This is unlikely because we have already borrowed billions. The other two are taxes. The fist of these is a direct raising of taxes. This might not happen. If it doesn't the only way that Barrack Obama and John McCain could pay for there "plans" is by increasing the money supply. This is the INFLATION TAX. This tax devalues your currency. It is because of inflation that gas prices are high; the dollar is simply not worth what it used to be.
There are only two presidential candidate with some economic sense; Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party and Bob Barr of the Libertarian Party. They will not increase any of the taxes because they have plans to decrease spending. They understand economics. Of these two,
Chuck Baldwin has my vote.
Also, become a "reader" today. Click the link on the right panel.
Thanks
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
The Presidentual Elections
The Presidentual Elections are in full swing. This past month, many things have occured which require us all to look at the canadates, and pick the proper one. I know that many have said this before, but, this election is monumental. It can change the face of the country as we know it. A friend of mine told me, "This election will determine the langague our children will learn in schools." I don't know if he is right, but it is not improbable.
Here is how I, a Ron Paul supporter, place the Canadates.
1: Chuck Baldwin
I know a lot of people don't know of him, but he is very similar if not a clone of Ron Paul. He is running on the Constitution Party Ticket and is from Flordia. He is a friend of Ron Paul.
2: Bob Barr
This is more due to the people he might put in power. The fact is, he is as Libertarian as the current President. It is a sad thing, but true.
3: Abstain
I know what you are thinking, "This isn't a canadate." You are right, it isn't. This is there simply to show how bad the next canadates are. If you vote for them, you might as well not voted.
4: John McCain
He is one of the two liberals running for the presidency. His running mate is Sarah Palian and he is pro-War, anti-Market. Not a friend to the Constitution, John McCain feels that the president has the right to declare war and create laws.
5:Cynthia McKenney
She is anti-constitution candidate, there is nothing left to say.
6:Gloria La Riva
A Communist. Hates capitalism. Love Castro.
7:Barrack Obama
A Communist. Whats to "change" the country into a Marxist superstate. Biden is his v.p. yet he feels Obama is "unfit" for the job. If the vp thinks that the person is unfit, than why vote for them?
*sorry for any third parties that aren't here.
Economics will continue soon.
thanks for reading.
Here is how I, a Ron Paul supporter, place the Canadates.
1: Chuck Baldwin
I know a lot of people don't know of him, but he is very similar if not a clone of Ron Paul. He is running on the Constitution Party Ticket and is from Flordia. He is a friend of Ron Paul.
2: Bob Barr
This is more due to the people he might put in power. The fact is, he is as Libertarian as the current President. It is a sad thing, but true.
3: Abstain
I know what you are thinking, "This isn't a canadate." You are right, it isn't. This is there simply to show how bad the next canadates are. If you vote for them, you might as well not voted.
4: John McCain
He is one of the two liberals running for the presidency. His running mate is Sarah Palian and he is pro-War, anti-Market. Not a friend to the Constitution, John McCain feels that the president has the right to declare war and create laws.
5:Cynthia McKenney
She is anti-constitution candidate, there is nothing left to say.
6:Gloria La Riva
A Communist. Hates capitalism. Love Castro.
7:Barrack Obama
A Communist. Whats to "change" the country into a Marxist superstate. Biden is his v.p. yet he feels Obama is "unfit" for the job. If the vp thinks that the person is unfit, than why vote for them?
*sorry for any third parties that aren't here.
Economics will continue soon.
thanks for reading.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Economics: The Most Important Subject
Economics is the most important subject one can study. It alone controls the amount of personal freedoms, monetary freedoms, and extramundane freedoms the populous shall possess. The more economic freedom the more other freedoms. This is the great irony of the American political sphere for, those that promote personal freedoms in the Congress and election rhetoric are also the ones that promote less economic freedoms. Over the following posts I will be discussing the most accurate school of economics:
THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
I will be using several resources in these posts including:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism
by Robert P. Murphy Ph.D.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution
by Kevin R. C. Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D
The Revolution: A Manifesto
by Dr. Ron Paul
The FairTax Book*
by Neal Bortz and Congressman John Linder
I will add books to this list and when quoted or referced I will give full credit to these authors on that blog.
*I do not think we should have federal taxes in the United States, but this book does a great job showing the American people what economics we are moving towards/using in our everyday life.
