Category Archives: Self-sufficiency

Energy Starts American Recovery

America needs to become energy independent. America’s dependence on foreign energy puts her at great risk in a world that grows increasingly unstable. Given the current political upheavals in the Middle East, this reality is more than slapping America in the face.

Those who claim to be “progressive” feel a compulsive obsession to force Americans into accepting the “green energy” fantasy. Three plus years of actions taken by the current administration and fellow “progressives” show a willingness to achieve this end at any and all costs. Stiffer standards on auto emissions and mileage, crushing EPA regulations on energy providers, opposing development of domestic energy reserves, copious deficit spending on inefficient and noncompetitive solar, wind, tide and bio-fuel technologies besmirch the White House’s energy policy.

While such “progressive” measures theoretically “promote” development of “green” energies, they dictate a highly impatient, frantic pace that is crippling the American economy. They force the issue during a stubborn, recovery-resistant recession that is teetering on the brink of a full-blown depression.

America’s public and industrial infrastructures use petroleum, natural gas and coal, as well as limited nuclear power. Nearly every vehicle that is driven on American roads burns gasoline or diesel fuel. Public transportation relies on fossil fuels as well. Natural gas, heating oil and coal are used in furnaces to heat homes and places of business. Coal and nuclear power generate electricity, which powers countless devices; the uses of which are taken for granted every day. Coal, natural gas and petroleum products power American’s industrial complex, the base of the economic engine. America’s economy depends heavily on existing energy. The methods of providing and consuming energy are deeply ingrained into American business, industry, home life and recreation.

Expecting to change the methods of powering a society of over 300 million people overnight is unrealistic. While whatever conversions that do make sense are taking place, what energy is going power manufacturing, delivering and installing windmills, solar panels, turbines, generators and the power grid needed to provide “green” energy to the public? Will it be the “green” energy that is still under development? No. The energy that’s going to be used will be traditional fuels.

Why does America continue to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on foreign energy while there is undeveloped energy in its own country? Why doesn’t America keep those billions of dollars at home, in its own cash starved economy?

At a time when millions of Americans are looking for work and its economy is starving for liquid capital, why doesn’t America take advantage of its own wealth of natural resources? Why aren’t Americans drilling for oil and natural gas or digging for coal? Why aren’t people working building refineries and power plants? Why aren’t people delivering gas, coal and natural gas to consumers? How many peripheral jobs will be created in the process? For every new oil well, power plant, refinery or mine there will be new roads built, followed by restaurants, stores and housing. All generated by the only force capable of powering America’s economic recovery: the private sector.

In the interest of national security and job creation, America should put Americans back to work delivering American energy to Americans. This is the best way to become energy independent. Forcing “green energy” on America overnight will only lead to economic destruction.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/10/08/energy-starts-american-recovery/

Obama Embraces Keeping Blacks Stuck on the Democrat Plantation

The goal of democrat plantation politics has been to find a convenient and perpetual target that can be feared, hated, smeared and consequently demonized.

Hate, fear and smear!! “Shame on you Barack Obama!!”Feb 23, 2008

This is the legacy of the Democrat party and one which President Obama embraces and actually appears to relish. He is quite familiar with the hate, fear and smear art form practiced by his fellow democratic leaders. He uses it with adept frequency. The president flies into crucial swing states like Ohio, Florida, and Virginia with his practiced hanging drawl. He then enchants the black locals with notions of sugar plum government programs that will make their life better, if they give him the same chance they did in 2008.

This is done with no reflection upon their own increasing misery index which just happens to coincide with Obama’s increased abandonment of any job, education, or community safety-net promises made. Instead, it is only through continued black misery indexing upward can Obama and democrats continue their titanium plantation grip upon over 90 percent of America’s black electorate.

Where’s the beef? Where are the jobs?

The goal of democrat plantation politics has been to find a convenient and perpetual target that can be feared, hated, smeared and consequently demonized. Republicans are that target group, which unions, democrat community organizers like Obama, and democrat political machine leaders have made their primary election year goal.

Of course with the compliance of the NAACP, as their contracted plantation house servant, the nefarious and typically highly emotionally charged negative rhetoric rings off of church and community center walls every election season. But what are universally missing are the facts of Republican misdeeds. Emotional sing song rhyming rhetoric is the bait democrat plantation leaders ply to submerge common sense or biblical principles and values learned in the church.

President Obama not only knows this but he is absolutely banking on black mothers and fathers, grandparents and families to not look under the sheets and discover they have been hoodwinked and short-sheeted by Obama and the democrat plantation care takers. To borrow from Obama’s own 2008 words which blacks on the democrat political plantation would do well to remember, “Instead, they’re betting on amnesia. That’s what they’re counting on. They’re counting on that you all forgot. They think that they can run the okey-doke on you. Bamboozle you.

This is what Obama said to blacks in 2008 about Republican, but look at the facts, and see how the bamboozle practices applies to the plantation democrat caretakers.
First, joblessness in the black community has skyrocketed from 12.1 percent during the last month of the Bush presidency, to as high as 16.3 percent according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. In July it was reported that black families were hit hardest by unemployment. The rate increased from 13.6% in May to 14.4% in June. In fact, mainstream and black media artfully avoided holding Obama’s hope and change feet to the fire for the abysmal unemployment rate increase of 39.3%, up from 36.5% in June, among black youth 16-to 19.

Instead, Obama and the plantation overseeing democrats came into Ohio and other crucial battleground states diverting attention away from murder rates in Chicago, escalating joblessness in Cleveland and Akron, Ohio and hopelessness in Detroit, and the increasing black poverty 20 percent rate in Virginia from 2010.

Black Americans have to truly take a serious look at themselves, and come to the realization that this nonsensical embrace of plantation charlatan practices by Obama and the democrats is a death sentence for their children’s future.

Think about this, as blacks, you have been told to discard their own misery index which continues to shackle the hopes and dreams of your family. Instead you are spun a myth with no facts. If one were to ask a black democrat plantation resident, what is wrong with a Romney or President Bush, or even a President Reagan or President Nixon, they cannot give one specific fact-based reason. The only practiced response uttered is “They… said he or they hate blacks!”

Did Republican President Lincoln hate blacks when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation to free black slaves? Did Republican President Eisenhower hate blacks when he sent federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas to protect the lives of young black school children or support civil rights bills? Did Republican President Nixon hate blacks when he supported and promoted funding for historically African American colleges, minority-owned businesses, and supporting ill-advised affirmative action programs?

So where is this disconnect in the black community coming from? Why the hate, fear and smear campaigns against republican presidents and candidates?

Democrats truly believe that black people should be handled as if they are less capable of getting voting identification than whites. The democrats believe that blacks would rather listen to emotional fictional tripe from Obama’s cleverly crafted Chicago campaign message makers. Democrats want blacks to ignore their personal pain and anguish that the facts bear out. Democrats want blacks to subdue their misery index; while the outcome of Obama’s failing policies have cost them their homes, their jobs and their children’s future.

Getting free of the chains of the Democrat’s plantation politics is crucial. Instead blacks must reject the withering racial divisiveness of Biden and Obama, and seek solace in Rev. Martin Luther King Jr’s vision to not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. They must head towards and not away from King’s devotion to a new national colorblind heritage.

So before Blacks walk into that voting booth or fill out that absentee ballot, they have to have to ask themselves one crucial question. Are you willing to trade continued enslavement of democrat plantation politics for a chance to own your own destiny as an American in a colorblind nation?

On November 6th, what destiny are blacks willing to choose? Will the choice be one of freedom, or one where their freedom and their destiny are planned, government funded, and government determined for them?

Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. stressed, “Man is man because he is free to operate within a framework of his destiny. He is free to deliberate, to make decisions, and to choose between alternatives.” Blacks should not let the democrats racial divisive plantation politics determine their destiny.

Reject hate, fear and smear. “Shame on you Barack Obama!!”

