Email Message
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    The Will to Create


    Harry Reid calls Nevada protesters domestic terrorists

    I've been thinking about the Bundy situation in Nevada. I still don't have all the facts regarding the history of the Bundy family's ranch, the relationship with the surrounding land, how regulations evolved, and for what purposes the regulations were created. If I had to guess whether Bundy started the problems or whether government encroachment created the problems, I'd have to guess the latter is the major problem.

    The fact that Harry Reid is escalating the problem by calling protesters domestic terrorists tells me something else is involved here. Either Reid is setting up an excuse to use amed force, or Reid spots a political opportunity to blame Republicans for the actions of militia groups, or Reid has a personal investment in the land that hasn't yet been reported. It's odd that Reid would insert himself so forcefully in this disagreement between BLM and the Bundy family.

    One thing I know is that so far the government response has been unnecessarily inflammatory. On an MSNBC show this morning, John Heilleman was showing his disdain for the militia groups by saying if government imposed extra taxes on him, he wouldn't respond by gathering an amed militia, but then government wouldn't likely bring armed agents to collect the taxes and then tase John's partner. It's different for a hipster in NYC than it is for ranchers in Nevada who've been batterred by government regulations for decades.


    This thing is working!

    Obama said today that ACA is working and it's time to end the argument. Several pundits have commented on Obama's speech and pointed out his deception, but it's worth considering the extent of the deception. Obama said Republican Governors who haven't accepted the Medicaid expansion are doing so because they don't like the President. Obama said that expanding Medicaid to the poor and uninsured wouldn't cost the states a dime.

    This is another brazen lie. The federal government is paying participating states for Medicaid expansion for a couple of years, then states have to pay for the expansion which could be financially disastrous. The truth is that many states are in financial trouble already, so the additional cost of paying for the expansion in a few years could throw them over the edge.

    Obama said that 8 million Americans have signed up fo ACA, but no one knows what this means. Objective sources are reporting that many "sign-ups' are not paying enrollees and that most are people who already had insurrance but were thrown off their plans by ACA, so they had to go though the exchanges. To someone who was listening but hasn't had time to research the truth regarding ACA, he or she would likely believe the President when he falsely implies that 8 million Americans are getting coverage who didn't have coverage before -- and the low information listener would think that the GOP governors who refuse to extend Medicaid are hurting the poor for no good reason -- they're hurting the poor just to hurt Obama.

    How much longer will we put up with this deception? It's pathetic that a country with as much potential to achieve great things as America is held hostage by this gang of propagandists and power-mongers.


    The premise supporting interventionism is flawed

    Most Republicans have accepted the premise that interventionist government is necessary, because without a government safety net, too many poor and disabled Americans fall through the cracks. Republicans also accept that government regulation of industry is vital. The idea is that the private sector won't provide a safety net, so the Welfare State is necessary in a modern, civilized society, especially in a rich nation like America. Also, it's a given in the political class that if government doesn't regulate industry, companies will do as they will, thus doing harm to consumers.

    Republicans can't compete politically with the Democratic Party as long as the GOP accepts the validity of the Welfare State. It's not enough to criticize welfare spending, America needs a political party that presents an alternative to the Welfare State, new ideas about a cooperative society that voluntarily deals with social ills through the pivate realm. Otherwise, the Democratic Party will be a majority party permanently. Once over half the population becomes dependent on government, it's over.

    But, it's not about political competition for the sake of power. The Welfare/Warfare/Regulatory State is destroying the economy and creating a two tiered America with rich pitted against the poor. The middle class will dwindle, and the nation will split further between those who are well-educated and wealthy and those who are ignorant, poor and dependent on government.

    If Republicans believe their rhetoric about limited government and economic liberty, then they should start fighting against interventionism to start the long, slow process of liberating the private realm and limiting the political realm. Republicans have to articulate a new understanding of compassion and empathy. Republicans have to create a new vision of a safety net, one that entails comprehensive, private  insurance and retirement plans. Republicans have to let go of power and convince the public to trust each other to provide assistance to the most needy. Solutions to all social ills can be found in the private realm.

    Just consider what the interventionist narrative tells us -- government is compassionate, smart and competent, so we must trust government to provide a safety net and proper regulation -- the private sector is greedy, selfish and not able to deal with social ills. Does this make sense? Government has the lowest approval rating I've ever witnessed, yet we're supposed to accept that in the area of welfare and regulation the State possesses superior abilities? Look at the mess government has made in our economy. Look at the results of the Welfare State. Poverty is rising. We're suffering from high unemployment and underemployment. Public education has failed. Government programs such as SS, Medicare and Medicaid are unfunded to the tune of trillions -- some say a couple of hundred trillion. Our healthcare system was crippled by previous government interventions and now our healthcare system is headed for destruction.

    Cronyism is rampant. Defense contactors write their own checks. Companies like GE, GM, Goldman Sachs and Google have a seat at the table of State power. Government abuses its power by gathering private infomation on innocent, law-abiding Americans. Government agencies attack groups that are politically incorrect. We're supposed to accept that government is compassionate and empathetic and capable of dealing with social ills? We need a new vision -- we need to transform from the political/public to the private/economic. We need to end interventionism.



    Why do black's support the Welfare State?

