Stupid is as Stupid does–Why the London Olympics were poorly attended

Another example of why central planning is a bad idea…

Simon Black on August 8, 2012

August 8, 2012
Oxford, England

I’ve noticed something strange over the past few weeks, maybe you have too. It seems that every ‘contrarian’ website out there has joined together to collectively bash the Olympics and anyone who tunes in to watch.

This seems nuts. Nobody should feel guilty for wanting to see athletes in peak condition push the boundaries of human performance. I certainly don’t feel guilty about it. In fact I came to the UK several days ago specifically to catch some of the Olympics live.

Unfortunately it turned out to be much more difficult than I had expected.

As it turns out, the British government has centrally planned Olympic ticket issuance in a way that’s so remarkably inefficient it would make Karl Marx look like Steve Jobs.

There’s only one way to buy London Olympic tickets– through the ’official’ office that’s controlled by the government. They’ve even solidified their monopoly by making it a CRIMINAL OFFENSE for individuals to resell Olympic tickets.

The concierge at my hotel, an affable Italian named Paulo, explained to me that the police even came around to warn (i.e. threaten) him against helping hotel guests find tickets.

Paulo directed me to the government’s official website so I could buy tickets the legal way. I quickly found out how Byzantine it is– there are all sorts of ridiculous hoops to jump through; if you’re a resident of the UK, you follow one procedure. If you’re a resident of the EU, you follow another. If you’re a resident of other countries, you follow yet another.

Then after creating an online profile and giving them all sorts of personal information, they’ll actually MAIL (i.e. snail mail) the physical tickets to the address you give them in your profile… and only to the address of your legal residency. It doesn’t matter if you’re traveling.

The alternative is that you could spend a couple of hours going to one of the ticket offices, all of which seem to have been strategically chosen for being in the most inconvenient locations possible.

Even if you can get through that maze, they’ve really screwed up their inventory management. Nobody seems to have any idea what tickets are available at any given time. An event may be ‘sold out’ at 10am, then have hundreds of seats available by noon.

The government’s central planning of Olympic ticketing has been a complete failure, perhaps best evidenced by the THOUSANDS of empty seats at many of the events.

Annoyed beyond belief, I asked the concierge at my hotel if there were any alternatives. He said, ‘maybe’, told me to write down my phone number, and wait.

Within a few minutes, my phone started ringing off the hook with calls from ticket brokers; since the government made it illegal for these guys to sell tickets, they’ve been pushed into dodgy underground boiler rooms for the past two weeks as if they’re Prohibition-era bootleggers trying to move a shipment of hooch.

Negotiating ticket prices with these guys, I couldn’t believe we were talking about a sporting event… it seemed more like an arms deal. One guy asked me three times if I was a cop, and another refused to give me his phone number when I said I needed to call him back.

Totally crazy. The government has managed to monopolize an entire industry and screw it up with Soviet-level inefficiency… then make it a criminal offense for the private sector to fix it.

BuzzNet Tags: government,stupidity,socialism,olympics,attendeance,choice

This is typical of how a government operates. They take a very cavalier attitude because they don’t care about results, they only care about maintaining control. As a result, they run their operations based on the premise that people really have no choice.

With regard to Olympic ticketing, this is mostly true. My choice was either to go through the system legitimately (albeit painfully), deal with some dodgy backroom ticket broker at three times the price, or just watch it on television.

In our regular lives, though, we do have a choice. A single government need not have a monopoly over our lives.

As human beings, we are fundamentally free. We can choose where we live, where our money lives, where we pay taxes (and how much we pay), where to structure our companies, where to hire our employees, which regulations to adhere to, etc.

You can hold your savings in one country, store gold in another, own property in another, have legal tax residency in another, live in another, have a business in another, etc. This is what I call planting multiple flags… essentially using the system against itself.

And it is, by far, one of the most effective ways to take your freedom back and end your home government’s monopoly over your life.

American and Western Prosperity

There have been several past attempts by Europeans and several recent attempts by American Sociologists to explain the ascendency of Western Civilization with its attendant prosperity and growth. The results have been quite similar whether the study was done in the 19th century or the last 10 years. We were founded on the ideas that personal property, including real estate, was peculiarly owned by individuals, not the state. The rule of law prevailed and included ideas of personal liberty in one’s own ideas, expressions, and religious preferences (the 1st amendment). And morality as defined by the Christian Bible controlled the formation of all laws.

These days many people, especially Socialist minded liberal Democrats, would have us throw away those Christian values including the Protestant Work Ethic for State (governmental) run, controlled, and defined schools, work rules and charities by using non-voluntary confiscated funds (taxes) to pay,feed,house,and control the masses whom they deem incapable of taking care of themselves. Factually, Government is growing in all sectors of economic life and its endemic rules are making it increasingly difficult for individuals to conduct themselves according to their Christian values and for businesses to expand or increase hiring due to the expansion of regulations.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from consent of the governed.- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People
to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and Happiness. Remember Jefferson's great insight : The GOD who gave us life gave us liberty."

Our Founders declared independence and created a government based upon their understanding of GOD's principles. They were committed to the idea of a federal government with limited powers. Because of their success, our government today is now the oldest government on earth. The best way to ensure its continuation and to secure religious liberty is to further limit governmental, particularly federal, powers and maintain the rights of redress articulated in the Declaration of Independence. 

