Tag Archives: capitalism

National Day of "Doing Crap that Actually Matters"

The occupy park benches movement (a.k.a. Obamaville liaison to Big-labor) is planning a “day of action” on Thursday.

The New York local office is planning to start a march from city hall, across the Brooklyn bridge and onward to cause grid-lock near the intersection of Wall St. and Broad St. – the approximate location of the New York Stock Exchange.

The movement is preaching environmental causes, international causes, anti-capitalism, anti-Americanism, pro-Palestine, pro-Union, anti-bank, anti-freedom messages – all at once.

This is the group that believes that it’s illegal for law enforcement officers to remove them from private property – that they have trespassed upon.

This is the group that infringes upon the rights of others to get their impossible-to-understand points heard.

What is needed is a counter-protest. A national movement that really matters.

Many in the TEA party have repeated the mantra “Not racist, not violent, not silent anymore”. Well, it’s time to start being less silent.

The Occupy movement is a puppet arm of the Unions and other groups that would like to see our economic system fail. Their approach: to force drastic changes to an economy to one that favors those unwilling to build exemplary skills.

Unions prop-up those willing to only do “enough” to earn a paycheck. That doesn’t mean that all union workers are lazy. It means that union leadership has no interest in making an example of those that are talented – lest it injure someone unable to become an expert. It is much like playing a sport where no one keeps score to avoid having a loser. Entrepreneurial spirit is the answer – the purest form of success due to expertise.

If you knew you would only succeed if you spent the time to learn more about your trade or perhaps invent a new technique – wouldn’t you? What if that was the only way to get ahead in America – as it was in times past. Would that not create a culture of experts or at least reward those trying to build such a culture?

Electricians of great quality can contract out to whomever they want for an above market price. Master electricians can run an entire shop of high-quality electricians and do very well. This is the spirit of America – not those do-nothing, produce-nothing loudmouths in Zucotti park.

It is time. It is THE time.  IT IS OUR time. It is the time for truly productive Americans to say that this cannot go unanswered.  Unlike the characters in Atlas Shrugged we don’t have to learn over the course of 12 years after the brat-like redistributionalists get their way. We can start to affect change today.

Do you live in New York, Oakland or any other city where one of these atrocious affronts to society are taking place? Why aren’t you calling your Mayor’s office, Governor’s office, state Rep, state Senator, police chief, sheriff’s dept or other local group. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and only the incredible minority that are living in city parks are letting city officials know how they feel.

That is why we need a “National Day of Doing Crap That Actually Matters “. On Friday, November 18th, call your LOCAL officials and let them know that you no longer want these anti-freedom, anti-capitalism, anti-liberty, anti-work, anti-American people keeping you out of YOUR public spaces. No longer do you want them influencing YOUR children. No longer do you want them messing with YOUR country. Tell your officials that you want law enforcement to actually do their jobs and arrest trespassers – not just push them to the side and throw away their garbage.

Cities (a.k.a. taxpayers) are spending tens of thousands of dollars a day of taxpayer money to police the “Obamavilles” and “Class Warfare Shanty Towns”. That is YOUR hard-earned money that these miscreants are spending. When will you speak up?

It’s fun to ridicule them on twitter or post their most-recent idiocy on Facebook, but that’s relatively ineffective.

Join the “National Day of Doing Crap that Actually Matters” and make a few phone calls on Friday. It won’t take much more than a few minutes of your time to disarm a movement of unthinking, irrelevant, disrespectful and unproductive union puppets.

Join the NDoDCtAM (say that 5 times fast)  and show them that the Occupational forces in America’s parks are NOT the 99%.

Movements that NDoDCTAM is in solidarity with:

Free Wall Street:

We will be talking with John Tabacco, founder of “Free Wall Street” tonight on the Mitchell & Ray show.

John and Derek Tabacco were so frustrated with the disruptions caused by the protesters in Zuccotti Park that they started the “Free Wall Street” campaign.

Mr. Tabacco is asking other Americans to  “rally” in opposition to Occupy Wall Street.

John said that “the way to end any Occupation is to form a coalition of freedom fighters to rebel against the unwanted occupiers. Since its inception, Occupy Wall Street protesters have caused problems for local businesses and hard working people that work on Wall Street and surrounding offices near Zuccotti Park.”

You can join the rebellion against the occupiers by following the movement on twitter: @wallstfighters and their soon to be online web page: freewallstreetnow.com

Thanks to those providing phone numbers:

Dallas

Mayor:- 214-670-4054
DPD: 214-744-444
Media Relations: 214-671-4065

San Antonio

Mayor: 210-207-7060
SAPD: 210-207-7273
Media Relations:   210-207-7234

A Picture Is Worth A Thousand Words: North Korea vs South Korea

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, but this one may be worth more.  As a humble blogger, I can tell you it’s not hard to type 1000 or even 2000 words, but it is difficult to make them compete with a picture like this:

This is the difference between North and South Korea on a given night.  The South, a shining example of prosperity.  The North, a comparative wasteland.  Maybe “wasteland” is a harsh choice of wording, but which one would you rather live in?  The country with companies that (successfully) compete with America, or the country that shoots you for trying to leave?

So many “Occupy” protestors and members of the Left talk about doing away with Capitalism, that I wonder if they’ve seen pictures like this.  I wonder if they’ve seen more of what goes on in Cuba than what Michael Moore tells them.  And I also wonder why they don’t just move to their non-captialism “paradises”, if they don’t like the United States.  Last time I checked, people risk their lives to move to the U.S. and South Korea, not Cuba and North Korea.

What do you think?  Is Capitalism overrated?  Should we replace it with some sort of pseudo-socialist utopia?  Or should we put pictures like this on billboards across North America until people get the point?  Let us know in the comments below.

Jesus, the Liberal Democrat

It’s tough enough trying to be a Christian in this secular world without taking misleading doctrinal advice from non–believers who deny the divinity of Christ.
But some Christians obviously can’t resist because Hindus, Buddhists, Zen masters, Wiccans, pagans, fire worshipers, polytheists, agnostics, atheists and Unitarians continue their work of trying to get us to follow the “real” teaching of Jesus.
The latest advice comes from the religion columnist for the WaPost: Lisa Miller. Lisa is a conflicted Jew. The kind who goes to a Reform synagogue and says prayers for Israel, but her bizarre philosophy of moral equivalence leads Miller to believe Israelis are mean to Arabs. So she feels like it’s time to redefine the word “Israel,” at least for prayer purposes.
Fresh from altering the intent Jewish prayer, Miller turns to occupy Wall Street with helpful advice on how Christians should respond to this civic tantrum.
Lisa knows just how Jesus would have responded, had He spent a few days in Zuccotti Park: “Thus, (H)e might have sympathy for the various causes espoused by the campers (end hydrofracking, tax the rich, support unions, cap executive pay.)”
Poor Jesus, He never gets a break. Plagued by Pharisees during his own time – thrown among parasites today.
Miller’s non–divine Jesus is an advocate of what John Eldredge calls “wispy wisdom.” Christ becomes non–judgmental, vegan philosopher whose market beliefs are Karl Marx without the aggressive beard and class struggle.
Naturally Miller turns to Bart Ehrman for expert agreement. Ehrman’s a favorite of secular, non–believing reporters because he’s a former evangelical Christian who lost his faith over typos in the New Testament. Today Ehrman is an agnostic professor of religion and the go–to guy for reporters looking to enlist Jesus in the Socialist International.
Still, even cursory readers of the New Testament know Jesus did not spend a lot of time discussing investment strategy, although Matthew 25: 14–30 comes close.
Theologically it’s complicated, but the parable concerns a rich man going on vacation. He gives three of his servants ten, five and one talent of silver and then heads for the beach. When he returns, the master calls the servants to account. The ten–talent and the five–talent men invested and doubled their money. But the one–talent servant buried his for fear of losing it.
The master praised those who doubled their money, but fired the one–talent servant, which sounds to me like a rousing endorsement of capital gains.
If you really read the Bible, it’s hard to co–opt the Savior into your earthly political plans without simply inventing theology.
He had plenty of time to confront civil authority, yet Christ focused on religious authority. He didn’t discuss the politics with the Centurion or tax rates with Matthew. In fact the only system of government approved by God was that of the judges, and the Jews disliked that so much they demanded a king. Democracy and the consent of the governed are not mentioned in the New Testament because it’s not a political science or economics text. The Word is directed at individuals and not banks, corporations, the GOP, Congress or Parliament.
But Miller does real damage when she repeats the big lie of our modern, dissolute age. “The Jesus of history would love them all. What Jesus really said, and what he meant, are the subjects of culture’s greatest controversies, but one thing is sure. Jesus gave preferential treatment to society’s outcasts.”
This half–truth is used to justify homosexuality, shacking up, sex before marriage, out–of–wedlock births and much of the rest of the degeneracy of our age. But it’s a lie.
Jesus’ ministry was in sharp contrast to that of the Pharisees who weren’t interested in people unless they were already members of the club. Jesus did do outreach. His ministry was directed at sinners and He welcomed them. For adulterers, thieves, terrorists, prostitutes, tax collectors, men with anger issues it was come one, come all.
But to remain in His presence you had to be willing to change EVERYTHING.
He changed the names of His disciples, ordered them to abandon their families, and rebuked them for lack of faith. The prostitute and the fornicator had to lead a moral lives and the thief stopped stealing, to mention but a few.
Yes He reached out without regard to your past or your station in life, but if you were to follow Him, it was under His rules and Christ did not grade on the curve.
That’s the truth Miller and other liberal Bible hijackers conveniently overlook.

The Qwikster Joins the Dead

I’ve been wondering how many of the Occupy Wall Street squatters are actually enraged Netflix subscribers or retirees with Netflix stock in the 401K?

The timing is about right. In August Netflix increases the fee for plans that include video streaming and DVDs by a shocking 60 percent. In September the company announces it’s amputating the DVD side of the business and naming the new entity Qwikster. And in October Netflix was planning to introduce beer commercials during streaming programming for everyone not subscribing to the new ‘premium plan.’

No wonder protesters are preparing to punish capitalists and any corporate employees above the level of ‘barista.’ But participants in the March for Generalized Outrage are too late. The market has worked its magic and bulls bearing sell orders got there first.

