Tag Archives: Social Justice

Poverty of the Perfect

By Michael J. Lewinski 12/31/13

A life of poverty is not the legacy any parent would willfully choose for their offspring. Yet, for our generation, such an outcome has become the default option. With the deliberate exporting of U. S. industry and the financialization of the economy, our national economy has been transformed into a business model that is detrimental to the well-being of working and middle class Americans.

Discarding the moral restraints of an ethical approach to business while embracing an indifference to the diminished standard of living and loss of economic opportunities for average Americans, an ever growing class of Crony Capitalists and incompetent politicians have sucked the life out of main-street. Enabled by government and its’ attendant institutions, the too big to fail unjustly prosper while the real creators of wealth suffer. Funneling wealth to the well connected through the Federal Reserve, an amoral oligarchy could care less about the destruction of the American economy.

Beyond the damage Crony Capitalists have been inflicting on the economy, our youth’s future is continuously being imperiled by wrong headed government policies that discourage the creation of the nation’s wealth. Through a stifling regulatory regime, capital diminishing taxes, and dependency generating social policies, a Progressive elite of central planners destroy jobs and undermine the entrepreneurial spirit in the name of an elusive, unattainable economic and social justice.

In a mad dash for the perfect, central planners, devoid of any practical experience in the world of business, and often in life itself, seeks to micro-manage the economy and the national life with a vast bureaucracy charged with every manner of idealistic goals and objectives while completely ignoring the expansion and growth of the economy. Harboring a great disdain for the common man, and loathing the results of free markets responding to the independent choices and actions of free people, Progressives are rapidly transforming a formerly productive, vibrant economy into a barren wasteland of reduced sustenance and opportunity for this generation, and even more-so, for the next.

Such is the default option for a distracted citizenry no longer behaving like Americans.

The Unbridled Hate of Hate Speech Laws

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” This quote, often attributed to Voltaire, is at the heart of our First Amendment right to free speech, at least where the authority of our government is concerned. A free society, and, in fact, a free people, must be able to speak freely in order to challenge power, ideological aggression or the coercion of faction. To limit or eliminate this fundamental right; this essential check to balance, is to limit or eliminate freedom in its most cursory form. Put succinctly, limiting free speech rights is tyranny in its most basic form.

It is for this reason that the Progressive Movement’s continued assault on free speech rights – both here in the United States and throughout the free world – is of such immediate concern.

On January 16, 2014, TheHill.com reported:

“Thirteen House Democrats have proposed legislation that would require the government to study hate speech on the Internet, mobile phones and television and radio.

“The bill, sponsored by Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (P-NY) and 12 other House Democrats, would look at how those media are used to ‘advocate and encourage violent acts and the commission of crimes of hate.’

“The Hate Crime Reporting Act, HR3878, is meant to update a 20-year-old study from the National Telecommunications & Information Administration. That study, delivered to Congress in 1993, looked at hate speech on radio, TV and computer bulletin boards.

“Jeffries says the NTIA needs to see how hate speech is transmitted over the various new modes of communication that have sprung up over the last two decades…

“‘This legislation will mandate a comprehensive analysis of criminal and hateful activity on the Internet that occurs outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection.’”

The other co-sponsors of this bill include: Reps. Gregory Meeks, (D-NY); Ann Kuster, (D-NH); Michael Honda, (P-CA); Judy Chu, (P-CA); Bobby Rush, (P-IL); Carolyn Maloney, (P-NY); Pedro Pierluisi, (D-PR-At Large); Tony Cardenas, (D-CA-29); Mark Pocan, (P-WI); Eleanor Holmes-Norton, (P-DC-At Large); and Ron Kind, (D-WI).

Again, the entirety of the issue of “hate speech” is predicated on who is defining “hate.” Put another way, one person’s “hate” is inevitably another person’s “free speech.” Cases in point: Nazi, Soviet and Communist Chinese censorship.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (Emphasis added)

So, the desires of the sponsors of HR3878 – and, in fact, the whole of the Progressive Movement – are juxtaposed to the guarantees of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights. If the US Constitution guarantees that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” then no speech – no matter how offensive, societally unacceptable or politically incorrect – can be abridged, sans speech that directly incites violence toward another or which directly calls for the violent overthrow of the United States government.

Therefore, assurances made by the sponsors of HR3878, that only “criminal and hateful” speech occurring “outside of the zone of the First Amendment protection,” are presented disingenuously at the proposal’s genesis because no speech can be considered – short of speech that directly incites violence toward another or which directly calls for the violent overthrow of the United States government – “criminal” and/or “hateful” by constitutional measure.

