Redistribution and Future Wealth

The incomparable Dr. Thomas Sowell recently hit it out of the park with an article on redistribution of wealth, occasioned by the release of a 1998 video clearly demonstrating Barack Obama's stance favoring such redistribution.  Among other things, Sowell correctly points out what so many people fail to comprehend about this topic, namely, that a government can only confiscate present wealth, not future wealth.  Once the state grabs present wealth for redistribution, it is no longer available for re-investment to produce future wealth.  It is gone for good.

This explains to a significant extent why centrally-planned, collectivist redistribution attempts in the 20th century failed miserably in places like the Soviet Union, Cuba, China and North Korea.

The Soviets demonstrated the disastrous consequences of redistribution as part of central planning in their experimentation with collective farming.  The Ukraine learned first hand through the starvation of nearly 10 million people what can happen when political correctness takes over free markets.

Barack Obama's government takeover of GM is laughably small and relatively innocuous when compared with Joseph Stalin's takeover of Ukrainian agriculture in the 1930s.  But the thinking and approach are similar, albeit on hugely different scales.  In the case of GM, Obama desired to rescue the politically correct class of UAW stakeholders at the expense of ordinary bondholders.  This was because the UAW is a big donor to Obama's party.  In the case of the Ukraine, Stalin exploited the Ukrainian farmers and stole their agricultural products to feed his own party bosses in Moscow -- and build up his Red Army -- while telling the relatively free kulaks of the Ukraine to go pound sand.  When the latter didn't follow his advice and instead started protesting and refusing to work, Stalin responded with sealing the borders of the Ukraine and shipping out all farm products, and declaring the kulak class enemies of the state. He confiscated all of their property and food, resulting in mass starvation in the Ukraine, otherwise the breadbasket of Europe at the time.  It is estimated that at least 10,000,000 people in the Ukraine died as a result of Stalin's policies. 

"Forty Years I Endured that Generation"

 Taken from Psalm 95, the full passage says:

Forty years I endured that generation.
I said, "They are a people whose hearts go astray and they do not know my ways."
So I swore in my anger, "They shall not enter into my rest."

 This last stanza from Psalm 95 is recited everyday by many Catholics throughout the world, especially religious priests, brothers and sisters, as the closing lines of the Invitatory to the Divine Office, also known as the Liturgy of the Hours.

In America we are now approaching on January 22, 2013, the 40th anniversary of the famous Supreme Court abortion decision called Roe vs. Wade.   This decision, which struck down certain state laws prohibiting abortion, was a seminal moment in the American journey and has become a key dividing issue in American politics.  It is perhaps the one issue that seems to most define the difference between right and left in America.  Religious authorities such as Pope John Paul II have cited abortion as one of the main platforms in the culture of death,  and the supposed right to an abortion has been a defining plank in the platform of the Democratic Party for decades.  Thus, in the culture war of life vs. death, the Democratic Party has placed itself squarely on the side of the culture of death.  In fact, it is now almost redundant to say that if you vote for a Democrat, you are voting for abortion.  The Pro-Life Democrat is certainly an endangered species, if not already practically extinct.

I fear that if Barack Obama is re-elected president, the words of the Psalm will indeed come true for America and the wrath of God will be upon us.  The reason for this fear is that there are several aging liberal justices on the Supreme Court who will almost certainly retire or die during the next four years.  Breyer and Ginsburg, both Clinton appointees, may retire.  If Obama is re-elected, they will be replaced with liberals and any hope for overturning Roe vs. Wade will be gone for perhaps another generation.

We still have an opportunity on Nov. 6 of this year to turn back the tide of the culture of death of which abortion is the quintessential, representative issue.

President Obama is the most anti-life -- and anti-truth -- president in the history of our country.  His opposition to Illinois Bill S.B 1082 amended by Amendment 1 shows just how anti-life he is.  His and his campaign's attempts to spin, cover up and lie about his stance as a state senator have been exposed by  FactCheck.org's article.

