28 April 2011

London Daily Telegraph? Not

Note: this article falsely attributed to Alex Singleton was written by Jack Kelly Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade combines two previous articles headed by a quote from Alex Singleton; no matter, I still like the viewpoint.

"Let me be clear: I'm not normally in favor of boycotts, and I love the American people. I holiday in their country regularly, and hate the tedious snobby sneers against the United States. But the American people chose to elect an idiot who seems hell bent on insulting their allies, and something must be done to stop Obama's reckless foreign policy, before he does the dirty on his allies on every issue." (this quote may be correctly attributed to Alex Singleton)

One of the most poorly kept secrets in Washington is President Obama's animosity toward Great Britain, presumably because of what he regards as its sins while ruling Kenya (1895-1963).

One of Barack Hussein Obama's first acts as president was to return to Britain a bust of Winston Churchill that had graced the Oval Office since 9/11. He followed this up by denying Prime Minister Gordon Brown, on his first state visit, the usual joint press conference with flags.

The president was "too tired" to grant the leader of America's closest ally a proper welcome, his aides told British journalists.

Mr. Obama followed this up with cheesy gifts for Mr. Brown and the Queen. Columnist Ian Martin described his behavior as "rudeness personified.” There was more rudeness in store for Mr. Brown at the opening session of the United Nations in September. "The prime minister was forced to dash through the kitchens of the UN in New York to secure five minutes of face time with President Obama after five requests for a sit down meeting were rejected by the White House," said London Telegraph columnist David Hughes. Mr. Obama's "churlishness is unforgivable*," Mr. Hughes said.

The administration went beyond snubs and slights last week when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton endorsed the demand of Argentine President Cristina Kirchner, a Hugo Chavez ally, for mediation of Argentina's specious claim to the Falkland Islands, a British dependency since 1833. The people who live in the Falklands, who speak English, want nothing to do with Argentina. When, in 1982, an earlier Argentine dictatorship tried to seize the Falklands by force, the British with strong support from President Ronald Reagan expelled them.

"It is truly shocking that Barack Obama has decided to disregard our shared history," wrote Telegraph columnist Toby Young. "Does Britain’s friendship really mean so little to him?” *One could ask, does the friendship of anyone in the entire world mean anything to him?

"I recently asked several senior administration officials, separately, to name a foreign leader with whom Barack Obama has forged a strong personal relationship during his first year in office," wrote Jackson Diehl, deputy editorial page editor of the Washington Post, on Monday. "A lot of hemming and hawing ensued.” One official named French President Nicolas Sarkozy, but his contempt for Mr. Obama is an open secret. Another named German Chancellor Angela Merkel. But, said Mr. Diehl, "Merkel too has been conspicuously cool toward Obama."

Mr. Obama certainly doesn't care about the Poles and Czechs, whom he has betrayed on missile defense. Honduras and Israel also can attest that he's been an unreliable ally and an unfaithful friend. Ironically, our relations with both Israel and the Palestinian Authority have never been worse. Russia has offered nothing in exchange for Mr. Obama's abandonment of missile defense. Russia and China won't support serious sanctions on Iran. Syria’s support for terrorism has not diminished despite efforts to normalize diplomatic relations. The reclusive military dictatorship that runs Burma has responded to our efforts at "engagement" by deepening its ties to North Korea.

And the Chinese make little effort to disguise their contempt for him.

For the first time in a long time, the President of the United States is actually distrusted by its allies and not in the least feared by its adversaries. Nor is Mr. Obama now respected by the majority of Americans. Understandably focused on the dismal economy and Mr. Obama's relentless efforts to nationalize and socialize health care, Americans apparently have yet to notice his dismal performance and lack of respect in the world community. They soon will.

Jack Kelly, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and Toledo Blade

25 April 2011


It’s What Happens First.

All of the creations of mankind were first imagined, envisioned, thought of, by someone. They were bought into existence by those who saw themselves doing the things necessary to make it. They were made available by someone who envisioned how and why users would want and use it. Users imagined what it would do for them or how it would make them feel.

In our daily lives everything we do we've seen ourselves doing before we've done it. Forethought's lead us from anticipating reasons for needing to do it, or seeing ourselves doing it and inventing reasons why we should, to actually trying to do it.

Regardless of good or evil intent, very few things are done by reflex or habit completely without planning (forethought).

Occasionally, things happen while intending to do something else, like “sticky notes” an accident that happened while attempting something else. Fortunately, it was recognized as something useful before it was casually discarded as trash. An accident that would not have occurred if one had not been trying to accomplish something else that had been imagined.

Imagining and doing, attempting, failing, learning and accomplishing; these are the things that make up the stuff of human existence and achievement.

Imagining is not just inventing a new thing, or new process, or new idea. It’s also seeing you or others doing something in a role that currently isn't a reality; fantasying.

Visualizing being something different than you are now; an entertainer, a politician, helping the sick, being wealthy, preaching to the masses, riding a mad bull, loving someone completely, climbing Mount Everest, successfully robbing a bank, getting away with murder, leading a revolution, surviving Armageddon, stopping a holocaust, falling to your death, it doesn't really matter; nearly everyone has imagined themselves doing something interesting, troubling or dangerous. It is the first most important ingredient needed to accomplish or avoid anything.