Understanding this as fact, it is not out of line to charge that the sponsors of HR3878 are either, constitutionally illiterate, deceptive in their intentions or both. Only the constitutionally illiterate would fail to understand the First Amendment free speech clause was meant to prevent factions from silencing dissenters of the majority, thus executing one of the pinnacle purposes of the Charters of Freedom: protecting the rights of the minority. Conversely, if the sponsors of this piece of legislation do understand the unconstitutionality of their proposal, they advance the measure for nefarious reasons; reasons antithetical to true freedom and liberty for all.

But this shouldn’t surprise anyone who has been paying attention to Progressive Movement from its inception.

In a recent analysis entitled, It’s Not a War on Christmas, I make the observation:

“If the elitist oligarchs of the modern day Progressive Movement are to assume complete control; complete authority to execute social justice, economic justice and redefine the many ideas of equality, then they must dispense with the idea that they – themselves – are not at the top of the power pyramid; at the top of the intellectual ‘food chain’…

“By playing on emotions – the most potent tool in the Progressive arsenal – and painting those who hold true to their…beliefs as being “un-inclusive,” “intolerant of others,” and “insensitive”…, Progressives aim to ‘shame’ the truly tolerant and inclusive… By shaming or making the majority of Americans ‘uncomfortable’ for the accusations of intolerance and insensitivity, Progressives aim to force an abdication of traditional American values and beliefs. In doing so they inch closer to their goal of expunging the notion of Natural Law from the societal and then governmental lexicons, successfully achieving elitist, oligarchic and totalitarian control over the defining of rights, the common good, and the role of government in our lives.”

This reality applies to the false-flag concept of “hate speech” laws. It can also be applied to the totalitarian “double-jeopardy” of “hate crime” laws as well. To the latter, a crime is either a crime or it is not a crime. By creating a more severe punishment for a “class,” “demographic” or “preferred faction” of people, Progressives seek to artificially elevate the severity of a crime only when that crime is committed against the few, while citing the crime as less severe when committed against all others.

In the end, it is the Progressive Movement’s modus operandi to manipulate the citizenries of free nations through emotion and “feel good” sounding pieces of legislation, all sold to us as a bill of goods addressing the “common good.” In reality, these false-flag, emotion-based pieces of legislation – these “social justice” initiatives – serve to usurp the freedoms guaranteed to us in the US Constitution and The Bill of Rights.

They are exercises in soft tyranny meant to create power for – and deliver power to – the elitist oligarchs and the tyrannical.

They serve to pollute the airs of freedom; to smother Lady Liberty; and to, eventually, oppress the masses into subjugation.

Of course, to Progressives, those are words of “hate.”

Now that Pope Benedict XVI has resigned who should replace him?

images
Pope Benedict XVI sudden resignation brings with it history, health, and heroics. He is the first Pope to resign in almost 600 years. His age, declining health, and strength were all reasons for his resignation.

The 85 year old head of the Catholic Church stated, “After having repeatedly examined my conscience before God, I have come to the certainty that my strengths, due to an advanced age, are no longer suited to an adequate exercise of the Petrine ministry. I am well aware that this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering.”

He continues, “However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary, strength which in the last few months, has deteriorated in me to the extent that I have had to recognize my incapacity to adequately fulfill the ministry entrusted to me.”

The words The Pope chose were very revealing. At one point he talks about the physical strength it takes to lead the Catholic Church. On the other hand he reveals the emotional toll it has taken on him as well. When one feels as though they are fighting a battle that doesn’t seem to be getting any easier it has a profound affect on them; especially the elderly.

When The Pope talks about questions in deep relevance he is referring to America turning their backs on God as a society. The rapidly changing world he is referring to is the speed at which more Americans than ever are denouncing the Church by switching from the Catholic faith to the religion of Social Justice.

The practice of Social Justice by the Catholic Left has been gaining in political power in America and around the world for years. From embracing Gay Marriage and homosexuality to the acceptance by many Catholics of the practice of abortion the Catholic Left has been gaining in influence. The sanctity of life has devolved into the rejection of capital punishment while simultaneously negating the value and rights of the unborn. The dignity of every human life has been distorted by the practice of euthanasia for unwanted babies and the elderly infirm.

Fighting for your values is not an easy task. It can be draining both psychically and emotionally. It is also not a young man’s game either. Pope Benedict XVI realized this and understood that in order to help the Catholic Church move forward that he would need to take a step back.

So who should replace him?

Given the factors that lead to Pope Benedict XVI decision to step down the next Pope should be younger, healthier, and stronger both psychically and emotionally. He should be more charismatic and possess more passion. He should be able to fight to preserve the Catholic Church and its teachings worldwide and never back down from an ideological challenge.