THE AUSTRIAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS
I will be using several resources in these posts including:
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism
by Robert P. Murphy Ph.D.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution
by Kevin R. C. Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D
The Revolution: A Manifesto
by Dr. Ron Paul
The FairTax Book*
by Neal Bortz and Congressman John Linder
I will add books to this list and when quoted or referced I will give full credit to these authors on that blog.
*I do not think we should have federal taxes in the United States, but this book does a great job showing the American people what economics we are moving towards/using in our everyday life.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
The Department of Education
The Department of Education is a waste of money. In its short history, the educational standards of the country have dropped in a faster rate than any other point of history. Why should we decommission the Federal Department of Education, some might ask, it couldn't be hurting anything. At worst it must just a waste of money. Here is a quick story of why it is the cause:
Economic pioneer Charles M. Schwab had a terrible inefficient manufacture plant. Many of his advisors thought that the plant should be closed down in order to raise the net profits. Charles M. Schwab decided against this. He testifies the following on what he did to correct this:
"It was near the end of the day; in a few minutes the night force would come on duty. I turned to a workman who was standing beside one of the red-mouthed furnaces and asked him for a piece of chalk.
'How man heats has your shift made today?' I queried.
'Six' he replied.
I chalked a big '6' on the floor, and then passed along without another word. When the night shift came in they saw the '6' and asked about it.
'The big boss was in here today,' said the day men. 'He asked us how many heats we had made, and we told him six. He chalked it down."
The next morning I passed through the same mill. I saw that the '6' had been rubbed out and a big '7' written instead. The night shift had announced itself. That night I went back. The '7' had been erased, and a '10' swaggered in its place. The day force had recognized no superiors. Thus a fine competition was started, and it went on until this mill, formerly the poorest producer, was turning out more than any other mill in the plant."
(Quoted from "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism)
What does this have to do with education, one might ask. Competition is a beautiful thing. If MLK High School in Riverside, California produces more ivy league grads and its higher SAT and ACT scores than any other school in its district, it will boast of its superior teachers and students. The other schools would attempt to compete. This is proven more and more through sports and extra-curricular activities. Jonesboro High School in Jonesboro, Georgia boasts of its two time back to back Mock Trial championship through a dominating sign outside the school. Fayetteville High School in Fayetteville, Arkansas was truly proud of there football team when they won the 7A state championship 28-7.
Why can't the quality of education of an institution also be in this competitive nature. Simply answered, because we view a school based upon whether or not a school passes federal regulations. If a school does not achieve these goals, the district receives more funding. How to correct this problem involves one, simple step. End regulations on public schools and allow parents to choose where there children go to school. Is it not there children? It should be there choice whether or not they go to Baptist Hill High School or West Ashley High School.
Economic pioneer Charles M. Schwab had a terrible inefficient manufacture plant. Many of his advisors thought that the plant should be closed down in order to raise the net profits. Charles M. Schwab decided against this. He testifies the following on what he did to correct this:
"It was near the end of the day; in a few minutes the night force would come on duty. I turned to a workman who was standing beside one of the red-mouthed furnaces and asked him for a piece of chalk.
'How man heats has your shift made today?' I queried.
'Six' he replied.
I chalked a big '6' on the floor, and then passed along without another word. When the night shift came in they saw the '6' and asked about it.
'The big boss was in here today,' said the day men. 'He asked us how many heats we had made, and we told him six. He chalked it down."
The next morning I passed through the same mill. I saw that the '6' had been rubbed out and a big '7' written instead. The night shift had announced itself. That night I went back. The '7' had been erased, and a '10' swaggered in its place. The day force had recognized no superiors. Thus a fine competition was started, and it went on until this mill, formerly the poorest producer, was turning out more than any other mill in the plant."
(Quoted from "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism)
What does this have to do with education, one might ask. Competition is a beautiful thing. If MLK High School in Riverside, California produces more ivy league grads and its higher SAT and ACT scores than any other school in its district, it will boast of its superior teachers and students. The other schools would attempt to compete. This is proven more and more through sports and extra-curricular activities. Jonesboro High School in Jonesboro, Georgia boasts of its two time back to back Mock Trial championship through a dominating sign outside the school. Fayetteville High School in Fayetteville, Arkansas was truly proud of there football team when they won the 7A state championship 28-7.
