Posted by: Greg Huff | December 18, 2018

What Do You Grieve For? What Do You Love?

This is a rebuttal to John Pavlovitz diatribe on his website dated December 13, 2018 entitled “I Don’t Grieve Over His Cruelty.  I Grieve Over Yours.”

His “grief” is in black mine is in red.


I grieve when I see elementary school teachers dressed up like a border wall for Halloween. Me too.

I grieve when I see school teachers ridicule young men for wearing a marines tea shirt

I grieve when I see white a woman screaming obscenities at two Muslims teenagers at a stop light. Me too.

I grieve when I see Muslims in Chicago shouting “Death to America”.

I grieve when I see a Jewish professor’s office littered with spray-painted swastikas. Me too.

I grieve when I see people of any faith or color faking that swastikas or nooses were placed or drawn on their doors.

I grieve when I watch a father of four being tackled by ICE agents outside immigration offices. Me too…maybe. This is conditional on the circumstances.

I grieve when I hear of a father of four and a police officer being shot to death while sitting in his car.

I grieve when I witness white high school seniors making a “Heil Hitler” arm gesture during class photos. Me too.

I grieve when I see people on college campuses using Nazi tactics to silence their opposition or anyone that they do not agree with.

I grieve when I see the contempt from white friends, when young black men die at traffic stops. Me too.

I grieve when I hear of little black kids taunting a black little girl and driving her to suicide because she has a white friend.

I grieve when I find the most vile sickness on my social media feed, hurled toward people of color and women and transgender people. Me too.

I grieve when I find the vilest sickness on my social media feed hurled toward me because I do not agree with their statist pabulum.

I grieve when I hear professed Christian pastors calling for the killing of LGBTQ people.
Me too.

I grieve when I see a professed Muslim cut the head off of a Christian woman because he has been radicalized and is on Jihadi.

I grieve when I see rambling, racist tirades on subway cars filled with families with young children. Me too.

I grieve when I see racist tirades by BLM calling for the killing of police.

I grieve when I see supremacist candidates being elected and re-elected. Me too.

I grieve when I see statists and other anti-free market people being elected and re-elected.

I grieve when I overhear dehumanizing conversations from old, white men, about Democratic women leaders, in crowded cafés. Me too.

I grieve when I overhear dehumanizing taunts by intimidating crowds in restaurants towards Republican men, women and their children driving them out.

I grieve when I sit across holiday tables, and witness bigoted tirades that I’d have thought people I knew and loved were not capable of. Me too.

I grieve that you have such people in your life.

And though all of these things are undoubtedly emboldened by him and encouraged by him and celebrated by him—that is not the source of my despair. It is the reality that all of this vicious, toxic, filth that we are infected with today—is something you are largely fine with. The rising hatred is not alarming or discomforting enough to you, to move you to action or to speak against it.

Who is “him”? This is a coward’s way of talking.

Oh sure, you might inwardly twinge with discomfort at one or two of the most egregious offenses, but by and large you’re good with it all.

With your silence, as much as with your volume, you show me you are more with him than you are against him, that you are more like him than different from him—and that you and I are increasingly morally incompatible. One question, do you also feel a twinge of discomfort at any of the egregious comments hurled at “him” on a daily basis?

So yes, he is a mirror, and I am seeing you my countrymen and women through him.

Mirror perhaps but we deplorables got tired of the baseless attacks on anyone advocating a free market, freedom from governments out of control spending and over-taxation. Not to mention the baseless personal attacks on any conservative judge or politician, the baseless protection of dirt-bags like Anthony Weiner or the political vindication of Democrat politicians of blatant criminal acts.

That is why I grieve, friend. Me too.

That is why I don’t see America or my church or my neighborhood or my family the same anymore, and I’m not sure I ever will again.

The greatest tragedy to me, isn’t him. It isn’t that the person supposedly leading our country lacks a single benevolent impulse, that he is impervious to compassion, incapable of nobility, and mortally allergic to simple kindness. OK, well now you just don’t pay attention. What you really abhor is his willingness to fight back, isn’t it?

The greatest tragedy is how many Americans he now represents.

And that he represents you.

And who represents you sir?

Did you support people like Bernie Sanders and avowed socialist? If you did then you support a system that has killed over 100,000,000 people in the 20th Century alone. That is inclusive National Socialism (Nazi) but also communist, and progressives who all have the same goal of total government control over everyone’s life.