Some people dismiss this issue of abortion, saying it is not as important as other issues such as unemployment, the dismal state of the economy and foreign policy.  But this view is sorely mistaken.  The right to life is fundamental, the sound basis of our whole political system.  It is the litmus test by which God will judge us as a society and determine whether we will continue as a God-fearing people who enjoy his favor and blessing, or whether disaster will overtake us instead.  God doesn't have to send specific calamities in order to express his wrath.  He can simply allow us to go our own way without his protection and the consequences will be wrath enough.

In America today, life is under attack, marriage is under attack and truth is under attack.  The attacking forces are very clever in disguising their program with the glamor of Hollywood and make it seem "cool."  But cool it is not.

This year's vote is the most important vote in the history of our nation, one that may well decide whether or not our nation survives.  Think long and hard before you vote and, more importantly, pray long and hard before you vote.  Remember the words of the Psalm:

Forty years I endured that generation.
I said, "They are a people whose hearts go astray and they do not know my ways."
So I swore in my anger, "They shall not enter into my rest."

Amateur Hour

President Obama is too busy spending time with Pimp with a Limp to pay much attention to those pesky security briefings that his intel people provide.  Just give him a few bullets and a good teleprompter feed.  Why does all this presidential stuff have to be so damn stiff and boring.  Let's get on with the real excitement, the Hollywood glitz and the celebrity fund raising events.

  Marc Steyn's article on the amateur hour in the oval office -- I mean on the road, since he is hardly ever in the oval office.

Whistling Past the Graveyard

The Obama Administration's attempt to say that this conflagration in the Middle East is just outrage over the film and not anti-Americanism per se, is utter nonsense.  Very little of the graffiti scrawled on walls near our embassies even mentioned the film, except indirectly by saying that we Americans have insulted their prophet.  Most of it was sheer unadulterated hatred towards America and the west.

What may I ask, does Germany have to do with this film by an American crank?

The details of the assassination of our ambassador by Al-Quaeda-like armed militants will most likely support the assessment that this attack was well planned and carried out under the cover of a supposedly spontaneous protest against the film.  Details are already getting out that some members of the consulate staff were killed or injured at or near a safe house.  Now how did these militants know about that safe house?  And how was it that they were apparently prepared and waiting with grenade launchers and other arms near the safe house when the American convoy showed up?   Wasn't very safe, I guess.  Reports are also now circulating that there had been several previous attempts to attack the consulate in Benghazi.

And the timing of September 11?  Is that a coincidence?  Apparently, the supposedly outrageous film had been on YouTube since July.  How come no "outrage" before then?   This was all clearly orchestrated to ignite and incite the Muslim masses on 9/11/2012 and, in the case of Benghazi, to provide fog-of-war cover -- in this case fog of civil unrest -- to hide the murderous attack of the terrorists.

Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi called for a million-man demonstration on Friday but then called it off at the last minute.  Perhaps he received a phone call from the US State Department threatening to cut off all aid to Egypt.  I hope so.  I hope the State Department did that.

While the left was giddy with glee about the prospects of "Arab Spring" and thought it proof that if you are nice to the Muslim world, they will suddenly embrace you and your values of liberty with open arms, more sober minds were more cautious.  Over a year ago Dennis Prager wrote and article about this.
There he gives 8 reasons to be skeptical about the "Arab Spring" that was just beginning.  Reason #4 is this:  "Neither liberty nor tolerance has roots in the Arab world."


But the left-leaning main stream media has ignored this, of course, and now we are seeing that Prager and others were right.

Prager's Reason #8 was: "Egypt is saturated with Jew and Israel hatred."   The hatred of Jews is about as old as Islam itself and the hatred of Zionists in general and Israel in particular stems from the early part of the 20th century.  Obama's Mideast Policy could fairly be summed up with a slight parody on Woodrow Wilson's view of WWI:  To make the Mideast safe for Jew haters.