Netflix stock was at $300/share last July. After investors had more time to evaluate the inspiring leadership of CEO Reed Hastings, the stock price dropped to $111.62 in early October — a plunge of 60 percent in value, strangely mirroring the August price increase.

Try to match that economic damage by dressing like zombies, pooping in the shrubbery and hoping Congress will invite you to a hearing.

It’s rare that a company becomes suicidal in such a brief period of time, but Netflix appears to subscribe to the theory that any publicity is good publicity, even if customers are burning car tires in the street outside corporate headquarters.

The first signs of a management woefully out of touch actually appeared months ago, way before the price increase and Qwikster cwazyness. The tipoff was testimony before a House–Senate hearing on the elimination of Saturday mail delivery.

Netflix is the USPS’ largest customer, spending over $600 million yearly. In my business our largest customer has amazing clout, up to and including “is it OK if I use my tongue to shine your shoes?” Yet Netflix appears to believe USPS is doing it a favor by taking the money.

In fact Netflix sent a representative to the hearing to cheerlead for the post office, claiming that eliminating Saturday mail delivery would have little, if any, impact on subscribers.

I’m sure it won’t bother Hastings — a lackey delivers his DVDs before Reed leaves the office. But for customers, eliminating Saturday delivery means no mailing a DVD back on Thursday and getting a new one in time for the weekend. Customers lose 17 percent of the delivery service with no corresponding decrease in price.

This sort of tone–deaf decision making is only possible if you are an “industry thought leader” that reads too many of his own press clippings. Lucky for Netflix government will bail it out, because elected officials are not going to give up Saturday mail delivery as long as elections are held on the next Tuesday.

Netflix mistakes should be instructive for those confused about the free market, starting with the ‘Occupy’ crowd. After the August price increase I didn’t call Uncle Sam and demand government intervention. In September, when the new billing rate began, I called Netflix to cancel the DVD portion of the plan.

In addition to being unaware that his customers like new movies on Saturday for weekend viewing, Hastings is also evidently unaware of competition from Redbox (he really must do something about the tint level on the limo windows).

Redbox rents a new movie for only a buck a day, without requiring a visit from the postman. In fact I would have to rent 17 movies a month to equal what my old Netflix plan cost. And I was not alone in this decision. Over one million other customers dropped at least a portion of their Netflix service in response to the price increase.
When management followed the price increase with the Qwikster stupidity, Netflix made the fatal mistake of complicating something that was already simple: making two websites, two passwords, two lists of movies, two sets of recommendations, two bills.

Before another million or so customers jumped to Amazon, iTunes or other streaming services, Netflix backed off and Qwikster joined the dead. Although even then Hastings did something foolish when he said, “While the July price change was necessary, we are now done with price changes,” a statement that will haunt the company in the future.

A big corporation offends customers. The media covers the controversy. Customers punish the company by dropping its service and choosing an alternative product. Investors punish the mistake by selling the company’s stock. The company learns from the mistake or it falls by the wayside.

Proof that a free market offers options — and competition, not government, is your best protection in the marketplace.

Capitalism vs. Socialism a Short History Lesson/ Behind the Occupy Wall Street Protests

The current Occupy Wall Street/ Occupy L.A, and Occupy Chicago protests all carry one main theme: Evil capitalism must be abolished so Liberals can enforce their Social Justice fraud upon the people of America. It all hinders on the underlying Marxist wealth redistribution agenda inherent in all Socialist movements throughout world history. These protests are simply a remake of centuries old societal battles between the haves and the have-nots. It simply boils down to the Capitalism inherent in a free market society vs. Socialism/Soft Communism and it’s share-the-wealth fraud.  Milton Friedman explains this in a short video simply titled, Greed

 

 

As Mr. Friedman asks in the above video, just where are these Angels that are supposed to come along with the Socialism that Liberals always say will produce a better society? No system has done more for the betterment of a country’s society than the free market system has proven to do in all of world history, period. When these anti-capitalism protests started a little ways back, they appeared to have many demands that were aligned with the grassroots Tea Party movement . They were protesting certain bailouts, big government expansion and crony-capitalism. Keep in mind that many political movements are  frequently not what always they appear to be, and this movement is no different. This past weekend there were numerous signs that this movement has now been co-opted by elements from within the Obama administration, if they were not in on the initial planning to begin with. This past weekend we saw  no less than five Obama-supporting Unions busing in lots of people, along with many Leftist celebrities making appearances to draw attention to these movements. Then we saw the appearance of the admittedly Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders show up at the Occupy Wall Street protests as to somehow give these protests validity. Socialism vs evil Capitalism is what these protests are all about here, and it is right out there for all to see. This is also right out of the  very same Chicago community organizing handbook that now has inserted a man into our White House. Coincidence? Not hardly, unless you are really naive and totally uninformed today. 

Why would Obama and/or his handlers and political operatives be involved in orchestrating these protests? How about the fact that the biggest influence behind the 2012 elections will be the terrible economic recession, high unemployment, and the failed stimulus package that are all a direct result of Barack Obama’s anti-Capitalist roots that drive his policy-making? The facts are out, and the people will be making Obama a one-term President in 2012, and he is desperate do anything that will once again shift the blame towards Republicans. These protests are an attempt to distance Barack Obama from his failed policies and the massive increases of national debt he has piled onto the backs of our children. Notice how quickly the big Unions jumped into these protests? They are also desperate to remain in power, and they need another four years of Obama’s "making sure that Unions have a seat at the White House dinner table," as Obama stated in 2008 while begging for the Union votes to get into the office at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. 

These Wall Street protests have Obama written all over them. The protesters are carrying signs against the 2008 G.W. Bush TARP bailouts, (which were drafted and passed through a Democratic Senate and House at the time, by the way ) yet not one single protester was seen carrying a single sign protesting any of Barack Obama’s  numerous bailouts of GM, Chrysler, big banks, Wall Street and the failed $826 billion stimulus bill. Not one. Coincidence? Not hardly. How about the fact that not one sign has been seen denouncing Obama and company’s $528 million dollar taxpayer loan to the now bankrupt Obama campaign donors in the Solyndra Solar debacle? That sure looks like the evil crony-capitalism they are supposedly protesting at these Occupy Wall Street protests doesn’t it? 

While these protests may have started out innocently enough as a true grassroots movement, (which is highly doubtful) every single aspect of the protests in Chicago, (Barack’s turf) L.A. (Barack’s home state away from home) and New York, (plenty of do-nothing sheep living in the streets there to join in) It now has all the footprints of the Obama 2012 reelection campaign being orchestrated in the Chicago community organizing mold. When it comes to big money, Chicago-style politics, there simply are no coincidences.

911 Remembered

Ten years ago on September, 11th, an icon of American capitalism was attacked and destroyed by Islamic Terrorists. The Twin Towers were not only representative of New York City’s modern architecture, but they were the symbol of America’s powerhouse economy, built in a country of freedom and liberty.

That was before – this is now:

Because of two Jihadist pilots, we are no longer the country we were before that day. Many of our freedoms have been infringed and virtually wiped out of our everyday life. From warrantless wiretaps to TAS’ groping searches, Americans can no longer feel free to say what they please or go long distances unmolested on airplanes. Loved ones can no longer walk to the airport gates to say goodbye to their families or friends. Our “open-door” immigration policy is still in effect and more and more terrorists have been infiltrating our country. Our Southern Border is insecure. Islamic Jihadist literature has been found in the washes used by Coyotes that bring in illegals in Arizona. Al Qaeda has set up an enclave in Mexico and established terrorist training camps there.

Historically, Muslims build mosques on the sites of their greatest conquests and they plan to do so again. Our Politically Correct government is willing to give the organization that wishes to build a mosque close to the site of Ground Zero, a sacred place of history for Americans, the money that they need to build the Muslim abomination.

We are still under attack.

The result of their attack is pictured below:

On the 10th anniversary of this vile and repulsive attack, let us take time to remember those who died there, the people in the buildings who jumped from the floors above the collapsed stairwells, the first responders who lost their lives trying to save the lives of others. Remember the families who lost loved ones that day and may not have any portion of their remains. Let us take time to pray for them.

And let us take the time to dedicate ourselves to
NEVER AGAIN!

State-sponsored Capitalism – The New Communism

Let’s start off  by defining some basic forms of totalitarian control in government that still have strong influences today.

First there was Communism, old-school style.  Pretty simple and straigtforward actually. It was a social system, a society,  built around the state holding and owning all property in the name of the people.  The people had no say and no power and a clique of super elites ruled with an iron hand.

Then there was Marxism as Uncle Karl found a better way.  Karl and his pal Freddie Engels were all f*cked up. They started a philosophy of governance that never truly materialized.  It was based upon the notion that the state (history then showed them) given their way would always exploit the common folks through class struggles.  They despised capitalism feeling that capitalism contained the seeds of it’s own destruction, namely unrequited greed, and that after a class struggle an ideal would emege.  A classless society of pure socialism.

You see Marxism was only, after all, a system of thought…nothing more in history, yet it had strong influences with idealistic radicals.  Radicals always step up and proclaim to be saviours, in one form or another, of humankind from themselves.  Each knows full well that he/she has a better way.  Funny thing is that through the pantheon of historical record…, history shows us that they were ALL WRONG! The problem is that these idealists ignored their own personal shortcomings and how they represented the inherent EVIL in man. For to bring about the ideal society of each…, each needed to assert C-O-N-T-R-O-L of the masses and therein as my pal Willie the Speare said…”lies the rub.”

So…, a new nation state was to emerge with a new idea. She was to be called America and she defined that the means and control of goods and services and production thereof would be “privately held”. These upstarts called their system Capitalism and their system depended upon a government controlled by direct representation of the people, the common masses…all of them. Sounded like a good idea huh!  No classes warring amongst one another and if it functioned as “original intent’ had planned then the people would rule and the government officials would serve.  Somewhere along the way though the sh*t started seriously hitting the fan and it became obvious that the inherent evil in mankind had reared up it’s ugly countenance again, as it can always be counted upon to so do.  This time in the form of politicians all too ready and willing to be corrupted by those same “privately held” interests who were dependent upon them, the politicians, for maintanining fertile fields for copious profits in the coin of the realm.