What you grieve for is for the most part, those things that the average American grieves for. What I also grieve for is that from a few instances you paint in broad strokes those you do not understand.

 There are bad people that do these things from EVERY part of the political spectrum.

 I grieve for the fact that you choose to ignore the very ugly portions from those that are simpatico with your political philosophy.

 You choose to ignore all of the ugly slanders of President Bush by the Democrats, who failed for eight years to fight back at all. As did McCain when running for President, as did Romney when he ran. Those “deplorables” got tired of the slander and lies…and decided to elect someone who would fight back against all of the things you blame “him” for.

You neglect the slander and character assignation by Democrats of Brett Kavanaugh during his conformation hearings. Moving back further in time you neglect the slander of Justice Clarence Thomas during his.

 The Democrats are responsible for coining a new verb in the English language. The slander of Judge Bork by Ted Kennedy (a real slime that let a young girl drown in his car while he went home and slept) was such that these tactics are now called “Borking”.

 I suggest that YOU look in the mirror and what you’ll see looking back at you when the scales fall from your eyes, is that everything you grieve for is well in place in the political arena you call home.

I grieve that so many so-called millennia’s have bought into this philosophy of death and that too many of them, people that I love, are related to me.

Posted by: Ted | July 3, 2017

Happy 4th of July 2017

It’s been a great eight months, since that night, in November, when Donald Trump became President of the United States. It was a night that felt like a breath of fresh air as we saw the Clinton machine take a swan dive. To wake that next morning was one very great day for America. To be able to watch the loony left go nuts and see common sense government return to our nations capital gave me a new hope for our country.

I will be the first to admit that Donald is not the traditional Republican leader. I cringe at some of the things he does.  Yet, it seems that Trump is what we needed to change the course of failed government policy. He has taken the Democrat play book of “in-your-face” inflammatory statements and doubled down making them cry at being treated badly. Basically playing Democrats like they have played the Republicans in the past.

He has done this while moving the country forward on some very important areas.  We have seen the appointment of a new conservative Supreme Court Justice, a Cabinet that is representative of traditional American values, withdrawal from the Pacific Trade Pac and the Paris Climate Change Agreement just to name a few. We get to watch the news media being treated like dirt and the dogs they have become, laugh at the foolish statements of Maxine Waters, and watch the crown jewel of a failed Obama presidency go down in smoke. We’ve seen the immigration situation improve, veterans have hope that their issues will be addressed and Republicans seem emboldened to support common sense programs as they continue to win elections.

There is a lot more to be accomplished to reverse the policies of the past but today, this 4th of July is a day of celebration. While the left has sit-ins, marches and rallies most of the country is happy with the current direction of the country. So today is a day to take a deep breath, and enjoy the 4th for what it truly stands for, freedom, personal responsibility, lawfulness and pride in the Red, White and Blue.

Stand with the Trumps, Like and Share —- Let them know we have their back!

Posted by: Greg Huff | February 14, 2017

Rebuttal to “Ask the Headhunter”

Recently there was a discussion on Facebook regarding the Woman’s march. The subject of the “gender gap” came up. I took the position that there is no such gap and one person posted this article that tries to debunk the argument that there is no gap. Though the author claims the statements he makes are fact, they are, after all, opinion.   I answer his conjecture paragraph by paragraph. I am pretty sure the author, being an “expert” and publishing in PBS has never been challenged on his opinion. 

My comments are in red.

“Ask the Headhunter: Women don’t cause the pay gap. Employers do”

BY NICK CORCODILOS  April 12, 2016 at 1:55 PM EST

Nick Corcodilos started headhunting in Silicon Valley in 1979 and has answered over 30,000 questions from the Ask The Headhunter community over the past decade.

In this special Making Sen$e edition of Ask The Headhunter, Nick shares insider advice and contrarian methods about winning and keeping the right job, on one condition: that you, dear Making Sense reader, send Nick your questions about your personal challenges with job hunting, interviewing, networking, resumes, job boards or salary negotiations. No guarantees — just a promise to do his best to offer useful advice.

Too often women get paid less for doing the same jobs as men. And the reason is not what you’re told. Although it seems to elude the media, the experts, pundits and even some women themselves, the real reason is obvious to any forthright business person: Employers pay women less, because they can get away with it.

By this Nick means employers are still in some cases able to negotiate with women without interference from government on what the employer is willing to pay vs. what the woman will accept as pay. Meaning also the government either has not pointed a gun at the employer’s head or perhaps has not yet cocked the hammer back.