There has never been an American Pope in the entire history of the Papacy, but maybe that could change. Although history and long odds are stacked against him, the perfect replacement for Pope Benedict XVI would be the current Arch Bishop of New York Timothy M. Dolan.

Cardinal Dolan is relatively young at age 63, he is in seemingly good health, and he has already proven to be a much needed and reliable conservative voice for not only the Catholic Church but more importantly for our Judeo-Christian nation as a whole.

Cardinal Dolan has been on the frontlines in the battle for religious freedom. He was a leading voice against the Obama Administration’s far reaching mandate on contraception. In a CBS interview, Cardinal Dolan condemned the interference of the government in what he viewed as the outright dismissal of the right to religious conscience and freedom. His position lead to the Obama Administration slightly changing their policy in regards to the contraception mandate.

Cardinal Dolan is also staunchly pro-life. During the 2008 Presidential Election, Cardinal Dolan strongly rebuked then Senator Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi for misrepresenting timeless Church doctrine on the issue of abortion. He also criticized the University of Notre Dame for allowing the most radical pro abortion President in the history of the United States to give the graduating class its commencement speech, calling it a “big mistake.”

Cardinal Dolan is also a big supporter of traditional marriage. He understands the dangers of changing the definition of traditional marriage and the far reaching consequences it can have on society. In a 2009 New York Post interview he said, “There is an in-built code of right and wrong that is imbedded in the human DNA that defines marriage between one man and one woman for life. If we go tampering with the definition of marriage than we will be in big trouble.” For more on the importance of preserving traditional marriage see http://www.examiner.com/article/why-the-defense-of-marriage-act-should-never-be-repealed

There are a host of other great reasons why Cardinal Dolan would be the best choice as the new Pope but the main reason is he has been a proven fighter against the left and particularly the Obama Administration. He has been that constant thorn in the side of Barack Obama and the rest of the leftist ideologues in America. He will not back down in the battle between traditionalism and secularism. He understands the threat the Catholic Church is facing from Socialism, Communism, Marxism and Islamofascism here in America and around the world.

America and the rest of the world need a new spiritual leader with the capability, charisma, and intellect to change disbelieving hearts and minds. Our religious freedoms and long standing traditions are under constant threat from an enemies both foreign and domestic. Having someone like Cardinal Dolan in our corner will give us the strength and determination to endure these battles and emerge victorious.
..

Suggested by the author:
www.joshbernsteinpoliticalwriter.com
Traditional conservatism versus secular liberalism and the Jewish voter
Why The Defense of Marriage Act should never be repealed
Are we still a center right country?
Exposing the tactics and language of the left

Fair? Who Ever Said Life Was Gonna Be Fair?

Fair.. a word being thrown about endlessly this political season – especially by our president and the democrats. Fair share and economic fairness seem to come up in all talking points and speeches. Every time I hear that word fair I always start wondering, what is fair and who determines what is fair? I’m sure if you ask a hand full of people what is fair you would get a handful of answers. And just who determines what is fair. The president? The congress? What I think is fair, might not be what you think is fair. Well I have news for everyone LIFE NEVER WAS, IS NOT NOW, AND NEVER WILL BE FAIR. And that’s a good thing.

Over the past few decades we have tried to make all things fair for all people, we are now learning what a disaster it has been. A case in point, firefighters in a town in New York take a test for promotions, no blacks pass the test so they promote no one. Why? Because someone determined it’s not fair. The test must have been race biased they said. I’m still trying to figure out how a test can be race biased. Last I checked 2+2=4 no matter what your race is. Affirmative Action is supposed to make things more fair. Show me how? The man that aced the test studied night and day, went to night school and got a tutor. Busted his hump to pass that test, but because no blacks passed the test he was out. Now I want someone to explain to me how that is fair? A man invests all his time an energies, sacrifices time with his family so he can better himself and he’s told you got the highest mark on the test, a 98% but sorry we still can’t promote you. Fair?

Another case, years ago some liberal brain-e-ack decided that we must not hurt our children’s feelings. There should be no winners or losers. Instead we are all winners, because that is the fair thing to do. I wish I could find the one person that started that, because I would love to give him a big slap across the head. He could tell me how unfair that is. Children play sports, the winners get trophies, but also the losers get trophies. Now again, can someone explain to me how that is fair to the winners? They practice, sacrifice time to make themselves winners, but get nothing special, because the losers got the same thing they did. Also the losers are thinking why should we practice or sacrifice our time we are going to get a trophy no matter what. And WA-LA we now have a generation thinking everything is owed to them. Fair?