The decision is yours as to which dream and future you are willing to risk!

 

Let me know what you think: http://tinyurl.com/8kyw39s

No Democrats, We Don’t Belong To The Government

 

Democrats have shown just how far off the sanity cliff they’ve gone in their video to open the Democratic National Convention.

Just to repeat, the narrator says, “Government is the only thing that we all belong to…we’re together as a part of our city, or our county or our state. Or our nation.”

There’s no spinning this. It’s worse than, “you didn’t build that.”

By saying, “government is the only thing that we all belong to,” Democrats are going beyond liberalism. They are taking their platform to corporatism.

Phrases like “we’re all in this together” may seem like they were meant to look good on paper and to voters. But combining it with the phrase, “government is the only thing that we all belong to,” goes into statements someone like Mussolini or Hitler or Lenin might make.

In fact, based on their praise of The New Deal, it’s possible they might even rise from their graves and cheer the DNC’s video.

According to Wolfgang Schivelbusch’s book “Three New Deals,” both German and Italian newspapers loved the tone President Franklin Delano Roosevelt used in the 1930s. One German newspaper said Roosevelt’s speech demanded “collective good be put before self-interest.” Schivelbusch also discusses how Hitler saw Roosevelt’s ability to discuss self-sacrifice and duty as something which were “quintessential” to how Nazi Germany did things.

Isn’t what the Democrats of today are discussing something similar? Hasn’t the tone taken by the President echoed this line of thinking? When Obama tweets how donors “own a piece of this campaign,” or tells an union group, “think about everybody who depends on you,” it’s simply corporatism.

It’s making people think they’re no longer individuals but part of a group that operates as a whole.

Obama is banking people will want to be in the middle class. Be part of that amazing group of people who just have enough to live and save, but not enough to be in the upper class. By shuffling everyone into that group it makes him look like a benevolent leader who’s looking out for their interests.

The greatness of America and the states we live in, is that we’re individuals. We can take whatever job we want, live whatever life we want and if someone wants to make $20-thousand, $200-thousand or $2-million it doesn’t matter. Or as Clint Eastwood put it last week, “politicians are employees of ours!”

Saying “government is the only thing that we all belong to,” is dangerous and wrong. It shows how far Democrats, not Republicans, have gone in their ideology.

It’s not what America was created to be. And certainly not what it should become.

Parenting Toward Capitalism

In a century already plagued by stories of “crony capitalism” like Halliburton and Solyndra, the concept of capitalism is really getting a bad rap. I decided long ago that the liberal indoctrination of my children through mainstream media would not happen. So, when I see an opportunity to parent them away from destructive messages and toward the highest ideals, I don’t go about it lightly. So that my children will have a proper understanding of capitalism – its merits and its challenges – I work to integrate that concept into my parenting whenever possible.

My thinking has been guided by just a few short lines of Alan Greenspan’s “The Assault on Integrity” (part of Ayn Rand’s Capitalism: The Unknown Self). Success in business, Greenspan said, “[r]equires years of consistently excellent performance.” Further, he argued that

“Capitalism is based on self-interest and self-esteem; it holds integrity and trustworthiness as cardinal virtues and makes them payoff in the marketplace, thus demanding that men survive by means of virtues, not of vices.”

If you like the idea of parenting toward capitalism, here are a few ways to put that theory into practice:

Pay for grades – Pay as much as you possibly can for As (significantly less for Bs). The real world rewards hard work and success with money, so teach them that early. I pay $10 per A and $5 per B. The financial incentive is there to earn the higher grade, and they do.

Charge fees for breaking rules – Tax behaviors you want to curb, right? Left a light on? That’ll cost a quarter to cover the increased electricity bill (got that one from my grandfather).

Give them a budget – When the kids outgrow their clothes, which happens often, it’s time to go shopping. Tell them up front that the excursion isn’t a free-for-all. Recently, for example, my son needed shoes. He wanted a pair of Sketchers ($45), but I had given him a budget of $30. If he wanted something in particular, something outside that budget, I told him, he would need to supplement the cost with his own money. So he waited until we found them on sale at a department store, instead. This might sound harsh – believe me, I get a ton of criticism from my friends about this one – but I figure, if it’s important enough to the kids, they will willingly invest in the purchase; if it’s not, then why would I invest funds above and beyond what I want to spend on the purchase?

Pay interest – When you “borrow” from your child’s cash stash to buy ice cream, pay back the full amount quickly…with interest. They took a risk lending that money (albeit a small one), and with risk comes reward.

Encourage entrepreneurial interests – Does your child want to be a car-washer? Pet-sitter? Lawnboy? My daughter wanted to sell cupcakes door-to-door when she was 8 years old, so we turned her hobby into a business. We gave it a name (Sweetie’s Cupcakery); created a logo; developed a price, order and delivery schedule; and designed a basic budget. As a result of that endeavor, she made almost $200 profit, which she used as spending money on our mother-daughter trip to New York City. Today, she sells duct tape flower pens to kids on her school bus.

Help Them Set Goals –  At the root of most failure is the failure to plan. Financial success involves budgeting. Last year, my daughter decided she wanted a Morkie (designer dog). I told her she needed to save $1,000 in order get the puppy. That sounds like a lot of money, but most Morkies cost around $500. Add vet bills and food and toys, and you can see the need for additional funds. She now has about 1/4 of the money saved, and she has resisted the temptation many times to spend that money on something else. Not only will she be invested in this purchase and be more likely to care for it, but in the time it will take her to save the money, I will be able to gauge her responsibility. This exercise has taught her the value of delayed gratification and of setting a goal and working consistently toward it.

Let Them Fail – This is a hard one. But it’s essential in life, so do it. Just give them a safe place to fall. When my kids experience failure, I wrap my arms around them, tell them I love them and ask them one simple question, “Why do we fall down?” to which they respond, “so we can get back up.” (Yep, I taught them that.)

I doubt they know the term “capitalism” at all, but they are beginning to see the concept at work in their lives. As a result, they have a tremendous amount of respect for money. They don’t leave it in their pockets (to ruin my dryer) or lose it on the playground at school. They keep it in their piggy banks and count it often. When we go somewhere from which they might want to purchase something, they don’t assume I’ll buy it for them – and I’m a fairly generous mom – they bring their own money with them ready to participate fully in the capitalistic society.

Of course, there are other ways a mother could show her children capitalism at work…and many do. They spend hours at malls and restaurants mass consuming. But I’m not seeking to teach my children materialism or overindulgence of any kind. My goals are simple. I want them to recognize that they are the source of their own success, personally and financially. That, while they should be grateful for any love and support they get along the way, they should rely on no one else to achieve that success but themselves. That hard work is the single biggest factor in success, and they should be armed and ready to roll up their sleeves and build that.

ObamaCare – Punishing Success and Responsibility

By now we have all heard the “You Didn’t Build That” speech. President Obama does not often make his true feelings known, but that speech was telling.

As he tries to back-peddle from having the man behind the curtain revealed, it is important to point out a few little ways the Affordable Care Act re-enforces his proclamation that success is to be punished.

Time and time again the ObamaTax on people who choose not to purchase health insurance has been referred to as the “freeloader” tax. It is to be imposed on folks who are young and healthy, can afford to buy health insurance but choose not to.

This is actually MORE insulting than the “you didn’t build that” speech. Many people who are young, healthy and CAN afford to buy health insurance, but choose not to, actually pay their doctor bills when they get them. If the bill is expensive, they arrange terms and abide by them. These responsible people are the ones who will feel the worst sting of the ObamaCare Tax.

According to the Association of Credit and Collection Professionals (ACA) in 2010 29% of the adult population (19-64) had medical debt, but only 16% had been contacted by a collection agency. That indicates that 13% were paying their bills on-time. Those people will soon have the pleasure of paying a penalty tax, for which they receive neither reward nor benefit simply because they have been responsible free market citizens.