Liberals tend to be immoral. Our liberal power elite are selfish, hypocritical, arrogant, self-righteous, and, worst of all, destructive of those around them, witness Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc. They saddle everyone else with rules, regulations, and higher taxes which don’t apply to themselves and that they somehow escape paying. The Buffett Rule might sound like a great idea, but it would never apply to Buffett or the Kerry’s, or Kennedys, or Soros, or any other left-wing billionaire. Liberal do-gooders are always coming up with lovely schemes for redistributing other people's money and managing other people's lives even if those schemes do more harm than good.

Welfare redistributes wealth to those who cannot work but also to those who avoid working, underreport income, or have found ways to take advantage of funding off the backs of those who actually do work. Did you think FDR designed Social Security to actually assist poor Americans? His entire idea was based upon making as many people dependent upon Government (run by Democrats) as possible thereby assuring continued Democrat Party rule. Johnson did exactly the same thing with his War on Poverty that has spent more than a trillion dollars ensuring entire generations remain dependent upon government largesse. Add to those ideas open and free abortion and you have an aging populace that cannot ever expand sufficiently to get the nation out of debt. None of that will end under Democrat Party rule since they have accepted Socialism as their basic tenets and rejected God.

PL Booth, The Blue Eye View of MO, 6/4/12

Technorati Tags: liberals,SS,social security,taxes,liberty,expanding government,immoral democrats,BO

 

The Debt Generation

Technorati Tags: BO,socialism,students,young people,voters,debts,elections

BO, Tax The Rich and Promoting National Wellbeing

"The main vice of capitalism is the uneven distribution of prosperity. The main vice of socialism is the even distribution of misery." --Sir Winston Churchill

Treasury Secretary Mellon in 1924 pointed out that the government had previously "received substantially the same revenue from high incomes with a 13 percent surtax as it received with a 65 percent surtax." It exemplifies higher tax rates do not mean higher tax revenues. “High tax rates on high incomes”, Mellon said, “lead many of those who earn such incomes to withdraw their money from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities" or otherwise find ways to avoid receiving income in taxable forms. The government actually received more tax revenues at the lower rate than it had at the higher rate. Moreover, it received a higher proportion of all income taxes from the top income earners than before.

Something similar happened in later years, after tax rates were cut under Presidents Kennedy, Reagan and G.W. Bush. The record is clear. Barack Obama admitted during the 2008 election campaign that he understood that raising tax rates does not necessarily mean raising tax revenues. In these present days, monies can much more easily be sent overseas without any penalty - the Caymans, Switzerland, China, Singapore – if tax rates remain higher than high income earners are willing to pay. Why then is BO pushing so hard for higher tax rates on "the rich" this election year? Because class warfare politics can increase votes for his reelection, even if it raises no more tax revenues for the government. In other words, He’s lying.

Watching Obama campaign ads, or MSNBC, one could easily come to the conclusion that Bain Capital makes money by destroying the companies it owns. So for voters unsure about the business that Mitt Romney founded but still reluctant to trust the financial analysis offered by community organizers, some perspective might be helpful. The basic Obama-liberal critique goes like this: Bain buys a company, loads it with debt and then sucks out cash before foisting the wounded business upon an unsuspecting buyer or a bankruptcy court. In the risk-taking world of private equity such a scenario can certainly happen, and it's true that Bain likes management fees and dividends as much as the next partnership.

But then how to explain the history of Bain Capital? Romney started the business in 1984. The company bought and sold many businesses and executed thousands of financing transactions. If Bain's standard operating procedure were to hand the next owner of one of its companies a ticking bankruptcy package, how could Bain still find buyers nearly three decades later? Wouldn't word have gotten around Wall Street and Investment Companies if Bain's portfolio companies weren't creditworthy?

The liberal critique of private equity assumes that the financial industry is full of saps who have been eager to lose money across the table from Bain for 28 years. This is the same financial industry that the same liberal critics say is full of greedy schemers when it comes to padding their own pay or ripping off consumers. They can't be both knaves and diabolical geniuses at the same time. Learning about Bain successes like Staples or Gartner or Steel Dynamics confirms the logical conclusion that Bain had to be creating value along the way -- for investors, for lenders, and that means for workers too.

The constitution says 'promote the general welfare'. It doesn't say provide but promote. It has been proven time and again that lower tax rates provide higher tax revenue and increased economic activity.

Now that Romney is the nominee, it's perfectly understandable - and rational - that conservatives would want him to defeat the far worse leftist Obama. There's a difference between supporting somebody for pragmatic reasons and deluding oneself into believing he's the head of the Conservative movement. Vote for Romney but don’t let people convince you to refrain from criticizing him when he does violence to conservative principles because of the idea that criticisms will help Obama. Liberty requires critical notice of bad behavior. 

Who killed the 20-30 million Soviet citizens in the Gulag Archipelago -- big government or big business? ... Who deliberately caused 75 million Chinese to starve to death -- big government or big business? ... Would there have been a Holocaust without the huge Nazi state? Whatever bad big corporations have done is dwarfed by the monstrous crimes ... committed by big governments." --radio talk-show host Dennis Prager

PL Booth, The Blue Eye View of MO, 5/23/12

Technorati Tags: BO,Romney,Capatalism,Socialism,Big Government,Big Business

 

 

