Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Sometimes, LIES reveal TRUTH!

Sarah Palin may or may not be good presidential material, but on the chance that she might become a candidate, every legitimate voter deserves to make that decision based on facts – free from spin (lies of omission, distortion and suspicious repetition) applied by a global media cartel – the ADM*.

In a classic application of the wisdom behind Shakespeare’s famous words in “Hamlet”: “Methinks thou dost protest too much.”, the ADM’s almost comical hysteria about Sarah Palin reveals that she cannot be what they want us to believe she is.

They know she is not what they say she is.
That is exactly why they say it!

They know that the real Sarah does not fit into their plan for America. In fact, she is one of its most effective enemies! Think about it: If Sarah Palin were truly what the ADM wants you to fēēēēēēēl she is, then she would not justify the huge amounts of expensive human resources, bandwidth and air time they invest in “commenting” and “reporting” on her. She would just be a comical side note to the 2008 “election”.

Legitimate voters deserve the truth, so please share this message.

The following article describes one of several good ways to understand the real Sarah Palin.
*ADM = “Agenda Driven Media”

 What Sarah Palin Actually Said
A review of:
The Quotable Rogue: The Ideals of Sarah Pain in Her Own Words
Edited by Matt Lewis
– Review author available on request

When it comes to the subject of former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Matt Lewis has been ahead of the curve. He suggested that Sen. John McCain consider her as his running mate at a time when she had little national name recognition. Prescience.

Mr. Lewis has been an enthusiastic admirer and close observer of Mrs. Palin for several years. Tired of the mainstream media's microscopic scrutiny of Mrs. Palin, its hyperbolic coverage of irrelevancies and its manufactured "gotcha" journalism, Mr. Lewis has just released "The Quotable Rogue," a comprehensive compilation of quotes from Mrs. Palin categorized into subjects from "abortion" to "Washington."

This book is the most honest and objective depiction of Mrs. Palin yet published because it records her own words, directly and accurately, instead of with embellishments and mischaracterizations routinely served up by the agenda-driven media.

As such, it also is the most informative source available on the important views of this dynamic lady, who already has attracted the attention of a nation and is sure to play an even greater role in the months and years to come - irrespective of whether she chooses to throw her hat into the presidential race. Indeed, Mr. Lewis appears to have compiled the book partially out of his frustration that despite endless media coverage, "the vast majority of Palin's opinions and statements remain unfamiliar."

Besides, what better way to answer the insults and charges against Mrs. Palin than to consult her own words. Even better, many of these quotes, which address a wide range of political and cultural issues, are extracted from unscripted moments, so we get a real glimpse into Mrs. Palin's thoughts, absent any editorial airbrushing or blurring.

This book is anything but laborious; it's a quick and entertaining read, and it confirms that Mrs. Palin is plainspoken, consistent and reliably conservative. Her words resonate with a broad spectrum of Americans - not just hard-core conservatives - because she speaks in a language we understand and addresses our concerns. She distrusts big government and is passionate about America's unique liberty tradition. And she's unafraid to speak her mind no matter how politically incorrect her opinions are.

This is not to deny that Mrs. Palin is a polarizing figure, evoking the antipathy and irrationality of the left like few others, for whatever reasons. Mr. Lewis, fully aware of this, allows Mrs. Palin to speak for herself, trusting that many readers' perceptions of her will be changed favorably as a result.

When the media controls the narrative, faulty perceptions inevitably emerge - and prevail - including the impression that Mrs. Palin is a one-dimensional social conservative with little interest in economic issues. In fact, Mr. Lewis writes, "Palin's pre-veep identity was as a leading reformer and fiscal conservative ... a starkly different image from what most Americans now know."

I think Mr. Lewis also hopes to expose the media's fabrication of a number of "Palinisms" that were designed to put her in an unfavorable light but, in the end, were malicious distortions. One of the most famous of these, you will recall, courtesy of Tina Fey on "Saturday Night Live," was, "I can see Russia from my house." Mrs. Palin's actual words were, "They're our next-door neighbors, and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska." The truth doesn't make her sound ridiculous, does it? Nor does it fit the liberal-media template.

Sadly, too many buy into the coordinated media message that Mrs. Palin is an inexperienced lightweight unfit for municipal government service, much less national office. In addition, according to the carefully orchestrated conventional wisdom, Mrs. Palin is a perpetual-motion gaffe machine who is not only uncurious and uninformed but painfully awkward and, frankly, little more than an attractive but annoying hayseed.