So if you CAN afford health insurance but exercise your freedom to choose not to buy it, even though you DO pay your medical bills (incidentally you pay more for the same service than an insurance company does), you are now a freeloader and are penalized for being responsible!

Yet another provision in the onerous law, of which this author has heard no one speak, allows your employer to charge you more for the same insurance than another worker who makes less money than you do. So as a reward for loyal longtime service you get to pay more money for the same insurance than does a new hire. In case you are skeptical, here is the language, straight from the bill.

‘‘SEC. 2716. PROHIBITION OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON SALARY.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The plan sponsor of a group health plan
(other than a self-insured plan) may not establish rules relating to the health insurance coverage eligibility (including continued eligibility) of any full-time employee under the terms of the plan that are based on the total hourly or annual salary of the employee or otherwise establish eligibility rules that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees.
‘‘(b) LIMITATION.—Subsection (a) shall not be construed to prohibit a plan sponsor from establishing contribution requirements for enrollment in the plan or coverage that provide for the payment by employees with lower hourly or annual compensation of a lower dollar or percentage contribution than the payment required of similarly situated employees with a higher hourly or annual compensation.

Notice you cannot discriminate in favor of a high-wage employee, but you CAN discriminate in favor of a low wage one.

Just two more ways the current administration has found to punish success and reward failure.

Gun Control Laws Only Control the Law Abiding

Just like the majority of police officers who never have to fire their gun during the course of a career, most civilians will never be shot at while watching a movie, browsing in a shopping mall or attending school. But for those few that do have the misfortune to be an unwilling participant in an ambush here are a few rules of thumb you may find useful.

The police can’t protect you. The Aurora, CO police force is a fine, highly motivated department — I know because the police association was formerly my client. There were officers already at the theatre for the midnight showing of Batman to deal with the anticipated crowd. Only 90 seconds elapsed between the first 911 call and officer’s arrival on scene. This is a spectacular response time. Yet 12 people were already dead and 58 wounded. Which is why they are called “first responders” and not “first preventers.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D–Disarmed) won’t protect you. Feinstein wants Congress to renew her “assault weapons” ban. “Assault weapons” or “assault rifles” are no different from regular rifles, they only look scary. For example: the bayonet lug on the muzzle. (Yet, when is the last time you read of bayonet wounds during one of these attacks?)

“Assault weapon” is simply a propaganda term designed to alarm the public. Federal law already bans machine guns, which are authentic military assault weapons. The Washington Times points out FBI figures “show just 358 of the 8,775 murders by firearm in 2010 involved rifles of any type. By comparison, 745 people were beaten to death…but no one has called for outlawing fists.”

Cinemark won’t protect you. Colorado citizens with a permit are allowed to carry a concealed weapon. Cinemark corporate minions know themselves to be much wiser than a mere legislator, so they banned weapons inside the theatre. Sure enough not one of the law–abiding citizens had a gun, but the law–breaker had plenty. Cinemark is already being sued, but it’s the wrong lawsuit. What we need is for Cinemark know–it–alls to be sued by a permit holder left defenseless by their asinine policy.

Gun–Free Zones = Sitting–Duck Zones. When is it going to dawn on liberal gun–grabbers that gun–free zones only notify the shooter he won’t be subject to return fire? One gun owner in the audience could have made all the difference. At Columbine the police officer assigned to the school engaged those two shooters before they went inside.

During the brief gunfight, the shooters were so rattled they couldn’t even hit the cruiser the officer was crouched behind! These cowards don’t want to die, they want you to die. If the Aurora gunman had heard a round whizz past his ear it could have changed the entire complexion of the evening.

Unless you’ve been shot and can’t get away, avoid talking to the media. “Father of the Year” nominee Jamie Rohrs is a perfect example. During an interview with CNN, Rohrs described his reaction when the shooting started. “My son’s on the floor, as I turned to, like, find Ethan in the dark of the theater, with the gas, like, I’m so disoriented and I lose him, I just lose him. Then he opens fire again. So I jump, and I run.”

During the time three other men are dying while they shield their girlfriends from the bullets — and are consequently unavailable for interview— Jamie thinks, like, “feets, don’t fail me now” and leaves his 4–month–old rolling around on the floor, like, during a stampede. Safely outside he generously hopes his son and his girlfriend get out alive. Fortunately, his girlfriend only had a “small bullet wound” so Rohrs subsequently proposed to her in the hospital. I’m sure the ceremony will be fine unless when Jamie says, “until fear of death do us part” brings back bad memories for his girlfriend.

Only you can save you. I urge conservatives reading this to apply for a concealed carry permit and take the training necessary to use a gun to defend yourself and your family. Liberals, who believe merely being in the same room with a gun — let alone owning one — is sign of serious mental illness, are more difficult to advise. Progressives might try shopping at pawn brokers. Employees are usually armed, which deters shooters. Or stay at home and use Amazon. Always sit near the exit in theatres. Wear a bullet–proof vest. Avoid hip–hop concerts or events that attract hip–hop performers. Marry a police officer. Stay hydrated. (Whoops, wrong column.)

Protecting Yourself

What can you do to protect yourself if a situation like Aurora, CO erupts? You don’t need Special Ops training,  but it makes sense to listen to what a SEAL recommends.

Today on America Live with Megyn Kelly former Navy SEAL Brandon Webb shared his expertise and advice with viewers. Based on his experience as a SEAL and sniper Webb offers the following simple suggestions for the average citizen to help protect himself from becoming a victim:

Carry a high power pocket flashlight. Non lethal but causes temporary blindness when flashed in the eyes even during daylight. Buys a person 3-4 critical seconds to get away.

Moving targets are harder to hit. Know where the exits are. Know the difference between concealment and hiding.

Be aware of your surroundings. Walking with head down, texting does not allow you to see and hear people around you.

Have a plan.Think about what you would do ahead of time.

 


Following the horrific tragedy last week, Webb wrote a blog called ” Navy SEAL Lessons Learned from Aurora Colorado” which can be read at his website: SOFREP.

Readers may also be interested in The Red Circle, a new book by Webb looking at the inner workings of the US Navy SEAL Sniper Program.

Penn State: A Season in Purgatory

Possible location of the new JoePa memorial shower?

On Saturday, September 8th, the University of Virginia has a once–in–a–lifetime opportunity to demonstrate how an institution obeys the same honor code that governs its students.

The Cavaliers can prove to the world that UVA’s honor code is more than mere words when they refuse to play their football game against Penn State.

But wait, you say, that would be premature. The NCAA has not made its decision regarding possible sanctions. So what. That’s like the 37 neighbors who heard Kitty Genovese screaming for help while being stabbed to death, claiming they didn’t want to get involved because the police hadn’t begun an investigation.

One of the core values at UVA is “honor and integrity.” What’s more, “students are expected to hold themselves and their peers to high standards inside and outside the classroom and to engage ethically in their local, national and international communities.”

How can the university hold its students to a standard it’s not willing to meet? Playing Penn State means turning a blind eye to depravity and what the Freeh report termed “the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky’s child victims.” An individual or institution cannot associate with the dishonorable without tarnishing its own honor.

What Joe Paterno and the See No, Hear No and Speak No Evil cabal did at Penn State was against the law and the laws of decency, but it did not violate NCAA rules. The only role for the NCAA in this scandal is allowing any Penn State player who wishes to transfer to do so without losing a second of eligibility.

Any “death penalty” sanctions the NCAA might take are outside its authority and simply unnecessary if the universities on Penn State’s football schedule live up to the bromides they broadcast to students.

One of the many problems undermining the country’s future is American passivity. We sit and wait for government or some outside “authority” to take action while we check The Drudge Report to see if anything has happened. We don’t trust our instincts on almost anything. We rely on “experts” who tell us how to raise our children, train our dogs and relate to our fellow man.

In the face of great outrage a self–reliant person or institution can and should act individually to try and repair the fabric of society. I believe the operative phrase is “think globally, act locally.”