From a BBC article posted today:  "According to a June 2012 Pew survey, just 15% of those in Muslim countries held a favourable opinion of the United States, compared to 25% in 2009."

Another maxim that seems to characterize the naivete of President Obama is that "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread."  Probably the biggest let down for the young Egyptians who were perhaps inspired by Mr. Obama's Cairo speech, was that this president is great at giving speeches but much less than great when it comes to following up with action.  Now the Muslim Brotherhood has run roughshod over the secular idealists in Eqypt and Mr. Obama is nowhere to be seen.  So much for democracy!

All of this is very reminiscent of Iran in 1979, when Jimmy Carter's ambassador to the UN Ambassador Andrew Young praised Khomeini's "revolution."   An analysis of US naivete towards Iran during their "revolution" is giving in this article.

The tendency toward wishful thinking continued even after the revolution in February 1979. Whereas Tehran increasingly viewed the U.S. through the darkly hued optic of its paranoid phantasms and loudly demonized America as its Enemy No. 1, Washington plugged its ears and looked back through rose-colored glasses. The American Representative to the UN, Andrew Young, described Khomeini as “some kind of saint,” while National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski was favorably disposed toward him, since he seemed to Brzezinski to represented an effective barrier against Soviet influence. “We can get along with Khomeini!” was the motto in that summer of 1979.

Will we never learn from history?

Marc Steyn says:

The 400-strong assault force in Benghazi showed up with RPGs and mortars: that's not a spontaneous movie protest; that's an act of war, and better planned and executed than the dying superpower's response to it. Clinton and Dempsey are, to put it mildly, misleading the American people when they suggest otherwise.

One can understand why they might do this, given the fiasco in Libya. The men who organized this attack knew the ambassador would be at the consulate in Benghazi rather than at the embassy in Tripoli. How did that happen? They knew when he had been moved from the consulate to a "safe house," and switched their attentions accordingly.

How did that happen? The U.S. government lost track of its ambassador for 10 hours. How did that happen? Perhaps, when they've investigated Mitt Romney's press release for another three or four weeks, the court eunuchs of the American media might like to look into some of these fascinating questions, instead of leaving the only interesting reporting on an American story to the foreign press.

Economic Analysis: 2011 -2012

This post from CNN Money and Fortune is very instructive. The economic news that came out Friday is very bad. You have to look closer at the numbers to see what they really mean. Compared to a year ago, they are very frightening.

Also frightening to me personally is the fact that Facebook is actually causing my post linking to this article to disappear after several attempted posts.  What is going on?  Sure feels like censorship.

Update:  Finally solved the problem by killing the browser and restarting a new session.  Now the posts are showing up.  Sorry, FB, shouldn't have jumped the gun and accused you!

The Godless Party

The floor fight at the DNC convention was very telling. At least as many, if not more, voices said "Nay" to the motion to put mention of God and Jerusalem (as the capitol of Israel) back into the platform after the hard left had removed it. LA Mayor Villaraigosa had the gavel and said the "Ays" had won the day with 2/3 majority even though it is very clearly not true. Why did he do so? Because the bosses higher up told him to. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/editorials/view/20220907dems_platform_mess/.

To say that the Dems are godless is not entirely true.  There are many people of many faiths who are passionate believers in the Democratic Party as well.  But it is also true that the Democratic Party attracts more than its fair share of atheists, especially secular leftists who despise religion and who despise Israel.  Not that you can't do one without doing the other.  Yes, you can be religious and believe sincerely in God and still despise Israel.  Many Muslims do just that.  But the hard-core secular left generally despises both religion and Israel.  I suspect these were the voices that were so loudly saying "Nay" to the thought of putting God and Jerusalem back into the platform.

