An Election Eve Video

Here is a short video depicting the real story about William Ayers.  It flabbergasts me that people are willing to overlook this.

I Was Wandering In The Liberal Wildnerness And I Found Bush

New York Times, “Senior Bush administration officials are discussing a plan that could help up to three million homeowners struggling to pay their mortgages to stay in their homes…”

There comes a time in a society when things start to change. Some may call it an erosion, others enlightenment but somewhere along the way, people lost their ability to face problems in life. When Richard Nixons’ brother, Harold, was diagnosed with Tuberculosis, his father would not consider a public clinic because he didn’t want to be a ward of the state. Such things were not uncommon at one time. The first few decades of the twentieth century were rough ones. After two world wars and the depression, people learned that nothing in life is guaranteed. The peddled notion of government as the answer was not so much enshrined and people knew that achievement was the product of one’s own effort. What happened?

A couple of decades later, Alan Bloom said it well when he was speaking of his students, “They have been raised in comfort and with the expectation of ever increasing comfort. Hence they are largely indifferent to it; they are not proud of having acquired it and have not occupied themselves with the petty and sometimes deforming concerns necessary to its acquisition.” Compared to their parents, their lives were a walk in the park. Further, he noted, “because they do not particularly care about it, they are more willing to give it up in the name of grand ideals.” Separated from the struggle for subsistence, life and liberty, they looked at the world through a privileged lens, one in which answers to problems on poverty and race were as simple as a social program here and a tax hike there. This was their world view, lofty goals, idealistic, without resulting benefits.
There is a pervasive message that emanates from liberal elites. This message is aimed like a bullseye, targeting poor and minority people. It could be an idea that catches the mind of a young black male growing up in a ghetto; an idea that finds root in the mind of a single mother wondering how she’s going to pay her bills. The message: It’s not your fault; society is unjust; the deck is stacked against you; you need help. This message holds sway and I’m convinced it’s a destructive force in the lives of people. It’s the seductive message that says all your problems are outside yourself. Have liberal prescriptions helped?

If we study the effects of LBJ’s great society, where welfare and government programs were expanded rapidly, we see degradation, broken families and dependents stuck in a cycle of poverty. In 1960, 22% of black children were born to unwed mothers; by 1994, this number grew to 70%. As liberal policies started ascending, creating large wealth transference programs, the black family started falling apart. During LBJ’s presidency, children of unemployed fathers were ineligible but single mothers or abandoned wives were eligible. A short time after, Nixon was championing welfare reform but it took two and half decades and a Republican contract with America, until something was done about it. The result? 1.6 million children lifted out of poverty. Eventhough Obama was against it before he was for it, he agrees, welfare reform, “slashed the rolls by 80 percent.” Conservatism works.

Trillions of dollars have been transferred to poor people, in hopes of fixing disparity. Don’t liberals owe us results? But here we are again, listening to a Democratic presidential candidate saying more is needed, higher taxes to help the less fortunate. It doesn’t work. What is the goal of any program? What should be the goal? - The empowerment of people to take control of their lives, through their own efforts and hard work. The name social program is a misnomer. It’s an abstract notion, based on vague concepts of justice and social benefit. How do we measure the results of equality and social justice? This name, social program, makes us support more programs for undefined benefits. The four decade war on poverty is lost. We need to start calling for an exit strategy.

Liberals know one thing, if they can get enough people to benefit from their handouts, if they can get you to a point in life where you can’t imagine a life where government doesn’t provide benefits for you, you will vote away your freedom to choose. I hope people realize I am not trying to paint the liberal voter as something sinister. I’m talking about the politicians and the elites, the ones that want us divided so that they can put themselves in power. I think liberal ideology is a lot of emotion but no substance. Many liberal voters will vote on heightened notions of helping others, of equality or of helping themselves. Being a liberal is easy. All you have to do is care, while ceding some primary functions to government. Conservatism is the hard sell. It asks that people take responsibility for themselves. It takes an understanding of economics. It’s a belief in liberty and equality before the law. It hopes to establish an environment where people can succeed, and gives you the freedom to fail. It’s understands capitalism is the force for creating wealth, while lifting living standards for everyone.