Sure, refusing to play Penn State and urging the other schools to do the same requires a little more effort and commitment than starting a Facebook page, but the result is much more impressive.

Still I can hear the administration’s objections. Refusing to play the game will result in lost revenue for the football team. What that excuse tells students is UVA’s convictions are rock–solid as long as they are convenient and cost free. Besides this reasoning is eerily similar to the rationalizations Paterno and his shower sleuths used to justify refusing to report child rape to the police.

Where I grew up a decision by UVA to live by its honor code and refuse to associate with a football program defined by lies and exploitation is called putting your money where your mouth is. (Here in Washington I believe the term is a “fiscal commitment demonstration project.”)

Then there is the legal excuse: UVA has a signed contract; the school is committed.  Then break the contract. Surely it contains a “moral turpitude” clause, and if not I’ll contribute to UVA’s legal defense fund.

There is, however, a solution to the revenue problem that allows UVA to maintain its honor. Instead of playing Penn State, UVA plays the University of Ohio, which is Penn State’s first opponent. The Bobcats expected to be annihilated by Penn State anyway; so visiting Charlottesville merely changes the locale of the execution.

Once UVA and Ohio refuse to play Penn State the pressure not to play begins to cascade on the remaining schools. Positive peer pressure — a phenomenon almost unknown in modern America — is revitalized and the rest of the schedule falls into line.

It’s fine if Big Ten conference schools attempt to replace Penn State by scheduling a team that doesn’t bring the ghosts of molested boys into the locker room. Or, on what would’ve been game day, the schools can hold one of the “conversations” that are so popular in academia and discuss “social justice” for little boys.

Refusing to play Penn State is the right and honorable thing to do. Even better, the refusal leaves Joe Paterno with a fitting legacy for his last team. The 2012 Nittany Lions will be undefeated, unscored upon and untouchable.

Participants Revolt Against The Derecho Project

Sustainable Living: So simple a caveman can do it!

It’s unfortunate The Derecho Project — the largest urban global warming mitigation experiment in history — has proven to be an abject failure. Really a shame, too since the project’s design was almost perfect.

The sample was composed of liberal environmentalists in Maryland, D.C. and Arlington who should have been eager to personally have a role in reducing the nation’s carbon footprint.

Final selection for participation in The Derecho Project was entirely random: if a tree fell and knocked out a family’s power, they instantly became part of the sample. No lengthy interviews, affirmative action hurdles or concerns about income disparities since the threat of climate change demands immediate action.

It was a golden opportunity for “green voters” and anyone with an authentic Ken Salazar 10–gallon hat to put their lifestyle where their affectations are. It’s no longer enough to read the Chevy Volt review in the Consumer Reports Auto issue and dream of becoming a climate warrior.

Over one million Maryland, District and Northern Virginia residents were saved the trouble of traveling to the Amazon to sample carbon–neutral living at its finest. This eminently sustainable lifestyle was right here and didn’t involve an encounter with touchy–feely TSA guards. But what did progressives do when they were finally on the front lines of the battle against climate change?

These green exemplars didn’t behave any better than warmist deniers. They huddled in the nearest Starbucks and whined on their Facebook pages about the inhuman hardships they were suffering, all the while estimating how long it would be until the truffles defrost.

If these had been conservatives instead of “environmentally conscious Democrats” they could have turned a quick profit by selling carbon offsets until power was restored. (Then used the money to buy a gasoline generator in preparation for the next Act of Pepco.)

The eagerness of these progressives to re–embrace the electric power grid made them no different from the conservative control group that continued to use electricity blissfully unaware of how their selfish lifestyle threatens to submerge the Solomon Islands beneath the Pacific.

Where were the hardy greens recharging their iPads with solar panels, cooling their house with wind power, enjoying a siesta to adapt their body clocks to new temperature realities and using methane gas from their compost heap to cook dinner?

These examples were nowhere to be found. MD, VA and DC progressives weren’t any more prepared for sustainable living than your average Wal-Mart shopper. Instead we read about extension cords from houses with power snaking across driveways, alleys and streets to reach those without power. Which sounds a lot more like a PWC trailer park than it does Takoma Park.

Having sampled for a week the carbon–neutral lifestyle their environmental policies would condemn third–world residents to for a lifetime, progressives are now screaming for vengeance on any and all power companies.

The WaPost quotes Montgomery County Council President Roger Berliner (D–Tumbrel) demanding Pepco be hit with large fines. “You get to $20 million, you get to $30 million, to $40 million, then you start getting people’s attention,” Berliner said as he confused a quasi–judicial proceeding with an auction.

Large fines sound good and make for a great copy point in a re–election brochure, but fines alone won’t bring true accountability, because a fine doesn’t hold those at the top personally accountable.

The top executives don’t pay fines. The money comes out of stockholder dividends, which in turn penalizes investors — who may have been out of power themselves — and pension plans. The executives have to answer hostile questions during hearings and may hear rumblings in board meetings, but that’s about it.

Real accountability only comes when the executive feels your pain. My solution is any time more than 500 customers lose power, regardless of the reason, regulators flip a switch and all Pepco’s top executives lose power, too.

The executive’s electricity returns after the last customer rejoins the grid.

Finally, am I the only conservative bothered by the media’s use of the term “derecho?” What happened to “severe thunderstorms?” When I was a boy in Oklahoma — one of the largest consumers of thunderstorms and tornadoes in the nation — weather poodles never used this word.

But now its suddenly “derecho” this and “derecho” that. Could it be because “derecho” is also the Spanish word for “right turn?” Is this yet another mainstream media attempt to persuade the public to subconsciously associate conservatives (the “right wing”) with disaster and privation?

How about using the German word for environmentalist? If we’re going foreign, “umweltschützer” not only has that continental flair, but just saying it sounds like thunder in the distance.

A Simple Replacement for ObamaCare

The obvious solution to the health care problem is self-insurance. The Obama Tax is designed to effect those who are young, healthy, and can afford insurance. Who makes the decision about what someone else can afford? But that is beside the point. The point is that if one is young and healthy and can afford insurance, then one can probably afford to pay their medical bills, and in fact they probably DO pay their medical bills. Under the Affordable Care Act they will be punished for being responsible.

The folks running up the tab at emergency rooms are people who are young, healthy and CAN’T afford health insurance, but don’t yet qualify for medicaid.

If we really want what we say we want, patient centered affordable health care, driven by market forces there is a very simple solution; self-insurance.

Average lifetime medical cost per person was roughly $360,000 in 2004 according to a report by Health Services Research. If one were contribute $266.00 per month into a modified Health Savings Account, even at a modest 3% return, they would have enough money to cover their lifetime medical expenses. That is less than the cost of an average insurance plan these days.

Certain areas of the health care arena are already driven by market forces. Those areas are for elective procedures that most insurance doesn’t cover.

A good example is Lasik eye surgery. This is a technique for correcting vision via laser surgery. Lasik is not covered by most insurance, since it is an elective surgery. When it first became available, it cost on average between $2,000.00 and $3,000.00 per eye. Today the cost is about half.

Why the price drop on a highly skilled high tech procedure? Market forces. Most insurance companies don’t cover this procedure, so the customer must pay for for it out of their own pocket. As more physicians have become proficient in the operation (increase in supply) the price has gone down (to meet demand).

A study of any elective procedure which is in demand, but not covered by insurance, will show similar cost reductions.

The easiest way to reduce medical costs is to get rid of insurance altogether. The insurance companies won’t like it, and government fiat may not be the way to go here, but if everyone was invested in a medical savings account that they had control of, was tax free, and could be used for any health related expenses, not only would everyone have coverage, but they would put downward pressure on the cost of entire health care sector. The account would accumulate year after year, so that when the money was really needed later in life, it would be there. There should also be a provision that whatever is left in the account after the owner expires becomes part of the decedent’s estate, thereby providing incentive to leave some money in the account. It could also be used to defray burial expenses. Since everyone is paying for their own healthcare out of their own pocket as it were, they would tend to take better care of themselves. Everyone would have skin in the game. Therefore this type of system provides an inherent incentive toward better health.

