It’s About Making Babies!

theotherryan at Total Survivalist Libertarian Rantfest observed that liberal-social-agenda-proponents, what the drive-by media calls “liberals”, have an advantage in an argument.

I was listening to the radio on the ride home this morning and something popped out at me. Liberals win most discussions before they even begin. .. They speak in vague open ended and idealistic terms. Few people will argue with “everyone should have health care” or “hard working people deserve a chance at the American dream (home ownership)”. .. Even better is that it makes conservatives come off as stumbling and worried about “small things” like how a program will get paid for.

Perhaps we look at the equation backwards.

On homes, should we say, “would you sell to a buyer that cannot afford the house/business?”

Or, “Do you want your bank to go broke, lending money to people that cannot repay the loan?”

Or, “What can we do to make health insurance affordable to people making lower wages?”

Or, “Sure, we can raise the amount that the law calls ‘minimum wage.’ But that doesn’t mean that a business owner will have enough payroll money to offer as many jobs.”

“We have to stimulate the economy. We need to increase the amount of money businesses have for payroll, so they can hire more people. One way is to drop business taxes to about 1%, just enough to keep a close eye on reasonable business practices.”

“We can increase the tax on companies, and regulate how much money people make. But we cannot make them stay in jobs that don’t pay as much, at least, not the talented people, and we cannot keep them from moving overseas. And we cannot prevent, entirely, organized crime, foreign nations, and other black markets from taking advantage of the opportunities that tight regulations create.”

“We can spend more money than we take in. At some point, though, the bank will call the loan in, the power company will shut off the lights, and the phone company will cut us off.”

“China and Europe already own a *lot* of what we overspent before. What happens when they decide we cannot be trusted to pay them back? What would the mob, or a good businessman, do?”

“Today the American dream is for food, shelter, work and income, and a reasonable expectation that changes are our choice, not the effects of government regulation or business climate changes.”

“I want my kids to go to school, to learn enough to be a good citizen.”

“Family values are about raising healthy children, that will respect and honor the culture and beliefs of their parents. We won’t get that by making skirt-chasing ads and ‘entertainment’ the mainstay of our national culture.”

“Earn the respect of those around you, of your family and friends.”

“There is no humor without pain. Instead, appreciate joy and honor.”

The American Dream.

Calling “home ownership” the American dream is as artificial as equating breast enhancement with love and happiness, or any of the sex-sells industries – sports cars, cosmetics, fashion and intimate apparel, etc. These are the dream of the decadent wealthy. The American dream, is about being wealthy, about having control over your life, over your finances, over who you deal with, and when and how.

Those that aren’t wealthy understand about jobs evaporating, because someone’s brother in law wants a job. The non-wealthy are familiar with “Oh, we changed our policy, so you don’t get paid for as many hours anymore.” Or a change in taxes means your kid can’t afford school clothes, or you can’t afford to repair a car.

Liberal is a term coigned from an old seating plan in the French legislature. On the left side of the room were people with a liberal philopsophy, interested in making changes to improve things. On the right side were conservative people that wanted to keep things as they were, to make small adjustments rather than changes in concept. At the very far right were the ‘reactionaries’ that opposed any change at all, in the middle were moderates that didn’t mind change, especially, but didn’t want change just because it was different.

In America, the liberal and conservative labels have come to mean something different. Usually they refer to a “liberal social agenda” – the concept that the proper task of government is to care for people, to protect against unfair treatment, poor food, housing, etc. The countervailing “conservative agenda” is less social, and allows that people generally work out their issues, given enough opportunity.

The dark side of the liberal agenda is big government, intrusion of government into daily life of law-abiding citizens, and general poverty of the nation. The dark side of the conservative agenda is that there is a gap, a delay, between the time businesses grow and create jobs, and the poorest and least trained and skilled will benefit.

Much of the advantage, to the citizens of America and to the nation, are indirect. While conservatives favor a strong economy and encouraging business ventures and activities, they often privately support institutions like the Salvation Army, churches, and other civic activities with proven records of helping those in need.