Either way a fantasy begins to become reality when we do something; take action, making the conscientious effort to accomplish.

Doing creates the opportunity for success. Stopping makes failure very likely. Learning and persisting creates success, something helpful, useful or good.  Succeeding at harm, waste or evil can be achieved as well. Hopefully, those who might chose other than good will imagine the injury, harm, and penalties to their victims and themselves along with their evil fantasy before they chose to act.

Imagine yourself being something good.

See yourself doing the necessary steps to achieve it.

“Endeavor to persevere,” Chief Dan George’s line as the character “Lone Watie” in the Clint Eastwood movie The Outlaw Josey Wales.

24 April 2011

Wrong Leader

This letter was written by Porter Stansberry, Financial Advisor, Editor and Publisher. He granted broad permission to distribute with its posting. I provide it here slightly modified by error corrections.

Dear Mr. President,

Welcome to the ashbin of society.

With the speech you gave last week, you have firmly and permanently put yourself in the same garbage bag as all the other communists and socialists of the 20th century.

Your speech sounded like the faint echo of a speech Lenin gave in an icy square in Moscow 100 years ago.

The promises you made, Mr. President, about the government giving people things they can’t provide for themselves – a better income, reliable health care, an advanced education, cheaper mortgages, a “shiny, happy” life – have been made time and time again… sometimes by speakers even better than you.

And they have always been lies.

While the government can demand obedience (and taxes), it can’t mandate dedication, creativity, or innovation. The fact is, the government itself is nothing more (or less) than the organized ambitions of the people.

Promising something to the people that they don’t already have is a logical absurdity. And therein lies the timeless flaw of all collectivist theory: Governments cannot deliver benefits to the people that the people cannot deliver to themselves.

To demonstrate this truth, consider this example… Governments cannot simply mandate higher tax revenue. Any substantial increase to tax rates will reduce total collections, an economic phenomenon known as the “Laffer Curve.”

This has been proven countless times in our country and many others. Any sensible person will immediately understand why. Taxes are a disincentive. The higher the marginal rate of tax, the more powerful its impact.

That’s why, over many decades (and many different tax structures), U.S. tax revenues have been remarkably stable at around 20% of GDP. That’s why, as you surely know, Mr. President, changing the tax code will not result in increased tax revenue.

Taxing only the rich simply doesn’t work. It never has. And it never will. To increase the government’s revenues, we must first increase the size of the economy. The government cannot tax what the economy doesn’t produce.

In another time, most Americans might have simply ignored your speech as the ignorant remarks of yet another handsome, Ivy League-educated, dilettante president. But at this point in our history, my bet is people are going to take you far more seriously than you expect. In fact, I think you’re going to get what you deserve – the trash heap. Why will Americans turn on you so rapidly and so completely?

Two things have changed – forever – about American politics.

The first is the media and access to critical information. It’s no longer possible for a president’s administration to control what people read, see, and think by simply managing the evening news broadcasts.

Thus, all your lies are now exposed almost instantly and broadcast to millions of people via websites and services like the Drudge Report, Twitter, and Facebook. Socialism cannot possibly survive over any long period of time in a society with a free media – because socialism is based on a lie. Facebook means the “half-life” of socialism is now weeks instead of years.

Even mainstream publications like the Wall Street Journal have called you a liar recently. They have no choice. Your lies were broadcast to the entire world long before their op-ed pieces appeared.

Your advisors told you none of these “bloggers” mattered. All you had to do was promise more benefits to more voters and then force fewer voters to pay for it all. I’m sure you did the political calculus… You believed your power to bribe and bamboozle the poor and the ignorant was stronger than the resentment you’d engender among the “rich.” And I must admit… since at least World War II, that’s been a safe bet in American politics.

But you forgot one critical factor: We simply can’t afford this nonsense anymore…

Immediately after your speech, the price of silver went from $39 to a new high above $42. Gold went up, too.

These are signs, Mr. President, that the world is losing confidence in our currency. If our foreign creditors were to call in our debts, America would suffer an economic cataclysm unlike anything we’ve ever seen in our entire history.

Americans now owe a total of $56 trillion. Without the Fed’s money-printing, it’s unlikely we could afford even the interest on these existing debts… much less the $1.5 trillion or more in debt you continue to rack up year after year by promising benefits we haven’t earned.

Sooner or later, our foreign creditors are going to decide our money-printing amounts to a default, and they will stop buying our bonds. On that day, everyone who trusts you, everyone who believes in your lies, will be wiped out.

But that won’t be as many people as you expect.

Almost every American knows in his heart what made this country great for the 200 years between 1776 and 1976. It wasn’t the lies of our presidents. It wasn’t our ability to print money and rip off our Chinese creditors. It wasn’t the modern crybaby mentality of our school system or our unions. It wasn’t the baby boomer’s dream of a 40-year retirement with free prescription drugs.

And it sure as hell wasn’t a suave, made-for-TV version of Karl Marx promising everything to everyone, but with no way to pay for it.