Why can't the quality of education of an institution also be in this competitive nature. Simply answered, because we view a school based upon whether or not a school passes federal regulations. If a school does not achieve these goals, the district receives more funding. How to correct this problem involves one, simple step. End regulations on public schools and allow parents to choose where there children go to school. Is it not there children? It should be there choice whether or not they go to Baptist Hill High School or West Ashley High School.
Labels:
Big Government,
Education,
Federalism,
Republicanism,
Thomas Jefferson
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Thomas Jefferson Explains Government
Before the rise of the United States of America, a young Virginian wrote a document explaining to all men, everywhere what the rights of Englishmen in America where. He explained a government that was to be transplanted (in someways) into the American mind forever. He suggest as follows:
Virginia, Georgia, Great Britain, Canada, and all the other British Colonies were ruled by there elected officials. The only common tie between these independent States (a 18th Century term meaning "Nation") was King George. It was his responsibility to make sure that one legislative branch (Parliament lets say) doesn't attempt to take control of another States legislative branch (The Virginia House of Burgesses).
If he did not abided by this rule, he could be replaced.
Things to Read
A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA
Virginia, Georgia, Great Britain, Canada, and all the other British Colonies were ruled by there elected officials. The only common tie between these independent States (a 18th Century term meaning "Nation") was King George. It was his responsibility to make sure that one legislative branch (Parliament lets say) doesn't attempt to take control of another States legislative branch (The Virginia House of Burgesses).
If he did not abided by this rule, he could be replaced.
Things to Read
A SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Why Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave. (and Alexander Hamilton is happy about it)
Thomas Jefferson was a rebel amongst patriots. If he were alive today, he would probably be viewed as a terrorist. He is most notably known for saying that democracy was mob rule, were 51% of the population took captive the other 49. He also felt that George Washington abused the office of the President of the United States. John Adams created the Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1798 to contain him and his party of "radicals." He referred to the United States in the plural tense. (In a nut shell, take Abe Lincoln and multiple by negative one thats Thomas Jefferson) Yet, this man is revered, by many, as a true patriot.
His nemesis was Alexander Hamilton. Good ole' Alex is a little known man today. Go into any classroom in America's fine public school system and ask a child who he was. At best you might get that he created the Bank of the United States. This is true, but the scope of this man is far greater. He was one of the many writers of the Federalist papers, a good commentary on true Constitutional law. He is best known for being a monarchist. Yes, a monarchist. He wanted the English government to be transplanted directly into the United States (with a King and Parliament). He also wanted the elimination of states completely. While great statesmen in New York, North Carolina and Virginia were a bit weary about forming a federal government, he wanted a national government (yes these are different). He is the man who struck fear in the eyes Patrick Henry, a small government patron and anti-Constitution advocate. He is best known for forming the Bank of the United States. This is the original feds. He also created the Federal Courts, an organization that was reported to the states never to be chartered unless it was needed. The Constitution was up to loose interpretation according to Alex. He is the ACLU champion.
Thomas Jefferson understood the Constitution a tad bit better than Alex. He understood that the power was in the states hand. According the law, there is always a sovereign. According to the Constitution, the sovereign is the States. That means that Georgia's, Florida's, and California's independent State government is more powerful than the federal. In todays minds, its hard to understand, but if you look at early American documents, such as the Treaty of Paris, it address each state individually. Effectively, the United States was kinda like a European Union. If Alabama wanted to declare Christianity the State religion, it could. It never says in the Constitution that Alabama couldn't. This is the government the United State was suppose to become.
Sadly, Alex got in the way. He became the chief adviser to two presidents, Washington and Adams. Each of these presidents strengthen the Federal Government. Moving the United States from being an alliance of 13 independent countries, to one country.
This was not want any of these states signed on for. Kentucky and Virginia signed resolutions against this destruction of the very thing they were told would protect there civil liberty of states rights. However this kind of conflict is to easily swayed.
It took a Civil War to end the madness. We all know what happened. Now we live in a new world order, were the founding fathers, for the exception of good ole' Alex, would be plotting a revolution, to end the tyranny that is the Federal Government (which really isn't a Federal Government any more, but a national government).
