Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: January 2010

President Obama made his first ever state of the Union speech back this last Wednesday.  And out of all the rhetoric, threats, and political manipulation going on, one thing in particular stood out to me being a young man who is trying to investigate what I am going to do for my future.

And this is what he had to say on the subject:

“To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer-subsidies that go to banks for student loans. Instead, let’s take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service.”  Followed by even more flowery rhetoric.

Now I do support the idea of a tax credit, and no longer subsidizing banks, none of our tax money should go to affect the markets in such a way as that to make something ‘more affordable’.

I remain suspicious of the government and their intentions, but on the face of it those two things are not really so bad.  On the face of it.

But in the end this is lacking in substance because there is no guarantee that they can make this bold and ambitious plan work, on top of all the corruption that is going on with this plan.

How can they make sure of any of these programs?  Especially on the tax credits when they may tax them anyways in another area, or force taxes on someone else to pay for it which these companies will pass on to the poor consumer in question?

How about the specifics on the debt relief plan?  How is it to work? what happens if you do a year or two in public service, does that mean your debt will be forgiven, or will you have to work for all ten years?

While all this maybe just a boon to suck more people into the public system, whether they want it or not, no matter what there is that they want for their lives, which will not matter for the government that they find themselves in service too.  Maybe. I will admit this is my pet theory to this.

But then you get to the real corruption that is going on in here, the government manipulation and controls that are growing into greater and greater sectors of our economy, and giving us less choices in the end of the day.

Because the federal government has no right, none, to budge in on legitimate contracts…especially in such a case like that…and determine who and what someone else should pay for their loans.  That is of course assuming that he was not just referring to federal grants when he was talking about the ‘ten percent of income’, but the wording of the speech certainly indicated all loans when he then went on to say that the loans would be forgiven.

In basic, if that is the case, no free government has the authority to shred a contract between consenting parties and change the rules of the game.  Especially when such activity is illegal, or be met with action by the bank.

What will happen now?

You get say….a fifty thousand dollar loan…with interest.  And then lets say you sit on it, or most of that money, for 20 years or so, refuse to make payments.  The bank under such a case (or private entity) cannot take action, and then on twenty years your debt is forgiven, reset, and then you can just go on with your merry life.

Also a government does not have a right (except in theory for its own loans) how much of someone’s ‘income’ can go to pay off the debt.  Only the two parties making that agreement have the authority to do so, if either party does not agree, then they will just move on another business that can.  Or another loan option.

I certainly cannot tell someone else what to do with their own finances, or financial institutions, which might have the effect of raising the price even more in the first place.

Which brings one to the last point.  That in the end this could be all about taking away the right to a private loan, that they will set up such restrictions and regulations that in the end you will have to go to the government if you do not have the income to go to college.

Look in the end I know that about ninety percent of this is speculation.  We do not have the facts, just a vague piece of a vague speech, of a man who we know to have lied and threatened in that same speech.  I do not have the facts, but in the end all we can do is keep an eye on this potential situation and see where this takes us.  And takes our freedoms.

Progressives have a huge problem, at least the ones in our government and the people who support their agenda.  It is a problem about power and the acquisition of it.

It’s primary focus is against the ‘grass roots’ movement of Progressivism, the ground troops, the members of the elite and the Media who want to bring about this change through government, and they are so close to achieving it that they feel that they can feel it.

No matter what anyone else says.

But there is something that the politician knows, the members of our government know, about the situation that is beginning to take shape.

In basic we are at the tipping point, but we have not tipped there yet.

They know that this is still basically the beginning, that they need to not make too many people mad and maintain power until they are fully ready to transform this country.

But yet the ground troops cannot accept that, and they are anxious, and waiting for the government to take ultimate power to help the people.  But many people do not share that opinion.

So, the politicians have promised to go forward with their plans, but they are still trying to please…everyone.

Because not only is it about the grand try to bring about Progressive change and transform the United States, but it is also about their own power.

Because they know that there is no guarantee that any replacement in this political climate will be there and step in line.

And they also think that they are the only ones that can lead us in this future, that it is their way, and no other.

Meanwhile no one understands the resistance to this either.  The Republicans cannot stop this, and no one of our ‘side’ can do it either.  This was their time to shine.  And this frustrates them, they had the greatest chance in 40 years to see this agenda happen, and it’s not being done.