No. What built America was her people’s unwavering faith that they were free to enjoy the rewards of their accomplishments.

As our country tumbles into bankruptcy and crisis, the people are going to want their prosperity back, Mr. President. And deep down, they all know… even your most fervent supporters know… you don’t have the goods. You don’t have the foggiest idea of how to deliver prosperity to America because, really, you don’t understand what America is all about.


Porter Stansberry

20 April 2011

555 People

-By Charlie Reese, retired reporter Orlando Sentinel

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The President does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one President, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 555 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but PRIVATE, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a President to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he (or she) votes.

Those 555 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits..... The President can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the President, can approve any budget they want. If the President vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 555 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 555 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 555 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army & Marines are in Iraq and Afghanistan it's because they want them in Iraq and Afghanistan ...

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 555 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 555 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power..

100 years ago our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largest middle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

What in the hell happened?

18 April 2011

Social Justice,

Or Injustice?

I’ve heard the term several times lately in contexts that didn’t make any sense. So, I’ve vowed to learn and show here all I can about it that makes sense to me. My original intention was to show examples of the research first and then show what I’ve learned and what I suggest. Now that I’m nearly finished I’ve decided to show my thoughts and suggestions here and leave the information I’ve collected to follow.

Thoughts and criticism:

What does the most vocal part of the current Social Justice movement want?

So far, I’ve only found one organization the mentions the equal distribution of disadvantages, hardships, burdens or work. All other sites I’ve visited talk extensively about the equal distribution of advantages, wealth, income, power, opportunity, rights, dignity, health care, resources and benefits; nothing about equal sharing of costs, misery, hardships or work.

“Social Justice is the fair distribution of advantages, assets, and benefits among all members of a society.”

Sharing the burdens of modern life is clearly not foremost on their minds, if at all.

I think any idea of Social Justice must include the just distribution of Burdens. The Catholics mention work and disadvantages, but most other places they only mention advantages, benefits and assets; never work, contribution, or the making or the earning of anything.

“Economic inequality must be replaced by an ideal of "social justice" -- a "classless" society created by the elimination of all differences in wealth and power."

In the Social Justice view, the world owes you a living, power, and influence equal to everyone else’s regardless of the value of your contribution.

Who are the truly poor, and who among them only chooses to act poorly?

Working, saving and investing in one’s current or future condition; not mentioned often.

Isn’t it unjust to continually help those who will not help themselves?

Is it justice to pay those equally, who will not work?

Is it justice or safe to welcome criminals, the corrupt and the diseased among us?

Is it justice to forgive a lawful individual debt?

All are equally vulnerable to environmental impact; the poor may sometimes suffer disproportional hardship because they are ignorant and weak, which incidentally is also why they are poor.

It appears to me that so called Social Justice is neither social, nor justice. It looks and feels like a blend of the well-meaning and organized religion, and the agitation/ dogma/ propaganda of communists; designed to take from those that make and give to those who only take, that which they do not deserved, are not owed, and have not earned.

If you have not put anything in, except breathing and breeding; then you should not be allowed to take anything out. Occupying space, sucking air, and ejecting children are not contributions; they are your burdens and do not obligate me to provide anything I make.

Not all humans achieve dignity!

Origins and concepts:

Wikipedia says, “The term and modern concept of "social justice" was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in 1840 based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and given further exposure in 1848 by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati.

Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being.

More recent history:

The idea was elaborated by the moral theologian John A. Ryan, who initiated the concept of a living wage. Father Coughlin also used the term in his publications in the 1930s and the 1940s. It is a part of Catholic social teaching, and Social Gospel from Episcopalians.

Social justice as a secular concept, distinct from religious teachings, emerged mainly in the late twentieth century influenced primarily by philosopher John Rawls.

Janusz Korwin-Mikke argues that "Either 'social justice' has the same meaning as 'justice' - or not. If so – why use the additional word 'social?'…. If not, if 'social justice' means something different from 'justice' - then something different from justice is by definition 'injustice.'

This is sound reasoning not seen often now days; those who take the earnings of others often think it is just.

Sociologist Carl L. Bankston has argued that a secular, leftist view of social justice entails viewing the redistribution of goods and resources as based on the rights of disadvantaged categories of people, rather than on compassion or national interest. Bankston maintains that this secular version of social justice became widely accepted due to the rise of demand-side economics and to the moral influence of the civil rights movement.

Social Justice (sometimes "Social Equality and Global Equality and Economic Justice") is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party. The Canadian party defines the principle as the "equitable distribution of resources to ensure that all have full opportunities for personal and social development". As one of the values of the party in the United States, social justice is described as the right and opportunity of all people "to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment."

Liberation theology is a movement in Christian theology which construes the teachings of Jesus Christ in terms of liberation from unjust economic, political, or social conditions. It has been described by proponents as "an interpretation of Christian faith through the suffering poor, their struggle and hope, and a critique of society through the eyes of the poor", and by detractors as Christianity perverted by Marxism and Communism. Although liberation theology has grown into an international and inter-denominational movement, it began as a movement within the Catholic Church as a poverty and social injustice reaction in Latin America in the 1950s - 1960s. It achieved some prominence in the 1970s and 1980s. The term was coined by the Peruvian priest, Gustavo GutiƩrrez, who wrote one of the movement's most famous books, A Theology of Liberation (1971). Other noted exponents are Leonardo Boff of Brazil, Jon Sobrino of El Salvador, and Juan Luis Segundo of Uruguay.