Worse, the same pundits tell women that it’s their problem and that they must change their behavior if they want to be paid fairly for doing the same work as men. But the experts, researchers, advocates and apologists are all wrong. There is no prescription for underpaid women to get paid more, because it isn’t women’s behavior that’s the problem.

There is only one thing a woman should have to do to get paid as much as a man: her job.

Not really, she (or he or anyone) needs to do their job in order to keep their job.

Any employer (except for government employers who do not have to worry about meeting a payroll) will always want to pay the lowest price an employee is willing to accept for their services. A business does not OWE a potential employee a job. They owe their customers a quality product at a price they are willing to pay in order to make a profit for the company.

This argument is the same claptrap liberals shovel out all the time, intimating that women are so stupid, so timid, or incompetent that they are incapable of getting pay they want so there must be laws enacted to make sure they cannot take a job that they want and a salary they are willing to accept.

When doing the job doesn’t pay off, women of all ages should be aware of what younger women today are doing to fight back. According to a recent study by the International Consortium for Executive Development Research, some women have figured it out. Millennial women don’t need instructions to change their negotiating, child rearing, educational or any other behavior to impress errant employers. They know to quit and move on. It’s going to be the new trend.

THIS is entirely acceptable. This is the free market in action. This is what should be being done. It is a risk however and the person doing it may be afraid of confrontation or losing income. That is also part of the free market. Entrepreneurs start their businesses risking many times ALL of their money in order to get their enterprise off the ground. They are not guaranteed a wage and many have sacrificed their own pay in order to pay their employees what has been agreed. They do not, however, always have the luxury of quitting and moving on.

The myths about women causing their own pay problem

Let’s look at what women are supposedly doing to abuse themselves financially.

We can refer to umpteen surveys and studies about gender pay disparity — and to some that suggest there is no disparity. But a recent Time analysis summarizes the data from the U.S. Census and other sources: “Women earn less than men at every age range: 15% less at ages 22 to 25 and a staggering 38% less at ages 51 to 64.”

This has become favorite fodder for the media — and for armchair economists, gender researchers and pundits looking to bang out a blog column. But I think most of the explanations about pay disparity and the prescriptions for how to get equal pay for equal work are bunk.

Depending on what you read, women get paid less because they:

  • Have kids.
  • Interrupt their careers for their families.
  • Don’t have the right education (e.g., math and science), so they can’t get good jobs.
  • Are nurturing, so they don’t negotiate hard for equal pay.
  • Don’t like to argue.
  • Lack confidence.
  • Let their men (who are also managers) get away without doing household chores — so those men don’t know they should pay women fairly.

It’s all speculation and myth, but the message is always the same: If women would just change some or all of those behaviors, they can shrink the pay gap.

I say bunk. Women don’t cause the pay gap. Employers do. So employers should change their behavior.

I say bunk on your bunk. These are all valid reasons for employers to be circumspect about paying women the same as men but let us say a woman is making the same pay per hour worked as a man. Having kids and mothers taking off time to tend to them takes away hours from the job. Many women do take time off from their careers to have kids and to raise them. They therefore come back into the work force with less experience than the man (or woman) who did not take off for their kids.

Things like not knowing their worth, not liking to argue or negotiate because they LACK confidence is something that can be handled by training and drilling. Perhaps this is something missing from their schooling. In any case it is not up to the employer to make up for the employees deficiencies.

In the past year or two, it was pointed out that Jennifer Lawrence of Hunger Games fame was paid less than many of the male actors on the cast. The Sony (women) executive acknowledge this and said (rightly) that it was up to Jennifer to know her worth and that it was her (the executives) job to keep expenses down.

Jennifer to her credit said: “I failed as a negotiator because I gave up early,” I didn’t want to keep fighting over millions of dollars that, frankly, due to two franchises, I don’t need.”

I’ve been a headhunter for a long time. I’ve seen more job offers and observed more salary negotiations than you’ll see in a lifetime. I’ve observed more employers decide what salaries or wages to pay than I can count. And I am convinced the media and the experts are full of baloney about the pay gap between men and women. They are so caught up in producing eye-popping news that they’re doing women a disservice — and confusing speculation with facts.

The above sounds like you are confusing speculation with facts… just sayin’.

Here are the facts:

  • Employers pay women less to do the same work that men do.