Because of power, and because of the struggles that are going on.

But in the end they know that if they pass healthcare it will be such a victory as to make sure progressive change for the next generation of big government people.  And that is why they are willing to sacrifice their own power to see this passed.

Especially considering there is some other federal job out there waiting for them when they do get thrown out of congress.

I have meant to talk about this for a while…and here it goes.  It does seem odd that this is a topic that needs discussion, that we should combine these topics and draw parallels between them.  But, I think this is important.

For anyone who knows anything about the three laws, Newton’s laws of physics, that the third law is for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  This make sense in physics perfectly, you hit a wall, you break the bones in your hand.

But our current government seems  bent on ignoring these laws, and other Laws of Economics.

So just what is the opposite reaction to bigger and more government? Why even comment on this topic?

The exact opposite reaction to more and more government programs is that there is more ability to find loopholes and to have people game the system.  It’s a natural part of life, none of us can change it.

It also encourages people to find a way to game the system and use it for their advantage.  If everyone understood the rules of the game, had the same rules of the game, and they were simple enough to enact quickly then everyone would know those rules, and people who broke these rules could be dealt with quickly and effectively.

It’s like the hate laws.  Why add another law to the books…when murder is already illegal.  If they are guilty then they deserve punishment.

Anyways I digress.

If you think I am wrong then consider the current tax code of the United States of the IRS.  It is over 6000 pages long of text legal laws of how United States citizens do their taxes.

It is such a complicated mess of words and legality that you must have an army of lawyers just to figure it out.

Such a mass of contradictions that it actually encourages people to game the system, to lie, to steal, to cheat, and to squeeze every penny out of the system you can.  Legally, but occasionally immoral.

And that is only if you have the best intentions.  For corrupt people, it can still be used as a weapon, to come after you and try to intimidate you into submission.  But if yet you get caught with it and you are on the right side…you are forgiven…why you did it just to help people.

Or any number of programs, if you give people an excuse, they will find it.

The best solution would be to simplify things so everyone can understand what is going on so that they can know how to react, and the guilty punished.

Simplicity, the opposite reaction is a greater ability to know the issues.

Last Monday was the birth day of Martin Luther King Jr.  Perhaps the greatest political philosopher of recent American history.  A man of peace.

There is not a better time to write this blog, it could be months and months before I get the opportunity to really talk about it but it need saying.

There are three assassinations that changed the course of American history in such a radical, and terrible way that we will always feel their effects, we certainly are now.  Great men and small men, but in the end they changed the course of history.  The actions that followed their deaths.

The three of them are Martin Luther King Jr, John F. Kennedy, and Abraham Lincoln.  Their deaths again forever changed the course of America.

Each of them succeeded by lesser men and lesser policies that did nothing to help the original cause, but to destroy it, and fundamentally alter it into something totally different then what they were fighting.

Whether it was through violence, or quasi policies that just represented the ones that came before that did not fix anything really so that years later we would have to do it again.

Now I am not exactly sure about a lot of this, I probably have a lot of the specifics on, so I do hope you bear with me and share your perspectives on this to tell me if I have any of this wrong.

With MLK his was a philosophy of peace, and brotherhood, and of unification.  That we are all Americans and the judgment of our character and not the color of our skin should determine who we are.   That some qualifier did not determine the entire content of our character.

That he was not about dividing, but about unifying, as Americans, one nation, under the principles and ideals of the United States Constitution.

Then he died.

And his legacy became the legacy of lesser men who had no interest in uniting people, but dividing them, by focusing on their skin color, and by focusing on their past to show what they feel we owed them for our sins.

And they used violence to get their way, something King did not tolerate.

Jack Kennedy got us involved in Vietnam, he was strong on national defense, and he was for tax cuts.  He would likely be a Republican today, and his policies did not match later on what happened with Ted Kennedy.

But then he died and history changed.

It became the war of lesser men with lesser policies who had no interest in fighting a war to win, but likely because it was Jack’s war.  The power at the time felt they had bigger fish to fry, but they had to fight it, and finish what they started.  Thus we got sucked into it and social policies changed.

Finally, Abraham Lincoln.  He had just finished the civil war, and was getting ready to start bringing the nation together again, based on peace and reconciliation.

And then he died.  And history changed forever.