Catholic Social Teaching

There is no official ‘canon’ of Catholic Social Teachings but below are some principles usually included.

Human dignity

The prime principle of Catholic social teaching is the human person is a "Being in the image of God, possesses the dignity of a person, capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer a response of faith and love that no other creature can give."


The Catholic Church advocates that "God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity" but also that the harmony of society "depends in part on the way in which the complementarity needs and mutual support between the sexes are lived out."


Solidarity is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good, not merely vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of others. Solidarity, which flows from faith, is fundamental to the Christian view of social and political organization. Each person is connected to and dependent on all humanity, collectively and individually.


In Caritas in Veritate, the Catholic Church declared that "Charity is at the heart of the Church". Every responsibility and every commitment spelled out by that doctrine is derived from charity according to Jesus (Matthew 22:36-40). It gives real substance to the personal relationship with God and with neighbors, friends, or family members.

The Church has chosen the concept of "charity in truth". Truth frees charity from the constraints of an emotionalism that deprives it of relational and social content. In the truth, charity reflects the personal yet public dimension of faith in God and the Bible.


Pope Pius XI said, "It is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, fixed and unchangeable, that one should not withdraw from individuals and commit to the community what they can accomplish by their own enterprise….."


Distributism holds that social and economic structures should promote wide ownership of enterprises and is the basis for anti-trust laws and economic cooperatives. Rerum Novarum, Quadragesimo Anno and Centesimus Annus are Catholic Social Teaching that advocate economic distributism.

Key Themes

As with the principles above, there is no official list of key themes. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has identified these seven key themes of Catholic Social Teaching. Other sources identify more or fewer key themes based on the key documents of social magisterium.

Sanctity of human life and dignity of the person

The foundational principle of all Catholic social teachings is the sanctity of human life. Catholics believe in an inherent dignity of the human person starting from conception through to natural death. They believe that human life must be valued infinitely above material possessions. Pope John Paul II wrote and spoke extensively on the topic of the inviolability of human life and dignity in his watershed encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, (The Gospel of Life).

Catholics oppose acts considered attacks and affronts to human life, including abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, genocide, torture, the direct and intentional targeting of noncombatants in war, and every deliberate taking of innocent human life. In the Second Vatican Council's Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes (Joy and Hope), it is written that “from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care."

In recent years, some Catholics have discouraged application of the death penalty, though the traditional teaching does not exclude it, if it is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. The Roman Catechism says that lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to them is entrusted power of life and death, by which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The punishments inflicted by the civil authority naturally tend to give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.

Catholic doctrine teaches to respect all humans based on an inherent dignity. According to John Paul II, every human person "is called to a fullness of life which far exceeds the dimensions of his earthly existence, because it consists in sharing the very life of God." In 2007, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops wrote:

“Catholic teaching about the dignity of life calls us... to prevent genocide and attacks against noncombatants; to oppose racism; and to overcome poverty and suffering. Nations are called to protect the right to life by seeking effective ways to combat evil and terror without resorting to armed conflicts except as a last resort, always seeking first to resolve disputes by peaceful means. We revere the lives of children in the womb, the lives of persons dying in war and from starvation, and indeed the lives of all human beings as children of God.”

Call to family, community, and participation

According to the Book of Genesis, the Lord God said: "It is not good for the man to be alone". The Catholic Church teaches that man is now not only a sacred but also a social animal and that families are the first and most basic units of a society. It advocates a complementarian view of marriage, and family life, religious leadership. The family is the first and fundamental unit of society and is a sanctuary for the creation and nurturing of children. Together families form communities, communities a state, and together all across the world each human is part of the human family. How these communities organize themselves politically, economically and socially is thus of the highest importance. Each institution must be judged by how much it enhances, or is a detriment to, the life and dignity of human persons.

Catholic Social Teaching opposes collectivist approaches such as Communism, and also rejects unrestricted laissez-faire policies and the notion that a free market automatically produces social justice. The state has a positive moral role to play as no society will achieve a just and equitable distribution of resources with a totally free market. All people have a right to participate in the economic, political, and cultural life of society and, under the principle of subsidiarity, state functions should be carried out at the lowest practical level.

Rights and responsibilities

Every person has a fundamental right to life and to the necessities of life. In addition, every human has the right to what is required to live a full and decent life, things such as employment, health care, and education; the right to exercise religious freedom publicly and privately by individuals and institutions and freedom from the conscience need to be constantly defended. In a fundamental way, the right to free expression of religious beliefs protects all other rights. Corresponding to these rights are duties and responsibilities—to one another, to our families, and to the larger society.

The Church supports private property and teaches that “every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own." The right to private property is not absolute, however, and is limited by the concept of the social mortgage. It is theoretically moral and just for its members to destroy property used in an evil way by others, or for the state to redistribute wealth from those who have unjustly hoarded it. I notice that it says possess property, not own it, cleaver!