A program could be structured so that one savings account could cover a family, in the same way insurance does now. This eliminates the removal of children under 26 argument. It also eliminates the pre-existing condition argument, since the money from one’s health savings account could be used for any health-related costs, including prescription drugs and other medical devices.

For the truly incapable, some system for funding their Health Savings Account could be worked with a refundable tax credit. Those who are at or below the current income level for medicaid insurance could have an amount equal to the requisite contribution credited directly into their health savings account, with a sliding scale up to 150% of that income level. As for employers who currently pay for some or all of their employee’s health insurance premiums, they could use pre-tax dollars to contribute to the employee’s account.

Medicare would need to be left in place for anyone at or above the age of fifty-five, but for those younger, a refund of the amount they paid into the medicare system could be credited to their savings account.

As for catastrophic occurrences, the insurance companies could offer low cost, very high deductible plans, those formerly referred to as major medical plans, to cover high cost, unexpected illnesses. More importantly, though, it should be possible to make a charitable contribution to someone else’s health savings account to help them defray the cost of an expensive unexpected illness. If we are our brother’s keeper, we should be able to be so without government intervention.

The question is one of belief. Do we believe as the founders of this nation did, that the individual is wise enough to make his or her own decisions and provide for his or her own needs, or do we believe that the citizens of this great nation need the government to make all their decisions for them, that they do not have the intelligence or wherewithal to care for themselves? If we believe the latter, then the Affordable Care Act is perfect. If, however we believe the former, that liberty is worth having and that the fruits of our labor should be our own to decide what to do with, then perhaps a health care program such as the one laid out above is the way to go.

Student Loans-In Need of a Fix?

Part 2

Yesterday we talked about many of the problems inherent with student loans in our society. Today I’d like to share some common sense ideas. Do note, I’m just a mom and I’m not a professional. Also: there are plenty of websites dedicated to finding financial aid for college, do your research before starting school.

These suggestions are just a few ideas for parents of the recent high school graduate who is now wondering what to do next. The examples are real life people whose names have been changed, particularly to save the foolish ones from embarrassment.

  • Not interested in college? How about a technical program. Some are found through private programs but many are available for reasonable tuition at the community college (see next bullet). This week Lou Dobbs has a special on FNC discussing the job situation. There is a great need for skilled workers: machinists, mechanics, in the health care field, craftsmen and more. In recent years our children have been told that a four year degree is the only way to achieve quality employment. Our leaders seem to have forgotten that this country still needs to build, repair and care for both objects and people.
    • Tom had no desire to attend college but he liked working with his hands. In his town was a trade school. Tuition was less than $4,000 per year. In less than two years Tom had a certificate in tool and die manufacturing. He has had steady employment since school, paid his school loans and now bought a house.
  • Are students prepared to attend a university? Can they afford to attend a university? Community colleges in Arizona charge nearly 1/4 the tuition as the state universities. They offer freshman and sophomore courses for the student who desires to continue beyond an Associate’s Degree. If a student does not have college savings and is not eligible for scholarships or financial aid attending community college offers a great savings. Many students also choose community college for a specific degree or certificate which allows them to begin working as they continue their education.
    • Allen is attending the state university but quickly saw the downside of student loans. He attended the community college EMT program held during the summer and was able to find a hospital job where he could work and attend school. After a second summer school program he now has a benefits eligible job at the hospital and they are paying his college tuition.
    • Mary is paying for college herself. She works two part time jobs to pay for tuition while living at home. She attended community college and has now transferred to the state university. Through careful use of her money Mary has not needed student loans.
  • Are parents adequately preparing students for life beyond high school and employment? Some graduates are looking for jobs that start mid-scale or beyond. Are we parents raising the expectations unrealistically? Perhaps, we have given our children so much they expect to continue a lifestyle that used to come with time and effort. Are parents encouraging their students to get some work experience? Employers want to hire a person with known ability to handle a job. Especially, in these challenging economic times, why should an employer hire a new grad when he can get someone with years of experience?
    • I have no tales that can beat the example of this Wall Street Protester:

  • There is a great deal of scholarship money available for minority students or those looking for a particular field. Where there is great need there are often more scholarships and aid available (e.g. TEACH for America pays part of loans in return for work at rural or low income schools). Are students being encouraged to apply for scholarships? Filling out forms and answering essays can be a tedious process but the results can be very helpful. Our government also offers the generous Pell Grants to those financially eligible. They’ll cover up to 12 semesters tuition. And don’t forget that the military will pay a great deal of college costs after an honorable discharge. They also offer scholarships (in return for future service) for specific degrees. With recent cuts to the DoD the military is able to be more discriminating in who it accepts. Still, for those interested, it may be worth the effort.
    • Some parents choose to allow their student to do their own research and make all their own decisions. Personally, it seems a little parent intervention might help kids make better choices. Allowing a student to fail or miss a scholarship/financial aid opportunity may teach a point but does it help in the long run? You don’t have to be a helicopter mom, hovering all the time to remind your student of the down side to procrastination.
  • Are parents sharing some of their world experience with their college bound students? Do the students understand how interest compounds? How much less will be owed overall by paying down the principle a little each month. Just because someone is eligible for a loan to cover more than the cost of school does that mean she should take it and then use it on a shopping spree? Do you really want to be paying for those clothes for the next 20 years?  If all your costs are being paid by loans does it make sense to attend an out of state school? An Ivy League school? Is the degree at a specific school that much better than at a local school? (In Arizona annual tuition for residents is about $9,000; non-residents $22,000, while two area private schools charge between $16,000 and $22,000.)
    • An acquaintance of my daughter accrued over $96,000 in loans by her third year in college because she chose to attend an out of state school. She wanted to be a physician but couldn’t afford further debt for graduate school loans. The end result for this student was that she changed majors and applied to the nursing program expecting another two years of school.


  • And speaking of degrees, are students being encouraged to look at what kind of job their major will offer? Some businesses want to hire people with a college degree and are not picky which one. But… Where can one work with an Art History degree? Life Sciences? Philosophy? If there are jobs related to the degree are there many openings? Maybe every boy wants to be a paleontologist, but how many are there in the US?
    • Libby qualifies financially for full coverage under the Pell Grant program. Right now she wants to be a musician and is taking two or three classes each semester related to singing and writing music. At the rate she is going she will run out of Pell funds before she gets an associate degree. Additionally, no one seems to have explained the low odds of finding a job as a musician.
    • A number of my daughter’s friends wanted to be doctors. Their undergraduate degree is in Life Science. Eighty percent lost interest along the way. Some changed their major to one where they could find a job after graduation. Others got that degree in Life Science and now are discovering they are not qualified for any specific job. While some companies (e.g. UPS) merely want all their employees to have a college degree, more are looking for a specific skill set. Of the students who are now floundering, some are returning to school to become teachers while others are looking at health care field options.


  • Lastly, when looking at loans it might be a good idea to consider what income bracket your future employment will be.  Common sense should prevail, if starting salary will be less than $50K and it will cost $120,000 to attend private university, you may have a hard time paying back your loans. (Refer back to private vs state school costs.)
    • One student I know attended a private school to become a teacher. After four years she owed $100,000 in student loans and found it very hard to start paying back when her job only paid $33,000 (starting teacher in AZ at the time). She is now teaching at a Title IX school (for the loan repayment benefits) and living at home trying to get ahead.

This column has generated a great deal of interest. I will post some of your well thought comments in a conclusion later this week. I promise Part 3 will be much shorter. . .

 

A Moral Case for Capitalism

There is a pervasive attitude in academia and in the culture at large that socialists are misunderstood intellectuals and capitalists are selfish, greedy pigs. What is absent in the cultural discussion is the moral case for capitalism.