It's interesting, isn't it, that if she were all those things, the media would be so utterly threatened by her? But they are - because she's none of those things. She ignites conservatives as only a handful of political figures have in the past generation. Far from being inarticulate, she has an uncanny ability to get to the heart of a subject and articulate the mainstream conservative position on it, as this book makes clear.

For one so allegedly bereft of gravitas, she has mastered social media, regularly penning and publishing powerful messages that go viral on Facebook and Twitter, precisely because they so succinctly and effectively capture the essence of what grass-roots conservatives believe. She addresses their concerns like few others.

I believe, and my hunch is that Matt Lewis believes, that much of the negative reaction to Sarah Palin is based far more on the media and liberal establishment's systematic savaging of her character than anything she has said or done. They fear any effective, popular, influential conservative, especially those who happen to be female or black, and generally make a point - consciously or not - of trying to destroy them.

Regardless of your feelings about Mrs. Palin, it's undeniable that she consistently demonstrates courage and leadership; she has an uncanny knack for anticipating the next important issue and is unafraid to express her opinion without first holding her finger in the wind to assess its political popularity. In the face of relentless attacks, she doesn't cower or retreat but fights back and demonstrates her resilience in direct proportion to the assaults against her.

On the other hand, much of the positive reaction to Mrs. Palin is rooted in her contagious love for America and American ideals. At a time when political correctness reigns in our culture, Mrs. Palin unapologetically articulates traditional values, vigorously challenging those who are bent on denigrating this nation and always making excuses for it. Mrs. Palin's supporters are uplifted by her patriotism and her enthusiasm for economic and political liberty. This fine book won't appeal merely to die-hard supporters of Mrs. Palin, but to those who have been grossly misled about what she's made of and who she is.

Monday, July 11, 2011

Beware of "Argument from Intimidation"

Dear Friends,

If you count yourself among the rapidly declining number of Americans who still sincerely and passionately care about the kind of nation (and world) we leave behind, then here is serious tool that can assist your efforts.  In the raging culture war for the soul of America (and the world), this is called "ammunition".

First, please recall one of the more egregious examples of arrogant idiocy that fell from the mouth of Comrade Nancy Pelosi during the infamous (and treasonous) debacle that culminated in the alleged "passage" of Obamacare.   During a news conference with Comrade Pelosi, one very sharp, courageous reporter had obviously seen the multi-thousand page tower of babbling legalese known as “Obamacare”.    When he asked Ms. Pelosi to reveal the logic by which Obamacare was permitted by the U.S. Constitution, her response was classic, unguarded Leftist regurgitation, of the kind used whenever “Progressive” logic is challenged:

She glared at him incredulously,
then with slow deliberation, she uttered:

You   cannot   be   serious!”

What did Ms. Pelosi do here?   Simple.   She revealed her intellectual impotence, by using “Argument from Intimidation” – the rhetorical equivalent of a wordless clubbing from an infuriated primitive. With these words, Comrade Pelosi gave us a view directly into the dark, vitrified place where her soul should be!  This behavior is so deeply embedded in the “Progressive” psyche, that they often use it unconsciously. It is an understandable mental habit, because almost all arguments in favor of “Progressive” ideology are irrational, and thus cannot be logically defended or promoted.

During the Clinton era, George Stephanopoulos conducted an interview with Bill and Hillary.  At one point in  the interview, George asked them a perfectly relevant and valid question.  They evaded his question, using a version of this tactic.  Both Bill and Hillary simply sat there in silence, staring directly at George as if he had not asked the question.  Being a typical Leftist, George naturally failed to insist on an answer and just moved on to the next question.  Apparently, it was sufficient for George to be on record as asking the question, because doing so would burnish his "impartiality" halo.  This was back in the days when high-profile "journalists" still maintained a pretense of impartiality.

This behavior has been identified and described by many sharp minds. One of the clearest and most useful came from the timeless work of Ayn Rand. Ms. Rand described this tactic many times. One example was in her book, “The Virtue of Selfishness”.    As early as 1945, she predicted that argument from intimidation would come into wider and wider use as America continued to plunge toward self-inflicted destruction.   Following the line below is an excerpt from that book, in which she described this thinly veiled, barbarism.

I believe it is useful for everyone to be aware of this tactic.  That awareness will help you identify those times when “Argument from Intimidation” is directed at you, but more importantly, when you may be unconsciously tempted to use it on others. Either way, it is a rhetorical tactic that reveals how close someone is to the mindset of a prehistoric brute. If you look for it, you can find many examples scattered throughout America’s public discourse.  To help with a book I'm writing, I am collecting examples.   If you see an example of "Argument from Intimidation" used or reported in any media channel, I would really appreciate you posting a comment to this article that contains a link or a copy in the form of text, audio or video.