When I was a kid we would choose up sides and play ball. When we lost, we would say “O.K. We’ll get you next time.” You see the difference? By losing, it made us want to strive to better ourselves. Try to make ourselves better than before. Children need to sample life, the good as well as the bad. If we hide the bad from them, we are doing them more harm than good.

It’s been proven over and over again, liberal views and policies just do not work.

This is one mans opinion.

Lets Give the Liberals the Tax Hikes They Demand: Thanksgiving Edition

As the sweet aroma of Mom’s pumpkin pie fills the home this Thanksgiving morning, and with the turkey all set to go into the oven, I decided to take the time out to give thanks to Rich Mitchell and the CDN staff for giving me the platform to share my conservative news and opinion articles today. The following is my contribution to the CDN mission by producing some out-of-the-box ideas on the most important issue facing Americans in the coming year: How to reduce our massive national debt, and how to unlock the current Congressional stalemate by giving the Democrats the tax hikes they so fiercely demand. Happy Thanksgiving from all of us here at CDN. Enjoy your day. 

It is once again time to call the Liberal Democrat’s bluff. Let’s give them the tax increases they so heartily demand, but on their own stated ideological terms. Liberals have certain planks in their ideology that must be used in the tax increase debate up in Congress. This proposed tax increase leglislation has to include such lovely-sounding Liberal catch-phrases of wealth redistribution, social justice, equal justice, and President Obama’s personal favorite, community service. (while keeping in mind the Democrat’s past history of reneging on promised cuts in federal spending.)

Let’s start out by taking Wolf Blitzer’s often-asked question of whether GOP Presidential candidates would accept a 10 to 1 ratio of budget cuts to tax increase dollars. The GOP must call the Liberal media’s bluff and accept that scenario… in an intelligent, yet very simple way. Draw up the bill in the House of Representatives immediately that says yes, the GOP will accept $10 dollars in budget cuts for every single dollar in increases taxes. That is straight forward and simple enough, even for the mathematically challenged Democrats and President Obama to understand.  Now that we have agreed to Wolf Blitzer’s leftist-parroted demands for those tax increases during the current recession, let’s take it one step further in appeasing the Liberals. Let’s add the Liberal/OWS ideological planks of equal justice, social justice, wealth redistribution and community service into the new tax increase bill shall we? 

Introducing HR-2011-The Liberal Tax Increase Bill of 2011- (NOT an actual bill in congress)

Bill Sponsored by DJ Redman  No Co-sponsors to date.

Section 1-A: Equal Justice for all in the form of tax increases. 

Equal justice means just what the title says. Equal treatment for all Americans, regardless of race, national origin, income status, or political affiliation. Therefore, in keeping with the Liberal ideology of “equal justice for all” the tax increases will be applied to every adult of working age in America.( whether they actually work or not) Section 1-A of the Liberal tax increase bill of 2011,may also be referred to as, “Equal justice in paying your fair share in America.” In this section there will be a means tested chart for how much new taxes will be levied on every person in the USA, illegals included, regardless of private sector income. Welfare checks, rent subsidies, WIC coupons, utility bill payments, food stamps and every other hidden government pay- for- not- working entitlement program will be taxed before checks/payments will be sent out. Equal justice, as in everyone paying their fair share as outlined in this section should really have the support of every debt-spending Liberal in Congress, hands down. If the workers of America have to pay more taxes on their hard-earned wealth, making the non-workers pay taxes on their government handouts should also make the Unions quite happy. Millionaire Union Chiefs could say they are working hard to protect the workers in America by supporting tax increases on the freeloaders and non-producers of our society who unfairly burden their working class Union members. This section will do wonders for the entitlement class in America as they will be able to now stand up and be counted as actual taxpayers, instead of a 100% parasitic drain on society. 

Section 1-B of the Liberal Tax Increase Bill of 2011 will include several measures of the Liberals beloved “Social Justice” plank.  

Section 1-B will include mandatory work for welfare reforms built upon the 1994 GOP Welfare reform plan that reduced the number of people on welfare by 50% by the year 1998. Social justice demands that the welfare class do their part in society to reduce our national debt and rebuild America. Work for welfare will also have the added benefit of restoring some self-respect into the welfare class, so that when they scurry to their mailbox for their government entitlement ”paychecks” as they like to call them, they will have the added pleasure of knowing that they have actually earned that money. Social Justice will be well-served in this action, by evening out the class warfare of today that is being caused by 50% of the population demanding that the working class support them. True Social Justice demands that the working class be represented equally, not just the racial politics-driven minorities, the poor, or the illegal aliens in America. 