What to do….what to do? These American people were growing restless. Each succeeding generation coming down freedom’s road was seeing less and less freedom and a gretaer loss of personal control for one’s own manifest destiny. It wasn’t suppoosed to be this way many thougt that back in 2008. So when the Pied Piper puppet of Hope and Change came bounding down Freedom’s Road many of the naive, unwashed masses fell to their knees …grovelling and kissing the feet of he who declared himself The One.  And a plague was unleashed upon the land.  The indolent and irresponsible had elected The One.  The One who would assure them that a vast national government would gladly lift the burden of personal responsibility from their shoulders. Ohhh…How they swooned and cheered and danced merrily in the streets. The False Messiah was here and welcomed with open arms, assuming there was no price to be paid for their promised salvation. A short few years later the House of Cards of the Oba-Usurper was to start falling apart as state after member nation state of this Union was to commence suing that very government he led and court after court was to uphold such actions as overbearing and wrong. his minios grew stridently annoyed at his shoddy performance, especially when he ttied to once again raid the now EMPTY COFFERS of this national government and the people of the homeland called America, who would not be fooled any longer, stood up in a public Party show of anger to tell him how pissed-off they truly were.

Let’s now fast-forward to contemporary times and halfay around the worlds to bear witness to the emergence of the great Communist China on to the international scene as a power-player. Not by being an old-line Communist state, but by having taken (with our great assistance) the best of the capitalist world and ideas and adapting them to their Communist system.  Who would have thunk it?  That of all people the late Tricky-Dicky Nixon ( who as he said “we wouldn’t have to kick around anymore”) would be the free-market capitalist gatekeeper who opened up the promise of capitalism for the Communist Chinese.  With an unlimited work-force, long-trained to groupthink mentality under Chairman Mao, the mainland China state has become a marvel upon the world economic scene.  Without having defined or even stated it they have developed a genuinely “new” system.  State-sponsored Capitalism.

 

And guess who is trying to copy-cat their idea and make it all his own.  The first half-black, sometimes Muslim, President of that shining star of capitalism…the good olde US of A, Barack ‘You can call me Barry’ Hussein Obama. Frustrated that he didn’t haver a totalitarian Communist rule head-satrt like the Mainland Chinese, he did the best he could with public monies he really didn’t have to insert his government into the private sector, thereby corrupting it from within and without.  He handed out IOUs for the People’s money and made no hard and fast regulation upon how it was to be used OR accounting upon it. He acted upon Marx’s and Engel’s great concern and started to foment class warfare and envy by his support of public unions against the peoples’ best interests as a whole.  By creating more and new government sector bureaucrat jobs while the private sector unemployment rose higher and higher; by his attempts to define moderately successful middle-income people as rich if they earned  a combined $200K annually and many other agendas.  That last he believed would make a large enough pool defined as “rich” and evil to fund his venture of…YOU GUESSED IT,

STATE-SPONSORED CAPITALISM – THE NEW COMMUNISM

Lo and behold, about halfway through composing this thought-provoking (I hope) topic, I came upon this sad story. How appropriate it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/15/business/energy-environment/15solar.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all

 

What Failed Capitalism

The moniker of the Liberal Left is “Capitalism has Failed.” However when we had true capitalism and free market in this nation it did anything but fail. What the Liberals mean when they say Capitalism has failed, is that big “fat cats” have gobbled up all the money and left us garbling for their crumbs. Their arguments include famous enigmas such as Enron, Bernie Madoff, the Housing Market Crash, and our Health Care system. Frankly none of these were a product of a free capitalist market. In fact they are all cases against government regulation and oversight. Let’s use these very same examples to explain.
Enron was a company run amuck through gaming an artificial system aided by government regulations it helped to write. Had there been a “free market”, Enron would not have been able to capitalize to the point of a monopoly, building it’s own demand, not only for its energy products but for its stock by manufacturing grossly inflated numbers. Free market competitors would never have allow this to get so far out of hand.
Bernie Madoff flaunted his previously good name to peddle private investors into a ponzi scheme of enormous proportions. There were several private whistle blowers whose warnings would have naturally thwarted the Madoff scheme much earlier and saved many unwitting investors millions. However Bernie was legitimized by the very Federal agencies that were supposed to monitor, investigate and halt such a travesty of the free market.
The Housing Market disaster was literally created out of Federal meddling in the market. Explain? In short, Congress (led by Barney Frank with a literal bedfellow from Fannie May & Freddie Mac) began giving incentives to lending institutions to lend to low income families. Eventually this led to regulation that actually punished those who did not. Certainly the institutions are not guilt free, however the nature of the free market was perverted by the “well meaning” Congressmen who followed the lead of “compassion” and to “level the playing field.”  The result was a housing bubble that institutions could not help but inflate.
Our Healthcare system was touted as the best as witnessed by all who come here from all ends of the earth to receive care that is simply unavailable elsewhere. Yes, such healthcare is expensive. However it is easy to point out where governmental regulation caused coast heights. We enjoyed many levels of insurance options form “Catastrophic only” to “Fully Comprehensive Care” at premiums that varied accordingly. One of the incentives to success in American was the level of healthcare you could provide for your family. Somehow healthcare is being misconstrued as a right and that all rights being equal the rich have to lower their care to something mediocre that the poor ultimately drag everyone down to when there is no longer a motivation to succeed.
The “Health Care Debate” was a perfect example of government intervention that interferes with reform rather than aids it. Rather than having faith in the free market by allowing cross state competition to bring costs down, the then Liberal Congress under unprecedented pressure from the Executive administration took over 16% of our economy to be made unconscionably inefficient on a governmental scale and ridiculously ineffective on a bureaucratic scale.
In fact it seems impossible to uncover corruption within big business without uncovering governmental interference, incentives, meddling, ignorance, or downright collusion. Let’s take Monsanto for example. They may appear to be a very successful company who works closely with the FDA and other government agencies to increase crop production and our massive food requirements.
In reality Monsanto is another Enron in the making. We should expect to see a disaster that will make the Enron scandal appear insignificant. You as an aware citizen should know that many of the Monsanto developed and owned GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are banned in most European nations.  An even worse long story short, Monsanto has infringed upon anyone who attempts to continue growing “organic crops.” Monsanto has sued those who buy and sell natural seed if even a small portion of the seed is found to have any Monsanto GMOs in them. Farmers who attempt to grow natural crops find GMOs from even distant farmers are infiltrating their crops via wind and insect pollination. The courts have upheld Monsanto’s ownership of these farmer’s crops just because it contains some Monsanto GMOs. Obviously the natural farmer should be the one suing the Monsanto farmer for contaminating his otherwise natural crop, but no! Monsanto continues to win and take over a greater and greater percentage of our food supply market. You may want to consider the fact that this includes the ethanol crop as well.
Free Market Capitalism has not failed. It is the lack of freedom and transparency that has failed. Unfortunately the carrier of the disease is vilified instead of the disease.
How important is economic freedom anyway? The ten most economically free markets in the world enjoy the greatest Income, Civil Rights, Life Expectancy, Employment, Healthy Environment, and the lowest Infant Mortality and Child Labor.
Economic Freedom means having Property Rights protected by impartial rule of law. It means Free Trade with minimum regulation and transparent transactions and operations. It means a stable national currency free of inflation and a minimally necessary government that allows natural market adjustments and even failures.
By those standards we’ve fallen from 3rd to 6th in economic freedom in the last ten years. It is no coincidence that Income, Civil Rights, Life Expectancy, Employment, a Healthy Environment, and Infant Mortality have followed suit.
The so-called good intentions of the current administration are to control our economy rather than let it prosper. This is called a lack of faith in the tried and proven, over controlling the market, which has always proven disastrous. Have they never noticed that?
Spread the word.

Renewed Calls on Obama and Democrats to Focus on America

NEW YORK, July 21, 2011 — Leading Independent and Senior Energy Executive Karl W. Miller today renewed calls for President Obama to start listening to senior industry executives and experts, resolve the U.S. real estate crisis, address depression era unemployment and put a credible national energy plan in place. The debt limit sideshow is a “red herring” and deferring focus away from the true problems facing the U.S. economy.

According to Mr. Miller:

The U.S. economy runs on three key factors: i) a stable housing market; ii) affordable and dependable energy supply; and iii) stable employment environment. Without these three critical factors functioning properly, there will be no meaningful economic recovery in the U.S. economy.

The U.S. Federal Reserve must stop subsidizing the defunct real estate loans in the residential and commercial marketplace which must be properly vetted, written down to net realizable value, and moved off the banks, hedge funds and insurance company books.

The U.S. regulators must force this to happen without preference for any specific group. There will be bankruptcies, bank failures and forced liquidations; these are the cold hard facts of a capitalist society, which the U.S. economy is founded upon.

Politicians must acknowledge where the U.S. economy and energy industry are today. We have serious and deep-rooted problems with no credible national energy plan in place and must start addressing these problems immediately.

The U.S. needs a credible and sensible energy policy and emissions plan. Subsidies and handouts do not work, never have and never will. Natural gas is not the “Holy Grail” but will remain a power generation fuel, heating fuel and select industrial manufacturing fuel. The U.S. has substantial cheap and dependable coal supplies which provide over fifty percent (50%) of the nation’s electricity generation.

President Obama and the Democrats failed to “recognize” the message that the American people sent them in November 2010 as the economy continues to decline, unemployment continues to grow and the real estate crisis continues to worsen.

It is time for Washington to take stock in America and start executing on a credible business plan. Failure to execute is cause for termination in Washington.

 

HUH?

 

Is it just me or do these talking heads  have EDM (EconomicDistressMyopia)?

So America’s big corporations have TRILLIONS of dollars on their books and are not investing them to grow for the future. Does it really take an Einstein or economic whiz-kid to comprehend why? Of course not. Corporations are legal entities put in place for the purpose of establishing tax and general liability. At least that’s my definition. They are not burdened by morality, conscience or ethics as societal responsibilities in making decisions. They are not prejudiced necessarily by politics or religion. They geneflect at the Altar of the Bottom Line. It’s called capitalism. Logical and easy to understand!

So the banks have tons of money yet small Mom and Pop corporate and non-corporate America can’t get their hands on it. Of course they can’t. The credit requirements, for likely the first time in modern history, have been tightened up so much in over-reaction to what caused the economic bubble-burst that small business America has quite literally got an economic noose about it’s collective neck. Logical and easy to understand!