Here is your ammunition …
[My comments inserted]

“There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s un-discussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: 'Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.' . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality. [… even as his opponent exposes objective proof of his own immorality by using the tactic.]

In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as 'The Argument from Intimidation.'

The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: 'Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.'

The Argument from Intimidation dominates today’s discussions in two forms. In public speeches and print, it flourishes in the form of long, involved, elaborate structures of unintelligible verbiage, which convey nothing clearly except a moral threat. ('Only the primitive-minded can fail to realize that clarity is oversimplification.')   But in private, day-by-day experience, it comes up wordlessly, between the lines, in the form of inarticulate sounds conveying unstated implications. It relies, not on what is said, but on how it is said — not on content, but on tone of voice. [IOW, silent contempt]

The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity,
“Surely you are not an advocate of capitalism, are you?”
And if this does not intimidate the prospective victim—who answers properly: “I am”, the ensuing dialogue goes something like this:
“Oh, you couldn’t be! Not really!”
“But everybody knows that capitalism is outdated!”
“I don’t.”
“Oh, come now!”
“Since I don’t know it, will you please tell me the reasons for thinking that capitalism is outdated?” “Oh, don’t be ridiculous!”
“Will you tell me the reasons?”
“Well, really, if you don’t know, I couldn’t possibly tell you!”

All this is accompanied by raised eyebrows, wide-eyed stares, shrugs, grunts, snickers and the entire arsenal of nonverbal signals communicating ominous innuendos and emotional vibrations of a single kind: disapproval.

If those vibrations fail, if such debaters are challenged, one finds that they have no arguments, no evidence, no proof, no reasons, no ground to stand on — that their noisy aggressiveness serves to hide a vacuum—that the Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.”
– Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, pg. 139: “The Argument from Intimidation”

Monday, July 4, 2011

THIS man is smarter than me!

In my humble opinion, Jon Stewart is a brilliant comedian. He’s hilarious. Apparently, millions of America's impressionable youth agree with me.

Unfortunately, as with Barack Obama, George Bush (1 and 2), Bill Clinton, et. al., his public act is a disguise intended to obscure his more important purpose on the global battlefields of cultural warfare:

He’s a tool, right out of the globalist oligarchy tool box.

If you disagree with this man (or others of his ilk),
it can only mean that he is smarter than you.
Hmmm. I did not know that.
Did you know that?

Jon Steward and Stephen Colbert are good examples of pop-culture-targeted media, composed of brilliantly subtle acts that influence voters via almost subconscious nudges in a direction that is favorable to the global "Progressive" agenda.

A strong case can be made that most pop-culture media shows written and/or delivered by clearly identified "Progressives" can be summed up in this diagram:

The "Progressive" Media Masquerade

I offer this as a mini-study on the tactics of cultural warfare, and to point out that every word and deed by the players and audience in this spectacle, is preceded and driven by a value conclusion (conscious or not). Please see my earlier messages for more context.

If we, as a society can replace toxic values (those based on fantasy) with healthy ones (those in sync with reality) then our increasingly destructive culture war will be dumped on the ash heap of history, or at least, it will be shuffled to the only place it belongs in a truly civilized society: the lunatic fringe.

I know – easy to say, hard to do – but not impossible!  

Because Reality always bats last, one thing is crystal clear: One way or another, toxic values will be replaced by healthy ones!   The question for humanity is, how many billions must die young, how many creative, productive lives must have their beating hearts ripped out on the Pagan Altar of “Progressive” Religion before that happens? Working together by voluntary cooperation, humanity can prevail against what seems like never-ending gauntlets of irrationality used to justify coercive law.

More concisely, we have only two choices:

1. We can make the transformation happen for us, OR …
2. We can let it happen to us.

Either way, it will happen!

My hope and prayer is that our grandchildren will not be doomed to lives of de facto slavery because my generation (boomers) failed to throttle its self-indulgent, extended adolescence. If current trends continue, that is exactly what will happen.

Further commentary in the article below from the Washington Times:

June 24, 201
Liberals Are Smarter Than Conservatives, Just Ask Them
James S. Robbins

If you are a conservative, Jon Stewart wants you to know you are a moron. Last weekend on Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked the comedian-cum-political commentator who the most consistently misinformed media viewers are. "The most consistently misinformed?” Mr. Stewart said, “Fox, Fox viewers, consistently, every poll." This is a prevalent opinion on the left; they tend to think that those who don’t agree with them must not be bright enough to understand the complexities of the world, or willfully believe in things that are demonstrably untrue. But when the fact-checking website PolitiFact scored Mr. Stewart’s comments it turned out that he was the one who was misinformed. Their review “found three Pew studies that ranked Fox viewers low on the well-informed list, but other general-interest media outlets -- such as network news shows, network morning shows and even the other cable news networks -- often scored similarly low.