Things to Read:
The US Constitution
The Federalist
The Anti-Federalist
The Kentucky Resolutions
The Virginia Resolutions
His nemesis was Alexander Hamilton. Good ole' Alex is a little known man today. Go into any classroom in America's fine public school system and ask a child who he was. At best you might get that he created the Bank of the United States. This is true, but the scope of this man is far greater. He was one of the many writers of the Federalist papers, a good commentary on true Constitutional law. He is best known for being a monarchist. Yes, a monarchist. He wanted the English government to be transplanted directly into the United States (with a King and Parliament). He also wanted the elimination of states completely. While great statesmen in New York, North Carolina and Virginia were a bit weary about forming a federal government, he wanted a national government (yes these are different). He is the man who struck fear in the eyes Patrick Henry, a small government patron and anti-Constitution advocate. He is best known for forming the Bank of the United States. This is the original feds. He also created the Federal Courts, an organization that was reported to the states never to be chartered unless it was needed. The Constitution was up to loose interpretation according to Alex. He is the ACLU champion.
Thomas Jefferson understood the Constitution a tad bit better than Alex. He understood that the power was in the states hand. According the law, there is always a sovereign. According to the Constitution, the sovereign is the States. That means that Georgia's, Florida's, and California's independent State government is more powerful than the federal. In todays minds, its hard to understand, but if you look at early American documents, such as the Treaty of Paris, it address each state individually. Effectively, the United States was kinda like a European Union. If Alabama wanted to declare Christianity the State religion, it could. It never says in the Constitution that Alabama couldn't. This is the government the United State was suppose to become.
Sadly, Alex got in the way. He became the chief adviser to two presidents, Washington and Adams. Each of these presidents strengthen the Federal Government. Moving the United States from being an alliance of 13 independent countries, to one country.
This was not want any of these states signed on for. Kentucky and Virginia signed resolutions against this destruction of the very thing they were told would protect there civil liberty of states rights. However this kind of conflict is to easily swayed.
It took a Civil War to end the madness. We all know what happened. Now we live in a new world order, were the founding fathers, for the exception of good ole' Alex, would be plotting a revolution, to end the tyranny that is the Federal Government (which really isn't a Federal Government any more, but a national government).
Things to Read:
The US Constitution
The Federalist
The Anti-Federalist
The Kentucky Resolutions
The Virginia Resolutions
What is Liberal Thinking & Who is the Most Liberal
Liberal has been the most improperly understood word in American politics, and politics around the world. The current understood definition is linked to a social meaning. The word literally means "freedom." I doubt most of us want less freedom.
However, in the political world, it is a term linked in the social sense. We automatically link Democrats or other parties that what social freedoms to this term. It is important to understand however that without economic liberalism, social freedoms will collapse. Because of this, it is improper to call Democrats liberals, for there economic policy are more linked to Socialism than Liberal Economics.
Liberal Economics is the best type of economics. It promotes freedom in social and economic sense. These policy were traditionally linked to Reagan and other past Republicans (Harding, Coolidge). Therefore, according to my definition, Reagan (The Founder of the "Conservative Revolution") is a liberal. However, this party is beginning to drop the Economic Freedom and merger the Socialism with almost a totalitarianism that is linked to fascism. There are few political organizations today that understand basic Economics. I will explain to you how Classic Liberal Capitalism would save the country, and what must be done to do this.
However, in the political world, it is a term linked in the social sense. We automatically link Democrats or other parties that what social freedoms to this term. It is important to understand however that without economic liberalism, social freedoms will collapse. Because of this, it is improper to call Democrats liberals, for there economic policy are more linked to Socialism than Liberal Economics.
Liberal Economics is the best type of economics. It promotes freedom in social and economic sense. These policy were traditionally linked to Reagan and other past Republicans (Harding, Coolidge). Therefore, according to my definition, Reagan (The Founder of the "Conservative Revolution") is a liberal. However, this party is beginning to drop the Economic Freedom and merger the Socialism with almost a totalitarianism that is linked to fascism. There are few political organizations today that understand basic Economics. I will explain to you how Classic Liberal Capitalism would save the country, and what must be done to do this.
For All Who Read This Blog
I will try to put my opinions in parenthesis (though I will forget sometimes, sorry if I do).
I will try always to put proof text at the bottom.
I will try to be logical and liberal* (freedom is something important, right)
I will try to always be constitutional (though no one really understands that word anymore)
Peace
*I will post a thing on this word really soon.
I will try always to put proof text at the bottom.
I will try to be logical and liberal* (freedom is something important, right)
I will try to always be constitutional (though no one really understands that word anymore)
Peace
*I will post a thing on this word really soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)