Section 1–C of the Liberal Tax Increase Bill of 2011 will also include a healthy dose of the wealth redistribution that President Obama has pushed his Democrats to achieve for 3 straight years. As in any “Social Justice, and Equal Justice” driven wealth redistributive policies, there has to be fairness across the economic spectrum. This has to start with sections 1-A and 1-B, where everyone not only shares in the wealth created by the citizenry, but also must include the sharing of the debt that the very government they have elected has created. There is no justice of any form inherent in the Liberal ideology of sharing in the wealth while refusing to share in the debt at the same time, period. Every single adult in America will share in our debt, one way or the other. This is a true form of Social Justice, so it should receive 100% Democratic support. In order to not infuriate the welfare class, we will use a long standing Democratic budgetary trick in not calling it a welfare tax. Let’s instead label it “Processing Fees to Improve America” on all unearned entitlement check stubs. That way, Democrats can stand up in Congress and tell their voting base that they did not, in fact raise taxes on them. (wink) Section 1-C simply states that every adult in America will now share in our national debt, not just the working class and job-creating business class. 

Section 2 of the Liberal Tax Increase Bill of 2011 will contain  penalties  provisions that simply states that any elected official found to be in violation of the 10 to 1 budget cuts to tax increases ratio in this bill, (as Democrats did when they increased spending by $480 billion after promising President Reagan $280 billion in cuts) will face an immediate Bernie Madoff-style trial after being suspended from Congress. For every dollar they are found to be increasing in spending instead of cutting, they will forfeit $10 dollars of their personal wealth, most of which they have acquired through illegal insider trading and ripping off the taxpayers to begin with. Every elected official who’s signature is found to be on any spending bill breaking the 10 to 1 budget cuts to tax increases provisions in this bill will share equally in paying off the illegal increased spending. How;s that for “Equal Justice” Congress ? We the people will now be able to hold elected officials responsible for their debt-spending thanks to the Liberal tax Increase bill of 2011. In the case of elected members of Congress found guilty of  increasing spending under this new law, and who can not afford to repay the citizenry the full amount, see section 3.

Section -2-A of the Liberal Tax Increase Bill of 2011 will include a very healthy dose of Barack Obama’s ideological roots that propelled him into politics in the first place: Community service. Any elected official found to be in violation of section 2, and can not repay the citizenry  for the illegal spending increases outlines in this bill will be mandated to perform community service to pay off their debt to society at a rate of 1 hour for every dollar they owe the American public. With the massive increases of manpower derived from this penalty phase,  politicians caught lying to the American people and not making the agreed upon budget cuts,  will be mandated to do everything Barack Obama says his fake jobs bill would do:  We will rebuild all of our bridges, roadways, and schools with this new-found free labor. We will send our convicted politicians into the downtrodden slums and ghettos to clean them up, giving Barack Obama and his Democrats the “urban renewal” they so desire, and it won’t cost the taxpayers one thin dime in labor. We can also have criminal politicians save the Post Office from the government and labor-union caused bankruptcy crisis they are currently under, by having them sort and deliver mail as part of their community service. Democrats have always been the champions of imprisoned felons rights groups, so we shall also mandate that all prisoners do extensive community service as part of the new social justice programs in HR 2011, thereby supplying America with an estimated annual 500 million free man-hours of labor to rebuild America.  Felonious members of Congress will be working side by side with the convicted murderers, rapists, Occupy Wall Street vermin, welfare class, and convicted illegal drug cartel members in the ultimate form of their beloved Social Justice.  

*HR-2011 is reported to have national bi-partisan support, according to several ex-members of Congress, unnamed sources,and distant friends of ex-Congressional aides, all of whom who wish to remain anonymous for personal and national security reasons.

*HR-2011 is estimated to cut our national debt by over $4 trillion dollars a year by the newly formed *Common Sense Home Budgetarians/Working Taxpayers of America Foundation.

*Yes these statements are made in humor, using fictitious group’s names to make the point of how our government uses their government-funded non-profit puppet organizations statistics and unnamed sources to claim bi-partisan support, budgetary savings etc.

A Brave New World In 1984

The English language is beautiful in its complexity, dangerous beauty. Interpretation is an art in English, enough that you can paint your own pictures with someone else’s words. Orwell knew it. Aldous Huxley figured out how to control people without it. Unfortunately it seems the world’s governments have figured out how to use the ideas of both. In 1984 Orwell used “newspeak” while Huxley in “A Brave New World” just made everyone’s life just comfortable enough to not question.  I feel only a small minority of the political spectrum is being truly honest in the current debate. Although all sides say that our course is unsustainable, they are demanding that more money be spent or that if we just lessen the amount of unsustainable growth of government we will be fine. Whether the two larger sides of the argument are acting politically or not, this type of statist philosophy is attained through things Huxley and Orwell wrote about, through active shaping of the populace.