Well, there’s just one fact, and that’s it.

This is opinion not a fact. You might want to get clear on the definitions of both words.

Women don’t make themselves job offers, do their own payroll or sign their own paychecks. The gender pay disparity is all — all — on employers, because we start with a simple assumption: A job is worth x dollars to do it right, no matter who does it. It’s all about getting the work done. And the employer decides whom to hire and how much to pay.

Here’s the hard part for economists and experts to understand: Employers decide to pay women less, simply because they can get away with it. The law of parsimony instantly leads us to the obvious explanation: Paying less saves companies money. Everything else is speculative claptrap.

Exactly. It is the employer that decides whom to hire and how much to pay. If I were hiring for my business and I knew I could “get away with” hiring women for less money and they were just a qualified, I would hire ONLY women in order to lessen my payroll.

I have to assume that the argument being made is that employers are bad people for paying women less. If I were doing it men would be out of a job all over the place because I would not hire them, I would let my competition with stupid misogynist in charge of hiring, hire only men at exorbitant prices because then I can eventually run them out of business and perhaps also pick up a few guys who are now willing to take a lower salary and place under my now more experienced women employees.

In the rest of the article the author goes on and on over the same points and I, frankly, found it tedious to continue with it.

You can read the rest of it here:

According to the Cato Institute:Warren Farrell the only man to have been elected three times to the National Organization for Women’s New York board of directors, is the author of such books as The Myth of Male Power and Why Men Are the Way They Are. In his new book, he argues that women earn less than men on average not because they are discriminated against, but because they have made lifestyle choices that affect their ability to earn. Why Men Earn More argues that although discrimination sometimes plays a part, both men and women unconsciously make trade-offs that affect how much they earn. Farrell clearly defines the 25 different workplace choices that affect incomes–including putting in more hours at work, taking riskier jobs or more hazardous assignments, being willing to change location, and training for technical jobs that involve less people contact–and provides readers with specific, research-supported ways for women to earn higher pay.”


You can learn more about Mr. Farrell’s book here:

 Hanna Rosin at Slate has also spoken out on this: “ …The point here is not that there is no wage inequality. But by focusing our outrage into a tidy, misleading statistic we’ve missed the actual challenges. It would in fact be much simpler if the problem were rank sexism and all you had to do was enlighten the nation’s bosses or throw the Equal Pay Act at them. But the [more-accurate] 91 percent statistic suggests a much more complicated set of problems. Is it that women are choosing lower-paying professions or that our country values women’s professions less? And why do women work fewer hours? Is this all discrimination or, as economist Claudia Goldin likes to say, also a result of “rational choices” women make about how they want to conduct their lives.”

Mr. Corcodilos, is a headhunter. He has a vested interest in getting the most recompense for his clients that he can. Anything that can persuade or guilt a prospective employer into paying his female clients more is fair game but don’t confuse his endless speculation and opinion with facts.

In short the article he writes and in which he denigrates any actual reasons women might be being paid less as “bunk” is clearly an effort to shut down any dissenting opinion and make less of actual facts. This is, in short, validation to the erroneous idea  of any woman who thinks the problem is “over there”.

A person, male or female, is responsible for the condition they are in…no one else. If you aren’t being paid what you think you are worth, quit and move on or get so good you can demand more. Using Mr. Cordoilos’ excuses are just a crutch that will in reality hobble you and prevent you from reaching your goals and the pay you want.


var addthis_pub=”polemp”;
Bookmark and Share



Posted by: Greg Huff | April 26, 2016

The Morality of Capitalism

I wrote this in August 2008.  It did not make it to the new Politically Empowered site but it has timeless concepts that deserve to be preserved.

I feel sorry for Jonathan Hoenig the Managing Member of Capitalist Pig Asset Management and also Fox News contributor.

He is about the only one on the financial shows, who understands the philosophy and principle behind the free market. He is the only one I’ve seen articulate the ultimate morality of the free market.

I am continually amazed at the ignorance of free market principles by supposed financial experts. There are a few others on the Fox broadcasts who get it, Neil Cavuto and Gary B. Smith seem to but perhaps do not put the philosophy of the free market in moral terms.

I am not just talking about the whole dog and pony show of the financial sector 700 billion dollar bail out which is likely to have long term and dire consequences for the U.S. economy. Many of the so-called financial experts have jumped on board the bail out plan but I am not surprised.