Meanwhile, viewers of particular Fox shows -- such as The O’Reilly Factor and Sean Hannity’s show – scored consistently well, occasionally even outpacing Stewart’s own audience.” The notion that O’Reilly viewers are better informed that his own must simply be too much for Mr. Stewart to bear. No wonder he blotted it out of his mind. And it is worth remembering the April 2010 New York Times/CBS News poll that found that Tea Party supporters tended to be better educated and have higher incomes than most Americans. This is at odds with the stereotyped view portrayed on “The Daily Show” and other liberal-leaning outlets of conservative activists as angry, ignorant, redneck buffoons. But if it makes the left happy to live in their safe, self-affirming fantasy world then so be it. We don’t have to watch.


In the hierarchy of globalist oligarchy tools, here is one on the next higher rung from Stewart:

Tuesday, June 28, 2011

"They watch us. No one watches them!" What a warm, fuzzy, "secure" feeling!

Dear Friends,

I would almost give up my first born for input from anyone who can show that I have exaggerated anything in this preface to the message below. If the facts reported in the letter are true, then, I humbly ask you: “Is my conclusion accurate?”

Even if you “own” and live in a modest little suburban home
on a ¼ acre lot,

this can happen to you!

Even if you exclude the staggering economic carnage inflicted by the IRS over the last the last 99 years, there are hundreds, if not thousands of cases like the ones described below – crimes committed against harmless individuals by overpaid agents (thugs) from other bureaucratic fiefdoms.

We only discover these Gestapo tactics via foreign media or secondary and tertiary domestic news sources because, since the Waco and Ruby Ridge debacles, these kinds of enforcement actions are (by tacit or overt agreement) deliberately ignored by Leftmedia*. Too many of us overlook the fact that the federal police leviathan also learned from those crimes. They learned dramatically different lessons from those we learned. Sadly, the Leftmedia in America still commands the largest audience, by far – mostly mindless thralls who, inexplicably, are still allowed to vote!

The letter below describes further evidence of two of the grimmest features of what America has become: 
  1. De facto reality: The U.S. Federal Government literally owns everything, including your life, in the form of a claim on your productivity, from birth! Did you know that on the day you were born, you were already in debt to nameless, faceless, unaccountable thousands? YOU are just “a battery in the Matrix” that serves today’s version of a 15th Century “Aristocracy of Arrogance”. The effect is that there is no such thing as “free and clear Title” to property of any kind. Get out your mortgage that is marked “PAID”, and use it for toilet paper, because that is about how much it is worth.
  2. Coercive U.S Law need not be justified by objectively demonstrable necessity. It is little more than a means by which a few get to rule over everyone else, regardless of their ability or qualifications for ruling anyone – even their own lives. This means that U.S. Law has become a sham and is unworthy of respect by any decent person.
In short, dear people, we no longer live in a nascent police state.
We live in a fully formed police state.

It’s up to the remaining decent people in America, to clean up this toxic mess!   Doing so, may require large-scale social upheaval, possibly violence – God forbid!
I wonder if the sum total of courage in the American public is sufficient to do the cleanup.


Marcus Porcius Cato

To: Sen. Jim WebbSen. Mark Warner, Rep. J. Randy Forbes, President Barack Obama

June 7, 2011


John Posgai of Morrisville, PA., was sentenced to three years in prison and fined $202,000 after purchasing a property that was an illegal dump site.

Posgai bought the land and began to clean it up by removing 7,000 discarded tires and rusted car parts that were ILLEGALLY dumped on the property before he owned it. Shocking as it may seem, the dank water accumulating inside the junk tire-according to the EPA-made the property a wetlands. HE WAS SENTENCED TO THREE YEARS IN PRISON AND FINED $202,000 (bankrupting his family, and destroying their reputation in the community) for REMOVING LITTER, TRASH AND GARBAGE from land he bought specifically to save it from land-trashers. The EPA was able to use Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, to make a hefty profit off of this unsuspecting American, because, as the Washington Examiner reports, EPA officials and the Army Corps of Engineers claimed that the water runoff from the ILLEGALLY DISCARDED TIRES would occasionally flood part of the property because of an artificial dam created by the old tires, which Posgai had now removed. Without these tires, the property was only a wetland in the imagination of EPA and Army Corps bureaucrats. That, however, proved enough.