Newspeak is so prevalent today I have to pick from only a few terms that have been victims of the practice. These two will be the term “liberal” and the term “Social Justice.” I have chosen them for very important reasons, they are both old and loaded terms that have been used in incredibly dynamic ways.

The word liberal comes from the word liberty. In Europe during the Enlightenment individuals who felt that people should have more control over their own actions were called liberal. That is what the word meant originally and is the reason why many on the far right consider themselves libertarian. The Newspeak corruption of the word began With F.D.R. when after half of the new deal was deemed unconstitutional; He tried to add 6 more seats to the supreme court in order to pass similar bills that had been denied. He chose to claim he wanted more “liberal” justices. He chose the word for two reasons, because after the abuses of Woodrow Wilson and his Progressive buddies the term progressive was negatively loaded, and because the laws he wanted passed were the opposite of liberal in its original sense and that was the reason half the New Deal was deemed unconstitutional. The modern term Liberal has become the polar opposite of what it meant, now liberalism demands more economic and social control over people. Mussolini for example hated liberal government because it denied government control, while modern American liberals demand control in everything including what your children eat, whether you have health insurance and whether you can wear an American flag shirt at an American public school.

“Social Justice” is a meaningless term. It has been in use since the turn of the 19th century, has been used by Islamists, fascists, communists and totalitarians before it was adopted by American liberals. It can literally mean anything. From what I have seen Social Justice is invoked when a government wants to do something that by itself, would be called immoral, but it is excused by claiming it is for the greater good, i.e. for the justice of all society. Honestly justice needs no qualifier. Social Justice is so vague in fact; you can use it to claim the morality for anything. If you want to dispose of a group of people, all you have to do is say they are bad for society, there in it is justified to kill them and so fourth. That kind of power is not “liberal” in its original sense, but social justice has been a term used by American Liberals to coerce the ability to do many things thought tyrannical by our founding fathers.

To keep on the social justice theme, terms like “open space” and “smart growth” are the same kind of undefined or open-ended term that social justice is. These programs are what has sent Bay Area housing prices skyrocketing, these programs for example quadrupled the housing prices of Palo Alto CA, in the decade of the 1970’s. That isn’t smart growth. Keeping “open space” for posterity is great, but when the consequence of an unlivable cost of housing causes farm workers in Salinas CA to live 9 people to one apartment society isn’t being helped. Basically the fruition of these laws is that rich, mostly white liberals make money and price out  the poor and minorities. There is half the African American population in San Francisco than there was just 15 years ago and currently more African Americans die than move to or are born in the city. Not social justice in my eye.

What programs like “open space” and “smart growth” do is they provide money for the less fortunate, or affordable housing all of which is bad economically. It would be easier to not try to control what happens and let cities naturally develop lower income areas due to a reasonable cost of living, something the Bay Area hasn’t experienced since these types of government interventions started. Regardless of the damage these actions have caused the less fortunate, their newspeak terminology and the idea that they are giving to the poor makes people feel well, comfortable and good, that is if they don’t have to live in those places hardest hit and failed by an inevitably incompetent economic third party. This leads me into the Huxley side of my point. Make people just comfortable enough to not question. There are many ways to do this.

In Huxley’s book what is used is a removal of the family structure, drugs, sex and guaranteed food, shelter and work. In the book there was a biological caste system. The Alfa class was the hardest to control because they were the most biologically intelligent while the lowest biological class was the easiest to control, using guaranteed living, drugs and sex. We have only one biological class, human. Our class system is irrelevant to biological ability. Yet I see a Huxley like control system apparent. Regardless of the epic failure of government programs to help the less fortunate, these programs do control the helped populace. These individuals are stuck but their needs are taken care of, their animal needs that is. The STD and drug use rates of these communities’ shows that drugs and sex became a needed release or entertainment. These things are fun and addicting, even all consuming if you have a job let alone if you have none. These individuals are controlled with false comfort drugs and sex, which causes a breakdown of the family. Huxley would feel sick to his stomach thinking maybe his idea was used, but this particular idea has existed since the Ancient Greeks. Give people free stuff and take away their choices and they will be happy, for a short period.

Regardless of the extreme inhuman suffering of these groups leading to crime and at its worst riots, those that provide it receive a comfortable feeling at best and a megalomaniacal feeling with a need to protect these hurtful practices at worst. Through Orwellian newspeak even the most intelligent people can be fooled into thinking any program is for the best. “I live fine, I take care of those people, so I am like a protector, without me they would be worse off, I am more moral than those who would question and change things.” It is a type of moral comfortability. The Alphas of “A Brave New World” felt the same of the inferior biological castes. That false feeling of being a protector is incredibly pervasive and speaks to our most animalistic of instincts.