The masters of the DNC -- Obama, Clinton, Biden, Wassermann-Schultz --  regardless of their religious beliefs or personal feelings of animosity toward Israel, were apparently more practical.  They realized that it doesn't "play well" to have their party appear to be so anti-religous -- even though it is!  You see, they are more concerned with "messaging" and playing well in Peoria.  It is all fun and games to bash religious people who cling to their guns and bibles when you think the mic is not on, but they understand it is not helpful to their cause to be open about it.  They must keep up the pretenses with the messaging. 

Conservatives have been talking about the godlessness of the left for a long time.  Ann Coulter wrote a book about it: 

  But the anti-religious fervor on the left goes much further back, at least to the French revolution, to Voltaire and Rousseau.  And the most influential anti-religious left-wing voice was, of course, none other than Karl Marx.  He's the one who said that religion is the "opiate of the people."  Big government folks  such as socialists and fascists generally substitute the state and the collective for religion.

There is a myth, perpetuated by the left -- especially in academia -- that Marxist communism represents the extreme left while the Nazism (or Fascism in general) represent the extreme right.  That's why, when they attempt to demonize conservatives, they use the straw man approach of asserting that folks on the right are Nazis.  And they use such demonization to frighten moderate folks in the middle, especially those who think of themselves as progressive and liberal and compassionate.  The left can't really come out and say who they are and what their extreme, left wing ideas are, because they know that that would also scare the folks in the middle.  So they resort to scaring the folks in the middle into thinking that folks on the right are really Nazis.  

But it is patently false to think of Nazis as the other extreme from Communists.  Nazis and Communists are cut from the same cloth.  The main difference between them was that Nazis were national socialists and Communists are internationalist socialists.  They were both big government, totalitarian statist ideologies.  They may have differed in their fantasyland, utopian ends, but their means were both the same, namely totalitarian.  The Nazis fantasy was a world ruled by the mythic Aryan race, while the Communists wanted a mythical egalitarian state in which everybody shared everything in a benevolent anarchy.  The utopian ends they desired demonstrate very clearly that both ideologies were an attempt to replace religion with an ersatz religion, and attempt to create heaven on earth without any help from God.

To be sure, the patriotic, flag-waving nationalism of American conservatives may remind us of the jingoistic, nationalistic tendencies of the Nazis, and we may be tempted to think that conservatives desire to use the power of the state to suppress those opposed to their ideas.  But this once again is a straw man attempt to paint conservatives as Nazis because they share something in common with Nazis, namely, flag-waving.  But their is nothing wrong with patriotism and it is patently false to assert that conservatives want to use the power of the state to repress anybody.  On the contrary, it is primarily folks on the right who are sounding the alarm about how the current regime is using the power of the state to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of religion, for instance.  

Perhaps one could cite the Patriot Act as an example of how the right would propose to use power to suppress the rights of people.  But the intent of Patriot Act was to protect the rights and the very lives of Americans from those like Islamic Jihadists who would take away both rights and lives.  That is a very proper function of the state -- to protect the rights and lives of its people.  Naturally, one has to be on guard that such legitimate functions are not abused and allowed to become a slippery slope downward toward a totalitarian state.  That's why we have legitimate debate about such things in this country.  But to assert that the Patriot Act is an example of how conservatives exhibit Nazi tendencies is a real stretch of the truth.  On the contrary, conservatives are very concerned about the fascist tendencies of Jihadists, something that is really not to be denied.

But the Nazis and Communists both agreed 100% on the means to obtain their absurd utopian ends:  Complete and total power for the state, and elimination of freedom.  Thus complete and total political and economic power was their immediate goal and was to be used as a means to achieve the ultimate goal of creating their visions of heaven on earth.  Both were religions of sorts, but godless religions. 

They both tried to eliminate God from their party platforms.  This time around the Democratic Party nearly achieved the same result, until Obama and Axelrod realized it wouldn't play well in Peoria or in the Upper East Side of Manhattan.