Same-sex Marriage

May 14, 2012  by Kerby Anderson

Imagine this not so hypothetical scenario. You live in a country where marriage is
facing some ominous challenges. Nearly half of all marriages end in divorce. More than
40 percent of all births are to unwed mothers.. The breakdown of the family seems to be
increasing. Fatherless homes are becoming the norm rather than the exception.
In the midst of this marriage crisis, you would assume that pundits and politicians
would want to enact laws that strengthen marriage rather than weaken it. Unfortunately,
if you made that assumption here in America, you would be wrong.
Vice-President Joe Biden says he is fine with same-sex marriage. Education
Secretary Arne Duncan aggress. Nevertheless, the chattering class will continue to
promote the need for a redefinition of marriage in light of the vote Tuesday in North
Carolina to define marriage as one man and one woman.
Brace yourself for another round of columns, commentary, and speeches about
marriage rights for homosexuals. What won’t probably be mentioned is the fact the
legalizing same-sex marriage will not strengthen marriage but weaken it.
While I document this in detail in my book, A Biblical Point of View on
Homosexuality, let me summarize reams of research with a few quick points. First, we
don’t have to guess at the impact of legalizing same-sex marriage. We have had a social
experiment taking place in Europe for decades.
Stanley Kurtz (Hoover Institute), for example, documents that “marriage is
slowly dying in Scandinavia.” A majority of children in Sweden and Norway are born
out of wedlock, and sixty percent of first-born children in Denmark have unmarried
parents.. Kurtz has also documented that marriage is also in decline in the Netherlands.
Second, redefining marriage so that it is no longer defined as one man and one
woman open up just about any other combination. Polygamists are already using the
legalization of same-sex marriage in some states to argue for their redefined view of
marriage. And other proposed arrangements are on the horizon.
The conclusion is simple: if you want to strengthen marriage, you don’t redefine
that. Fortunately, most voters understand that even if many politicians and pundits do
not. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Technorati Tags: Homosexuals,same-sex marraige,liberals,point-of-view,redefine marraige,out of wedlock

Judicial Activism and the Constitution

Alexander's Essay – April 12, 2012

Judicial Review v Judicial Activism

SCOTUS and Constitutional Authority

"No legislative act ... contrary to the Constitution, can be valid." --Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 78 (1787)

Last week, seeing that his signature legislative achievement was in jeopardy, Barack Hussein Obama fired a shot across the bow of the Supreme Court as it considered the constitutionality of his so-called "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (a.k.a., ObamaCare). Obama warned the court against "judicial activism."
"I am confident," proclaimed Obama, "that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. I just remind conservative commentators that for years what we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example and I am pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step. ... [T]hat's not just my opinion, that's the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law."
Actually, as Obama knows well, the Supreme Court's consideration of ObamaCare is not an example of judicial activism as Obama erroneously claims, unless the Court actually upheld the institution of socialized medicine as constitutionally compliant.
In fact, SCOTUS is exercising appropriate judicial review as outlined in Article III of our Constitution, and established as precedent in 1803 with the Court's Marbury v. Madison decision under Chief Justice John Marshall. In that fundamental case, Marshall wrote, "The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. ... [T]he framers of the constitution contemplated that instrument, as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature."
Marbury v. Madison is often derided as the beginning of the end of Liberty. However, it certainly was consistent with our Framers' intent, as Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 78: "[T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
The unfortunate consequence of the Marbury precedent is that it rendered the Constitution vulnerable to broad extra-constitutional interpretation, should the courts ever become highly politicized -- as indeed they did in the 20th century, from FDR forward.

Post Your Opinion: How can the authority of our Constitution be restored?

Judicial review was and remains a foundational component of republican federalism and was instituted to preserve Liberty. However, as Thomas Jefferson feared when warning the judiciary could become the "despotic branch," the federal court's checks and balances have been adulterated by judicial activists who, in the words of the venerable Senator Sam Ervin, "interpret the Constitution to mean what it would have said if [they], instead of the Founding Fathers, had written it."
Thus, now, as Jefferson warned, "The Constitution [will be] a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please."
Setting aside Obama's fallacious assertion that ObamaCare "was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" (a 219-212 House vote with 34 Democrats defecting does not constitute a "strong majority"), his condemnation of "judicial activism" is the height of hypocrisy, given that judicial diktat is the primary tool the Left uses to amend our Constitution to comport with their political agenda. However, it should be noted that judicial activism can take the form of both judicial intervention or judicial inaction -- turning a blind eye to the violation of our Constitution.
Notably, in contrast to Obama's feigned concern for judicial activism in the challenge to ObamaCare, another egregious example of his hypocritical prevarication would be his administration's failure to defend against legal challenges to the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed in 1996 under Bill Clinton's tenure. The margin then was 342 to 67 in the House and 85 to 14 in the Senate -- which actually is a "strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
Of course, congressional margins of support for a piece of legislation should have no bearing on proper judicial review and ruling on such legislation.
Obama's warning in regard to the High Court's review of ObamaCare handed Republicans an outstanding opportunity to score a touchdown with a national discourse on the subject of appropriate judicial review v judicial activism. Unfortunately, Republicans fumbled the ball, perhaps because too many old-guard Beltway-types have been drinking Potomac water for so long that they can't readily distinguish the difference between the proper constitutional role of the Supreme Court and judicial activism -- or worse, they can distinguish the difference, but choose not to because they support judicial activism when it advances their political agenda.

Constitutional scholar Mark Levin draws the distinction between constitutional judicial review v judicial activism as follows: "Originalists believe that the powers enumerated specifically in the Constitution are the only powers of the federal government, unless the Constitution is formally amended. Originalists generally interpret provisions of the Constitution (and, when applicable, statutes) narrowly. In other words, these judges attempt to look at the plain meaning of the law. They believe in a clearly delineated separation of powers. ... A judicial activist, on the other hand, construes the Constitution broadly and rejects some of its provisions outright (or gives them superficial acknowledgment) if they interfere with the desired outcome. In essence, activist judges make, rather than interpret, the law."
Levin concludes, "When the judiciary utilizes outcome-determinative reasoning, rather than adhering to the Constitution, the result can be catastrophic. ... The extreme left has scored few victories at the ballot box. They must rely on the tyranny of an activist judiciary to advance their policy agenda."
I would argue that the result of judicial activism is, inevitably, catastrophic. Tyranny is the certain consequence of judicial activism (rule of men), and history records no instance of tyranny that was not catastrophic.