So we become an audience now for the lamestream media’s posturing political performance of feigned bewilderment of what is going on here. You don’t really believe these people are all as ignorant as they appear! Our elected representatives are all too willing to join this ‘sham’ performance, because they’re politicians not statesmen. Integrity is not a word common to their lexicon.

I would make the case that the reason they are holding on to their cash on hand is summed up in one word. UNCERTAINTY. The uncertainty they perceive in response to a President and congress who by their pattern of behavior in recent years has targeted corporations as the ‘whipping boy’ to enable a political usurpation agenda of a basic change in our form of government and thus, by extension, our economic system. They are not willing to invest in an America teetering on the brink of some kind of nouveau socialism that is completely alien to this capitalist system that came to create the most powerful, innovative and successful economic success in the world.

The answer I submit is just that simple. When a threat is perceived one reacts to it. That is what we now bear witness to. This jobs council is all political theatre to make the naive public think that Obama is committed to making a positive economic change. He is not. He is dedicated to collapsing this “capitalist” economy, the ultimate “crisis”, in order to position himself (in the people’s perception) as the saviour who’ll ride to the rescue. What we observe now is Obama’s political fiddling as the Rome that is America…..burns. The sham is needed so as not to make himself too obvious.

If nothing else 2008 proved to him and his puppet handlers that when it comes to America you can easily fool half of the people all of the time.

And things won’t change significantly until a large chunk of that half of the people recover enough to see reality and make themselves known in the NOvember 2012 election results are in.

What’s wrong With the Rich

The rich are the least understood minority.  That fact lends them to be vilified by the very politicians at the root of our serious economic problems.

The facts are:

The rich take risks with their money.  When they invest their expendable income, they are risking the loss of that income.  Often the rich loose a great deal of money in failed businesses.  Most middle and lower income people would not take that kind of risk, even if they could.  Generally the greater the risk, the greater the potential reward as well as the potential loss.  There is nothing unfair about that equation.

The rich employ people.  They hire people to do a multitude of tasks for businesses.  This adds to the risk.  The wrong people can quickly destroy an investment.  They depend on effective employees and reward them accordingly.  Those who do not, suffer the consequences.  Basically, you get what you pay for.  As President Reagan pointed out, “nobody ever got a job from a poor man.”  Conversely the rich must not overcompensate.  Overcompensation easily leads to the demise of a business for the owner and eventual loss of employment.  Unions were originally designed to fairly compensate employees, and ensure unsafe working conditions.  However many unions have overstepped their principles and done harm to many businesses thus harming the very employees they supposedly intend to help.

The rich provide benefits, give to charities, and help employees save for retirement.  Monetary compensation alone has evolved to group insurance plans, 401K’s, other matching plans, and other perks and benefits.  The employer can provide group benefits far more efficiently than individuals can.  Choosing and managing these are another responsibility that the rich take on.  It is in their best interest to maximize what they can provide in order to draw and maintain effective workers.

The rich have to compete.  No business is without competitors who wish to capture a greater market share.  In order to do so, the business owner must run the business as efficiently and effectively as possible or risk reduced demand, thus a reduced workforce.  Basically the rich look out for their workers by looking out for the business.

The rich have headaches.  That’s a general expression for all that a business owner has to think about to make ends meet in his/her business.  These headaches come in the form of the economy, market fluctuations, suppliers, connected services, fashion or technical trends, political changes, taxes (many kinds), accounting, making changes, growth, retooling, human resources, discipline, establishing a corporate culture, advertising, etc, etc, to include balancing the priorities of all the above and more.  If the rich don’t address these carefully, they quickly suffer greater headaches.

The rich make large charitable contributions.  Often contributions provide tax breaks, but a tax break doesn’t exceed the contribution.

The rich hoard very little money, (percentage wise).  They understand that simply saving does not produce what investing can.  Therefore the money that the rich earn is recycled to do more of the same, employ more people, boost the economy, provide benefits, etc.  Most of their money creates more employment.  To blame the rich for having too much money is like blaming your heart for having more blood in it than any other organ.  The rich are the most effective stimulus to the economy.

When the rich stimulate the economy it is done effectively and efficiently for all the reasons above.  When the government attempts to stimulate the economy it is neither efficient nor effective because the government is not accountable.  Furthermore Government “stimulus money” is first removed from the economy through taxes, not earned by adding value to anything.  Government stimulation is like opening the refrigerator door in an attempt to cool a room.  The result is a net heating of the room because the heat expelled out the back of the refrigerator is always greater than the refrigeration it creates.

The rich spend their money.  Yes, they live extravagant lives; possess tremendous homes; and own luxurious yachts.  Consider all who are employed servicing those lives, building those homes, making and maintaining the yachts.  All that the rich spend is returned to the economy.

The rich pay taxes.  We hear of the huge tax shelters and deductions that “fat cats” get.  However it is their businesses that have such tax breaks not the individuals.  In fact due to our “graduated tax” system, the rich pay a much greater percentage of personal income.  Tax breaks are government incentives to influence how a business operates.  If there is any unfairness, it is the government (politicians) who are at fault, not the businesses who use such breaks wisely or else fail.

The rich sometimes fail.  With some wrongful exceptions of late, the rich run the risk of  “loosing everything.”   Safety nets such as the FDIC only insure losses up to a certain amount.  The rich do business that far exceeds those amounts; thus they often “work without a net.”  When a business fails, the rich often become devastated.  Interestingly enough, they often find their way back to wealth because once they have traveled the road to success they understand how to do it again, often with better results.  It is not money that creates money; it is knowing how to venture.

The rich are responsible.  When a poor man breaks something expensive, he walk away because he can not compensate the loss and there is no recourse.  When a person of means financially harms someone, they make restitution.  If not, they may find themselves paying court fees as well.

The rich are vulnerable.  No one files suit against a poor man.  However people take advantage of the rich in every way imaginable.  Because the rich have “deep pockets” they risk carrying the brunt of any conflict.  It is not uncommon for the rich to be found 1% at fault, yet assigned 99% of the financial burden for no other reason than the ability to pay.  So, do you still want to be rich?

How is a failing economy the fault of the rich not being taxed enough? First they are taxed more.  What they aren’t taxed, they reinvest, thus stimulating the economy more effectively than through the government.  What they don’t invest, they spend, which is also good for the economy.  There is almost nothing the rich can do with their money that isn’t good for everyone.  Even if they store it away in a bank, it provides liquidity for the bank to invest.

God bless the rich man because he carries the real burden of our economy.

Social Justice Sophisticates Assault Prosperity

Leaders that value self determination and independence are denigrated by those who idolize the memory of a former president who said “Ask not what your country can do for you”—and then lowered taxes. John F. Kennedy allowed people more freedom and control over their lives, which conflicts with grandiose notions of governmental entitlement. He certainly knew that helping those in need is a high moral endeavor, but “helping” men become dependent debases and destroys them. Sophisticates who adhere to modern social-justice belief systems (the social-justice sophisticates) strive to make whole populations succumb to such “help”, by whatever means necessary. Our current president declares the constitution to be fundamentally flawed because it does not dictate what the government must do for you. The insidious effect of such a culture of dependence includes suffering that spans generations. Look to your children; will you tolerate such “help” being forced upon them?

In a televised interview democrat Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York observed that many of us believed that the socioeconomic system of the Soviet Union is the way of the future—right up to its fall. He had earlier been criticized from both major parties and academia for declaring Soviet decline and likely collapse. After Soviet collapse, devotees to social-justice belief systems (the social justice acolytes) were in disarray. Years later it became increasingly clear that China would not follow suit, so it again became possible to proselytize social-justice belief systems in the US. While China retains a totalitarian government and its economy works, this successful version of China has more in common with fascism than western notions of social justice or communism. Young Chinese compete as they grow and a child who falls short becomes a child left behind. Such vigorous competition adds to the prosperity of China and all Chinese, but the Chinese are neither free nor social-justice acolytes. Senator Moynihan did not live to see the recent ascendency of social-justice belief systems, but as a sociologist and public official he ascribed Soviet failure to its economic and social systems and reminded everyone that he predicted collapse. Despite predictable failure, social-justice belief systems promote financial dependence of whole populations on governments. This must be recognized as a direct attack on prosperity as well as freedom.

By promotion of governmental dependence and other means our American prosperity is under attack, and our freedom hangs in the balance. Even though many consider prosperity unimportant or even inherently undesirable, on our present course we will accept tyranny and suffering in hopes of regaining it. Growing numbers of Americans seek to forestall this suffering by removing those who threaten prosperity and freedom from positions of power and influence in all areas of society, which is increasingly seen as the only means by which to halt progressive use of the state to impose destructive beliefs on us all. These state belief systems directly assault prosperity and promote the deterioration of our system of rules, decimating it and ultimately destroying it. Threats to American security and freedom demand universal attention to prosperity; with our eye on the prosperity imperative we can neutralize missionaries of state belief systems found in our schools and other public venues, especially the social-justice sophisticates. At the ballet box and on juries, we must demand rational promotion of the public welfare, including a willingness to create and apply rules without notions of situational ethics, relative truth, and moral relativism that make those rules ineffective or worse. We may avoid the experience of many millions in diverse societies, including the sad experience of facing our own children as they plead to understand how we could have had so much and left them so little. If we strive to remove social-justice sophisticates and other sophisticates from positions of power and influence, we may meet this challenge, and America may remain a prosperous land of the free.

The desirability of prosperity was formerly unquestioned, but today prosperity is openly condemned together with free markets and capitalism, which are collectively credited with ills both real and imagined. Open attacks occur in numerous forums including our public schools, and are obvious because they are direct. Proxy targets like global warming are taken up in determined but less direct attacks; these antagonists of prosperity find it merely inconvenient that considerable carbon science is a mirage. Fraudulent though they may be, proxy target attacks unavoidably inspire true believers who introduce unintended economic and political consequences; for example, nuclear energy would reduce carbon emissions and thus interest those who honestly believe the carbon “science”, but solutions that might actually produce energy economically and promote prosperity run counter to the anti-prosperity crowd who created the proxy targets.