When John McCain suggested the government should buy up bad mortgages to help stabilize home prices, I almost fell out of my seat. Apparently, George Bush concurs. 95% of Americans are paying their mortgages. The credit crisis is a government created problem but taxpayers, hard working people, have to spend $600 billion to fix it. A great hoax is being perpetrated. To blame the housing mess on free markets and capitalism is a lie used to scare people so that they look to government. And look we do. The government is listening. It makes me think of a poignant passage from Alexis De Tocqueville, “For their happiness such a government willingly labors, but it chooses to be the sole agent and the only arbiter of that happiness; it provides for their security, foresees and supplies their necessities, facilitates their pleasures, manages their principal concerns, directs their industry, regulates the descent of property, and subdivides their inheritances: what remains, but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of living?” This is where we’re at.

Tax Increases a Comin’

Check out this article oulining four ways in which Obama will raise taxes on people making less than $250k.

Obama Caught

 You may have heard about this audio from WBEZ.fm, in which Obama talks about redistributive change.  Who would have thought that we’d be debating the virtues or lack thereof of socialism?  I thought that debate was settled in the 20^th century.  Are we supposed to forget about the 100 million dead, the oppression, all in the name of forcing equality?  I reject the notion that you enrich one set of people by confiscating wealth from another.  Force and oppression necessarily follow.  You cannot equalize results without the strong hand of government.  And don’t tell me this is socialism light or that it’s harmless. If we accept the premise that rich people are rich at the expense of lower and middle classes, then we open the door for the mob to take what is perceived to be theirs.  This is the liberal trick, exploiting classism to give themselves power.

Obama does not reject the notion of wealth redistribution and says he is not, “…optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.”  This assaults my sensibilities.  In no way does he reject the notion so one must assume that he has sympathies for court sanctioned equalization schemes that necessarily entail much higher taxes, which will further burden working families. These notions are not based on equality before the law but on perceived injustices.  Placing arbitrary power into the hands of select individuals, based on perceptions of cosmic justice, will result in the loss of liberty.

Global Cooling?

Alaskan glaciers have grown for the first time in 250 years.

Health Care – Right or Responsibility?

Last week we were having a normal weekend day with the family. My daughter was her jovial self, though slightly lethargic. She had just gotten over a bout of bronchitis. It was a pretty routine day. A few hours after we put her to bed, she started having a coughing attack. It was a weird barking sound. I noticed she was having problems breathing so I picked her up and kept her in my arms for a while. The episodes continued so we decided to bring her to the emergency room. It turns out she had croup. We were out in slightly less than two hours, not bad, with a two day prescription of cortisone. This got me thinking about health care again and I happened to come across this article a few days later.

Ms. Mahar’s article is based on the premise of Health Care as a moral obligation. She starts out by saying she has a problem with the language of rights, because it conveys an image “of an aggrieved, resentful mob of freeloaders dunning the rest of us for having the simple good luck of being relatively healthy and relatively wealthy.” Leaving aside the fact that wealth can be squandered and it takes more than luck to create wealth, I get the sense she thinks health care is a right, only she’s uncomfortable with the “language of rights” because it can be thwarted by conservatives and libertarians.

One can easily refute the notion of Health Care as a right. A right cannot infringe on other rights. The right of a single payer, universal system necessitates a restriction on freedom. We are forced to participate in the government system, while being denied the option of pursuing private care. The Chaoulli v Quebec case already threatens our health care system, with a ruling that states delays in service violate our “Charter rights to life and security of the person.” The closed mindedness of liberals, resisting attempts at innovation, while stubbornly insisting that there can be no private service – a lot of this is posturing to score points against conservatives – has two sources. One, liberals seek to equalize results. We are all going to get the exact same service and coverage, regardless of personal choice and ability to pay. Two, empowered citizens making their own decisions is bad business for liberals. They need you dependent.

This brings us to the moral obligation question. Whenever someone tells you that you have a moral obligation to such and such, grab your wallets. Big government prescriptions are about to follow – hello Al Gore. You see, if this is a moral obligation, sacrifice is necessary. Liberals have all the catch phrases ready to make you accept the need for these sacrifices, “human rights”, “collective good”, “moral obligation” and so on. Who’s against a moral right? Besides Iceland, Canada spends more on health care than all other OECD nations, in relation to GDP, yet we are falling short of all major indicators. Whether we are speaking of Doctors per capita, access to high tech medical devices or infant mortality, Canada ranks dismally low. It seems the public service has some deficiency. Should a moral right have a qualification that goes along with it, such as results?

On our present course, our health care system is not sustainable. All the parties, even conservatives, have thrown more and more money at health care, hoping to make our system better. But it’s never enough. Once we inject money, new needs arise. When you separate people from the responsibility of providing for themselves, it is hard to have a frank conversation with them about the cost and efficacy of a particular program. A politician cannot utter words like privatization, efficiency or cost reduction, without being labelled a right wing nut. It’s irrational.