We live our lives by a subconscious philosophy of freedom and work. The encyclical Laborem Exercens (1981) by Pope John Paul II describes work as the essential key to the whole social question. Work includes every form of action by which the world is transformed and shaped or even simply maintained by human beings. It is through work that we achieve fulfillment. So in order to fulfill ourselves we must cooperate and work together to create something good for all of us, a common good. What we call justice is that state of social harmony in which the actions of each person best serve the common good.

Freedom according to Natural Law is the empowerment of good. Being free we have responsibilities. With human relationships we have responsibilities towards each other. This is the basis of human rights. The Roman Catholic Bishops of England and Wales, in their document "The Common Good" (1996) stated that, "The study of the evolution of human rights shows that they all flow from the one fundamental right: the right to life. From this derives the right to a society which makes life more truly human: religious liberty, decent work, housing, health care, freedom of speech, education, and the right to raise and provide for a family". Having the right to life must mean that everyone else has a responsibility towards me to help sustain and develop my life. This gives me the right to whatever I need to accomplish without compromising the mission of others, and it lays on others the corresponding responsibility to help me.

The Ten Commandments reflect the basic structure of the Natural Law as it applies to humanity. The first four, are the foundation: The Love of God, the Worship of God, the sanctity of God and the building of people around God.

The other six Commandments are to do with the love of humanity and the different ways in which we must serve the common good: Honor your father and mother, you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not steal, you shall not bear false witness against your neighbor, you shall not covet anything that belongs to your neighbor (Exodus 20:3-17). Our Lord Jesus Christ Summarized the Commandments with the New Commandment: "Love one another, as I have loved you" (John 13:34, 15:9-17). Our relationship with God is not one of fear, of slavery or oppression; it is a relationship of serene trust born of a free choice motivated by love. Pope John Paul II stated that love is the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. By his law God does not intend to coerce our will, but to set it free from everything that could compromise its authentic dignity and its full realization. (Pope John Paul II, 5 November 2000.)

Preferential Option for the poor and vulnerable

Jesus taught that on the Day of Judgment God will ask what each of us did to help the poor and needy: "Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me." This is reflected in the Church's canon law, which states, "The Christian faithful are also obliged to promote social justice and, mindful of the precept of the Lord, to assist the poor from their own resources."

When instituting public policy we must always keep the "preferential option for the poor" at the forefront of our minds. The moral test of any society is how it treats its most vulnerable members. The poor have the most urgent moral claim on the conscience of the nation. Pope Benedict XVI has taught that “love for widows and orphans, prisoners, and the sick and needy of every kind, is as essential as the ministry of the sacraments and preaching of the Gospel”. This preferential option for the poor and vulnerable includes all who are marginalized—unborn children, persons with disabilities, the elderly and terminally ill, and victims of injustice and oppression.

Dignity of work

Society must pursue economic justice and the economy must serve people. Employers must not "look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but ... respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character." Employers contribute to the common good through the services or products they provide and by creating jobs that uphold the dignity and rights of workers.

Workers have a right to work, to earn a living wage, and to form trade unions to protect their interests. All workers have a right to productive work, to decent and fair wages, and to safe working conditions. Workers also have responsibilities—to provide a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay, to treat employers and co-workers with respect, and to carry out their work in ways that contribute to the common good. Workers must "fully and faithfully" perform the work they have agreed to do.

In 1933, the Catholic Worker Movement was founded by Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin. Today over 185 Catholic Worker communities continue to protest injustice, war, racism, and violence of all forms.


"Solidarity seeks to go beyond itself to total gratuity, forgiveness, and reconciliation. It leads to a new vision of the unity of humankind, a reflection of God's triune intimate life...." All the peoples of the world belong to one human family. We must be our brother's keeper. Jesus teaches that we must each love our neighbors as ourselves and in the parable of the Good Samaritan we see that our compassion should extend to all people. Solidarity includes the Scriptural call to welcome the stranger among us—including immigrants seeking work, a safe home, education for their children, and a decent life for their families.

Solidarity at the international level primarily concerns the Global South. For example, the Church has habitually insisted that loans be forgiven on many occasions, particularly during Jubilee years. Charity to individuals or groups must be accompanied by transforming unjust structures. Wonder if they would forgive debts to the Church?

Care for God's creation

A Biblical vision of justice; encompasses right relationships between all members of God’s creation. Stewardship of creation; the world's goods are available for humanity to use only under a "social mortgage" which carries with it the responsibility to protect the environment. The "goods of the earth" are gifts from God, and they are intended by God for the benefit of everyone. Man was given dominion over all creation as sustainer rather than as exploiter, and is commanded to be a good steward of Gods gifts. Catholic Social Teaching recognizes that the poor are the most vulnerable to environmental impact and endure disproportional hardship when nature is exploited or damaged. US Bishops established an environmental justice program to conduct education, outreach and advocacy about these issues. The US Conference of Catholic Bishops Environmental Justice Program (EJP) calls Catholics to a deeper respect for God’s creation and with environmental problems, particularly as they affect the poor.

There will be more, if I discover in there own words, anything that changes my mind about their confiscation motives.