What I have been surprised and disappointed about are the people who seem to be successful in the business of buying and selling stocks, tracking markets and making money do not have a grounding in the moral principles behind that activity.

I am sure a lot of these people do not know or care that there may be an actual principle there. There are those that just want to accumulate money and buy into the leftist philosophy of “you aren’t moral unless you give your money to the government so it can help the poor dumb bastards that you capitalist pigs are exploiting”.

Recently there was a discussion about lobbyists on one of the “Cost of Freedom Business Block” programs. Every one of the so-called experts missed the fact that…well, here is the letter I wrote:

I cannot believe that of all the seemingly smart people you have on your panel not one can see the true cause and effect on this subject.

Panelist say, “Lobbyists are bad”, “but they’re protected by the first amendment” blah blah blah.”

Not one said that the politicians are selling their votes for cash. They are saying, “It isn’t the politicians that are bad it is the lobbyists.” “The poor politicians are just overwhelmed with cash, how can they say no?” Think this thought through. It is the politicians that hold the power. They hold the gun. They get to say who can and cannot.

A company or sector of the economy that does not hire a lobbyist risk their business because the politicians can legislate them out of that business either directly or by giving competitors an advantage by law. It would be financial suicide for them to not have a voice in the political arena.

The fact is that most of the things Congress is making law on are things not granted to the federal government by the constitution and so it should have no power to affect one way or another where those tax dollars go. If the politicians had no power to pass laws on things not granted to it by the Constitution there would be no need for lobbyists and no money flowing into personal coffers of our corrupt politicians.

One of the panelists said we should have smaller government but did not say how. We need to get back to following the Constitution and overturn the Supreme Court decisions that interpreted the Commerce clause and the Equal Protection clause in ways certainly the founding fathers never intended.

If we do not get back to following the Constitution, I am afraid we will not have a country as politicians will become more and more corrupt and more businesses will have to try to stave off being legislated out of business.

So there you are, a profound non-understanding of not only the morality of capitalism but of the Constitution.

I guess I should not be so hard on the Fox pundits. They are but bit players. However, if we do not start educating our children and ground them in the philosophy of capitalism, a philosophy that has brought up the standard of living more people than all of the charities in all times combined, then we are throwing those children to the wolves of leftist thought and morality, a morality that has killed millions of people in the name of ending war. It is a morality that has lowered the standard of living of all those who embrace it, with the promise of equality. And it is the same philosophy in a different guise that poses as a religion of peace but will kill every one who doesn’t agree.

Until we defeat this immoral philosophy we will be at risk of not just a lower standard of living but slavery…or being buried, probably in a shallow grave.

Bookmark and Share

Posted by: Greg Huff | April 10, 2016


 This essay was originally published in October 2008…just after the mortgage meltdown and the government fixes to the government fix.  When the Politically Empowered site move to Word Press this essay along with others did not move to the new site.  I will eventually republish them on this site time allowing. This one is still relevant especially coming to the end of the Obama era…an end that will not be mourned by me and many others.

We’ve all learned either through osmosis or chemistry class that you do not mix ammonia and bleach. If you don’t know this, then I will tell you now that it gives off deadly chlorine gas. Wow. All you have to do to live is NOT mix the two.  It is toxic brew not to be messed with. Everybody (actually anyone that has some astuteness about them) knows this.

We run into another toxic mix with government and business. We have seen the markets almost melt down in the past two weeks due solely and only because government has interfered into the mortgage market.

What was probably at one point a very benign purpose, full of goodwill and “look what big government can do to help our fellow man” type thinking. It turned out to be not so benign. What was the cute little puppy grew up to be a rabid dog.

Now there is no politician especially on the Democrat side that would admit that the government could be at fault…of course not! “It is the corruption on Wall Street. It is big business, big banking once again!”

“Government is doing good, we were doing GOD’s work.”The free market, on its own, would not provide for those poor slubs that have been being kept down by ‘the man’. These poor stupid bastards will never make it on by themselves, so we have to help. Government is being … compassionate!”

We only have to study the past history of Europe where the government was the Church or the Church was the government to see the abuses of force combined with faith. Just look to the Middle East where the law is the religion; it is Europe in the middle ages. Look at any socialized (whether National Socialist or Marxist) government to gaze into a black abyss.

The former is the toxic mix of government and religion. The latter is the toxic mix of government and business.