Lincoln’s legacy would be inherited by  lesser men, and nothing changed.  Reconciliation and reconstruction became about continuing to divide the country, and make the South pay for the war.  Doing nothing to really fix the problem, as became clear by Jim Crow and others who wanted to return to the good ole days.

And because Lincoln died nothing stayed permanently fixed.

It is unclear exactly had these three men lived what the effect would have been.  But it is clear that their deaths continue to ripple to us to this day.

I hope we survive the mistake of three assassins, shooting three bullets, that killed three men.  I hope we can live this down.

During the election cycle the big thing about then Senator Obama’s policy was a term known as trickle up economics, the exact opposite of Ronald Regan’s policy of trickle down economics.  The idea that you can ‘give’ money to the poor and that effect will stimulate up throughout the economy.

Now I can write a blog about how idiotic a proposition (and untrue) this is, just like I can produce a blog that can bring out some of the flaws in Reaganomics.  Which is a better system, but we are fighting the wrong battle.

That said, I think the real meaning behind trickle up economics is really the idea of trickle up government.

To put your trust in bigger and better things, more and more, higher and higher.  That cities should rely on States should rely on Countries should rely on internationalism for safety and prosperity.

That when someone gets into trouble you should not got to your own people, oh no, but the next level higher up the ladder all the way to when the federal government get into trouble, they trust other governments for loans.  Governments who we cannot always be sure of their intentions towards us whether they are all that honorable, or if they even have our best interests in heart.

That is not what we should trust, we should really be trusting two things.

The American people.  That when push comes to shove we will be able to figure out what is best for all of us, and that if we work together as a country we can find the simple, clear, and common sense solutions to solve our number of crisis.

And we should trust simplicity.  That the answer is not greater government and more complicated bureaucracies deciding what everyone should do, and what the proper level of ‘sacrifice’ is for the American people.

Nor is it foreign governments, I expect the Chinese government to act in the best interests of the Chinese people, but I do not expect that what they would want would be good for Americans.

That they should not pick a grand plan of how Citizens of the United States should live their lives.  The answer is clear, to the point, simple solutions that will be easy to enact and even easier to understand by the American people.

It all comes down again to trust, big government and elites do not like the ‘uneducated horde’ only other people of their ilk and in their circles.  They do not think that we can live our lives, they do not trust as to live our lives.

And in so doing, well we do not trust them to live our lives either.  Trust in the people, and the rest will take care of itself.

A case has been bought to federal court where two lawyers are representing couples who claim that their constitutional rights are being violated by California Proposition 8.

Marriage is not a right.

But that is hardly the point here, once again this represents something, something that will take blogs to cover, many.  Simply put we are fighting the wrong battle, we should focus our efforts on solving this problem another way.

One that can guarantee freedom because I do not care what you do in your bedroom, or what your deeply held beliefs on the matter are.  But this highlights a failure on our society to find solutions to our problems, now.

As for Harry Reid.

I do not like his comments.

They were certainly racial.

And there is an obvious double standard that exists here between a Democrat and a Republican.

But pointing this out is a dangerous road that we are  on, and unhelpful.

Especially on the part of all Republicans and Conservative commentators, coming out in unison and saying the same thing on this, or nearly so.

At such a crucial moment in this nations history with health care going and everyone having to bring their A game, one hundred percent, getting involved in a he said she said they said finger-pointing contest will not help anyone.  Especially since one day it is likely that the Liberals will find a way to use it against them in the future.

However, that is their right as they are separate and completely different personalities with their own voice and almost no affiliation or obligation to each other.

Finally Scott Brown.

Scott Brown represents a shift in politics.  People are tired and mistrustful of what is going on, and Scott Brown is representative of this fact.  Especially in the regards of the current health care bill that he is raging so much personally against.

I do not dispute that, but there is another angle to this.

It seems in all the, quite aptly named, attack ads run by the Democratic Campaign against Scott Brown, that they are appealing to imagery and just trying to rile up their base convincing them that Brown is evil.

They have shown the images of Republicans in Washington,

Rush Limbaugh,

Right Wing extremists, the tea party movement, that funds Sarah Palin.

And said he is against a woman’s right to choose.

This is the politics of 1984.  That is all I can say of this, all this does is appeal to a base and whip them up into a frenzy so that they fight against what they perceive as a threat.

Using Buzz words to win support of, well people they probably would have anyways.  That is if America really is changing.