However convoluted, cloaked, or supported by political power the assaults on prosperity may be, in theory they ultimately must fail and so are destined for well populated trash heaps.  Markets and economies press forward organically by independent actions of individuals. After the Soviet political collapse, Chinese and later Russian prevailing wisdom embraced key market tenants; notably, only market societies reliably compete with market societies. China emerged after many generations of economic obscurity with a functioning market.  In contrast, the West’s reaction to the Soviet collapse includes notions of a new world order where competitive and market-based societies are not an issue because they are simply not allowed. So while China has evolved to embrace market competition, considerable intellectual energy of the formerly prosperous and competitive West is engaged in denying those principles. Social-Justice belief systems are central to such deteriorating thought.

Ongoing economic leveling between EU nations encourages and manifests western visions of equal outcomes and unequal opportunity, for it is impossible to provide equal outcomes without holding many individuals and the society collectively back. Entire nations demand equalization in the EU as necessary to meet some loosely defined requirement for fairness or social justice. Support exists for forced leveling at granularities of nations, races, regions, individuals, and every other conceivable division. Promoters promise leveling to all possible divisions, so adherents are expected to simultaneously deliver on all of them. According to the theory, lower rungs are raised to the benefit of all, but outcomes fall short of the vision. The Chinese may view the rise of these notions in the West as curiosities or problems; but from experience they know that the problems are mainly ours, just as their former unsuccessful principles and plans for markets were mainly theirs. While Chinese were starving by the millions, Americans lived in a competitive, vibrant society—the situation is reversing.

In social-justice economic systems someone else pays—another country, class, race, region, etc.—but ever and always someone else. When there is no one else who can be made to pay or who can pay, then desperation and despair typically lead through generations of suffering to eventual rejection of social-justice belief systems and a renewed reach for prosperity. According to the old theory, an economy based on social-justice belief systems will increase productivity as a natural consequence of removing unfairness, and greater prosperity for all inevitably follows. Thus formerly, the adherents to social-justice belief systems could have been said to honestly differ with non-believers about how to achieve the greatest prosperity.

Though not always sophisticates, devotees to social-justice belief systems (the social-justice acolytes) sacrifice prosperity imperatives in favor of political nirvana (i.e., a blissful oblivion that results from government-enforced “social justice”) that has no possibility of prosperity as we have known it. According to this new belief system, the fall of the Soviet Union was not inevitable because countries like the United States at the time of the fall are simply not allowed. When social-justice acolytes say that they want prosperity, they mean that they want it in the same form as the Soviet Union, and not as we have known it. The past prosperity of America is undesirable and to be actively prevented. Unlike its predecessor, this new belief system avoids honest exposure of its intentions regarding prosperity.  A major means of subterfuge is to masquerade as its predecessor unaltered. Many social-justice acolytes thus do not recognize that increased prosperity has been thrown under the bus.

But those sufficiently aware and honest with themselves have been forced by collective human experience to reexamine such beliefs; the social-justice belief systems and adherent states have resulted in untold millions of deaths from starvation, and millions more from mass killings of non-believers. A social-justice belief system spreads using any “necessary” means, and non-believers are assimilated or eradicated; this is the only way that adherents can bring about their nirvana. Nevertheless, honest assessment of the data demands rejecting expectations of higher prosperity in a social-justice belief system. In contrast to other belief systems, the new and old social-justice belief systems demand nirvana here and now. In order to retain their notions of political nirvana, remaining adherents to social-justice belief systems have overtly or covertly, wittingly or unwittingly, dropped prosperity imperatives. They demand that others to do the same. Many are more than willing to impose their social-justice belief system on the masses with full knowledge and expectation of its destructive effects on prosperity.

This contradiction between the true and purported goals dampens efforts to find and interest new adherents. However, the ability of belief systems to engender contradictions in the minds of men is historically unbounded. Fuzzy philosophical notions like situational ethics, moral relativism, and “relative truth” have rescued social-justice believers from considerations of absolute truth and overwhelming evidence against the workability of social-justice belief systems; so many have dumped the notion that absolute truth exists. These fuzzy ideas had already come a long way when President Clinton’s widely followed legal defense managed to redefine the most common two-letter verb (“is”). Adherents to these ideas form a creed that denies its own existence and eschews labels. We call adherents to this creed the sophisticates since they self-declare their personal sophistication and that of their ideas. Many of those who are today members of the so-called “ruling class” are sophisticates.

Evolution of social-justice belief systems from ones promoting prosperity to ones that renounce truth is not too surprising; from long human experience we know that sane notions of truth are often sacrificed to retain otherwise unsupportable beliefs. Many social-justice acolytes became adherents to the largest sophisticate sect today, the Social-Justice Sophisticates, who are now at the core of a pervasive and aggressive state-promoted belief system. This sect avoids “separation of church and state” issues by shunning something as basic as a name while at the same time existing within state organs. It seeks to in fact control the state and in some important ways it becomes the state. Its meeting houses are the state organs and necessary societal institutions, which includes universities, media organizations, primary and secondary schools, state and national governmental bodies, and both political parties. Heresy against this state belief system is punished relentlessly; there are no heathens—only heretics.

The social-justice sophisticates have become self-absorbed and drunk with power. Not only do they use state property to promote their belief system, they use state power directly and openly to suppress non-believers. They have proposed that government operatives secretly infiltrate and influence groups who do not share their belief system. Incredibly, one of their assigned tasks is to pose as group members and put forth notions that the social-justice sophisticates are not engaged in conspiracies! Success of that activity incongruously requires convincing the populace that the infiltration activity itself does not exist.

Societies can be unaware that they hamper or destroy prosperity. There were no prosperity haters to welcome the Great Depression, yet through ignorance prosperity was lost and the depression perpetuated. Only global war restored it.  While individuals who strive are found in all times and cultures, conditions necessary for general prosperity are often absent. However prosperity is achieved, it requires societal stability in which governments play an important role. Some believe that America’s past prosperity is a consequence of self-governance and rule of law, but whether or not self-governance and the rule of law are present, prosperity is hampered without general responsibility and reliable accountability based on rational rules. Unfortunately, rules ensure neither economic freedom nor prosperity; at times they are no more than window dressing over seething corruption.  Direct and proxy attacks in concert with the acts of elected social-justice acolytes have considerable negative effects on prosperity, but until recently these effects have paled when compared with effects of a continuing breakdown in rational rule-based accountability. Direct attacks on prosperity, including the social-justice attacks, are easier to recognize than those that proceed from the spread of situational ethics, relative truth, and moral relativism, which contributes to making our rules ineffective and thereby profoundly decimates prosperity. The rules have become so ineffective that it has even become necessary to justify notions that rules are central to prosperity.

As America proceeds in its decline into debt and corruption, which no sane nation should want to duplicate, Americans persist in lecturing China and others on how to prosper through the rule of law. Yet we assault prosperity through disdain for our rules and so hasten our decline, precisely as the theory we externally tout predicts.

When we enforce rules it is generally untimely; few ascribe the old dictionary meaning of “justice” to what now happens in our law enforcement and court systems. As a society we have become progressively uninterested in effective rules and accountability. Lack of interest notwithstanding, the speed, integrity, and surety of accountability can either encourage or discourage rule breaking. Today, at all levels, rule breaking is tolerated and insidiously encouraged, which correlates with breakdowns in our societal drive toward prosperity. Breakdown of the rules will ultimately lead to tyranny, which may be momentarily necessary to restore a semblance of order and productivity. While tyranny has its own negative effects on prosperity, it does not always destroy prosperity immediately, which is one reason we will accept it. However, if we accept tyranny from the social-justice acolytes, then we will have ruthless application of rules and neither freedom nor prosperity. By long experience the human race knows that such tyranny and suffering can last for generations.

Societal rules are subject to sophisticate thinking in courtrooms, classrooms, and street-corner discussions. To support sophisticate views, sophisticate guardians of the rules may break them by improperly launching investigations, audits, or writing improper indictments and rulings; they may also improperly fail to do those things. Action is all to the good if it promotes a sophisticate sect. Many sophisticates feel that ordinary honest folk ought to fail—after all they believe naïve, self-defeating, and unsophisticated things. Sophisticate acts are rarely presented with their honest motivations—that would be unsophisticated. Instead they may make straightforward assertions that proper procedures were followed, thereby justifying injustice. At such times sophisticates typically promote illusions that they defend process or tradition, and that they have merely applied procedural rules with worshipful rigidity, which is precisely opposite to what they actually do. When necessary they write sophisticate derivations built upon earlier sophisticate derivations, with no ultimate foundation, which might amuse if the effects did not wound the common wellbeing so grievously. They appear unaware of the naïveté that their audience sees in them when they point to America as they advise a country like China on prosperity by rule of law.

Our increasing disregard for rules forced its way into the public consciousness during the Bush era, when rule breaking and its consequences bruised America’s self-image.  We see in our American president a reflection of our own condition, but with Bush II it was more; he is widely quoted and alleged to have said that the constitution “is only a piece of paper”.  America hoped that change at the head of the fish might begin a new era, so President Obama was elected. We had been disappointed before, but this time we had a new president unsullied by compromise with evil forces. Our euphoria supported collective visions of glorious transformation. Mere anticipation of withering rot and corruption was for those too cautiously optimistic.  The planet itself was in rapture and the human race barely noticed when appointees to high office were tax-cheats and participants in public failure. Then, not to be outdone by the previous administration’s disdain for the constitution, our new guardians assert that reading and reciting the constitution presents a danger to the republic.

Sophisticate candidates are not obliged to inform—the citizenry showers votes in exchange for inaccurate and accurate campaign promises alike. While making promises is important, keeping them is not so important because voters are intellectually inferior and incompetent—i.e. not sophisticates. Accordingly, Bush I raised taxes; his promises to the contrary are only of concern to the foolish. Bush II created “no child left behind”, a ridiculous program without resemblance to campaign promises, and scattered the public coffers like rain over even less worthy notions. The Bush family presidents know that campaign promises matter—during the campaign. President Obama in turn promised many contradictory things. Within weeks of the election almost no one publicly risked sophisticate ridicule by recalling them. While it would have seemed impossible, Obama appears less accurately described by his campaign promises than the Bush presidents. How can an electorate express their will if they cannot know what the candidates honestly intend to do? To sophisticates this is precisely the point, the electorate is not supposed to express its will; it is more than enough that they vote.