We live in a unique time (though soon to be coming to an end if the trend is not reversed) where riches are for the most part earned by hard work and producing a product that can be exchanged for another value. It is a meritocracy. Sure the government needs to take part of the credit because of the functions granted to it by the Constitution. The summary of these functions is given in the Preamble.

How could it be that the U.S. in a mere 200 years could go from a totally broke, severely in debt government to the premier economic and military power in the world; the richest country that ever was? Economic and political freedom.

The Federal governments powers are limited to those that were GRANTED by the Constitution; very limited, enumerated powers.

This allowed a free market place to flourish. The market place is kind of like a river. Capital flows to those places that are shown to be the most promising. It flows to innovation, to originality, improvement, modernization and novelty. Capital is cautious until a product is proven and ready to roll out.

When government enters this arena it distorts the market in wildly unpredictable ways. It is like putting in a dam. Things back up and flow in unpredictable directions. This is what happened in the mortgage market.

With the benign intention to put lower income people into home ownership standards for lending were lowered. Pressure was applied by bureaucrats and elected officials in the Federal government to lenders demanding these lower these standards. Lenders were accused of “red lining” and being racist for not lending to those “in need” of a home loan.

Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were encouraged by members of Congress to buy these sub-prime loans from banks and mortgage lenders. After a time, instead of making a profit from the interest on the loan, the banks and other lenders made their money up front with a plethora of fees and then sold the loan to Fannie and Freddie. Then it really didn’t matter anymore whether or not there were standards. The banks could make money with fees and have the money back in their pocket to loan out again.

Who cares if the loan defaults, Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac paid us for it…we got ours … and kept the regulator off our backs (double win!). Well, the sucker is you and me. We are the ones paying for it.

After the government makes the problem, it then institutes “regulation” of this “greedy” industry (Dodd/Frank) and so covers the politician’s ass. Banks now spend an extraordinary amount of time just trying to comply with regulation rather than just running their business.

What we get then is greater distortion (or suppression) of a relatively straightforward industry. It will be harder to get credit, taxes will be raised, and innovation stifled.

Do you want to be a third world country? We are well on the path.

Bookmark and Share

Posted by: Greg Huff | October 15, 2015

It is a Family Thing

I have a relative that…decided to rant or vent about the state of the world and that… well you can read it yourself. My comments are in blue.

Time for some honesty, and if you don’t like it, tough shit.

Wow, that is a good way to make people receptive to your point…

I have come to realize that if you are a conservative republican you are an absolutely terrible person.

I don’t blame you for thinking that. You have been subjected to this sort of propaganda for most if not all of your life. Certainly since your father passed away. Republicans are however, no better than Democrats in many instances. The difference is, the left constantly vilifies them and Republicans are terrible at their own public relations.

Now the first thought of a person when they are informed they’ve been subjected to propaganda is: “Have NOT.” Propaganda is subtitle. The messages that Republican are bad and Democrats good is repeated often in the media and certainly in pop culture.

The Dems have a single-minded purpose to protect and  expand their ideology. They do this mainly by vilifying any one who does not tow the ideological line (as you have just done to me and others.) See my essay: The Hive Mind of the Left.

The Republicans no longer know what they believe and would just like to be loved by the press. They therefore have no real principals anymore and so cannot articulate them in order to hold a position. They think being Democrat light will get them loved when it just garners for them contempt. So I get why you think they are bad.

The only three things that actually concern you is your money, wellbeing, and the political system that keeps the first two going.

This is of course, propaganda and it certainly looks as if it worked on you. Because their policies do not work and they cannot demonstrate results; statist must have a villain to blame. Every Democrat failed city must blame the republicans, or “not enough money”, for the problems created by their failed policies. They cannot be responsible for their own actions. Admitting a mistake would mean in some way their ideology failed them. That would earn them at a minimum being shunned but more likely attacked as a turn-coat.

Once you die, your house will eventually rot, your car will eventually rust away, and what will you have left behind? You will have ensured that corporations continue to make huge profits off products that poison its consumers and the environment. You will have ensured that it is still nearly impossible for the poor in this country to get any sort of real education or proper food, or for them to have any hope of living a better life.

Oh please, this is ALL generalities. Not one specific that can be argued with. Not really worthy of comment.

You will also have ensured that the crooked people you have elected into office will continue to make deals with these corporations at the expense of the American people for personal gain.

Again a generality but I will take that on…I agree with you except for the fact you are blaming only Republicans. This is rampant with both Republicans and Democrats. Your solution I presume is more government to regulate these dastardly Republicans so the corporations can be reigned in.