His crime? Posgai was sentenced for placing topsoil and clean fill on his own property without permission of the Federal authorities from the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Sparing no expense to nab this "criminal," the EPA staked out the property with secret surveillance cameras and took several aerial photographs to capture the "crime" on film, reports The Freeman.

Think this could never happen to you?

Meet the Sackett family, who bought a half-acre lot in a residential area near Priest Lake, Idaho, to build their family's modest dream home, only to have the EPA swoop in threatening them with fines of more than $25,000 a day for allegedly violating the Clean Water Act.

Our "beloved" “indispensible” [unstoppable juggernaut] EPA sent a "compliance order" that required them [the Sacketts] to undo the excavation [preparing the land for the builder to set the foundation] and restore the "wetlands," and then leave it for three years at which point they could seek a "permit" [to build their home] that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the most overturned court in the land, said that before a court could issue a ruling on the EPA's order, the family would have to go through a years-long, $200,000-plus process of formally applying for a federal wetlands permit. [This just means that the EPA has no intention of approving any “wetlands permit”, unless they are told by their betters to give one for a political pet.]

According to the Petition, ignoring the compliance order is not an option, for several reasons. First, the CWA imposes significant civil penalties for violating compliance orders. Just one month of noncompliance puts the landowner at risk of civil liability of $750,000. A year's worth of noncompliance would put their liability at $9,000,000!

Chesapeake , VA

-- Author withheld out of fear for personal safety

* “Leftmedia” = ABC, CNN, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NYT, ACLU, MoveOn.ORG, John Stewart, George Soros, a host of other looters, and to only a slightly lesser degree, FOX News.

Monday, June 20, 2011

Outsourcing Morality

Dear Friends,

Please distribute this message. Why? Because the only way to defeat any bad idea, is to replace it with a better one. It is critical that everyone understand the ideas behind destructive public policies.  

The excellent article below is from one more of a growing list of thinkers who have identified the true nature of tax-funded Entitlement policies. More and more people are discovering the ugly truth that these amount to "coercive charity".

For the record: Neither I nor any responsible thinker denies the virtue of charity. Nor do we deny the humane ethics of emergencies.  Noble, voluntary charity is under attack by the “Progressive” ideology behind coercive “Entitlement” policies. The core issue is the word “coercive” -- “coercive charity” is an oxymoron.

With the single exception of real emergencies, how can their be any virtue (and thus, value) in coercively funded “charity” (by taxes collected at what amounts to gun point). In reality, such policies are driven by profound evil: a blatant, shameless means of buying votes from the recipients (both current and prospective) of “Entitlement” – a policy that produces its intended effect: dependency!

On the individual level, it's pretty clear that people who aggressively or passively support America's current entitlement quagmire, are demonstrating a perfect example of sociopathic selfishness!

Liberals Outsourcing Morality
By Frank Ryan

In the Book of Matthew in the New Testament, Pontius Pilate symbolically washes his hands of the responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus. This symbolism has carried on through the centuries as the mark of someone who is complicit in something yet wishes to distance himself from the appearance of responsibility. The person effectively "washes" away the guilt.

In much the same way, 21st-century liberalism uses the tax code to absolve itself of the moral responsibility to truly care for the very citizens they claim to be protecting. The tax code has become the means by which supposedly caring citizens symbolically fulfill their moral duties to care for their fellow citizen. They fulfill this responsibility by electing politicians to pass taxes forcing others to pay for social programs they want but do not wish to pay for themselves.

Having just seen a "liberal" state cut off funding for developmentally disabled children for budgetary reasons with no moral concern for the welfare of those children disturbed me. Under the revised program, the children were to receive treatment in six months or be forced out of the program. This cut off from aid convinced me that social program proponents are often willing to support the poor only if they can get someone else to pay for it. They effectively "wash" away their responsibility and complicity by passing legislation requiring others to pay for those programs they want but do not wish to pay for using their personal funds.

Other citizens with more sincere motives of caring for one another make the conscious decision to support their fellow citizen in need by using their own funds to care for the poor rather than merely forcing others to do it. Many do this through their church affiliation or by personal involvement and volunteering.

The disparity of thought processes of those who demand government involvement in social programs with those who foster personal responsibility to support one another is profound. This disparity and the consequences of that disparity are critical to understanding why our Founding Fathers framed the Constitution the way that they did.

In Article 1, Sections 8 and 9 of the Constitution we proclaim what Congress can do and is prohibited from doing. These very boundaries were intended to guide us in an incredibly wise way in which the "unintended consequences" of an intrusive government were spelled out. Our Founders knew precisely that one cannot legislate morality nor legislate personal responsibility.

Passage of laws protecting those in need does not absolve you of your responsibility to truly care for one another. Any moral society understands compassion for those in need.