Each dawn brings new awareness that the Bush era hastened our decline most by unfortunate effects on our choice of its replacement. The newly elected or appointed may be more disinterested, cynical, incompetent, or corrupt than their predecessors. Rot at the head of the fish is increasingly perceived, and erosion of support steeper than anyone remembers.

Political and economic wisdom are not the only casualties; the creed with no name has spread to science. When evidence of corruption and general rule-breaking by carbon science researchers in England was made public, the messenger was scorned while sophisticate scientists were justified by peer, politician, and reporter alike. The non-event status that the media assigned to such rule-breaking belies impressions that it was unexpected. Instead, bringers of truth are made to fear—an unbreakable rule of the unnamed creed is that their own rule breaking is not to be exposed. Participation in rule-breaking is demanded of scientists, who generally depend on sophisticate-controlled government support. While non-participation in the sophisticate creed may be naïve, some scientists surely are nostalgic for former notions of scientific truth. They may long for a colleague with stature who risks everything to expose this corruption, perhaps a modern Galileo. But they know that he would be and perhaps already has been silenced by sophisticates. Social-justice sophisticates are more thorough and wide ranging suppressors of truth than the Pope of Galileo’s time could have imagined. Scientific integrity is now a public illusion, truth relative, and ethically situational; scientists have become masters of long-standing sophisticate staples: disappearing evidence and “I don’t recall”. To observers of this scientific farce, it has become conceivable that truth-speaking will not be protected in America, not even officially, for scientists or anyone else.

Overt Acorn-style rule-breaking is also expected by the media. These elected, appointed, and self-appointed guardians of the public welfare are more likely to persecute a messenger than demand accountability.  In this sophisticate situational ethic, evidence of repeated conspiracy to finance importation of underage Latina girls for sexual exploitation warrants no prosecution and only passing scrutiny. In the sophisticate creed, this rule-breaking also is justified as part of the broad promotion of a “greater good”. Nevertheless, public exposure offends sophisticate sensibilities, and that is what must be discouraged in the most unambiguous manner.

Attacks on prosperity introduced earlier were categorized as direct, proxy, social-justice, and sophisticate.  There are many in positions of power and influence that engage vigorously in all four; i.e. it is common for social-justice sophisticates to engage in direct and proxy attacks as well. Such persons often hold professorial positions at universities, positions as judges, and other positions as elected or appointed officials. Seemingly single-issue promoters such as Al Gore actually engage in all four categories of attack. The most subtle of these forms of attack, and the most damaging in the U.S. (at least until fairly recently), are the sophisticate attacks that undermine our system of rules.

Sophisticate speeches, lectures, and publications laud the dependency of prosperity on a system of rules. Making more rules is a fundamental tenant of the sophisticate creed, which means that existing rules must be defective and violated. Thus sophisticates become hypocrites, making rules ineffective, then lauding and taking credit for new rules as they are made. They propose ever more rules, often to remedy defects seen only by sophisticates and expounded in esoteric theories. The sophisticate more-rules imperative entails perpetual exercises in inadequacy of rules; in this way sophisticates insist that there are no viable solutions, just ever and always more rules. Indecipherable piles of rules have proven inadequate to satisfy sophisticate imperatives. Those who make rules now propose individual rules described in thousands of pages, and reading just one rule is unwanted and perhaps unrealistic. Even the sophisticate rule makers do not read them. It is no coincidence that elected officials declare citizens who read or recite the constitution to be clear and present dangers to the republic.

So instead of reading and understanding rules, citizens are expected to leave complicated matters like rules, including the constitution itself, to sophisticates. But understanding rules, as the public understands the meaning of “understanding”, is not what sophisticates do. It is not even intended that there should be substantial understanding—it is subject to relativism and changes from one sophisticate theory to the next. The public may indeed be collectively incapable of a sophisticate grasp of reality—after all they generally aren’t sophisticated enough to realize that attempts to fathom the rules are naïve. Such sophistication may be a delusion created by intelligent but nevertheless unsound minds, and shared with others similarly limited. Thus there may be nothing overtly difficult about sophisticate thought that actually requires understanding. It is nevertheless important to understand the direct cost of ever increasing numbers of sophisticate attendants required by ever increasing piles of indecipherable rules.

It is difficult to imagine a greater danger to rule-of-law notions than the sophisticates, and the evidence is almost everywhere; we have discussed their general disdain for the rules, and there is a seemingly endless parade of egregious examples. They include:

  • As part of the recent “financial reform” and financial “transparency” act, the SEC is no longer subject to public disclosure requirements, i.e. the Freedom of Information Act.
  • California grossly miscalculated pollution levels by 340 percent in a “scientific” analysis used to toughen the state’s clean-air standards. When caught, the Air Resources Board blamed the difference on the economic slump!
  • Fraudulent carbon science is being used as the basis of innumerable rules and regulations.
  • The New Black Panther party, its leader, and two of its members were successfully accused of voter intimidation, a charge that they did not even attempt to defend, but the DoJ dropped the case before sentencing. Naturally, the attorneys who found the intimidation criminal have been attacked as biased.
  • The Acorn conspiracies and subsequent non-enforcement of rules became an issue because they generated bad public relations, never mind that what was done is wrong.

These examples amongst many illustrate just how far we have come in this sophisticate-led disconnect from reality. Considerable damage is done when rules specifically meant to promote prosperity go unenforced, and so are made ineffective or worse. Some rules promote the general economic welfare by limiting economic behavior detrimental to prosperity. These rules have become largely ineffective by sophisticate design.

Rules protecting intellectual property, suppressing monopolistic practices, and enforcing contracts are intended to promote prosperity directly. These rules promote the economy in part by encouraging and protecting innovation-driven progress, a key component of American prosperity. Monopolies by nature tend to suppress innovation; they typically ignore intellectual property rights and intimidate parties to contracts that they do not and may never have intended to keep. Innovators with a “new thing” are routinely asked by investors how their business will survive market attacks by an interested monopoly, and the attack is presumed to use the full power of the monopoly—rules notwithstanding. Innovations whose inventors have no ready answer may not come to market. Innovations that never occurred go entirely unknown. Their potential markets lie in that part of the economy subject to the monopoly’s control, i.e. in the monopoly’s kill-zone where their economic nukes work. A monopoly’s kill-zone is studiously avoided by many investors and hence innovators. A monopoly’s nukes may include intellectual property acquisition-by-infringement, redesigning their products to make others’ innovations unusable, intimidation of those who might do business with targeted innovators, combinations of the above, and similar business practices. Monopolies can and do economically nuke what annoys them in their kill-zone, even though such practices are nominally against the rules.

Monopolies often need not innovate. Their inside talent is frequently competent to copy, but even copying is often unnecessary unless a would-be competitor has the temerity to put himself in the kill-zone. The desired effect is often achieved for a particular innovation without overtly improper acts—having nuked others with impunity may be enough to intimidate and achieve cheap acquisition of intellectual assets. For a monopoly, knowing when and how to nuke depends on accurate understanding of market dynamics and a target’s resources, especially its revenue sources. They must also recognize the boundaries of their kill-zones, the areas within which their nukes will work. While a monopoly may misjudge such things, it has the power of its monopoly to extract excessive prices from the public and with those resources attack competitors again and again.

This leads us to a major example of rule ineffectiveness—the endlessly farcical Microsoft antitrust case. It ought to be a cause célèbre of social-justice acolytes; but those in power are also sophisticates—who apparently see neither personal nor sophisticate sect gains from factual pursuits of justice. The US Attorney General and his lieutenants know the Microsoft case well; they created it during the Clinton administration. But now it has done its work: sophisticates have made millions in fees and salaries and now it becomes just another case of failed rules, and perhaps evidence that we need new rules. Microsoft lost the case, yet their operating profit margins have increased, their revenues have more than doubled, and their overall profit margins have remained the same since 2003. While Apple now has revenue almost equal to Microsoft, Microsoft’s profits are almost equal to those of Apple and Google combined.

Nevertheless, the court sanctioned judgment in the case has almost run its course, and a central question before the court is whether Microsoft has complied—as they agreed to do several years ago. A naïve observer might assume that the court records would answer that question, but the court records instead contain nebulous weaseling statements that surround the phrase “substantially complete”, and redefine it as meaningless. There is also an agreement with the US Department of Justice (DoJ) that the oversight will shut down if Microsoft deals with some known bugs in its documents. To help them in that effort, the DoJ, the New York/Maryland group, and the California group of states have agreed that the oversight committee will conveniently stop adding bugs to the statistics on January 1, 2011. Who does not instinctively understand that the poorest products have the largest numbers of bugs? Given the absurdity of a bugs-fixed measure, why the DoJ doesn’t just cook nice statistics for the court is an obvious question—but then again perhaps they have done so.

Whatever the mechanism is for generating irrelevant but pretty bug statistics for the court, Microsoft has these many years missed golden marketing opportunities. If a federal judge will buy the fixed-bugs story, then Microsoft could honestly have advertised that they fixed more bugs in Vista than any would-be competitor had imagined, and doubled their market share by sucking in the judicial system. Less sophisticated consumers are purportedly even more susceptible to technical gobbledygook than Federal Judges. Microsoft may have infected the plaintiffs and the Court with the idea that they are done because it is time to be done; i.e. they outlasted the government. The plaintiffs may be tired of fighting Microsoft over their documents, since the executive and judicial branches of government together are apparently incapable of actually enforcing much against so powerful a corporation.  Instead they create the kind of scenario that the judge requires to finally end this unseemly display of governmental impotence and farcical enforcement.

Easily snookered though the court may be, the sitting administration ought to have desired social-justice at least insofar as the facts and the rules support it; instead, its sophisticate imperatives trump any need for facts and rules based outcomes, even where a final judgment is already in place and where social-justice sits on the balance. If in-power social-justice acolytes cannot factually pursue a healthy capitalist monopoly that already lost its case, then who can rationally depend on them for anything?

This case raises the question of whether the present administration actually comprises social-justice acolytes. Perhaps, despite ubiquitous and continuous press to the contrary, they are mainly sophisticate opportunists seeking only increased power and control over our lives—like any other kind of sophisticate might do. Whatever labels accurately apply to the administration, the various sophisticate sects have destroyed notions that the electorate has reasonable expectations of their representatives. With sophisticates everywhere, no candidate of any stripe can be relied upon to apply the rules as written based on the facts. Notions of rule-of-law require that some of us factually apply the rules; who does that now?