They expect these people to represent the face of evil, Emanuel Goldstein to their Big Brother.

Refusing all the while to debate the issues and the facts, and just debate the character.

Though it amused me greatly that when they complained about the right wing extremists, the message was funded by SEIU.

Also, other than the blog I do have something to ask my regular readership.

Distributing these blogs on a day-to-day basis is getting a bit of a hassle for me.  I will still do them if that is what you want.

But I noticed when I was reading Aretoo’s last blog that you can subscribe to e-mail.

So I would like to know, on an individual basis, or by vote, whether you would like me to continue giving you updates, or to go to the e-mail alerts to when I get them.  I would greatly appreciate comments on this in the regular comments on this blog, and I hope to work this out with all of you.


This is almost insane that I should be talking about this , with all the…oh and Glenn Beck is talking about it as I type this…that you have had people talk about this, and Saul Alinsky.  It is…well I should not deal with this.  They have done a marvelous job revealing what is coming down the pike, and asking the question, why are they dealing with, especially in the sense of that this system existed.

But, I think there is something that needs saying, something that could be looked at two different ways, and I will find a way of dealing with way two at a later more convenient date.

But the first one is people, all people, I have not heard one person who has dealt with this in the press: What this country will look like after this plan comes to fruition, how it has collapsed, and what has been built in its place?

Because there is only two ways that this can go.  The right way, and the wrong way.  Now I am sure that there are now a lot of blog readers out there saying that there is a right way to do Cloward and Piven, A that is not really what I mean, and B there is a right way to deal with the situation dealt with after this plan has gone through.

The wrong way though is what our government is doing.  They think that they can control the outcome of what is going on, that they can control the collapse, and what follows it.  That their intention is to create a totally dependent society on them and Socialism of how they think what we should and should not act like.

But you cannot do that, you cannot guarantee that they will control everything and can predict circumstances that will evolve from this.

It’s impossible.

But what is really at stake here is the dark side, and the light side.  Right and Wrong, a healthy lesson, or transforming into something dark and dangerous.

That would be the choice that is before us, literally if we go left or if we go right.  Between darkness and the light.

Because we could transform into something that is dangerous, and is something for the world to fear, or the world to respect because we are part of one big happy global government.

Or we could reform, we could do the hard work, we could get back to principle, and the principles of freedom, hard work, and common decency, that we were founded on and has sparked many a revitalization of the American Dream.

That we can get back to our roots, and start over, and become a good full people again, with our problems, but with so great promise to deal with our problems on our own without government getting in the way.

This is the choice that is before us, right here, now, and in this moment of history.

Some things have become clear to me of late as I have debated on various things.  The so-called anatomy of a conspiracy, with two of them of late.  One of them has reality, and one of them there has much debate about its legitimacy.

With this I plan on covering the global warming science controversy, and the birther movement.  I do not intend to pass judgement on either, it is up to you how valid each of them are, but when dealing with this recently it has caused me to think about a lot of things.

Now on one of them it is clear that some sort of conspiracy takes effect, but how deep is it? In regards to climate change and global warming several agencies including the United States Airforce has come out with findings supporting it.

Are we really ready to not trust our own military, the one thing that we can agree on? How insane are the times that we are dealing with where we cannot trust anything.

Because the fundamental problem here is a lack of trust among various parties.  The so-called anatomy of a conspiracy.

In many cases it is a lack of information that leads to a conspiracy.  And there are many people in this country who feel that we are not getting it, which when you have a lack of information you have people jumping to conclusions about the intents, purposes, and filling in the blanks of what they do not know.  And information, honesty, and integrity engender trust.  Lies and a withholding of information does not.

Especially in the case of the government who is taking power and doing things against the people’s will.  Who is creating levels of bureaucracies and are continuing to do things to the people of the United States of America.  Continuing to take power from themselves, with this they cannot be trusted.

And this is the same with global warming.  I think people would be a lot more willing to come to the table and discuss the issue if the government was not so hell-bent on using it as an excuse to show how evil that we as humans are, and that only the government can save us.  That we need more regulation and controls, and we need to share the wealth with other developing countries and then its your way or the high way.

And then we find out that there actually was a conspiracy involved manipulating date.  Pardon me if I am a little skeptical on this.

If they were not so bent on taking dominance and power, most of these things would not be an issue.