    Jamelle Bouie, in an article why Jeb Bush can win the GOP nomination, said the Republican base has chosen a full attack on the Welfare State over compassion and empathy. On a side note, yesterday, Jennifer Rubin praised Ted Cruz and Rand Paul for abandoning the base in favor of the establishment, and now Jamelle Bouie is showing us how Jeb Bush can be the GOP's choice for President. It's heart-warming to see GOP moderates and progressives so genuinely concerned with the GOP rift between the establishment and the base. But this is about the welfare comment.

    The narrative has been formed. The GOP base is framed as consisting of wacko-birds, racists and general extremists who hate poor people, women, blacks and practically everything else that moderates and progressives consider virtuous. This is getting so staid it's lost its power. This election is about much more than political smears and propaganda. The public's looking for substance, not tired hyperbole and cliches. When Bouie states that opponents of the Welfare State necessarily lack compassion and empathy, he's participating in partisan hackery, not journalism or honest commentary.

    Republicans are at fault, though, for allowing this cliched narrative to dominate. If conservatives had not focused entirely on costs, waste and abuse, they might have won the argument. Republicans, both moderates and conservatives, have basically accepted the premise of the Welfare State. You'll hear a few conservatives make the case that welfare has caused a dangerous dependence, but when they're asked if they promote the elimination of government welfare programs, they equivocate and talk about efficiency and smarter welfare delivery.

    I haven't heard any influential Republicans talk about the elimination of the Welfare State to be replaced by private sector assistance and comprehensive insurance plans. Of course, the whole point of a free market is to allow it to work without interference and central planning, but we can imagine what might happen. We know that the Welfare State has failed -- the evidence is all around us. I heard black "leaders" recently praising LBJ for his War on Poverty. This is the same LBJ who said, in effect, that his welfare programs would create black dependence on the Democratic Party and capture the black vote for decades to come.

    Jamelle Bouie might look around the ghettoes and see white repression, and Bouie might consider a society compassionate that has avoided responsibility for social ills by throwing it all to government welfare programs, but I call that apathy and callous disregard for the poor and uneducated. It seems to me that the compassionate route is for all citizens to understand the problems and develope solutions locally, if they so choose, and I'm sure that more than enough would. It appears to me Bouie is more concerned with condemning conservatives than he is with seeking real solutions, responsibility and equal opportunity.

    I grew up in poverty, and I can attest that we were highly sceptical of anyone from government offering "help". Recently I've read that black pastors in some cities are having second thoughts about voting enslavement to the Democratic Party as LBJ envisoned. Educated blacks outside Rascism, Inc are looking for solutions not a partisan niche in a political party that takes them for granted. I'm surprised that Bouie can't see past the cynicism, but perhaps he has political ambitions.


    What will Rand Paul offer special interest groups?

    In a speech yesterday in New Hampshire, Rand Paul said the GOP has to attract special interest groups like African-Americans, women, Hispanics and young people. Paul said that Republicans have to offer something to these groups. I understand the whole Big Tent political theory -- you have to attract a diverse base of voters if you're going to win. I also admire Paul for promoting principles that Americans haven't heard promoted for quite a while. Paul says he's for limited government, a free market and non-interventionism, yet I'm not sure what Paul means when he says things like moving away from "deportation", or "offering" something to special interest groups. Yes, the GOP should attract all types of Americans, but what does Paul mean, and what's he offering?

    All that Paul explained about his comments is that blacks are arrested in far greater numbers than whites for harmless marijuana charges, and that whites have an advantage in the court system. This is close to pandering. I want to give Paul the benefit of the doubt, but too many presidential candidates lose site of their principles when they run for the highest office in government. If Paul is suggesting that we should change our laws so that we aren't fueling a useless War on Drugs that does little but put a lot of young black men in prison, then I agree, but Democrats are for this also, so I don't know how this distinguishes Paul or gives him an edge. What will Paul offer African-Americans other than fairer drug laws? At some point, if Paul becomes a serious contender, he'll have to meet with black leaders who ask what he's offering -- Paul will have to come up with something more significant than drug laws.

    What will Paul offer Hispanics? Amnesty? That's the only thing Paul can offer that will top what the Democrats are offering. Paul can come up with a fair and sensible immigration proposal, but unless he's offering citizenship to 11 million illegal aliens, then he's wasting his time.

    What's Paul offering women? Free abortions and free contraceptives, with a guarantee that all women will make as much as men regardless of qualifications and performance? Will Paul offer to pay off all student loans and start a government job program that unconditionally supports young people in a game-programming career? What will Paul offer?

    If Paul means that he wants the GOP to recant and apologize for years of capitulation to progressivism, and that he's offering all Americans their freedom back, then I'm on board. If Paul means he wants Republicans to explain the benefits of a free society, then I'm board. If Paul means he'll fight to end corporate welfare so that everyone has equal opportunity if they gain knowledge and have good ideas, then I'm on board. If Paul means that he'll show how public education has failed everyone, especially minorities, and that he'll work diligently to end federal involvement in education, then I'm on board. If Paul is offering private alternatives to the welfare state, then I'm board.

    But, if Paul is simply pandering in a way that appears cool and modern, and if Paul is just another talker who walks like a statist, then count me out.