Previous Post

The Party of Sexual Dysfunction

The Democratic Party is about to commence its convention in Charlotte, NC.  The balloons are being readied, the speeches prepared, the teleprompters checked.  It is sad, however, that the DNC, once a cherished and dignified party,  can't seem to free itself from the politics of sexual dysfunction.  Over the course of their convention they will trumpet several items of this sort and will continue to do so throughout the campaign.

First, while pretending to be outraged by the stupid utterances of one Todd Akin, who has been completely repudiated by the RNC for his remarks, they will bring forth their keynote speaker, Bill Clinton, exploiter of workplace sex with then vulnerable intern Monica Lewinsky, not to mention that he was the target of several sexual harassment-like suits coming from Paula Jones and Juanita Broderick.  But let's not also forget Jennifer Flowers.  Maybe Bill will be holding a cigar while he gives his talk.  He wouldn't be able to light it, of course, because that would mean -- oh, dread! -- second hand smoke!  And what could be worse than second hand smoke!  Yet no mention will be made of Clinton's sexual dysfunction in the liberal blogosphere, of course.  Bill will dutifully say what the DNC requires of him, that Obama's policies are essentially the same as his and that happier days are just around the corner, if only we can get past those mean-spirited Republicans.

His wife Hilary, however, won't be seen at the DNC.  She doesn't want to be tainted by damaged goods and a losing proposition  (E.g., "You didn't build that!").  Bill has nothing to lose by being associated with the disastrous presidency of Barack Obama, but Hillary certainly does.  The Clintons know -- because they probably listen to Dick Morris, their once trusted adviser who has turned on them -- that Obama is going to lose.  It is already in the cards.  Bill and Hillary are much too smart and too experienced in these matters to not know.  But they will pretend to support and provide what little support they must in order to keep up appearances.  But make know mistake, they will be back in 2016 with Hillary as the challenger against President Romney.

Never mind that Bill Clinton lied about his sexual escapades as well and was nearly impeached by Congress for his attempted cover up.  None of that will be mentioned, except by us in the blogosphere.

Next we will hear from Sandra Fluke, who is outraged over the insensitivity of conservatives who think it is wrong for them to want her to pay for her own contraceptives.  But wait, I forgot:  She admits that she can afford her own contraceptives; she is just looking out for the poor who can't afford them.  Always looking out for the poor.  Aren't they compassionate?  Yet it is not just the pill that she and the Dems are trying to force us to pay for against our conscience, no, they are not satisfied with that.  They want us to pay for the morning after pill as well, the abortifacent that kills a conceived child before it has a chance to attach to the lining of the uterus.  Some of us call that murder.  But the DNC sweeps that under the rug by calling it "choice."  And we conservatives are again labeled as mean-spirited because we won't pay for that.  What about all the other things that are not being paid for?  The DNC is not proposing to make us pay for condoms.  Why is that an exception?  Are they mean-spirited for not proposing that?  How about natural family planning, why is that off limits?  (Oh, I forgot, Planned Parenthood is a major donor to the DNC and they don't like natural family planning -- it cuts into their abortion revenue.)

Sandra Fluke, whose instant celebrity status was conferred on her by the anointed left and their Anointed One, is now a supposed expert on all these things.  This is typical of the left.  Turn a nobody into a celebrity and voila, they are suddenly an authority.  Plus she is a college student and it plays well with other college students.  They can use FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) to scare college students into thinking that those mean Republicans (made of straw, of course) are going to taking away their rights to pills and abortions.  And if that is not enough they can go the extra mile and entice college students with the nod-nod-wink-wink prospect of having the government pay off their student loans.  How does one spell pandering? -- oh, yes, it is 'p' 'a' 'n' 'd' 'e' 'r' 'i' 'n' 'g'.  It is so easy to beat straw Republicans with arguments made of straw, but college students don't learn about that anymore, about fallacious reasoning, nor about the meaning of the word 'pandering.' 