Post Your Opinion: Can Liberty be preserved through the ballot box?

On the authorized role of SCOTUS review, Robert Bork, one of the greatest jurists of the 20th century, wrote, "Judges may look to the text, structure, and history of the Constitution but are prohibited from inventing extra-constitutional rights. Originalism seeks to promote the rule of law by imparting to the Constitution a fixed, continuous, predictable meaning."
The bottom line is this: Our Constitution established a republican form of government predicated upon Rule of Law. Endeavoring to undermine our authentic Constitution, Leftist legislators and judicial activists, in abject violation of their sacred oaths to "support and defend" our Constitution, are replacing it incrementally with their so-called "living constitution." They are slowly digging away at our Republic's foundation of Liberty assured by Rule of Law, and they are backfilling with the tyranny of a dumbocracy.
The most influential Leftist organization in the nation is the Democrat Party, and its activist cadre organizer, MoveOn.org, has issued the following charge: "It's time to reclaim Democracy. It's time for a 99 percenter Spring." Make no mistake -- they are serious.
Fellow Patriots, dire warnings of the rise of socialism have emerged in every election cycle since the 1960s, but this election is the most critical in the history of our Republic. If we do not muster enough support to defeat the socialist propaganda of the Left, they will have four more years to fully implement Democratic Socialism, and its eradication will be unlikely, short of another call to arms for the current generation of American Patriots.
Deus et Constitutione — Libertas aut Mortis!
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

---

Tags: constitution,judicial activism,socialism,enemies of liberty,democrat party,marxists,hatred,legislative, To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

STAGGERING & OBSCENE GRAPHICS illustrating national debt

 

Subject:  STAGGERING & OBSCENE GRAPHICS   This is a great illustration of how far indebt this country is...     One Hundred  Dollars         $100 - Most counterfeited money  denomination in the world. Keeps the world moving.               Ten Thousand  Dollars           $10,000 - Enough for a great  vacation or to buy a used car. Approximately one year of work for the  average human on earth.         One Million Dollars     $1,000,000 - Not as big of a pile as  you thought, huh? Still this is 92 years of work for the average human on  earth.         One Hundred Million  Dollars     $100,000,000 - Plenty to go around  for everyone. Fits nicely on an ISO / Military standard sized  pallet.         One Billion Dollars     $1,000,000,000 - You will need some  help when robbing the bank. Now we are getting serious!         One Trillion  Dollars     $1,000,000,000,000   When the U.S government speaks about  a 1.7 trillion deficit - this is the volumes of cash the U.S. Government  borrowed in 2010 to run itself.   Keep in mind it is double stacked  pallets of $100 million dollars each, full of $100 dollar bills. You are  going to need a lot of trucks to freight this around.   If you spent $1 million a day since  Jesus was born, you would have not spent $1 trillion by now...but ~$700  billion - same amount the banks got during bailout.   One Trillion  Dollars     Comparison of $1,000,000,000,000  dollars to a standard-sized American Football field and European Football  field.   Say hello to the Boeing 747-400  transcontinental airliner that's hiding on the right. This was until  recently the biggest passenger plane in the world.         15 Trillion Dollars     $15,000,000,000,000 - US national  debt (credit bill) has just topped the 15 trillion 2 months before Christmas  2011.   Statue of Liberty seems rather  worried as United States national debt passes 20% of the entire world's  combined GDP (Gross Domestic Product). In 2011 the National Debt will exceed  100% of GDP, and venture into the 100%+ debt-to-GDP ratio that the European  PIIGS have (bankrupting nations).         $ 114.5  Trillion Dollars           $114,500,000,000,000.  - US unfunded liabilities       To the right you can see the pillar  of cold hard $100 bills that dwarfs the WTC & Empire State Building -  both at one point world's tallest buildings. If you look carefully you can  see the Statue of Liberty.       The 114.5  Trillion dollar super-skyscraper is the amount of money the U.S. Government  knows it does not have to fully fund the Medicare, Medicare Prescription  Drug Program, Social Security, Military and civil servant pensions. It is  the money USA knows it will not have to pay all its  bills.       If you live in USA this is also  your personal credit card bill; you are responsible along with everyone else  to pay this back. The citizens of USA created the U.S. Government to serve  them, this is what the U.S. Government has done while serving The  People.       The unfunded liability is calculated  on current tax and funding inputs, and future demographic shifts in US  Population.       Note: On the above 114.5T  image the size of the base of the money pile is half a trillion, not $1T as on 15T  image. The height is double. This was done to reflect the base of Empire  State and WTC more closely.   *************************************************************************

---

Tags: national debt,gdp,debt increase,debt graphic,illustration,bo,dems,congress,socialism To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Marxism in America - those who refuse to fight now will be those enslaved later

This world is not my home...Im just a passin' through.......but I do need to try and make it better for those following me and my children.


A Bone Chilling video-- PASS IT ON BEFORE IT IS BLOCKED

http://www.morningstartv.com/oak-initiative/marxism-america

A video that will make you think.

marxism,america,socialism,dem socialists,video

Subject: Fact of the day,Mark Rotellini

On Tuesday, Feckless Leader gave another incoherent, factually inaccurate
speech during which he cloaked himself in the coats of Teddy Roosevelt,
adding TR to the collection of presidents – Lincoln, Reagan, FDR, Carter
and Clinton among them – to whom he has compared himself. After basking in
the glory of his self-image, the Narcissist-in-Chief then reconstructed a few
of his favorite straw men and went on the attack.