The Clinton administration pursued the Microsoft monopoly, and the antitrust chief first appointed in the Obama administration stated that the new administration would aggressively pursue antitrust cases. But that did not happen. Application of antitrust law is now effectively suppressed regardless of the party in power. Sophisticates per-se have no interest in actual rule-of-law, which may explain the lack of interest during the Bush administration. Nevertheless, in hindsight we now know that the Obama administration is less likely than its predecessor to adhere to rule-of-law, including anti-trust law. Something changed between the Clinton administration and the Obama administration. The idea of incrementally transforming the United States to a social-justice economy appears to have been dropped. Incremental movement requires that things work along-the-way with some consistency. Today, the idea of future catastrophic failure and a single transforming event appears more in keeping with the Obama view of things. Actually fixing something with existing rules, i.e. making things work, does not fit with that idea.

Because there were only sophisticates running for office, including a social-justice sophisticate, it turns out that there was no one to vote for who would have taken a rule-of-law approach to the presidency. In his most recent book; Newt Gingrich declares that democrats are more likely to be in bed with anticompetitive corporate interests than are republicans—perhaps he is spot-on. On the other hand, perhaps Microsoft and corporate monopolies in general are merely off the hook for now while the social-justice sophisticates wait for their big opportunity in an expected economic collapse—hopefully a long wait. Multiple unworthy motivations are possible so the question arises; precisely how is it that the New York/Maryland and California groups of states have gone along with the DoJ in the Microsoft case? This should be asked of their Attorneys General.

Now underway for half as long as the Exxon Valdez case, the Microsoft antitrust case joins a menagerie of other “endlessly interesting” and “important” examples of our rules in action. By causing “important” cases to become “endlessly interesting” sophisticates make rules ineffective and promote the “need” for more rules. Twenty three years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill many victims are deceased; the remainder still await relief for damage to their lives and livelihoods. American imperatives for personal justice make this outcome unconscionable and people who justify it loathsome. Proposals for more rules do not always wait for “endless” characteristics to set in. A “crisis” allows sophisticates to short-circuit the slower process; for example, they immediately began proposing new rules after the BP oil leak. Enforcement of existing rules is never the answer to sophisticates, it is ever and always more rules that are needed. Nevertheless, mistakes are made; they seemed surreal and even comical when filing lawsuits appeared to be our national plan for plugging the Gulf oil leak. Louisiana and other states needed effective action by accomplished people who are grounded in truth and reality. Preventing the leak in the first place may have been achieved by honest application of myriad existing rules. But sophisticates need not apply rules, whether to Acorn, oil companies, Microsoft, Black Panthers, or anywhere. To them it just isn’t necessary or even desirable. Disconnected from reality,  sophisticates whose primary skills are holding meetings, speaking in sound bites for the evening’s news, making rules “endlessly interesting” but otherwise ineffective, and generating proposals for ever more taxes, rules, and lawsuits are unqualified for office.

When against all odds an existing rule promotes prosperity and general welfare, and even the sophisticates find it difficult to relegate that rule to the “endlessly interesting” and “important” category, then they arrange to undo it. With congressional complicity, George Bush I effectively signed away the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings act of 1985 and 1987, which had provided executive power over federal deficits. It was that power specifically that many expected him to wield—but instead he signed it away and turned Gramm-Rudman into yet another failed rule. George Bush II wouldn’t have used that power willingly; he spent money like water. Obama wouldn’t have used it willingly; he is showing us just how green water can be. Bill Clinton wouldn’t have used it willingly; he wanted health care reform then as now, but having lost his first mid-term elections there was then no pressing need for Gramm-Rudman. All of these presidents claim to abhor deficit spending, but would not have wanted the power to stop deficits that George Bush I conveniently removed from consideration before the others took office. The last president to serve approximately as advertised was Ronald Reagan, who signed Gramm-Rudman into law, only to watch his successor and one-time VP drop the core concept. We have now had two presidents each from the two major parties since Ronald Reagan, who was the last non-sophisticate among them.

While sophisticates generally do not embrace freedom, democracy, and rule-of-law, prosperity at levels formerly enjoyed depends on economic and political freedom as well as rule-of-law and predictability of rule application. We may yet keep our freedom and prosperity, but the sophisticates must go.

We must halt the election, appointment, and promotion of sophisticates at all levels, or regardless of party we will have only sophisticates to choose from at the ballot box. With our children’s future and prosperity itself in the balance, we must remove sophisticates and especially social-justice sophisticates from elected and appointed positions across society. Nevertheless, by long experience we know that replacing one sophisticate with another accomplishes little. We must focus on the core of the problem and replace sophisticates with non-sophisticates—in whatever party and wherever they are found.

Dodd-Frank: A Nightmare On So Many Levels

Barney FrankSenators Barney Frank and Chris Dodd put together yet another progressive nightmare for our marginally free-market system. Granted the thought of those two alone in a dark corner is nausea-inducing, that’s not where I’m going. The Dodd-Frank bill, otherwise known as the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” neither reforms Wall Street nor protects consumers (who should really need no protection from anyone but themselves).

This is yet one more instance of self-aggrandizing, big-government bureaucracy all wound together to hopefully get another pair of party-line idiots re-elected. It’s populist in nature but elitist in execution.

Chriss DoddOne of the less analyzed provisions may very well serve to push jobs oversees – yeah, really. The problem begins in the quizzically-utilized math in the bill. Section 953(b) of this monstrous affront to free-markets:

    (A) the median of the annual total compensation of all employees of the issuer, except the chief executive officer (or any equivalent position) of the issuer;

    (B) the annual total compensation of the chief executive officer (or any equivalent position) of the issuer; and

    (C) the ratio of the amount described in subparagraph (A) to the amount described in subparagraph (B).

Basically, the average pay of all workers in a company, the wage of the CEO/President and a ratio comparing the two.

The intent of this bill is to show income inequality, which is only so great because of liberal initiatives.  Unfortunately, it will cause more inequality, but their stats will look better.

Understand the mindset of the American business leader.  If this regulation is truly enforced, the only course of action for them to take is to make sure this ratio does not end up higher than their competitors.  To do that, they will simply lay-off every single one of their lowest wage earners.  They will then outsource that work (the easiest to outsource by far) to Mexico (take a gander at what GM is doing with your bail-out money), China, or India.

This also means those companies won’t have to deal with oppressive health care mandates, ridiculous corporate taxes or whatever new populist garbage comes out of Washington.   You have nothing to worry about, heck, 1 in 6 Americans rely on the government for income as it is .. this will just add a few million more.

Ron Bloom Obama’s Manufacturing Czar


Continuing our look into Obama’s radical czar’s we come to Ron Bloom. Ron Bloom is yet another Union shill within the Obama administration as well as a Maoist.

First up, Official title and duties from WhiteHouse.gov: Sept 7th 2009

President Obama Names Ron Bloom Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Obama will announce that Ron Bloom will serve as the Administration’s Senior Counselor for Manufacturing Policy.  Working closely with the National Economic Council, Bloom will provide leadership on policy development and strategic planning for the President’s agenda to revitalize the manufacturing sector.  He will work with departments and agencies across the administration – including the Departments of Commerce, Treasury, Energy, and Labor – to integrate existing programs and develop new initiatives affecting the manufacturing sector.

Bloom will retain his role as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury assigned to the President’s Task Force on the Automotive Industry.

President Obama is committed to a next-generation manufacturing agenda by partnering with the private sector to spur innovation, invest in the skills of American workers, and help our manufacturers prosper in the global marketplace by promoting exports.

President Obama said, “Last week we learned that our manufacturing sector expanded for the first time in 18 months and had the highest monthly output in two years.  It’s a sign that we’re on the right track to economic recovery, but that we still have a long way to go.  That’s why I’ve asked Ron Bloom to help coordinate my Administration’s manufacturing policy.  Distinguished by his extraordinary service on the Auto Task Force and his extensive experience with both business and labor, Ron has the knowledge and experience necessary to lead the way in creating the good-paying manufacturing jobs of the future.  We must do more to harness the power of American ingenuity and productivity so that we can put people back to work and unleash our full economic potential.”

Ron Bloom said, “A strong manufacturing sector is a cornerstone of American competitiveness and a critical part of President Obama’s economic strategy.  As we meet the challenges of globalization and technological change, it is vital to have a concerted effort across the Administration to support an innovative, vibrant manufacturing sector.”

From the Washington Post: Sept 8, 2009

President Obama on Monday announced his selection of Ron Bloom as senior counselor for manufacturing policy.

Speaking at an AFL-CIO picnic in Cincinnati, the president introduced Bloom, who has been a senior adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner as part of the auto industry task force since February. Bloom, a Harvard Business School graduate, previously advised the United Steelworkers union and worked as an investment banker.

“As my new point person on manufacturing, he’s going to help us craft the policies that will create the next generation of great manufacturing jobs and ensure American competitiveness in the 21st century,” Obama said.

Bloom will work with the National Economic Council to develop and plan policy for Obama’s efforts to revitalize U.S. manufacturing, the White House said. He will retain his position on the auto task force.

The U.S. manufacturing industry has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs in recent years to overseas competition as some U.S. businesses have relocated abroad to take advantage of cheaper labor. Bringing an invigorated manufacturing base back to the United States was a campaign pledge Obama made last year.

Bloom will be charged with reviewing U.S. competitiveness in the global economy. His job will include coordinating with the departments of Commerce, Treasury, Energy and Labor to integrate current programs with new initiatives.

Bloom’s appointment follows news that the U.S. manufacturing sector had expanded for the first time in 18 months and had the highest monthly output in two years.

“It’s a sign that we’re on the right track to economic recovery, but that we still have a long way to go,” Obama said in the announcement, issued Sunday.

Bloom said in the statement that a strong manufacturing sector is a cornerstone of American competitiveness.

“As we meet the challenges of globalization and technological change, it is vital to have a concerted effort across the administration to support an innovative, vibrant manufacturing sector,” Bloom said.

Prior to joining the Obama administration, Bloom was a special assistant to the president of the United Steelworkers. His responsibilities included the union’s collective bargaining program.