Capitalism is morally right because it is consistent with free will, individual autonomy, and human creativity; it is a more ethical basis for an economy than socialism due to its just framing of labor and reward; and lastly, when it is consistently enforced, it disperses economic means through market accountability, and impairs government coercion.

As the socialist Rudolf Hilferding observed in his criticism of the Austrian school economist Bohm-Bawerk, given that the base philosophical assumption of free market capitalism is the individual, and that of Marxism is society, this makes it nearly impossible for an intelligent conversation to emerge between the two camps.

Let us make the straightforward argument that society exists for the sake of man, and not man for the sake of society.

The instrumental rationality of socialists being that man is a means to the end of an abstract notion of society, carries with it disastrous inhumane consequences when effected, and is indeed inconsistent with free will. Frustrating the free will of human agents necessarily leads to reduced creative and productive potential. Artists, writers, and other cultural creators should never knowingly or unknowingly reinforce the collectivist values that undermine their own self-expression. Yet our artists and entertainers constantly provide support for collectivist government in the realm of values.

Government, as Rose Wilder Lane pointed out in The Discovery of Freedom, can only obstruct and restrain. Since government is by nature an institution of force, and force is inherently a relative concept, government necessarily can only empower some members of society at the expense of others.

Thus, there is a need to keep economic and political affairs separate. Free market capitalism empowers the many by giving people more say over their own lives; and by connection, leads to more creative and productive potential. The separation of political coercion from economic activity allows there to be a civil society where people can be free to speak their minds without fear of economic reprisals. People are thus accountable to the free market, or in other words, the public for their cultural creations and not to the government.

In addition, a free market economic system is more stable than a centrally planned one. Certainly, fostering those conditions that are most conducive to improving mankind’s quality of life is the most ethical. To argue against this proposition we might consider an ‘objection by mischievous assumption.’

But the latter point requires a more extended, even if glossing, discussion. The point is to show by examination that the Marxist critique is fundamentally wrong and that capitalism is clearly the better of the two systems. Indeed, it might also be shown that the two systems are diametrically opposed and incompatible at the core value level.

The philosophical foundation of rationality, quite necessary to harness the gains of the empirical method of science, led to man ascending from the darker ages of mysticism, feudalism, and superstition to the modern era of scientific progress and the undeniable improvement in mankind’s quality of life. But the socialist wants our human relations to revert back to those of a pre-modern society, where we live as a tribe in deference to our government chieftains. As an additional insult, they label such an agenda “progressive.”

So the argument goes that man will ineluctably be led to a brighter tomorrow by removing the philosophical foundations on which modern civilization stands? An untenable proposition and one that must be discarded.

The important thing to remember about free market capitalism is that no one person is needed to “devise it” or “run it.” What you need is to protect individual rights, enforce property rights, and allow people to produce and trade, which they will naturally do. The job then is to keep the currency sound, so transactions are transparent to all buyers and sellers, and stable, so people can save without being penalized.

Indeed, by securing sound currency and a stable economic environment, man can plan his future on solid footing. In such a world,  productivity would be rewarded with increase, while foolishness would be met with ruin, and laziness with want.

Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty

The International Conference on Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty, sponsored by American Freedom Alliance, concluded Monday in Los Angeles CA.

The chief question posed at the Conference’s opening: Is Global Governance vs. National Sovereignty the West’s next ideological war?

John Bolton, Former U.S. Ambassador to the UN gave Sunday morning’s Keynote Speech. Ambassador Bolton spoke from first hand experience, sharing front line knowledge accumulated through years of engagement in international diplomacy. He not only gave definition to the term “the Global Governance Movement”, he also described its agenda, which is to subvert national sovereignty in favor of a supranational authority through the invention and initiation of international laws and norms.

After his speech, Ambassador Bolton welcomed Dr. John Fonte, Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for American Common Culture at the Hudson Institution, John Yoo, Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkley, Steven Groves, the Bernard and Barbara Lomas Fellow at the Heritage Institute’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and Michael Shaw, guiding attorney for Freedom Advocates.org to the stage. The five elaborated intelligently on the consequences of increasing subservience by sovereign nations to the ideology of Global Governance. Both the political makeup and the ideological activism of the UN were indicted.

Following morning breakout sessions focused on:

  • Non-governmental organizations as purveyors of Global Governance
  • The Green Movement, Agenda 21, Global Warming alarmism and Global Governance
  • Who will control the Internet and who will control the seas

The afternoon was kicked off by a Keynote Speech by President Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic. President Klaus spoke directly of the prospects of Global Governance and its European variant, the European Union. Drawing upon his experience as a leader of a former Soviet bloc country, President Klaus warned against the threat of independent sovereign states surrendering control to an un-elected, unaccountable extra-national governing body in a distant capitol.

Larry Greenfield, National Executive Director of the Jewish Institution for National Security Affairs, invited Robert O’Brien, Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office of Arent Fox LLP, Donald Kochan, Professor of Law at Chapman University School of Law and Elan Journo, a fellow in foreign policy at the Ayn Rand Institute into a discussion about the politicization of international law and its impact on national sovereignty. Global and international law were identified as both threats to and the means by which national sovereignty is undermined.

Subsequent to afternoon breakout sessions focusing on:

  • The demonization/diminishment of the United States and Israel as a chief Global Governance strategy
  • Law-fare, international humanitarian law and their role in undermining sovereignty
  • The role of Islam in fostering and encouraging Global Governance

The Honorable John Howard, Australia’s 25th Prime Minister gave the day’s concluding Keynote Speech. The former Prime Minister discussed the concept of the nation state and why it still matters to countries that enjoy governance by popularly elected representative governments.

Sunday’s last panel, featuring President Klaus, Nonie Darwish, founder of Arabs for Israel, John Yoo and John Fonte discussed whether or not liberal democracies have the strength and will to defend their national sovereignty. The endurance of strong constitutions and distinct cultural identities were viewed as key elements in an ongoing uphill struggle by sovereign nation-states against the intrusions of Global Governance. Panelists considered these elements necessary to fending off the introduction and implementation of transnational ambitions by proponents of Global Governance.

The Conference reconvened Monday morning with a spirited discussion concerned with using the political process and judicial system to thwart and defeat Global Governance activism. A distinctly academic intellectual discussion about whether Constitutional Law was robust enough to prevent the political branches of government from violating the Constitution through treaties whose provisions conflict with constitutional guarantees was initiated by Eugene Volokh, professor of law at UCLA School of Law. Professor Volokh gave an extensive portrayal of why the introduction of Sharia Law into the American judicial system is not threatening U.S. Constitutional rule of law. His observations were challenged by Larry Greenfield, Steven Groves and by John Yoo. Professor Volokh’s defense of his position was based primarily on viewing individual situations and circumstances as singular, isolated potential constitutional violations easily rationalized away by equating Islam’s ambitions to those of other, more benign religious institutions found in America. This approach was resounding rejected by Stephen Coughlin, a fellow of the American Freedom Alliance, who successfully portrayed the fallacy of ignoring the global dominance agenda openly preached and taught by proponents of Islamic global dominance under Sharia Law. Mr. Coughlin’s remarks received applause from Conference attendees.

After an address by Professor Mike Farris of Patrick Henry University on how Global Governance threatens the nuclear family through international laws and treaties, the Conference concluded with a reading of and discussion about the Conference Declaration.

The Declaration of Los Angeles: Sovereignty, Democracy and Individual Rights are Indivisible.

We, the undersigned, do hereby append our signatures to the statement below and declare:

THAT national sovereignty, constitutional democracy and the protection of individual rights are indivisible.

THAT constitutional democratic representative government is the most successful political system ever devised by the human mind.

THAT democratic self-government has only existed—and can only exist—within the sovereign liberal democratic nation state in which the people rule themselves.