Feckless took dead aim, again, at technology generally and the internet
specifically, laying the blame for all manner of economic ills squarely at
their feet. He claimed that ATMs and automated telephony switchgear had hurt
the economy by obviating the need for bank tellers and telephone operators.

This is sophistry of the highest (OR LOWEST, ED) order. Consider: among the country’s 20 wealthiest people are Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, Michael Dell and Steve Ballmer, all of whom made their fortunes either in computer hardware or software, or the internet. This 45% of the country’s 20 wealthiest people have, between them, created literally millions of high-paying jobs (the kind that come with wealth-creating stock options in addition to big salaries); their companies push the technological envelope and bring once-unfathomable technologies into the mainstream of society.

None of these vast fortunes (the smallest of which is about $14 billion)
existed thirty-five years ago; all of them were created literally out of thin air, because these visionary entrepreneurs produced products people wanted to buy, building companies to meet the demand for those products, creating jobs and enriching their employees along the way. (To cite but a single example, it was well chronicled in the 1990s that administrative assistants at Microsoft owned stock options worth millions of dollars.)

Yet Feckless Leader blames them and the technologies they have developed for
contributing to the unemployment rate, and hence the nation’s economic
malaise, by displacing the likes of telephone switchboard operators and bank
tellers. Does anybody else really believe we would be better off as a society if women still sat in front of large banks of phone switchgear, manually plugging wires into ports to connect phone calls? Or that the absence of ATMs would make us a more efficient, productive society? Feckless Leader apparently believes this. (Ed. Remarks: I doubt this but believe he is simply conducting his war against the US and money in general. Anything producing wealth is a target for him.)

Free-market capitalism has been described as “creative destruction,”
because even as new industries and technologies develop they displace older,
less desirable or efficient ones. Society invariably benefits from the
upheaval resulting from this creative destruction.

In light of his remarks, Feckless comparing himself to Theodore Roosevelt is
invalid. If Roosevelt had acted as Obama did on Tuesday, 100 years ago
Roosevelt would have derided and criticized Henry Ford, David Buick and
Ransom Olds, because the automobiles their companies made was destroying the
market for buggy whips and carriage makers and therefore displacing the
workers who produced those things. Only an idiot (or a truly delusional
narcissist) could possibly conclude that the advent of the automobile
industry in America was a net negative to economic growth and job creation.
Historical fact overwhelmingly demonstrates exactly the opposite –it is
incontrovertible truth that for over 100 years, despite ludicrous labor union self-interest and inept corporate management, the automotive industry in this country generated jobs and wealth by orders of magnitude.

And only a fool could likewise conclude that the advent of the technology
sector and the internet have had a negative effect on America’s economy
today.

Much more troubling is the fact that the media lets him say these stupid
things without challenge is the terrifying reality that the man who says them occupies the Oval Office and purports to have the answers to our most
pressing problems.

God help us.

---

Tags: BO,socialism,progressive,liar,moron,democrat,war on wealth To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!

Socialism Equates to the Modern Evil of Slavery

Socialism Equates to the Modern Evil of Slavery

Why does socialism continue to appeal to progressives, democrats, and those who cannot provide for themselves? Do modern socialists not recall the reeking stench of communism practiced in Russia, Viet Nam, North Korea, China, and too many other countries? Socialists claim communism and socialism are not the same thing and that socialism has never been given a fair chance. Of course, that is patented bull crap but an inordinate number of students and their college professors accept it as truth writ large. All the above countries practice SOCIALISM.

The results of such hubris are all to easy to see and demonstrate with track records of boastful belligerence, surly truculence, and outright incompetence. All socialist countries are mired in poverty, indifference, and are run by tyrants. They can't get it right because there is no right to be gotten in their political philosophies.

Indisputably, all those countries practice wholesale murder of their citizens. Today's socialists always say, "Many other countries also practice widespread killings." True enough. But none even approach the numbers of murders that communist countries do. Socialism reduces citizens to whores and lackeys; do as told or die.

Socialism is the pursuit of sheer, raw, power over other human beings. Of course, its adherents claim the moral high ground saying equality of rights, income, and labor are the goals but history and modern practices belie the claims. The triumph of evil over good, emotion over reason, and man's infinite capacity for self-delusion always wins.

No amount of malevolent empirical evidence has dissuaded new generations from the siren song of "EQUALITY." Despite all the historical evidence of Nazi Germany, the USSR, and other "Peoples Republics", socialists walk amongst us, even openly in our halls of congress. The deeply flawed "labor theory of value" positing equal intrinsic values of all labor and production captures their petty minds rather than the truth of economically established values of costs per product. A (labor) + B (materials) = product. Product + desire = sale = monetary value.

Capitalists built decent, moral, and humane societies on what socialists consider amoral approaches to economics but socialists built exploitative, inhumane, amoral societies upon inflamed approaches to humanity and economics where no equality exists. The two approaches are antithetical.

Socialism is based entirely upon a fundamental misreading of human nature, the willing suspension of belief in the nature of mankind. Fact: mankind is selfish. Self-preservation, self-interest, and personal comfort take precedence over everything else.