Never mind that institutions such as the Catholic Church have a 2000 year old record of teaching about the serious moral evils of abortion and contraception.  Such qualifications are not important.  After all having even minimal qualifications to be president doesn't preclude the Dems from nominating the most underqualified person in US history.  And he nominates Sandra Fluke as expert on all things sexual.  But never mind.  Here's what a 2000 year old Christian institution has to say in their catechism about abortion:

ABORTION: Deliberate termination of pregnancy by killing the unborn child. Such direct abortion, willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life (2271–2272).

On artificial contraception:

CONTRACEPTION, ARTIFICIAL: The use of mechanical, chemical, or medical procedures to prevent conception from taking place as a result of sexual intercourse; contraception offends against the openness to procreation required of marriage and also the inner truth of conjugal love (2370).

And here is what the link provides:

2370    Periodic continence, that is, the methods of birth regulation based on self-observation and the use of infertile periods, is in conformity with the objective criteria of morality.¹⁵⁸ These methods respect the bodies of the spouses, encourage tenderness between them, and favor the education of an authentic freedom. In contrast, “every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” is intrinsically evil:¹⁵⁹

Thus the innate language that expresses the total reciprocal self-giving of husband and wife is overlaid, through contraception, by an objectively contradictory language, namely, that of not giving oneself totally to the other. This leads not only to a positive refusal to be open to life but also to a falsification of the inner truth of conjugal love, which is called upon to give itself in personal totality.... The difference, both anthropological and moral, between contraception and recourse to the rhythm of the cycle... involves in the final analysis two irreconcilable concepts of the human person and of human sexuality.¹⁶⁰

2371    “Let all be convinced that human life and the duty of transmitting it are not limited by the horizons of this life only: their true evaluation and full significance can be understood only in reference to man’s eternal destiny.”¹⁶¹ (1703)

Next, we'll be having speakers at the DNC convention no doubt trumpeting their new-found cause, same-sex marriage, since their Dear Leader Barack Obama has suddenly "evolved" on this issue.  Yet, once again, that 2000 year old institution has something to say about that as well:

2357    Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”¹⁴² They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)

 Yet the rationale repeated given by left wing proponents of same-sex marriage is that those desiring it simply "love each other," as if affective love were the ONLY basis for marriage.  If love were the only basis, then what is to prevent a threesome from demanding their "right" to marry?  Or a foursome of two men and two women who are bisexual?  Or four such humans and a dog, with whom all four -- or some of the four -- also want to have sexual relations?  You see, the open-ended nature of this has disastrous consequences for society.  And yet this, in essence is what the Democratic Party is trumpeting as "progressive."

The genesis of this affective love rationalization for same-sex marriage can be traced to the 1960s, when one of my generation's idiotic slogans was "If it feels good, do it!"  Fortunately, I outgrew this nonsense in the 1970s, but I am dumbfounded by the number of people in my own generation who have NOT outgrown it, and who continue to mindlessly pull the lever for the DNC, which keeps telling them they are compassionate to do so.  Some people never grow up, I guess.

This most likely will not be the end of the DNC's celebration of sexual depravity.  Perhaps there will be transgender folks paraded out and applauded for their "bravery."  I for one will be praying that good Americans will see the DNC's decadence for what it is and not be suckered into supporting them because they are supposedly "compassionate" toward all.

The Democratic Party was once a noble institution.  John F. Kennedy was a fine example.  But the noble party took a hard left turn in the 1960s and now we see the result.  Nowadays, when you place Kennedy's speeches before high school students and ask them to guess if the person who gave the speeches was Republican or Democrat, they almost always say Republican.  I guess Kennedy is just not progressive enough for the Democratic Party.  He wasn't very "compassionate."

It is not the purpose of this post to simply scoff at the real sexual dysfunctionality of Democratic Party or any particular Democrats.  People who suffer from these things really do need compassion and help.  But the DNC's attempt to celebrate this dysfunctionality as if it were legitimate diversity is truly beyond the pale.