THAT the principles of liberty, national independence and democratic self-government as articulated in Britain’s establishment of parliamentary democracy, the founding of the American republic, the establishment of the state of Israel, the achievement of dominion status in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, the traditional national sovereignty of European democracies, and the continuing growth of liberal democracy in Asia, Latin America and Africa, are superior to any forms of global governance.

THAT the assertion of constitutional government’s obsolescence and decline is utterly false.

THAT while international cooperation should be encouraged and international treaties respected, no supranational authority which claims jurisdiction over liberal democratic states without the consent of the governed should be accepted.

THAT non-governmental organizations which purport to represent an international constituency do not have the legal or political authority to speak for the citizens of liberal democratic nation states, only democratically elected representatives have such legitimate democratic authority.

THAT the constitutions of our respective nations remain the supreme and inalienable law of our lands and if ever a conflict arises between our respective constitutions and any form of supranational authority (such as interpretations of international law, rulings of the United Nations, judgements of international courts, etc.), our Constitutions and constitutional principles will always prevail.

THAT we call on leaders of democratic nation states to reject the demands of transnational advocates to subsume domestic law to international law and stand together with us in upholding the principles of national sovereignty while rejecting the claims and arguments of global governance advocates.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/06/12/global-governance-vs-national-sovereignty/

I had a dream. About a Jackbooted Beauty

This morning I had a dream. About a jackbooted beauty.

In the dream I was on a train. An old fashioned passenger car, something like the old steamer engines pulled. Inside the car were many other passengers of higher station than me, Diplomats, Advisors, and Politicians.

Along both the sides of the car were couches and private curtained areas. Down the middle were picnic bench-like seats separated at lengths with enough space for people to walk through to either side as they wished. I was sitting at the end of one such section crammed against two aristocratic looking men. The tables were all full and seats were rare.

“I don’t know what the Democrats could be planning with the Middle East,” one said to the other.

“What could you mean? They do not have a plan. The region is tearing itself apart on its own. No one plans such things,” the other answered.

“Israel cannot stand alone there. Without her the party will lose support back home. Someone needs to step in and take control of the situation,” the first man spoke.

Sounding more like two men thinking out loud than in a conversation with each other.

Both men were dressed in the style of the 1910’s. Heavy woolen clothes marked with medals and sashes. The man closest to me was bald with a head spotted by brown freckles. The other man had slicked back brown hair and a well trimmed proud mustache.

They went on in their detached conversation and I had no other choice but to listen until finally I rose up from my seat and looked down at the bald man and said, “I could tell you what the hell is going on but I am just a lay-person what the hell can I have to say that matters at all to you people, right.”

The two men looked at each other and the bald one spoke to me, to my back anyway. In my passion of anger I had turned away from them once I had spoken my peace. So sure that such elite men would have no time for a regular person such as me, dressed in a plain cotton shirt, cheap ill-fitted pants held up with suspenders.

“Come sit down. Tell us what you think,” the bald man said to me. He even stood up and put a hand on my shoulder to encourage my turning back and sitting. His voice was calm. His slick haired acquaintance looked both amused and disgusted at the thought of having me speak and him listening.

I did sit down and reluctance to bother. Elitists did not listen to the people below them. No in the elite minds of the world they were the only ones to speak, the rest of us were to listen and obey.

“You want to know what the plan is,” I asked the bald man looking him in the eyes then giving his friend a glance that looked away as if bored already, “the plan is to let Israel die and the Middle East catch on fire for no other reason than pursuit of power.”

Already some people who had heard my first words people were moving away. Baldy was still looking back at me unwavering and seeming earnest in wanting to hear what I had to say.

“What better way to bring about the ruin of a great nation than to wear down its people until they welcome any change,” I asked but did not wait for an answer, “Why would it be in the world’s interest to tear down Egypt? To bring down Mubarak and remove an ally?”

“He had to go because he was a dictator,” the bald man interrupted.

“He was a moderate and an ally. Our militaries trained together and the country was stable. I have been there, have you? Then Libya. What was Libya doing that needed to have revolution backed by the Oval Office? Kaddafi was not doing anything, again the country was stable and after 9/11 Kaddafi swore off his nuclear program. What was the threat from him, another dictator he was, but at least a calm one.

“Meanwhile the student protests in Iran go ignored. In Syria the streets are running with the blood of her citizens at the hands of a hard-line dictator. Not a peep is made to stop the killing from the White House. The Party wants murderous dictators to rule that region. How else to enact revolutionary uprisings and all out warfare? Keep the hatreds of the area smoldering until reaching a flash-point.”

As I spoke more seats become available at the bench I was at. Curtains closed around couches here and there. For many, the ideas I was speaking are to be ignored. Yet my new found bald friend still seems to be listening.

“You said Israel cannot be left to stand alone,” nodding to the slick haired guy, “Sure, the Party can let that little country can be left to stand alone to be overrun by ‘Allah Akbar’ screaming enraged Muslims who have been taught from birth to exterminate the Jews for the love of Allah. That all the world’s problems are because of the Jews and that once they are all dead everything will be perfect. We have a similar version of that storyline between two demographics in the United States,” more curtains closed at those words, “The Democrat Party has no fear in Israel being wiped away from the world as American Jewish are so entrenched in the Party they would never vote any other way than for Democrats. Hell, many segments of those following the Party would celebrate the genocide of the Jewish people of Israel as they too believe Jews to be evil and to blame. Afterwards, if it should ever happen, both Jews and their jubilant in the destruction of Israeli counterparts will stand side-by-side at a polling station and vote for the Party”

By then the train car could have been empty. About half of the other passengers had hidden themselves away. Those people not concealed where either pretending not to be hearing or were looking in silence at me.

A woman came in with two children, boys about nine and ten years old. While the kids made their way about the car laughing and talking their mother came and sat next to the bald man, giving him a kiss. The slick haired friend had left his seat at some point in my speech without my even noticing so intent I was in having my say since finally having been asked.

“My wife,” he said in introductions between us. She was a gorgeous woman with short cropped black hair and olive skin. She wore some gold around her neck that draped in contrast to a well fitted black conservative yet casual dress that went past her knees. She gave off an impression of being happy and content while making herself at home at the bench, as if she had lived there all her life. She smiled at me and I went on.

“But you want to know what the plan is,” I asked resetting the conversation, “the plan has been going on for a long time. To destroy America’s religions through open and active hostilities as well as infiltrate the message of God in the churches to fit the narrative of the government. Uproot the traditions of the family, make government the mother and father. Remove fathers all together and hand out rewards for doing so. Absolve citizens of personal responsibility over their lives. Every bad-deed committed by a person can be traced back to some manufactured slight against them in the past. Destroy the private sector middle class and replace it with a contrived government one. Take over education not to teach but to indoctrinate students, even to the point of turning them against their parents. ”

I paused to look around. Those people who were left out in the open were staring right at me. Some faces had a non to happy look on them. No sense in stopping then, I was on a roll. As I got my breath and was about to start again the two boys that had come in with the Cleopatra-like beauty began going to the front of the train car. I stopped and watched the boys while everyone paid attention to me.

The oldest boy reached for the door set into the trains’ front and pulled the doors lever set in its middle. The door didn’t open, it was no longer there. There was no other train car in front of ours or an engine to be seen. There was nothing to see. A blank white standing rectangle was all to be seen. No light existed or shown. It was simply. Nothing.

Stepped off into the nothing the boys went without a peep either from them of anyone in the car. Not even their parents. Their mother looked at her husband and told him to go get the boys, a request he ignored so both sat in their seats. Looking back at me they expected me to go on so I did.

“Once the country is under attack from within it will be necessary to begin turning the people against each other. No matter how light the grievance it must be exploded and amplified. Tear down all unity and patriotism. Have everyone looking out for themselves and screw everyone else,” I looked over the people looking back at me. Certain that with them being the elite they would understand that point completely, “next the Party has but one institution to destroy, the Military.