Before joining the Steelworkers, Bloom was one of the founding partners of Keilin and Bloom, an investment banking firm, where he was involved in numerous transactions on behalf of the Steelworkers, United Auto Workers, Teamsters, Air Line Pilots Association and other unions.

And now a deeper look into Ron Bloom from Discover the Networks:

Born in 1956, Ron Bloom was raised in Swarthmore, Pennsylvania. During his childhood, he was deeply involved with Habonim — “a progressive Labor Zionist youth movement that emphasizes cultural Judaism, socialism and social justice.” Bloom’s experience with this movement had a major influence on his personal development and worldview. Many years later, in 2009, when accepting a post in the Barack Obama administration, Bloom noted that the lessons he had learned from Habonim – “identifying with the underdog, and … observing the world through a lens [of] people who don’t have as much and aren’t as lucky” — remained “part of what I try to do in my work life.” “That’s one of the things that made me want to work for Obama,” he elaborated.

After graduating from Wesleyan University in 1977, Bloom took a job as an organizer, negotiator, and research specialist for the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). While at SEIU, he observed that many union negotiators lacked the skills necessary for bargaining effectively with management:

“Unions were being backed into corners by companies and couldn’t understand on a sophisticated level, the company’s arguments … Labor needed to be armed with the equivalent skills.

After his stint with SEIU, Bloom went on to work as Executive Director of the Massachusetts Coalition for Full Employment; then as New England Regional Director of the Jewish Labor Committee.

In 1985 Bloom graduated from Harvard Business School and spent the next decade as an investment banker with several firms, most notably the New York-based Lazard Freres & Co. (where he was a vice president).

In 1996 Bloom joined the United Steel Workers (USW) union as a special assistant to the president. At that time, the USW president was George Becker, a co-founder of the Campaign for America’s Future. Bloom retained his position as special assistant when Becker was replaced by Leo Gerard (who today serves as a board member of the Apollo Alliance) in 2001. Both Becker and Gerard have close ties to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). Both have been honored by Chicago’s DSA chapter, for their “leadership in building working class solidarity across borders”; their “advocacy of fair trade over free trade”; and their “commitment to finding a better way to run the economy for working people everywhere.”

In June 2006 Bloom was a featured speaker at the metal industry’s Steel Success Strategies XXI conference in New York, where he said:

“The Steelworkers have some advice for industry execs on how to make sure there’s plenty for both shareholders and workers. The theme of this advice will be really quite simple — be hard-headed and pragmatic capitalists — run the companies and actively participate in the political process on the basis of what is good for your shareholders — and not based on outmoded nostrums about unions, free enterprise, deregulation, free markets and free trade.

“In today’s world the blather about free trade, free markets and the joys of competition is nothing but pablum for the suckers. The guys making the real money know that outsized returns are available to those who find the industries that get the system to work for them and the companies within those industries that dominate them.”

Bloom supports federal-government control of the American health care system (“Management must support universal single-payer national health care”). He also believes the government should be authorized to regulate the production and provision of all forms of energy (“It is time to support a comprehensive national energy program”).

At a 2008 “distressed investors” forum, Bloom said:

“Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market. Or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money, ’cause they’re convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it’s an adults-only, no-limit game. We kind of agree with Mao, that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun.”

On July 13, 2009, Bloom replaced Steven Rattner as head of the Presidential Task Force on the Auto Industry (a position popularly known as “Car Czar”). This position was created by Barack Obama to oversee federal bailouts of failing automobile manufacturers and the restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler. On September 8, 2009, President Obama appointed Bloom to an additional post — Senior Counselor to the President for Manufacturing Policy (a position popularly known as “Manufacturing Czar”).

Ties to Socialism indeed. He wrote an article for their paper Democratic Left “The magazine for the Democratic Socialists of America” in the Fall of 2006 Within it he advocates for Socialist principles such as universal healthcare and more:

Free Market

The Steelworkers have some advice for industry execs on how to make sure there’s plenty for both shareholders and workers. The theme of this advice will be really quite simple – be hard-headed and pragmatic capitalists – run the companies and actively participate in the political process on the basis of what is good for your shareholders – and not based on outmoded nostrums about unions, free enterprise, deregulation, free markets and free trade.

In today’s world the blather about free trade, free-markets and the joys of competition is nothing but pablum for the suckers. The guys making the real money know that outsized returns are available to those who find the industries that get the system to work for them and the companies within those industries that dominate them.

Unions

The starting point is that companies need to get along with the union. Companies that establish a constructive partnership with their unions do far better for their shareholders than those that do not.

Health Care

The first is one where conflicts between labor and management do still exist, and that is health care. On that issue, however, given the fact that the shareholders want us to get along, the answer is to get it out of collective bargaining and into the public sphere. That means that management must support universal single-payer national health care.

The simple fact is that America’s current health care system places those companies that manufacture in the U.S. at a tremendous competitive disadvantage against those who manufacture anywhere else in the developed world. A universal single-payer system, whether financed through general revenue or even a payroll tax, would result in significantly higher profits for the steel industry.

Energy Reform

And if that were not enough, one could finally add the huge corrupting and corrosive distortions that petro-politics bring to our nation. Irrespective of where one sits on the various divides in our country, no one defends our “addiction” to foreign energy as healthy for our democracy.

Once again, a vital sector of the economy is being run for the benefit of its producers, not its consumers. And while we can waste time arguing about whether to drill in Alaska’s North Slope, real relief will come only from increasing supply and reducing demand, through huge investments in conservation, clean coal, and renewables – all of which will consume lots of steel and none of which will be done by the guys who today are profiting so handsomely from the status-quo. The steel industry and manufacturers in general need to stop worrying about offending their business school classmates, political soul mates, and friends at the country club and to stand up for their owners. It is time to support a comprehensive national energy program.

Trade Deficit

To convey the dangers of a trade deficit left unreined, let me quote two well-known radicals.

The first one said the following:

I think we are skating on increasingly thin ice. On the present trajectory, the deficits and imbalances will increase. At some point, the sense of confidence in capital markets that today so benignly supports the flow of funds to the United States and the growing world economy could fade…. I don’t know whether change will come with a bang or a whimper, whether sooner or later. But as things stand, it is more likely than not that it will be financial crises rather than policy foresight that will force the change…. Altogether the circumstances seem to me as dangerous and intractable as any I can remember…. What really concerns me is that there seems to be so little willingness or capacity to do much about it.

And the second:

A country that is now aspiring to an “Ownership Society” will not find happiness in – and I’ll use hyperbole here for emphasis – a “Sharecropper’s Society.” But that’s precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us….

The first radical that I quoted was Paul Volker; the second, Warren Buffet. And if you don’t believe them, let’s look at where the most cold-blooded and unemotional capitalists of all – currency traders – are putting their money.

While it may be true that they read the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, cluck endlessly at cocktail parties about Eurosclerosis and make contributions to the CATO Institute, during the day they go short the dollar and long the Euro. In the last three and a half years, the Euro is up 40 percent versus the dollar, meaning those whose livelihood depends on an honest assessment of our economy have voted with their feet.

No one seriously believes that the U.S.’s current profligacy will end other than badly, but neither the steel industry nor any other sector of the business community appears willing to stand up and say that the emperor has no clothes. Each year we are selling almost a trillion dollars of our seed corn and mortgaging forever our future so that we can dance the night away while our poor go hungry and our roads and bridges crumble.

The growth of China and India can be a great opportunity. But not if we, as Lenin so aptly put it, sell them the rope with which to hang us. Steel industry managers need to repudiate the race-to the bottom model of globalization. We need world trade that brings the bottom up, not the top down, and we need to tell the American government to do what every one of its trading partners does – stand up for those who operate on their soil.

So here is Ron Bloom writing in a Socialist Paper advocating for Socialist policies in 2006, you’ll see later he continues the energy policy, but under the guise of Climate Change. You can also see the elements of class warfare, attacking of the free market,  and a quote from Lenin, how nice. He has managed to stay out of the spotlight since being appointed but there is a scandal that can be tied to, if not him, his agenda. What factors were used to determine which dealerships were closed by GM?

Stuart Varney explaining Ron Bloom’s extreme Union bias in a debate with Mike Papantonio

News report about Ron Bloom being called to testify before the Senate Banking Committee

Here’s Senator Hutchinson questioning Ron Bloom after the takeover of General Motors on why were certain auto dealers closed

And what do we know now? One condition for the closures of dealerships, according to Inspector General Neal M. Barofsky of TARP was consideration race and gender.

From his Report: ” Factors affecting the decisions of General Motors and Chrysler to reduce their dealership networks”

GM officials attributed these inconsistencies primarily to a desire to maintain coverage in certain rural areas where they have a competitive advantage over import auto companies that are not typically located in rural areas, although ultimately close to half of all of the GM dealerships identified for termination were in rural areas. Other dealerships were retained because they were recently appointed, were key wholesale parts dealers, or were minority- or woman-owned dealerships. Page 22

Is this Obama manufacturing policy being carried out through Ron Bloom? Protect minorities but fire everyone else?

Here is Ron Bloom advocating for a Green Agenda in a “Clearn Energy Economy Forum”

“The White House has put together this forum because your work in the lab, on the factory floor, in the board rooms and in the halls of government is going to be a big part of the solution to both of those problems.”
“And if the success of the recent Tesla IPO is any indication, we might need even more. In case you haven’t heard, Tesla executed a successful IPO a couple of weeks ago; first by an American auto company in more than 50 years. Given our modest ownership stake in a couple of other car companies, I will confess that we are hoping that it won’t be quite so long until the next one.
“That is why the administration supports a comprehensive approach to energy policy that includes significant investment in all kinds of clean energy technology. The house of representatives has already passed a truly visionary energy and climate bill. And there is currently a plan in the Senate that would achieve the same goals. We know our friends at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue are working hard to resolve their differences and come to a bipartisan compromise.”
So your typical Global Warming fearmongering and cries for a Green Agenda which mirrors his 2006 stance on Energy Reform.  Also that the “halls of government” will be a big part of the solution says quite alot coming from this administration. After his comment on the “ownership stake” he goes on to claim that Govt wants to get out of the way. Actions speak louder than words. The Obama Government has no intention of ever getting out of the way, their goal is control.
« Older Entries Recent Entries »