The key here is to have an open and honest debate, about anything that is going on.  That is the best way to counter these conspiracies.

And in the meantime, if you believe that there is a conspiracy out there involving our elected officials.  I will leave it up to you, if you think that something does not make sense, whether it is global warming, or a birth certificate, or whether we are engaging in the right policy on health care.  I trust you on your own volition to question with boldness.

Cause if you are right and you can prove it could change everything.

As many of you may already know a terrorist plot carried out over Christmas Day in which a Nigerian National tried to blow up himself by use of explosives in his underwear.

Over the last week or so there have been two thoughts on the matter that have come up in various forum.  One is supported by Glenn Beck on his radio program as he has talked about an experience with the Israeli airlines where he was questioned for three hours to ensure he was not a threat, and then was given steak knives to eat with on the place.  The other is supported by President Obama, and also endorsed by the Kim Kommando Show.  I am not aware of her precise political positions on this, so this is not what this is about, but she was informing the public on the general good that new technologies could do.  The Presidents focus is in the technical area, adding detection equipment that can handily detect new threats.

Now while I do support this action by the President, we need to make sure that it is not overly complicated and easy of use, that human element, but what we need is to focus on encouraging common sense, and training people aware of potential threats.  The Human element, which Glenn Beck extolled on his popular radio program.

If for no other reason to stop-gap the systems in the event of failure.  Flying is not a right.  We need proper and tight security protocols that are easy to understand, and easy to use.  And we need to encourage common sense, to go with your gut if you think something is out-of-place.  If you are wrong people will go on your merry way, if you are right then you have just saved the lives of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of innocent people.

But this whole situation, I believe, highlights something of great important to our country at this time.  It highlights a piece of governmental, big government, ideology.  That you cannot trust people, and their guts, and their motives, and we have to have ever increasing…in this case technology…but an ever increasingly complicated array of ideological ‘things’ that mean to take the choice away from the person.  If you are wrong, no harm done, it is better inconvenience someone for three hours, then  to lose American lives.  Especially taking into the fact that this is not a right.

I will be highlighting this ideology and philosophy for most of the month, so this sort of serves as a prequel.

But in the end it all boils down with the sectors of our life are trusting to increasingly complex devices, and things, to make society work, where at the best the human element is minimized.  And in many cases even scorned.

And instead of doing this, we should try making things less and less complicated, to have a true trickle down effect where we are not trusting things, or higher-ups, but we are putting faith on the ‘ground troops’ to make decisions and keep us safe.  To follow our instincts, and to not give into pressure.

I will again be highlighting this as I go on in the year.

This has become my third most hated debate that I have had regularly.  Behind the debate over abortion, and the debate over gay marriage rights.

In the end it is so pointless to me, which is why I do not like it so.  These freedoms already exist, or at least they should exist.  Which leads me to the conclusion, and the proposition, that if you specifically say Freedom from religion you get a religious police state.  That the attitude conveyed almost would make it where no one could worship, and believe what they could.

Or only a certain group had.  At least this is in my mind what has happened to every state that has specified this Freedom From religion, it leads to a dangerous path.  IMO at least, from what I have learned from history.

You have the freedom to believe what you want to believe, this does not matter if you are Atheist, Agnostic, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Christian.  As long as what you believe does not interfere with anyone’s rights.

In the end this is what it comes down to, you do not have the right to interfere with their religious practices.  But they do not have the right to do the same to you.

It seems like that in some of the conversations they had its like…how can we put up with this, they violate rights, force their beliefs on me, and then I cannot stop them.  This is not true, because in the end in this country we also have the right to property, if they do violate those rights,  they would be arrested, you do not have to listen to them, you do not have to give heed to them, you can just go on your merry way, if that is what you chose.

You do not have to take part in any religion that you do not want to.

And if they do infringe on your freedoms, well they can go to jail.  Because we are a nation of laws.

Also, this comes to issue, why? Why is everyone running around so scared of what everyone else believes, especially in regards to religion.  You believe in a God, I do not, or vice versa, it does not matter.  Let them pray on their own time, and there is time enough for you to get on with your own life.

I do not know what is so offensive about letting someone pray on their own time, at a school lunch, away from everyone else, just on their own time.

What is so offensive about the battlefield of ideas?  What bothers you about someones deeply held beliefs?

And why can you not allow them to have the same freedoms that you demand for yourself?