The Democratic Party, following the liberal agenda, profits by tying their “assistance” programs to votes. Recipients understand that they wouldn’t receive money from the government if they don’t keep their Democratic benefactors in power. Government assistance programs are frequently worded and implemented to assure recipients understand that they receive assistance from, and owe allegiance to, the Democratic party.

Neither social agenda is a good way to go. Compromise, sometimes one way, sometimes the other, is the most effective way to keep America strong, to keep Americans healthy and well fed and productive.

Because President Barack Hussein Obama appears to have missed one important lesson from history, and from biology. Grow or die. While Obama and the Congress blacken the names of businessmen and industries, the American economy slows, and grows smaller again with the prolific over-spending of the “stimulus” package. And this invites armies from around the world to prepare for war. Rich nations seldom get involved in war, except wars of conquest. Poor nations, nations where business and job opportunities suffer, are often embroiled in war.

If we as a nation are distracted, worrying about whether our job is about to go away, if our money in the bank or the stock market is about to dwindle away – if we will have to take a loan at 30% interest to pay next month’s utility bill – we will be unable to respond to an armed attack.

Look at how the Great Depression brought about Hitler’s attempt to conquer Europe, and Japan’s attempt to capture the Pacific region, and Pearl Harbor.

I consider Obama’s lack of concern for the economy to be the greatest threat to our national security, even greater than North Korea and Iran using nuclear weapons. We need the wealth of big business, of wealthy people, and the wealth of a working America, to afford to stand vigilant to protect ourselves and those in the world that need our protection.

We could build our way to a peaceful, secure world. We can only tax ourselves into poverty and conflict.

In my opinion. What do you think?

I Drive My Tractor in Pearls points to the February 2, 2009 Modern Militia Report, issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center. The report cites “noteworthy militia activity from 1992 to 1999.

The Clintons

Funny, how that was the Clinton administration.

And now POTUS Barack Hussein Obama surrounds himself with many of those that made up the Clinton Administration.

I suppose that 9/11 could be laid to President George W. Bush – but the likelihood that it was that tailed off agitation present during the preceding Clinton administration seems more likely.

Remember “Obama the First”, Jimmy Carter lost us a long term ally, in the Shah of Iran. It was on his watch that hostages from the US embassy in Tehran were held by terrorists for 444 days – until President Reagan was inaugurated. It seems the Middle East does, and has, set it’s agenda by who occupies the White House.

Concern over renewed Paramilitary Group activity

So, back to Missouri, and concerns over militias. Pearls pointed out in her piece that “militia” in the Constitution is what we Americans enroll in at age 18 – when we register for the draft. That is, citizens. What this report and the drive-by media usually call militia are usually paramilitary groups, often fanatical, often disdainful of lawful government.

Cause for alarm?

In case you missed it, since taking office POTUS Barack Hussein Obama has taken several steps to abuse states rights and the constitution. Between the White House and Pelosi/Reid in the Democratically controlled Congress, there have been a number of chilling threats to states rights, and gun ownership.

Gun rights

As I have stated before, I see the second amendment, like the first amendment that protects freedom of speech, was included in the Constitution to provide a preventative, and a relief – if the government every becomes a tyrant to the people of the United States. The second amendment will never make firing on our government legal – but the possibility is intended to keep the government from becoming that kind of enemy to Americans.

Machiavelli pointed out, hundreds of years ago in Italy, that every tyrant makes disarming the common people the first priority. Which raises the hackles of patriots and citizens when the government takes steps to restrict gun ownership.

My thoughts on gun ownership

Two thoughts about gun ownership. One, is that in communities that have passed ordinances requiring a head of household to own and possess a gun – crime rates always go down. The second, is that mass shootings – happen in gun-free zones. Always.

Remember the “Santa” shooter a few months ago? Where an improvised sprayer filled with racing fuel was used with a hand gun to kill 8 people? One comment was that “he killed eight people not because he had a gun – but because he was the only one with a gun.” One slogan advocates of concealed-carry gun possession and use, is “When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.”