Capitalism wisely exploits and cares for those traits allowing for choice in self-emulation, charity, morality, and the good of society. Socialism is intellectually narrow, irrational, dependent upon self-deprecation and immolation that scarcely exists outside of religious societies (which are not allowed to exist since such societies compete with the state for allegiance). Socialism exists behind a mask of a "charitable impulse" which is forced but which capitalism openly, willingly and ably promotes. Charity forced is not charity. It is tyranny.

Christianity, with all its moral, charitable, and self-improving characteristics, cannot exist in Socialist States which demand total allegiance of mind, body, and existence or death of the non-conformist. Hence, China has an "Official Christian Church" which denies Christ.

All communist countries have "economic plans" run by the state for the benefit of the "state." Is there any difference in Obama's "plan" which promotes the "state" over individuals' benefits. Its top-down approach must inevitably fail as all other socialist plans have failed.

Fallible man cannot ever entirely understand nor tame all social economic forces as no individual has large enough an intellect nor capacity to absorb nor control all the variables of economics. The cultish fervor with which Socialists continue to believe mankind can create all-encompassing fairness is inevitably doomed equating to stupidity.

Obamacare is socialism in its intent, practice, and forced outcome. It cannot but fail. Those moronic Dem Socialists who wrote it, passed it though the house and senate, and are trying ever so hard to implement it must be removed from office if for no other reasons than they are simply too stupid to be allowed to continue. We cannot afford to accept such corrupt, failed policies. To do so is to accept our nation's utter destruction; Obama's "Change" will be complete.

pl booth, the blue eye view of mo, 9-19-11

socialism,communist,democrats,slavery,BO,congress,nation's destruction

J. Edgar Hoover

J. Edgar Hoover

 

I rarely comment upon Hollywood movies but my bride and I saw J.Edgar this last week, a character assassination of innuendo, lies, mis-information, and leftist propaganda, a waste of time and money. Hoover was controversial to the degenerate leftists of Hollywood because he successfully opposed Communism, Socialism, and degenerate sexual behavior. He was branded a closet, cross-dressing Homo who kowtowed to organized crime because of his exposure fears.

 

The internet is filled with such trash but his secretary, bosses, close associates, co-workers, employees, and many who hated him during his lifetime failed to mention these obscenities. The single source for the cross dressing rumor was a multiple perjurer who disliked Hoover published in 1983 years after his death. He provided evidence for the deportation of communists in the 20's so the Red/Liberal/ progressive/democrats who infested Hollywood and our capital offices despised and hated him (though proven correct.) "I would have no fears if more Americans possessed the zeal, the fervor, the persistence and the industry to learn about this menace of Red fascism. I do fear for the liberal and progressive who has been hoodwinked and duped into joining hands with the communists..." JEH 3/26/47  

 

The FBI found proven communist ties of Martin Luther King,   the CIA, and other evidences for leftists in government (including FDR's) for McCarthy including the Rosenbergs, later supported by documents found after the fall of the USSR (the Venona transcripts). Hoover also believed his FBI was infiltrated by Communist sympathizers, confirmed with successful prosecutions of numerous agents in the past 30 years. Of course the left hates him. He successfully exposed them many times.

 

It is unfortunately true that so many living imaginary lives of luxury in Hollywood, academia, and government are fellow travelers, sympathizers, and progressive, liberal, democrats that truth becomes a precious unknown quality in our entertainment, academic, and political industries. Even worse, leftist lies are becoming the basis of foundational knowledge about history, government, and public life rather than factual history. Both major parties are complicit. A general house cleaning of our major institutions may be the only way to end our decline into socialist poverty.

 

PL Booth, The View from Blue Eye, MO 11/28/11

leftists,socialism,communism,democrats,hollywood,liars,innuendos,untruths,fbi

whatta ya think

Norma Viergutz has started a new discussion on your group: 100 Million
Patriots Standing

Subject: Socialism, Communism or Fascism: Which Best Describes Obamanism?
------
I have been doing a lot of reading of late trying to put the correct name to
what is happening to our country. I have come to my own conclusion. It would
seem Godfather Politics have been doing the same thing.
Socialism, Communism or Fascism: Which Best Describes
Obamanism? | Godfather PoliticsLike so many others over the past three
years, I've written about President Obama and made claims about his
socialistic ideas and way of government. But after reading Republican
presidential candidate Ron Paul's statement that Obama is more fascist than
socialist, I began to wonder just who is right and what best describe the man
that wants to overthrow the American government.
Since I've been using the term socialism quite extensively, I went to the
dictionary to get a precise definition. According to one dictionary it gave
the following two definitions for the word 'socialism.'

Socialism – 1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in
which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or
by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and
communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the
dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Next, let's take a look at the definitions of communism and fascism and
then we will compare them to Obamanism (sounds eerily similar to
abomination).

Communism – A system of government in which the state plans and controls
the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to
make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally
shared by the people.

Fascism – A system of government marked by centralization of authority
under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the
opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of
belligerent nationalism and racism.

When I examine these three definitions and compare them to Obamanism, I would
have to say that at this moment, it is a transition between socialism and
communism headed toward fascism.
Since taking office, Obama has managed to have the government take control of
healthcare, student loans and has exerted control over the financial and
housing markets. At one time the government took partial control over the
auto industry and is currently trying to take control of the Internet. His
stimulus packages have placed the nation in a financial crisis that is primed
for a complete government takeover.

Thus, the transition from socialism to communism seems well on its way.
However, the manner in which Obama conducts himself fits more into the
definition of fascism as stated by Ron Paul. Obama clearly sees himself in a
dictatorial role. He is already suppressing opposition by taking action
against nearly 800 websites that have posted negative articles about him. He
also starting to exhibit the belligerent nationalism and racism as he shows
favoritism to blacks, Muslims and illegal Hispanics while at the same time
taking action against law abiding American citizens such as Border Patrol
agent Diaz.