Unlike in Huxley’s book, when riots happen you cannot release drugs or “soma” in clouds from their government workstations. We are seeing what happens to a completely controlled populace as I type. In the U.K. where riots hit hard they have a whole lower class, many of which have not worked just in their lifetime, but their families have not had a job in three generations. People need liberty. People need choice and they need the ability to fail and suffer. We have been warned. Humans aren’t like a bear in a zoo that can be made happy with friends and activities to use up their time. It is in actuality about power and control. Read both books, especially “A Brave New World,” tell me that the scene when the teacher was instructing his very young students to stimulate each other sexually doesn’t make you question why the government wishes to teach your toddler about sex. This country is turning to a brave new world in 1984.

Bradygboyd.com

 

The Laffer Curve of Slavery

Arthur Laffer presented his now famous principle of taxation as a graph representing the general relationship between tax rates and tax revenue.

This graph has generated a long-standing debate over the “Laffer curve” and its applicability to taxation policy. Sometimes heated, the debate reveals various opposing viewpoints but little about the motivations of its participants, especially the sophisticates who habitually hide motivations. At first it may appear bombastic, but motivations frequently ignored in the debate relate to freedom versus slavery. While von Hayek’s influential work “The Road to Serfdom” argued that centralized economic planning naturally leads to enslavement by the state, the relationship of the Laffer curve to such thought sees little discussion. If you were a slave in any age, would not your master optimize you for what he can take from you economically? Is that not the whole point of enslavement, that the master can do this? Notwithstanding this obvious fact, the debate generally does not question the notion that the “optimum” is where the maximum amount can be taken from us in taxes, as though the maximum possible taxation level is unquestionably good and virtuous. To the extent that we accept this, we have already conceded our own slavery. The sometimes-complex thought of von Hayek is no longer required to see the eventual outcome; we are already there. Those who seek taxation at the level of the Laffer maximum are progressing toward more perfect slavery for us all, regardless of where each may think we are on that curve. Unfortunately, our current taxation levels are beyond that. From where we are now, honestly seeking the Laffer “optimum” would be a step toward sanity–but freedom lies even further away.

Laffer CurveLaffer’s graph begins with no tax revenue at 0% tax rates. Revenues rise to a maximum as tax rates increase. As tax rates increase beyond that point, revenues diminish until, at the 100% tax rate, there is again no revenue. It looks like an inverted U, having only one maximum. The maximum occurs somewhere between the extremes, and defines the rate of taxation that produces the maximum revenues. (See http://www.reference.com/browse/Laffer+curve)

Mathematician Martin Gardner wrote a satirical treatment of Laffer’s theories and introduced the neo-Laffer curve, loosely based on empirical evidence. The neo-Laffer curve only looks like the Laffer curve near 0 and 100 percent taxation; in a wide middle range the curve is a chaotic “snarl”. When in the middle range, revenues can go up or down and do so unpredictably.  Here revenue change cannot be predicted based on changes in tax rates. The neo-Laffer curve is generally used to rebut arguments that lowering tax rates will increase revenues. Perhaps deliberately unnoticed by Gardner’s sophisticate readers, the neo-Laffer curve also rebuts notions that raising tax rates will increase revenues. To whatever extent Gardner is correct in his theory and however wide or narrow his mid-range snarl may be, in recent historical experience significant lowering of tax rates has increased revenues. This implies that our tax rates for these many years have been beyond any possible chaotic mid-range and well into a predictable over-taxed zone.

A government that relies on Gardner’s thinking to justify increasing taxes is saying that we might as well raise taxes. After all, according to Gardner no one can prove that raising taxes will reduce revenues and it might in fact raise them. However, the taxpayers can say with equal accuracy that we might as well lower taxes; after all, according to Gardner no one can prove that lowering taxes will reduce revenues and it might in fact raise them.

Lower taxes result in more economic activity and growth: producers retain more and with fewer resources there is less government to interfere. This should be taken into account when reviewing tax policy but is often ignored by those who justify their policies through economic theories like those of Gardner. Contrary to Gardener’s conclusions, we should not have rates that put us into the unpredictable snarl at all; tax rates should instead be below the beginning of the snarl. Above that level, higher rates cannot be relied upon to increase revenues and could lower them. Regardless of where we are on the Laffer/Gardener curve, lower rates positively affect economic growth. If tax rates are above the initial predictable zone in either the Laffer or Gardner curves,  we might as well lower tax rates and get the reliable benefit of economic growth. Such simple farmer logic falls on deaf ears among those who privately shun prosperity and freedom, the most notable of whom are social-justice sophisticates.