Bringing gun ownership into the public, and increasing awareness of safe handling, will do much more to reduce accidents than trying to ban guns. Criminals will always have access to guns, gun bans will only hinder lawful citizens – and risk a tyrannical government.

Depleting the nation of bullets for guns

The DoD buys bullets. That isn’t much of a surprise. American suppliers make casings of brass, and assemble the bullets. The military uses those bullets to practice, and occasionally in battle. But there are a lot of rounds fired every year. So the practice has been to collect the “spent” cartridge casings, and sell them through government-designated “liquidators”. To the tune of millions of dollars worth each year. The government specifies their ammo gets new casings – but many people prefer the fired-once casings.

Because re-shaping and making those used casings usable is a *lot* cheaper than making new ones of brass.

This month the Department of Defense, under Barack Hussein Obama, decided – hey, we can put a lot of hunters and militias and criminals, and other pesky gun owners, out of business! We just specify that those used cartridges have to be shredded first, before we sell them! Within days the policy was reversed for casings smaller than 50 caliber.

This isn’t just a case of increasing cost. Almost all new casings are sold to the military – and there is little capacity to make more than the current volume. So would some casings be diverted from military use? Would that shredded brass go to support China – the biggest buyer of base metals in the US? Would the lack of legal civilian ammunition sources bother criminals and “militias” with black market sources?

Turning around the Plot of the Shredded Casings

It turns out that police departments around the country, legitimate gun clubs, influential people that enjoy hunting and shooting, and lots and lots of concerned citizens brought their concerns to Congress. Police departments in particular were exposed to problems with this policy – they count on the lower cost of the “recycled” casing ammo for their needs – for training and equipping for the streets.

Not the first backstab from President Barack Hussein Obama.

There is a rash of legislation going around this spring, from registering food to registering guns and individual bullets.

And the US government has a long history of mis-using every piece of information they have ever gathered. As well as losing control of every database they ever put together. Consider our Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton – who, during her husband’s Presidency ended up known to be in possession of an FBI file on political opponents – a violation of federal law. So we, as a nation, watched the calendar. On the day after the Statue of Limitations ran out for prosecuting that particular crime, the Hilary-held files turned up, in the White House, with Hilary Rodham Clinton’s fingerprints on them.

No one should believe for an instant, that registering guns is not the first step in getting guns confiscated.

The Food Safety Administration – register those horrid, anti-Monsanto, organic and farmers market people, and regulate them out of business.

Monsanto and ADM operate world-wide. Much of their operations are no longer centered in the United States. Non-farmers may not be aware, but the large Agribusiness firms, a couple of years ago, got legislation passed – that let them protect patents on their wheat and corn seed. Wheat in particular had been used as in olden days – you go to the elevator, buy a truckload of wheat, and plant your crop. No more. The only wheat available for planting, for the most part, is what Monsanto sells. If they run short for a region, that region just doesn’t plant wheat. Or oats, or ..

Now Monsanto, ADM, and others in their niche are behind H.R. 875 – the proposed Food Safety Administration. The proposed bureaucracy will *not* improve food safety. The best they can hope for is to put everyone out of the food business that isn’t buying Monsanto seed and chemicals. No more roadside stands, no more farmers markets, no more “country egg” sales.

States Rights

Several pieces of legislation in the Congress, including the bullet-marking scheme, proclaim that because things get sold and traded inside states, that must be regulated in order to control interstate issues (the Congress is only allowed to regulate issues between states, not within). Here in Oklahoma we passed a “right to work” law that forbids contracts keeping non-union people from applying for any job.

In January, Obama signed a Presidential Order requiring only Union construction workers on any federal construction. Sounds like good old, Chicago-style morality, paying back political debts at the expense of lawful citizens.

“Militias” on the fringe – or leading the way?

So I guess the re-born Clinton Administration, under the Jimmy-Carter-like Barack Hussein Obama, might fuel the conspiracy fears of those wary of an oppressive government.