Unfortunately to presume that those claiming to be in need as defined by a law are truly in need is a horrible mistake. Laws passed to "protect" with the intent of winning reelection merely creates an entitlement mentality which will not benefit the person nor their family in the long run but it will get the politician reelected.

When you care for those in need because of your personal desire, you are following your moral conscience. Your moral compass is guiding you. You become involved and personally responsible.

When you "care" for someone involuntarily through taxes you may feel that you have fulfilled your responsibility because you paid the taxes required. The potential for abuse of and dependency in the program are ever present as well. The "entitlement" becomes a right rather than a need.

I often wonder if some misguided citizens who demand government solutions to all problems really want to encourage dependency because it feels good to be needed. Do they like having someone totally dependent on them?

The need to be needed may compel many people's actions but the resultant involuntary dependency of one person on another is not healthy in my mind. Such dependency creates an atmosphere of fear of those truly in need that they may be abandoned whenever a new cause comes up that is more fashionable or should taxes run short as in a recession.

True social justice requires us to be personally involved, personally responsible and personally accountable. But then our Founding Fathers knew that. Our Founding Fathers never washed their hands of their responsibilities. Instead they fought for our freedoms against a tyrannical king so that we could have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Unrelenting government intrusion in our lives is our tyrannical king. To retain our national culture we must get involved and get our government back under control. We must become personal responsible and accountable. Now!

Monday, June 13, 2011

SHOCKER! Leftmedia attempt to dig up dirt on Sarah has exploded in their insolent faces!

Top level LeftMedia editors were so giddy over the prospect of combing through Sarah Palin's 'treasure trove' of emails from when she was governor, that some outlets enlisted the help of 100 'researchers' to find items that will 'hopefully lead to further investigation.' They were certain scandal after scandal awaited, but what they found was the exact opposite. Not only were there no scandals, the emails actually show Palin is funny, honest, consistent, compassionate, likable -- it all amounts to another humiliating defeat in the relentless quest to destroy Sarah Palin.

[SIDE NOTE:  The paragraph above describes the classic behavior of people who pretend to be "objective", but in their "heart of hearts", are the exact opposite -- people who actually lie for a living!]

After constant political harassment, 24,000 pages of emails were released from Sarah's time as governor of Alaska. Most of these messages were written long before her nomination for Vice President, and were intended to be private emails about her work as governor.

Yet, even after the media actually solicited everyday people to scour the emails for something to “investigate”, editors were baffled when political enemies and opposition research produced exactly zero interesting material proving her supposed Satan-like private persona.

I do not know if Sarah is a proper candidate for president, but the very fact that she causes such hysteria among Leftmedia apparatchiks, is a huge clue that she possesses something fairly rare among all plausible candidates. This phenomena demonstrates what should be considered axiomatic by now:

One of the most reliable indicators that you are revealing actual “Progressive” motives, is when they stomp away in anger and refuse to continue any dialog.

Indeed, refusal to calmly discuss critical public policy issues, while simultaneously perpetrating toxic ideologies, can only be interpreted as the behavior of anti-life forces.

Curiouser and curiouser!

Comments welcome.

-- Cato

Wednesday, June 8, 2011


In this post, I humbly share a portion of my conversation with a long-time friend.  Your comments are welcome.

The following is a series of message exchanges between myself and a long-time friend, in chonological order, oldest to newest:

Message 1:

Dear ... ,

I hope you interpret this message as I intend it: an expression of admiration and respect for your in intellectual integrity, because that’s what it is!

I challenge you to read this book about a fellow who has led an
amazing life inside the belly of the Hollywood and Broadway beasts:

If you wish, I’ll gladly buy the Kindle download version for you, but only if you promise to read it within the next 60 days.

Message 2 (response to 1):

I appreciate the sentiment.  I am sure it is interesting.  You don't need to buy it for me. 

I do get the whole left=evil, right=good thing.   My position is: left = evil, right = evil. 

Each side tries to outdo the other, and then use the media to fling crap at each other like monkeys.

All of this left vs right crap is coming from the "street magicians" or global media manipulators, who use it to distract us from the really bad shit that is going on.

You frequently mention Judeo-Christian values.  One thing I find kind of funny are the politicians that refer to themselves as Christians.  In no way whatsoever are they like Christ.  You can take any random statement or action from a Christian politician, and then ask yourself, "Would Jesus have said or done that?".  This is a topic I can't even begin to properly cover right now.

I have to fly today, I will chat with you again this weekend.

Message 3:

Dear ...,

Excellent response!