At the extreme right of the Laffer curve is 100% taxation, which is loosely taken to mean that revenues are 100% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). The whole pie is generally taken to be the GDP. According to Laffer’s theory, the pie ( GDP) is relatively near zero at 100% taxation; i.e., there is nothing to tax because there is nothing to be gained from work if the government takes everything.  As the tax rates go up, revenues and size of the pie go down together.  As the tax rates go down, revenues and size of the pie go up together. Interestingly, the government’s percentage of the whole pie (GDP) has stayed relatively constant for decades in spite of widely ranging tax rates (see the Laffer Curve link above for a short synopsis). This fact is construed by some as a contradiction of Laffer’s principle ideas. On the contrary, this supports a conclusion that we are already operating well into the overtaxed zone where Laffer’s theory allows the ratio of revenues to the whole pie to be constant. Higher tax rates diminish the size of the pie.

The idea that growth of the economy is affected by taxes and tax rates is not difficult to understand and ought to be obvious. When taxes are lowered, the increased revenues come from increased economic activity. An honest reader of Laffer’s theories should be able to reconcile constant revenue relative to the size of the pie.

Other research purports to show that if our government lowers taxes according to Laffer’s theories, it will not make up the difference for decades. This is taken as evidence that the government should not lower taxes. The almost immediate effects on revenue observed after past tax reductions belie these claims. But even if it would take decades to recover “lost revenue”, their derived conclusion  could only make sense if the government is in a zero-sum game against its slaves, and a dollar spent by government is infinitely better than any dollar used in any other way. This would include any potential use by the slave who earned it. This kind of thinking has crept into the everyday discussion of tax policy; when any of us keeps a dollar that we earned, it is counted as a “cost” to the government.

Such ideas were debunked millennia ago; ancient Roman writings declare that such “optimization” is counter-productive purely in terms of the economic self-interest of slave owners. This Roman analysis of slave optimization accounted for slaves as a wasting asset; slaves grow old or are injured and become progressively less useful over time.

Similarly the Laffer curve has a different shape for populations in different stages of life. Laffer style optimization of a sufficiently old or decrepit population cannot be achieved, as they are incapable of producing enough to replenish the resources they consume. Only reassignment of their assets to others can increase the overall efficiency of the economy. The optimum is to reassign all resources in the hands of old people to younger producers. With nothing at all the old will of course die, but  the sooner this happens more remains for the government to take.

Though a modern slave may have been part of a taxation-optimization program all his life, he may have secreted away assets that he then mis-applies to something that has become economically useless—himself. If a slave were to actually have property rights and own something, then he could choose to use that property to support himself in his old age when he is of no economic benefit to his owner. It more efficient if all property belongs to the slave’s owner and is merely assigned to a slave while his economic usefulness justifies it. While this principle has been applied in modern times partially through death taxes, in this age of advancing medicine the assets are often gone by the time slaves die. The ancient Romans avoided such problems by reassigning resources as slaves approached economic uselessness. America recently adopted a more modern solution already in effect in several other nations: medical assets are now honestly controlled by the state and are becoming inaccessible other than through the state. In Hillarycare it would have been illegal for a physician to provide private care. However, the single-payer concept is equivalent and appears to be the goal of Obamacare.

Perhaps it is not worth mentioning, but in America there is a lingering notion that we ought to be and by right are free people. We especially long for freedom and the prosperity that comes with it. How can this be, that a government of the people, by the people, and for the people would optimize us like this?

President Obama promotes social-justice sophisticate policies that we know will fail. We have repeatedly learned this through mass suffering when social-justice acolytes impose their core belief systems on populations around the globe. Social-justice sophisticates never seem to tire of the predictable suffering, yet his state of the Union Speech last week spoke of a vibrant future. He enumerated as many desirable outcomes as would fit, and promised that they are all coming to a theatre near you, and you, and you. Like old Soviet 5 year plans, it gave us glowing descriptions of progress somewhere in the future brought to you by the biggest impediments to achieving progress or freedom—its social-justice sophisticate authors and the nature of the plan.

Given where we are, any course towards freedom requires lowering taxes, and lowering them again and again. We should successively lower them until we are well into that zone where raising taxes would reliably raise revenues. Such a level must be well below Gardner’s snarl, if there is such a thing. Once in this zone of freedom, lowering of taxes increases freedom further and necessarily lowers the government’s take in absolute and relative terms; our freedom as a people can only exist to the extent that we are in the freedom-zone. American imperatives for freedom demand reduction of the government’s portion of the pie. From where we are now this will of course increase revenues, actually and honestly grow the economy, and do much to restore competitive American prosperity as well as freedom.

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.