13 April 2011

Excessive Entitlements

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.” -Ben Franklin

We have harmed the very people we seek to help by providing more help than is needed; excessive entitlements. Encouraging the very behaviors we wish to diminish by subsidizing them, while robbing the poor of their selfworth.

You get more of what you glamorize, subsidize or reward.

You get less of what you tax, embargo, tariff, or attempt to prohibit.

We pay them for not working when we want them to work. We subsidize unwanted childbirth and unwed fatherhood while taxing marriage and responsible parenting.

We want more jobs for people, but punish companies that try to grow.

We want people to be responsible citizens, but we exempt them from punishment for irresponsible behavior.

There is no reward for meritorious achievements, if we reward non-achievers the same as the accomplished.

If hard workers and non-workers all get the same, why should anyone work hard?

We want people to save and invest in their futures, but reward those who do not.

We want law abiding citizen, but glamorize those who do not.

My suggestions;

Cut entitlements to a little less than capable citizens need, not more lavish than they deserve,

Allow consequences for those who do not try,

Provide incentives for behaviors we want,

Treat all people exactly alike, regardless of their differences,

Allow businesses and people to fail, they will learn,

Punish those who do not maintain the minimum standards of Citizenship,

Be kind and generous to the disabled, infirmed and incapable,

Stop progressive taxation, it’s not fair and equal treatment,

Stop taxing businesses; it just loots workers, widows, orphans and consumers,

Stop giving non-profit privileges to enterprises that are not,

Minimize government intrusions in our personal lives.

We currently do none of these things well, but these actions would solve many of my most serious grievances.

Who Lobbies for Us,

Hard-working, tax-paying, law-abiding, unaffiliated, American citizens?

Many millions of us are not union members, Chamber of Commerce members, AARP members, wealthy individuals, professional associates, non-profit executives, illegal immigrates, religious parishioners; who lobbies for us?

Who asks for medical insurance waivers for us? Who asks for protective tariffs for taxpayers? Who asks for subsidies for us? Who lobbies for lower taxes for us? Who lobbies for smaller more sensible government for us? Who lobbies for equal treatment under the law for us?


I thought it should be Congress. That’s clearly not true. I thought it could the courts. That’s clearly not true.

Who speaks for the plain, simple, fair-minded, child rearing, home-making, gainfully employed, mortgage paying, generous, neighborly, law-abiding, tax-paying, jury sitting, independent voters?

Apparently, no one does. How could this happen? How could individuals, the backbone of this nation, have no say?

Then I realized, that the only say an unaffiliated individual has is to vote. We do not have access to a process to submit our grievances. We have no access through the courts to petition the government for redress. If we do not pay patronage to elected politicians or huge fees to lawyers for access to courts, or massive payments to the media for access to the public opinion manipulation.

The truth is, without money, or special affiliation, or the threat of extortion or insurrection; we have only our vote and a very limited freedom of speech with little opportunity for access to listeners or readers.

Only the individuals, at great risk to their personal safety and livelihoods, have any chance of being heard let alone heeded, in their quest for a fair and equal redress of grievances, in the face of the huge army of paid mercenary lobbyists of the affiliated.

Who prevents the unlawful seizure of the fruits of our labor and frugality; the constitution?

Who prevents the loss of our rights; the courts?

Who protects us from our enemies, foreign and domestic? Hint; they actually take that solemn oath.

Apparently all of those are wrong.

Only individuals with the right to free speech, the right to bare arms, the right of association and movement, the right to vote, and the right to rebel, if all else fails; the right of free man to take corrective actions into their own hands.

We are all there is between liberty and tyranny.

11 April 2011


What good are they?

I must tell you first that I am anti-Unions. I have been my entire adult life. I don’t like anything that they have done since they were granted anti-trust exemption (Clayton Act 1914).

I go way out of my way to not buy anything that is Union made. I do not buy Union made cars. I buy services and products made by hard working American citizens, just not Union made, if at all possible. I do not honor picket lines. It’s hard, but I try not to buy Union grown, picked, processed, stored, or delivered food. I am mostly successful at buying non-Union made clothing. I buy non-Union tools and equipment at about one half the Union made price, some of it lower quality, but I just throw it way when it goes bad. For some things we literally have no choice, for instance; gasoline is made, stored, transported, and sold by Unions. Groceries are transported, stocked, and sold by Unions, unless you buy directly from a farmer. To the extent I can I buy only non-Union. It’s much cheaper, about $5,000 less for the average car, and they are better quality and more reliable. Non-Union clothing is more than half price. Non-Union food is less than half price.

I do it to punish Unions and Union leaders. I’m sorry it harms Union members.

In 1966 I worked at Patrick Air Force Base for a contractor on the Apollo-Saturn manned space flight program to land men on the moon. My first job was as a high pressure gas mechanics helper. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union (IBEW) represented the craft people in my work place. I was in college and knew I would soon be leaving that job to become one of the Ground Support Coordinators for Launch Operations. The Union steward insisted I join the Union. I declined several times. He insisted that bad things might happen to me without the Union’s protection. I still declined. They did little things in the beginning; stole my lunch, filled it with grease, sabotaged my tools and my work products, and then asked again, I declined.