So when you weigh in on just where Obamanism falls, I would have to say that
it is socio-communistic fascism. It wouldn't surprise me to see the term
Obamanism show up in political dictionaries in the near future.
 

Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Obamanism, Obamanation, destruction of america,congress,democrats

Thoughts on just a few current events

Here are my thoughts on just a few current events; things that need to be challenged and changed.
The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows.
Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places
View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011): http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation
Source: http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-696
  The Occupy Movement people are adherents of populist socialists agenda, now the centerpiece of Obama's Democrat Party Platform and its class warfare politics. We used to call them Communists, now they are "Progressives". Most of their followers are the product of the Left's Directorate of Indoctrination (a.k.a. "urban government schools"), which is to say they have little objective cognitive ability -- as they have aptly demonstrated.
I'm reminded of three observations about socialism and history. The first, 18th-century philosopher Edmund Burke, observed, "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Next is a 19th-century classical liberal, Frederic Bastiat, who wrote, "The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else." And finally, as 20th-century philosopher George Santayana concluded in The Life of Reason: "Progress, far from consisting in change, depends on retentiveness. When experience is not retained, as among savages, infancy is perpetual. Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  Obama claims, "People are frustrated and the [Occupy] protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works." The system he bemoans is free enterprise, and the system he wants to impose is inimical to Liberty. Fact: Those who don't pay Fed. Income taxes but are recipients of free monies from Government want taxes raised on the productive sectors to ensure continued free living. Those who work for a living resent those who produce nothing but children. 40% of the Nation receives more "benefits" than they pay for, illegal immigrants constitute 60% of that number.

MO state Pols, both Dem and GOP, supported the last budget increase which raised the National Debt to 15 TRILLION, more than the entire nations gross national product. We are now officailly bankrupt. Why continue in office those who are bankrupting us? Watch the following vido clip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fu6ok5ykyuQ&feature=share
PL Booth, The BLue EYe View of MO, 11/18/11

socialism,fascism,BO,debt,liars in congress,dems,federal reserve

New discussion - American Deception, the fall of education

>
> Subject: Evidence from a Whistleblower all Patriots Must see!
> ------
> This video is an hour long, but it is well worth it - especially towards the
> end! There are an awful lot of people who simply do not understand the extent of their own deception and
how much misinformation they have been inundated with and for how long.
>
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eKGmd9sB... [1]
>
> In case the link doesn't work, you can go to youtube and search:
>
> Charlotte Iserbyt — Full Interview — The Secret History Of Western Education
>
> You can download for free the "evidence" she speaks about at:
>
> http://www.americandeception.com/ [2]
>
>
> [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eKGmd9sBwM&feature=youtu.be
> [2] http://www.americandeception.com/
>

education,socialism,lies,congress,politicians,americas fall

A 31 year old video clip ABSOLUTELY worth your time - dauckster's posterous

 A 31 year old video clip ABSOLUTELY worth your time - dauckster's posterous

 

http://dauckster.posterous.com:80/a-31-year-old-video-clip-absolutely-worth-you

morons,media,commentators,socialism,capatalism,truth,bias in media

Socialism Equates to the Modern Evil of Slavery

Socialism Equates to the Modern Evil of Slavery

 

Why does socialism continue to appeal to progressives, democrats, and those who cannot provide for themselves? Do modern socialists not recall the reeking stench of communism practiced in Russia, Viet Nam, North Korea, China, and too many other countries? Socialists claim communism and socialism are not the same thing and that socialism has never been given a fair chance. Of course, that is patented bull crap but an inordinate number of students and their college professors accept it as truth writ large. All the above countries practice SOCIALISM.

 

The results of such hubris are all to easy to see and demonstrate with track records of boastful belligerence, surly truculence, and outright incompetence. All socialist countries are mired in poverty, indifference, and are run by tyrants. They can't get it right because there is no right to be gotten in their political philosophies.  

 

Indisputably, all those countries practice  wholesale murder of their citizens. Today's socialists always say, "Many other countries also practice widespread killings." True enough. But none even approach the numbers of murders that communist countries do. Socialism reduces citizens to whores and lackeys; do as told or die.

 

Socialism is the pursuit of sheer, raw, power over other human beings. Of course, its adherents claim the moral high ground saying equality of rights, income, and labor are the goals but history and modern practices belie the claims. The triumph of evil over good, emotion over reason, and man's infinite capacity for self-delusion always wins.

 

No amount of malevolent empirical evidence has dissuaded new generations from the siren song of "EQUALITY." Despite all the historical evidence of Nazi Germany, the USSR, and other "Peoples Republics", socialists walk amongst us, even openly in our halls of congress. The deeply flawed "labor theory of value" positing equal intrinsic values of all labor and production captures their petty minds rather than the truth of economically established values of costs per product. A (labor) + B (materials) = product. Product + desire = sale = monetary value.

 

Capitalists built decent, moral, and humane societies on what socialists consider amoral approaches to economics but socialists built exploitative, inhumane, amoral societies upon inflamed approaches to humanity and economics where no equality exists. The two approaches are antithetical.

 

Socialism is based entirely upon a fundamental misreading of human nature, the willing suspension of belief in the nature of mankind. Fact: mankind is selfish. Self-preservation, self-interest, and personal comfort take precedence over everything else.