RE, your comment: “In the US, we have lost our compassion and respect for our fellow man. We are no longer able to objectively listen. There isn't any such thing as actual communication anymore. Once this is lost, all is lost.”

Agreed.  This phenomena appears even more true in western Europe, where the “cradle-to-grave” entitlement notion has grown far beyond what we have in America (so far). Dennis Prager is one of the most well travelled people on earth. No honest person must share his belief in God to see that much of what he says is absolutely demonstrable! Over the last 40 years, Dennis has visited every country and continent on Earth for extended stays. He has re-visited most of those countries multiple times. He and others have observed the overall quality of compassion and sense of interpersonal responsibility in the so-called “civilized” cultures of western Europe. From this experience, Dennis recently described what is almost certainly a fact, because I’m seeing it happen more and more each day in America:

Any ideology that empowers the notion of
“entitlement”, makes the whole society meaner!

 After all ... 
“Why should I care about voluntary charity,
if so much of my earned wealth is confiscated
to ‘care’ for the ‘less fortunate’?
I say, let government care for them.”

(Notice the implied absolution for failure to choose the admitted greater value.)

Until I learn otherwise, I am pretty sure that’s the dynamic behind a very interesting statistic that has been confirmed over and over by numerous research groups, both “liberal” and “conservative”:

The total number of after tax dollars voluntarily
given to charities, is vastly greater among
self-described “conservatives”,
than it is among self-described “liberals”.
(The average of the various studies shows a discrepancy of more than 80%!)

In other words:

 Those who reject the alleged virtue of entitlement
tend to be far more generous to their fellow man,
than those who embrace it!

Somewhere, there’s a lesson in that. What do you think it is?

On another issue, I agree that We are no longer able to objectively listen.” However, most people have not “lost” that ability, because they’ve never had it to begin with. The ability to think logically, dispassionately, with one’s mind (as opposed to “heart” OR “feelings”), is a learned skill – it can be taught. With very rare exceptions, objective listening, observation and analytical skills are no longer taught in most of our so-called, “public schools” – probably because that institution has been co-opted by a “Progressive” agenda. That agenda stresses “compliance”, “self-sacrifice”, “equality” (of outcome), “groupism” and a host of other, equally pernicious notions.

However, to the salvation of humanity, some of us can be objective when and where it really counts!   If not for a tiny minority of disciplined thinkers, we would all still be living as tribes of migrant hunter-gatherers and most human technology would not exist. I suspect, at least 90% of all humans depend for their very lives, on the wisdom, insight and creative impulses of a tiny minority of intellectual giants. Motivated by enlightened self-interest, that minority figures out how the universe actually works (as in Quantum Mechanics, the laws of Physics, Microbiology, et. al) then the rest of us just copy them like so many monkeys.

Unfortunately, since the dark days of 1908 – 1913, America has been grotesquely twisted into a culture where those intellectual giants are literally punished for their gifts to humanity. IOW, the monkeys are whipping the goose that lays the golden eggs on which they depend!   Go figure!    That, dear friend, is a direct result of the Collectivist (“Progressive”) ideology behind “Entitlement”. Use whatever labels you wish in place of mine, but the effect is the same.

The Law of Identity: A = A.
“A” is never equal to X, simply because
some of us “feel” like it “should” be!

As I’m sure you know, Objectivity is a learned skill in which one first acknowledges the human tendency to be subjective about everything. To offset that tendency (and thus master the physical world), we must apply the rules of logic and clear, rational analysis. The Empirical Method is just one of several time-tested disciplines that empower diligent, honest people to filter out subjective perceptions. Maintaining and enhancing this skill is a lifelong task that requires, among other things, constant, brutally honest self-examination. All of this comes under the heading of ”Epistemology” – my favorite hobby! Naturally, no one is 100% consistent in applying objective perception. This is why an honest scientist wants his theories disproven more than anything else.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Our Founder's Political Spectrum

Chapter 1 in a series on the logic and nature of force against harmless individuals:

I recently had an epiphany. Over the last few weeks I have stolen small amounts of time here and there to reduce my insight to comprehensible form so it can be shared and hopefully, understood by others. As many programmers and writers often do, I sometimes indulge these little mental forays, to escape the lonely discipline of my craft and ponder the great big “why” of it all.

I hope each of you can relate to my experience of aging: as I grow older, I tend to distill my education, knowledge and life experience into a more complete world view. That ever-evolving perspective is more complex and integrated than when I was a young adult. It benefits not only from life experience, but over 40 years of continuous reading and research into the nature of human societies and economies. I now know that there is a lot more that I don’t know, but I humbly pray that what I do know can be useful to others long after I am gone.