One of the mechanics and I had very similar old Chevy Corvair’s we drove to work, sometimes parked near each other, sometimes not. One day the steward and several Union members came into my shop screaming, “Your car is on fire.” I ran out thinking the worst. I knew something was wrong immediately because we were not running toward where I had parked that day. It wasn’t my car, it was a Union members car turned on its side leaking gasoline someone had lighted on fire. The Union member, with the 12 children, wasn’t there. I stood quietly staring at the burning car and the steward and members there stared at me waiting for a painful anguished reaction. I gave none. After a couple minutes of quiet reflection the steward said, “It’s a shame about your car.” I said, “Not really, that’s not my car.” I had given a friend a ride to work that day and parked near his building instead of mine.

This was not the only incident in my life. Many times Unions have threatened me and my family with violence, harassed my children and my wife, called my home all hours of the night, said vile vulgar things to my wife and threatened me with physical violence on the phone. In 1985 it was the Teamsters Union at Fort Irwin, California. In the 1990’s it was a government employees Union because I testified as an expert witness against them in a false claim of asbestos exposure.

Incidentally, I quite being a fan of Major League Baseball in the 1990's after the player's went on strike, the owners behaved badly and then the Umpires went on strike.  In-spite of having been a lifelong fan, that's when I quite supporting the MLB; haven't gone to a game, or bought their merchandise, or watched them on TV since, including the World Series.  I have been National Football League fan since 1955, and Saints fan for 37 years, if they go on strike and there's no Football this fall, I'll not buy another NFL product, NFL Fan programing subscription, or watch another NFL game the rest of my life. Incidentally, they both have anti-trust exemptions that should be revoked.

Also I do not buy any products from quasi-government industries that are Unionized.  I do not use Railroads, passenger or freight.  I avoid Union trucking and delivery whenever possible.  I do not use the the US Postal Service any more than is absolutely necessary.  And I think it is ridiculous that I must pay admission to National Parks and museums.  I refuse to borrow money for home loans that are supported, back, or purchased by Fanny Mae or Freddy Mac.  I detest Federal contracting that insists on buy American or requires Unions or union-like pay schedules.

So, although I have known and respect many individual craft Union members; I have no respect for Unions and Union leaders because of their widely accepted immoral and unlawful behaviors.

I ask only a few simple questions. What have the Unions done for us lately?

Which Unions have increased productivity, efficiency, sped up service or improved product quality, increased supply, lowered prices, increased profit, created real jobs or wealth and any noticeable tax revenue?

My answer is none, in my 65 year lifetime. Union members are worst off than ever in my life. That could be why Union membership has declined so dramatically.

Unions just collect dues and funnel them mostly to Democrat political campaigns. They short their members on bragged about services, claims of successes and rights, and shovel money to easily corrupted politicians while protecting the jobs of the lame, lazy and incompetent and occasionally a very few deserving hard workers that may have been wronged.

So I ask you to name one Union that has done more good than harm since 1946?

I may not know, or perhaps haven’t heard of some Unions that have done something wonderful without destroying individual esteem, thwarting personal responsibility, intimidating the best workers, protecting the guilty, preventing education and training, discriminated against new, young and the most productive employees, forcing lower productivity, increasing costs unnecessarily, complicating work process, sabotaging progress, stifling decent, extorting detractors, and threatening those who decline to contribute to their demeaning, and corrupt extortion schemes.

Their usefulness is long passed and this cesspool of corruption calls out for reform and serious change.

Here are a few suggestions:

1. All Union membership and the payment of dues must be optional.

2. Prosecute all Union threats of extortion; these are crimes you would be arrested for if you were caught doing them to another citizen.

3. Prohibit all political contributions from Unions.  Union members can contribute their hard earned money to whatever they want.

4. Revoke their anti-trust exemption and levy Federal taxes on all revenue improperly used.

5. Make them fully fund promised pensions and benefits from their revenue.

6. Prosecute them for all false claims, suits and accusations.

7. Change all labor proceedings and court cases to “loser pays”.

8. Un-fund and close the Department of Labor. What they might do can easily be accomplished by civil and criminal courts, and many other existing government departments and programs.

The Union’s time, meaning and usefulness have come and gone. Send them to the scrapheap with other corrupt enterprises that today harm more people than they help.

07 April 2011

Federal Spending Limit Amendment

I don’t like the implications of a balanced budget amendment.  

Its very name leaves open the idea of increasing taxes to balance the budget. Hell, we don't even have a budget. I don’t want the Spenders and Takers to be able to grow the cost and role of Federal Government without enormous, nearly impossible, difficulty.

We do have spending.  Spending is the problem. Limit Federal spending. Limiting Federal spending to below a restricted revenue limit plus special purpose reserves and contingency funds would be a good premise for a Constitutional amendment.

Some growth, if it can be irrevocably restricted to less than or equal to annual inflation, would be permissible. Not some index that can be easily manipulated; and one that includes the costs of all goods, services and government costs.