 

Capitalism wisely exploits and cares for those traits allowing for choice in self-emulation, charity, morality, and the good of society. Socialism is intellectually narrow, irrational, dependent upon self-deprecation and immolation that scarcely exists outside of religious societies (which are not allowed to exist since such societies compete with the state for allegiance). Socialism exists behind a mask of a "charitable impulse" which is forced but which capitalism openly, willingly and ably promotes. Charity forced is not charity. It is tyranny.

 

Christianity, with all its moral, charitable, and self-improving characteristics, cannot exist in Socialist States which demand total allegiance of mind, body, and existence or death of the non-conformist. Hence, China has an "Official Christian Church" which denies Christ.

 

All communist countries have "economic plans" run by the state for the benefit of the "state." Is there any difference in Obama's "plan" which promotes the "state" over individuals' benefits. Its top-down approach must inevitably fail as all other socialist plans have failed.

 

Fallible man cannot ever entirely understand nor tame all social economic forces as no individual has large enough an intellect nor capacity to absorb nor control all the variables of economics. The cultish fervor with which Socialists continue to believe mankind can create all-encompassing fairness is inevitably doomed equating to stupidity.

 

Obamacare is socialism in its intent, practice, and forced outcome. It cannot but fail. Those moronic Dem Socialists who wrote it, passed it though the house and senate, and are trying ever so hard to implement it must be removed from office if for no other reasons than they are simply too stupid to be allowed to continue. We cannot afford to accept such corrupt, failed policies. To do so is to accept our nation's utter destruction; Obama's "Change" will be complete.

 

pl booth, the blue eye view of mo, 9-19-11

socialism,slavery,ill,elitism,politicians,Christian

National Juggernaut: This Cartoon Seemed Far-Fetched In 1948

 

http://nationaljuggernaut.blogspot.com:80/2009/09/this-cartoon-seemed-far-fetched-in-1948.html

truth,communism,socialism,democrat,destruction,america

Socialism Equates to the Modern Evil of Slavery

Socialism Equates to the Modern Evil of Slavery

Why does socialism continue to appeal to progressives, democrats, and those who cannot provide for themselves? Do modern socialists not recall the reeking stench of communism practiced in Russia, Viet Nam, North Korea, China, and too many other countries? Socialists claim communism and socialism are not the same thing and that socialism has never been given a fair chance. Of course, that is patented bull crap but an inordinate number of students and their college professors accept it as truth writ large. All the above countries practice SOCIALISM.

The results of such hubris are all to easy to see and demonstrate with track records of boastful belligerence, surly truculence, and outright incompetence. All socialist countries are mired in poverty, indifference, and are run by tyrants. They can't get it right because there is no right to be gotten in their political philosophies.

Indisputably, all those countries practice wholesale murder of their citizens. Today's socialists always say, "Many other countries also practice widespread killings." True enough. But none even approach the numbers of murders that communist countries do. Socialism reduces citizens to whores and lackeys; do as told or die.

Socialism is the pursuit of sheer, raw, power over other human beings. Of course, its adherents claim the moral high ground saying equality of rights, income, and labor are the goals but history and modern practices belie the claims. The triumph of evil over good, emotion over reason, and man's infinite capacity for self-delusion always wins.

No amount of malevolent empirical evidence has dissuaded new generations from its siren song of "EQUALITY." Despite all the historical evidence of Nazi Germany, the USSR, and all The Peoples Republics, socialists walk amongst us, even openly in the halls of congress. The deeply flawed "labor theory of value" positing equal intrinsic values of all labor and production captures their petty minds rather than the truth of economically established values of costs per product. A (labor) + B (materials) = product. Product + desire = sale = monetary value.

Capitalists built decent, moral, and humane societies on what socialists consider amoral approaches to economics but socialists built exploitative, inhumane, amoral societies upon inflamed approaches to humanity and economics. No equality exists. The two approaches are antithetical.

Socialism is based entirely upon a fundamental misreading of human nature. The misreading is based upon willing suspension of disbelief in the nature of mankind. Fact: mankind is selfish. Self-preservation, self-interest, and personal comfort take precedence over everything else.
Capitalism wisely exploits and cares for those traits allowing for choice in self-emulation, charity, morality, and the good of society. Socialism is intellectually narrow, irrational, dependent upon self-deprecation and immolation that scarcely exists outside of religious societies which it does not allow to exist since such societies compete with the state for allegiance. Socialism exists behind a forced "charitable impulse" mask but which capitalism openly, willingly and ably promotes. Charity forced is not charity.

Christianity, with all its moral, charitable, and self-improving characteristics, cannot exist in a Socialist State which demands total allegiance of mind, body, and existence or death of the non-conformist. Hence, China has an "Official Christian Church" which denies Christ.

All communist countries have "economic plans" run by the state for the benefit of the "state." Is there any difference in Obama's "plan" which promotes the "state" over individuals benefits. Its top-down approach must inevitably fail as all other socialist plans have failed.

Fallible man cannot ever entirely understand nor tame all social economic forces as no individual has large enough an intellect nor capacity to absorb all the variables of economics. The cultish fervor with which Socialists continue to believe mankind can create an all-encompassing fairness is inevitably doomed equating to stupidity.

Obamacare is socialism in its intent, practice, and intended outcome. It cannot but fail. Those moronic Dem Socialists who wrote it, passed it though the house and senate, and are trying ever so hard to implement must be removed from office if for no other reasons than they are simply too stupid to be allowed to continue. We cannot afford to accept such corrupt, failed policies.

pl booth, the blue eye view of mo, 9-19-11

---

BO,Socialism,Democrats,communism,failed ideas, philosophy,hubris,arrogance: INSERT TAGS To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the The Blue View From MO Thanks!