Over the years, I have seen numerous diagrams allegedly designed to distill the essence of human society, economics and political ideology into a useful model. They’re often described as a “political spectrum”. I’m sure many of you have seen the most famous ones that place Communism at one end and Fascism at the other end – as if those two ideologies were functional opposites (in fact, they’re functionally identical). Unfortunately, none of the diagrams that feature political ideologies are useful for identifying the most critical component in cultural and economic success, e.g. general human happiness and prosperity. All they do is to exacerbate an already divisive public dialog on the most important issues. Debate over them amounts to the proverbial “Tempest in a teacup”.

Despite thousands of hours of reading human history, I’m embarrassed to admit that only recently I discovered the single issue that was on the mind of our founders when they designed the greatest nation of all time. America’s founders were painfully aware that government in any form is the single most dangerous of all human institutions. They understood that it must exist for only one purpose: to ensure the minimum degree of social order required to produce maximum prosperity and that its primary tool for doing that is some level of organized coercion. Of course they were concerned with many details, but their core motivation can be summed up in a single issue – the number one reason why so many people came to the new world – to be free of politically motivated (arbitrary) coercion! Thus, the essence of their motives can be boiled down to only two questions:  
  1. “What is the ideal overall degree of lawful force that is tolerable for harmless citizens of a free nation?”
  2. “On what moral authority may force be lawfully applied to any harmless individual?”
Obviously, these questions spawn many related questions. Morally valid answers to those questions are the cornerstones of any honorably designed system of justice. However, before they can be answered, question number one must be put to rest.

Therefore, the diagram below shows the single most important challenge our founders sought to overcome: “What level of power (to coerce) can be safely allowed to our new government?” Their answer to that question became the foundation on which all the rest was built. America’s uniquely brilliant founders understood this as the only political spectrum that matters. All the other political ideology diagrams are mostly exercises in self-distraction or intellectual nit-picking. Some are designed to confuse and distract our moral clarity. Therefore, they struggled, fought, died and designed a severely limited government they hoped would forestall or even prevent the very crisis America now faces. Their historically unprecedented plan actually worked almost perfectly for 124 years (1789 – 1913). Since then, many very smart, but morally dysfunctional people have slowly dismantled our founder’s vision piece by piece.

So here it is.  THIS is the only “political spectrum” about which our founders cared: “The Lawful Coercion Spectrum”:

Please note: I have taken the liberty of placing labels at various positions to show the approximate "coercion friendly" relationships among the dominant political players in today's world. I can defend these positions with a vast amount of credible documentation. Nevertheless, I am eager to be refuted by sound logic and/or factual evidence.

As with all governments throughout human history, the trend is toward the left end of the spectrum. It is the nature of government to move in that direction because, with rare and precious exceptions, government tends to attract the least noble members of any human society. Power is an attractive nuisance for corruption.

Now, for the most chilling fact:

There is a direct, predictable relationship between the positions on this spectrum and the overall degree of prosperity and happiness experienced by the general population. Any nation that endures positions 7 – 10, or 1-2 for more than a few generations will suffer increasing (and avoidable) economic deprivation, ever-increasing conflict, low productivity and widespread, absolute poverty (as opposed to relative poverty). So, the “Goldilocks Zone” lies from positions 3 – 6.

The truth of this observation is beyond rational debate. Seven thousand years of recorded human history has proven it many times. That proof was dramatized in both detail and quantity in just the last 110 years. The 20th century was literally a laboratory for the economic ideologies spawned in the 18th and 19th centuries (Marxism, Fascism, Socialism and Communism). The results are in – and they prove conclusively that widespread, sustainable human happiness in possible only inside the zones 3 – 6!

To help put this diagram in perspective, here’s a description of a few nation-changing coercive policies, showing where they fall on the “Coercion Spectrum””

As enforced by the U.S. Federal government and many state governments starting about 1913 …
  •  All taxes based on income, property, estates (death taxes) or capital gains are in the area of position 9.
  • All regulations that are not rigorously justified by objectively defensible necessity are in the area of position 9.5 – 10 (about 85% of all current federal regulations)
  • All forms of wealth re-distribution are in the area of position 9 or more because they cannot be done without extreme coercion against harmless individuals.
I humbly suggest that all decent, freedom-loving Americans must start using this diagram as the only prism by which we judge coercive public policy. If we do not, then America will pass into the pages of history as a noble, but failed experiment in self-government. Life here will become indistinguishable from that of eastern Europe (or worse), our grandchildren and great grandchildren will learn the meaning of a new age of darkness, and the incredible, bright promise of 19th and 20th century America will never be realized.