Emergencies will always occur. Reserves and contingency funds are currently held, although often looted for silly contrived reasons, can be set aside and reserved for all kinds of eventual emergencies. Many already exist. Many more are needed or need to be enlarged and safeguarded. Disaster relief, flood insurance, Federal Deposit Insurance, Federal Emergency Management, etc already exist.

Reserves and contingency funds should be created and begin funding from existing Federal revenues by reducing failed and meaningless programs, and eliminating all expenditures not enumerated in the US Constitution or its amendments.

Unemployment contingency funds were clearly insufficient by recent example. Bank failure funding was clearly under funded. Continuing Government operations during economic impacts to revenue were clearly insufficient. I think we would find that disaster relief funds of all kinds are seriously under funded if we have actual natural disasters that could easily exceed be many times the levels of Katrina.

Man Caused disasters, have little or no reserve funds or supplies today, and terrorist attacks, anarchy, large scale lawlessness, or deliberate economic sabotage are not buffered by stored surplus supplies or funds any where near the required levels that I’ve ever heard of, other than the grossly inadequate Strategic Petroleum Reserve and a few tons of titanium.

Many more reserves of minerals and metal, clean water, safely stored food, temporary housing, diverse electrical generation, mobile medical facilities and stores of medicines must be created and managed to meet the needs of the rapidly increasing citizen populations, not just enough for our leaders and the self-appointed elite.

Here’s the equation I think is needed in fairly simple wording:

   Spend a lot less than comes in;

   Take 50% or more of the surplus revenue to retire the National debt;

   Take 50% or less of surplus revenue to fund various contingency and reserves for inevitable disasters and economic interruptions;

   If there’s anything left, invest it in stockpiles of commodities with the highest probable future needs adjusted upwardly for those most prone to interruptions;

   And lower future general tax rates to match lower future Federal government costs;

   Equals = Fiscal Responsibility

What remains would be to establish irrevocably severe penalties for anyone who steals, diverts, or mismanages reserves or contingency funds for any other silly purposes.

By “anyone” I mean Presidents and Executive Branch staff, Congress persons, foreigners, citizens, rich, poor or famous, and business and non-profit executives, especially doctors, lawyers, academics and Media celebrities each sentenced with a failed teacher of the same sex.

By “severe” I mean death or life imprisonment without parole in Guantanamo.

03 April 2011

Stop Taxing Businesses,

You’re Looting Their Consumers

First, a brief review for those who don’t know what happens when a business is taxed. Let’s begin with income taxes. Businesses generally have two kinds of income;

Operating income that comes from daily transactions mostly sales to customers. It is income that will be needed soon to replace the things they sell or pay for normal business expenses like wages, benefits, electricity, gas, water, and phone or computer access, etc.;

Net profit, that’s what is left over after every allowable business expense has been paid. Interest on borrowed money, travel expenses, product development, required insurances, license fees, consumer protection and warranties, all required costs and all business improvement, employee costs, product development and growth, all are expenses paid before taxes. Some net profit is used to pay back investors, called dividends; taxable to the person or company that receives them, currently a 15% tax.

The current 35% corporate tax rate in the US is among the highest in the developed world. Small businesses, usually individually owned, partnerships or special small corporations, generally pass the tax through to individuals at their regular income tax rates.

Who provides the money that pays this tax? Not the company, not their terrible bankers, not the over paid executives; they have their own personal tax problems. Not their employees, not their suppliers, not their government regulators, not the juries and courts that award lavish settlements, not their over priced attorneys, not their Senators or elected Representative.

That’s right it’s you, their customers. The ones constantly complaining about the prices while you cry out for more taxes on business, encourage more regulation and stricter laws, and mandatory consumer protections and health care increases, or higher wages and benefits, or excessive safety features, all of these costs must be passed on to and paid by the purchasers in the price of the products.

The costs of all these nice sounding but very expensive mandatory requirements must be paid by customers, even those who didn’t ask for them and don’t want them.

The companies must add these costs to the prices of all of their products. They must recover all the mandated costs through product sales, or they will have to reduce their future inventory, or lay off employees or pay them less, or stop growing; none of those are wise choices for a successful business.

If customers will not pay all required costs, there is no income to pay taxes, employees, suppliers, interest on loans, utility costs, sales tax on equipment, property tax, interstate transmission tariffs, excise taxes, fuel and highway taxes, health, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment insurance, or court settlements.

The business is broke and all its employees and customers all out of luck, and no Federal, state or local government tax revenues will be coming through or from this enterprise. No New jobs, no jobs of any kind.

Stop hiding these insidious taxes on individuals in the price of products and services, by pretending to tax businesses.

Businesses don’t pay these kinds of taxes, you do. Businesses just transfer part of your payment for their expensive products to the government along with the costs for collecting, reporting and transmitting your money to the government.

By the time consumers pay all the hidden taxes, their own income taxes, sales tax, property tax, fuel tax, excise tax, and mandatory insurances, permit fees, and licenses;

I am surprised most of us can afford to buy much of anything.

Stop taxing businesses, stop excessive regulation, stop requiring unions, stop manipulating markets with tariffs and subsidies; just stop.

You are drowning us, our children, and our grandchildren in ridiculous spending and oppressive debt.

You are bankrupting this great nation and killing its productive people. Stop it!