In the U.K, certain procedures are being denied to people if they smoke and doctors are suggesting old and unhealthy people should not be able to get treatment. Do your “human rights” change when you make bad lifestyle choices? In 2006, Canadians waited an average of 17.8 weeks after a specialist was recommended, a wait 91% higher than wait times in 1993. Socialism always fails; sometimes it just takes a long time.

It never seizes to amaze that liberals will not countenance a policy prescription that will place power into the hands of the people. When you have fears about your health care system, they have you right where they want you, feeling like you need them to get by in life. Going back to my time at the emergency room, I realize that public health care is a privilege, a forced privilege but a privilege nonetheless. Ultimately, I think we face dwindling service, higher taxes or a two tier system. Our system as it stands is not compatible with the freedoms we hold dear. Framing the debate in a fashion that puts emphasis on moral imperatives or human rights sounds righteous, and it’s a seductive method. Unfortunately, the ideal must transform into the real and once that happens, the problems of service, equalization of coverage, funding and principles in freedom all come to the forefront. It’s not that easy.

It’s Only Yours For As Long As They Say It’s Yours

I have heard a recurrent theme emanating from the Obama campaign over the last few months, a theme that Bob Beckel just reiterated on Fox. It’s based on the premise that the rich have been given more during the Bush years. This sentiment always arouses a visceral nausea in me. Let me say this plainly. You can’t give somebody something they’ve earned through their own productive effort. You can’t give something to someone when you don’t own it. Liberals believe your hard earned dollars are yours for as long as they say it’s yours. They’re only for you when you’re down but once you achieve, well, you’re exploiting the less fortunate.

It’s time for the rich to get the thanks they deserve. I think we need to be honest about what we’re doing. Here’s how I think Obama should frame his tax proposal in a speech:

Thank you ladies and gentleman. I would like to talk to you today about a very serious issue. I want to talk about the rich. We’ve really been giving them a tough time. Well let me start by saying thank you. Thank you for what you do. Thank you for working hard, taking risks and using your money to create the new products that have helped shape our lives in such a profound way. Thank you for creating the jobs that we depend upon.

We’ve got something to ask of you. We know the top 25% of earners pay 80% of all the taxes but we need a little more. I ask this with reverence. Through your own hard work and effort, you have risen and found success. Well I want to spread that success. I think if I give the lower and middle class more of your money, they will somehow find a way to work harder and strive further. With your money, I can pass out government cheques to people who don’t pay income taxes. With your money, I can increase the size of government. I think this is only fair. You guys have a lot of material goods. This opulence is a slight on the fairness of America. Now I know government doesn’t create wealth but we should redistribute it so that everyone has an equal chance. You know, spread the wealth around.

This is not all we need from you. We really need you to keep doing what you do. Although you will have to make do with less, we still need you to take risks. We need you to reinvest in your businesses so that productivity can go up and wages will rise. We on the other hand will not make do with less. In fact, with your hard work, we will expand government programs and spending in ways that have been tried for decades. Trillions of dollars have been spent trying to rectify income disparity but it hasn’t been enough. We’re almost there. I think I speak for all Americans when I say thank for your sacrifice.

Good night.

I hope people see this for what it is. When you take from someone, you should be polite enough to ask. The $250,000 threshold is only good for as long as liberals say it’s good. Once it becomes politically expedient, they will further their pursuit of equalizing the results of human nature. That is, that some will always do better than others. The only way to eliminate class and income disparity is through the force and coercion of government.

About Us

The Revolution Begins

We have been thinking about starting a blog for a long time now.  It’s not a decision taken lightly and we feel compelled to wage into the arena of ideas.  Every day we see evidence of irrational behaviour and thought.  We wonder what people are actually thinking.  This blog will attempt to bring some logical analysis to an illogical world.  Our hope is for some open discourse and not just empty rhetoric.

We are conservatives.  It is our belief that many of the problems facing society can be fixed with conservative principles.  We say this unabashedly.  We will touch upon ill-conceived liberal notions, with their unintended consequences.  We will question the general consensus.  We’ll try to prove that liberal politicians and the liberal intelligentsia are not so much concerned with empowering people as they are in creating a class of citizens beholden to government.

We don’t pretend to be experts and we are not professional writers…not even close; however, we are concerned and therefore passionate about the things we hold true.  So welcome to our blog.  Hopefully we will learn and grow together, in our pursuit of a common sense revolution.