Socialism

It's been tried time after time and failed. There is only one moral (that means no one uses force to take your money) economic system. Capitalism. Every other system must take your money for their needs. Behind every other system their is someone with a gun to force their agenda on you.

A government exists for only three basic reasons. An army to protect us from others that would try to conquer us by force. A police force to prevent us from preying on each other, and a judge to arbiotrate disputes between us. That's it.

A government has no business trying to run our lives by taking our freedom of choice. As long as we don't initiate the use of force, we should have the freedom to do what we see as bettering our own lives.

Reparations for Blacks

Someone should ask Obama if he would support reparations for blacks as payment for slavery.

If he says yes, he would lose the election outright because there would be a very large backlash from whites. If he says no, the black community would scream bloody murder and the uproar would lose him the election.

Could it be that the recent focus on mortgages for people who can't afford it is no more than an attempt to start that ball rolling? Will Obama bring this subject to the forefront if he is elected, having both houses of congress to support it?

It may start slow, but ti think it's coming.

Tacking.....

In every election, we have grown used to candidates moving from right to center, left to center, center to left or right, or anywhere in between. This has become to be known as "tacking", a word associated with sailing where the vessel moves back and forth in a zig zag across a line of sight marked by the destination in the distance. This is done to take advantage of the wind, if the wind is not a tail wind, in order to creep toward the end point.

We have become accustomed to candidates changing their positions on various issues as the election grinds on. The problem is that we look at "tacking" as a normal, expected action. No candidate ever just takes a stand, win or lose, rather than compromise just to get elected. No one stands on principle and the public doesn't even recognize that the candidates presented to them are no more than used car salesmen, telling them what they want to hear just to close the deal.

Focus Group Politics

I watched a focus group sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center a couple of nights ago. The conductor was a guy that normally does polls for NBC-Wall Street Journal.

The questions he asked were the most leading and biased you could imagine, and played into the ignorance of the 12 subjects in the group. At one point he brought up race in the coming election. It was clear that the folks in the room became uneasy and tried to sound touchy-feely, to the point of talking about the safety of Obama. Finally, one respondent said that no one was even talking about race until the moderator brought it up. The moderator moved on, not acknowledging the observation.

The rest of the time that the subjects had the floor, there was zero content as regards to policy. It was all about charisma and how they "felt" about the candidate. Nothing was said by either the conductor or the subjects about the ramifications of the policies held up by the candidates.

Why don't these people have a clue? Because the education they get has long ago been given over to the liberals, who have treated students like mushrooms.....keeping them in the dark and feeding them crap. Feelings and image worship have become the ideal.

There is no longer standing up for what's right, because no one knows what's right. Polls and focus groups are all an orgy of ignorance leading ignorance.

Wesley Clark works for Hillary

Wesley Clark continues to hammer McCain on "experience" to be Commander in Chief even as Obama softly distances himself from the attacks. Why would Clark continue to use this tactic making Obama uneasy. Barry gives a speech about patriotism while Clark tries to tarnish McCain. If Clark keeps this up, it will reflect badly on Obama.

Why would Clark do this? Because he used to be a Hillary supporter.......and probably still is. This is so Clintonesk. I think Hillary still would like to see McCain win the election so that she can run against him in 2012. It will be interesting to see if other Hillary supporters "help" Obama.

Obama the Messiah

Obama's followers seem to treat him as the second coming. He is being elevated to god status. If he loses the election, will his followers curse the winner by saying "Bama damn it!"?

Someone should track Obama's "recalibrations". We could call it the " Obarometer". It would, after all be a predictor of a coming low pressure system and storm.

The Supreme Court Recognizes an Individual right

So for the first time, the SCOTUS determined that the Second Amendment revolves around an individual freedom, and not a regulated militia per say. The language of the Amendment has been a source of dispute because it has been seen as vague, giving the liberal view something to point to as something other as an individual right, something that is self evident.

The ruling may have to do with guns, but the heart of the matter is one of self defense, pure and simple. Guns happen to be the state of the art. If the issue was presented a thousand years ago, the state of the art would be swords or the like.

Whether the tool for self defense is a gun, a bow and arrow, a box cutter, or a stone hand axe, the right of the individual to protect himself is absolute and is not subject to the speculation of a few judges.

Every creature on the planet has a tool for self defense. A bear has claws and teeth, as do cats, dogs, etc. Birds can escape by flight, although some have formidable beaks and talons. Some have camouflage. Man has his brain to utilize a stick or rock, or a shotgun. Or, on a larger scale, an aircraft carrier.

No matter the tool, a person has the right, just as any other creature, to defend hearth, person and home. And by the way, he also has the right to defend himself against a government, to which he has granted limited powers, that would usurp his individual rights. Hence the "well regulated militia".

Four members of the supreme Court voted to give more power to the government, a la King George, than keep it with the individual. They voted to return to a totalitarian state and suppress the freedom of the individual. You might say we dodged a bullet.