“Through political correct principles service members will be taught that it is better for them to die than to kill their enemy. An enemy who is embraced by the Commander in Chief in front of the soldiers sent to fight. Words of encouragement from the Commander in the Oval Office are reserved for the militants and followers of death and martyrdom. Unity will be destroyed within the branches by forcing political ideals into military doctrine. Instead of serving the Constitution the military will be forced to serve the Party. Soldiers who have pride, patriotism, love of country and service will be forced to leave military service and others will be discouraged from joining.

“How does the Party keep good men and women from serving in the last bastion of American pride,” I asked looking around. Turning in my seat I faced the people behind me who had been breathing down my neck, “you deploy those soldiers over and over until they don’t re-enlist. You give them more wars that have no definition of goals and when defending themselves soldiers are slandered and punished by both their leaders who sent them and the Party’s media lap dogs. Cut benefits and retirement pay. Make it easier to collect government welfare than to apply for aid from Veterans Affairs for wounds both physical and mental incurred during combat operations,” making my right hand into a fist I pushed it hard, twisting back and forth into the palm of my left, “you grind and grind away at the military until no one wants to join. And when very few do with the right traditional values of the once proud organization the Party fills the ranks with who it wants to have armed to the teeth with state of the art killing equipment.”

By that point even the bald man had left for some other place to sit. His wife however had stayed and was staring at me hard with bright eyes and a predator’s visage. She moved toward me. I had to lean back in against the bench top at her advancement. Partially straddling me she looked down into my eyes. Her black hair hung toward my face but it was those eyes I wondered about as well as those longer and sharper canines grinning down at me.

“Tell your story, it doesn’t matter even the slightest,” she began saying as she, like a creature of great agility slid back to her place on the bench seat, “We have been at work for a much longer time than you will ever know and as you can see by looking around; no one is paying you any attention other than me,” of which she spoke true. Not another person was listening or caring and had gone from hiding away from my speech to going on about whatever distraction they pursued.

“After all that what is to happen next,” she asked taunting me.

“When everything has been put into place, the pillars of American society pulled down. The bonds that bind America together have been cut and neighbor has been set against neighbor,” looking around the car away from her bright eyes that seemed hold unspeakable evil lit behind them no one was watching the engagement between her and me, “then the jackboots of the Party come marching in to crush the throat of freedom. Everything else, even if it means creating World War Three coming across the globe spread from the Middle East, every event will be but a means to an end. Freedoms end. Global Dictatorship ruling human beings beginning.”

With those final words of mine from behind I was grabbed at the shoulders and pushed to the floor. A black leather boot that ran tight against the woman’s calf was pushed down over my neck while strong arms held me from getting up. My blood and air were cut off and my vision was shrinking as if I was falling down a well. Before I woke up from that dream the last words from the woman in black were, “you’re too late and of no importance.”

Then I woke up.

####

Tom is an erratic contributor to CDN. Former U.S. Army Signal Corps soldier, outspoken future Re-Education Camp intern #7-2521, world traveler, combat veteran and Author of the new books Lone WolfSucker Punched, dystopian near future America novels, and One Tough Truck (a War Story) available at Amazon.com.

“A creative mind does nothing to another mind — except offer it material to digest, which the other mind may digest or not, as it pleases.” –Ayn Rand

 

Puerto Rico does have a language barrier

Rick Santorum said recently that Puerto Rico should put emphasis on learning English, and he has been criticized for it. I see his critics as either political in nature or as new-jerk political correctness. There are underlying social issues unique of Puerto Rico and political party affiliations there that need to be known before even beginning to make any assumptions. What was a basic truth telling on Santorum’s part, whether it was intentional or not I have no way of knowing, becomes an opportunity to shed some light on a place that many Americans don’t even know is a part of our country.

Puerto Rico is a place where three political parties trade blows and seats in their government. One Party is for statehood, another for staying the same, the last for independence. No matter which party is in control of the governor’s seat doesn’t really matter because the government is actually an aristocracy disguised as a democracy as most Latin governments are. People running the island deal in pay-to-play schemes, bribery to open businesses and a very unfriendly attitude toward doing anything that doesn’t benefit them directly in either votes or graft. Yes, I’m still talking about Puerto Rico’s government and not D.C. All that is left for a company wanting to do business on the island is the fact that there are millions of unemployed people who will work for minimum wage. Even a degree doesn’t help much in that extreme environment. Politicians there want to keep it that way and play the usual mind games of: Our culture, Our heritage, and those evil Gringos want to make you like them.

The islands poverty level is higher than in the States. Few jobs and many people creates a trapped population that is forced to take what job presents itself for whatever pay is offered. I met people that had jobs for nearly twenty years and still had not broken $10.00 an hour. The elementary school system looks like something out of the 1950’s and college students spend more time protesting and dressing up as Che Guevara than learning.

People in Puerto Rico are openly proud of their heritage and there is nothing wrong with that at all, though not to the extremes that people of Puerto Rican heritage that have never been to the island yet have a flag on everything they own here stateside. I always felt welcome by the people while living there and enjoyed several friendships. I recommend visiting Guavate for music and spit roasted pig. Try the morcilla but don’t ask what it is before biting into it. Only encounters with members of the separatist party were ever negative. Much the same as dealing with any of our own rabid Blame America liberals.

When my son’s school had celebrations, all aspects of the islands history were reflected, including the slavery part. There are not the same attitudes as there are here in the U.S. forbidding the mention of slavery except for when it is profitable. As far as I know, there are no poverty pimps counterparts such as Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson on the island. My son was lucky enough to be admitted to the new School of San Juan which put emphasis on teaching students English much more than the lip service the regular school system there does.

There are leaders in Puerto Rico like San Juan’s Mayor Jorge Santini, who pushed for my son’s schools creation, who understand that the future of Puerto Rico is not only holding onto their Spanish based heritage, of which no one is telling them to abandon, but to also see that success of all is based on open opportunity to advance. Any real future for the islands people is in not being a member of a large trapped labor pool of people who have no other options other than to accept what they have at hand.

Many people I talked while I lived and worked in Puerto Rico were tired and worn out. All wanted a better life; to be able to make more money, have a better job. No one I talked to was ever happy about the fate of which they had been born into. When I suggested that they move to the states because as legal citizens they can pick up and go and enter without a passport or visa, the answer was always the same.

     “I need to learn better English.”

I told them then to learn and go. Or go and learn. I told them if so many illegal aliens could go and not speak a word of English then anyone could do it. I recommended Orlando as a start point due to the Puerto Rican community there and the fact that Puerto Ricans help each other. No sudden loss of community connections that Puerto Ricans have and of which I as an American don’t see much of in our own culture. There were many excuses made not to learn, “it’s the culture,” being the most common.

So, my own view as a person that has lived, worked and have been married to the island for 11 years and being the political junkie that I am had come to this conclusion, well before Santorum ever uttered his mouthful of words  about Puerto Rico’s need to learn English.

By not learning English the islands inhabitants trap themselves on a 100×35 mile piece of land disconnected from forty-eight nearby states worth of opportunity. Only the bridge of language needs to be built to allow opportunity-seeking people to roam free.

All that other political nonsense is nothing more than status-quo pandering and keeping people to scared or angry to take that ever important first step for a new way of life. I know that everyone calling themselves a conservative will agree that the first move in raising people up is the open doors of opportunity to pursue ones desire for success.

Encouraging rather than polarizing an ability to speak, read and write in English is the right way to go.

####

Companion piece: http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/09/safety-nets-ultimatly-fail-society/

Tom is an erratic contributor to CDN. Former U.S. Army Signal Corps soldier, outspoken future Re-Education Camp intern #7-2521, world traveler, combat veteran and Author of the new book Sucker Punched, a dystopian near future America novel available at Amazon.com. Tom Can Be found @ Twitter Facebook, Blog.

“A creative mind does nothing to another mind — except offer it material to digest, which the other mind may digest or not, as it pleases.” –Ayn Rand

« Older Entries Recent Entries »