It is regulation that gives government the power to get $$ from corporation who must pay either to regulate their competitors out of business, or to prevent their own company from being run out of business. The larger corporations want regulation. They can navigate the morass of regulations with their lawyers doing the work. A small business cannot do this. Thus these regulations limit new entrants into the market…protecting those reprehensible companies and lining the pockets of the politicians.

It is possible for this country to exist and prosper while providing proper education at little or no cost to the poor, to provide food that won’t cause cancer or any other diseases to the poor and middle class, and to have strict laws for corporations and government officials denying them any sort of right to lobby each other for political or monetary gain.

Good grief is there a specific anywhere on this page? Not to mention it is a run on sentence and the last part about lobbying each other makes no sense at all.

But, yes it is possible. It is called the free market. This is a system where people vote with their dollars for the things they like or withhold those dollars for things they do not like.

It is possible for us as a species to coexist with nature instead of using it and ruling over it. It is possible for us to see that this is our only life and our only planet, and we need to preserve it for many generations to come.

Well, OK. What is your plan for that? I’ve seen no solutions in this piece at all but I will give you a pass on that because you have yet to outline any problem other than the falsehood that “All conservative republicans are ‘bad people’.

It truly sickens me as a human being to see the extent of what the republican mindset does to this country.

Again, generality. You should get your thoughts together. This is merely a rant with no object other than to … I guess vent. This is why I asked what set you off.

You are being constantly propagandized by whatever news sources you are listening to. It is all an effort to make you angry and vocalize that, though you have no specifics. Lenin had a name for those that were easily manipulated. He called them “useful idiots”. I am not saying you are but you do not have any solutions either and that is because you do not have any specific problems you are trying to address – because is “all bad.” And it is all “over there…those dishonest republicans”.

I have said it before and will say it again. If we cannot come together as a species for the betterment of everyone, not just ourselves, then we are doomed to fail.

More platitudes I am sorry to say. How can we come together if all you can do is condemn?

Republicans? What you mean is “I am right and you’d better see it my way or else.” You want your leftist ideology to triumph because it is right and everybody else is wrong. Or am I mistaken?

The sort of ideology you represent has been done in the past with disastrous results. It was tried in 1917 in Russia and again in China after WW II. Russia killed about 55 million of its citizens in the process mostly by starving them. China killed even more. These make Hitler with his measly 6 million Jews look like a piker.

So go look at yourself in the mirror and ask yourself if you are doing what is best for humanity. If the answer is no, then change it for humanity’s sake.

Hitler wanted an Aryan society. He wanted it for “humanity’s sake.” Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood wanted all blacks sterilized for “humanities sake.”

A society with limited government that ensures individual rights and adherence to the Constitution is the ONLY thing that is best for humanity.

I am sure that your vision is not “what is best for humanity.” I am sure you disagree with this because those you have been listening to are those that are telling you that it is the government that must force this into existence. You would be wrong.

This has never worked. I coined a phrase a couple of years back: “Always, always, ALWAYS find the government solution that caused the problem.” ALL government programs except for the ones having to do with protecting the individual from force and fraud tend to have the exact opposite effect that was intended.

Your statement…it was more of a rant, will not get the cooperation you think you need. An open dialogue is what is needed. You think you are right and are chastising those you think are wrong. This won’t get you to your objective.

If you truly want a brighter future for you and humanity ditch the statist, socialist, progressive mindset which has never worked and has only brought misery and death to millions.

Study what made the U.S. a great country (despite any atrocities it may have had). Compared to any nation it became the wealthiest, most powerful, and most benevolent nation that ever existed. You should know why.

Read Democracy in America By Alexis De Tocqueville

Free to Chose by Milton Friedman

The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith

The Poverty of Nations by Wayne Grudem

The Road to Serfdom by F. A Hayek

Plunder and Deceit by Mark Levin

You are the one who said “Time for Truth”. If you don’t like it… Well, you know…

Bookmark and Share

Posted by: Greg Huff | July 4, 2015

Racism and Obama

 What follows is my response to the video (see link below) which posits that the country is moving “into racism” instead of out of  it. The video is ridiculous on its face but is obviously believed by those that are ideologically subject to such  propaganda. View the video first. Following that is my response to it then one liberal’s reaction. I then answer her  diatribe point by point. My comments in red hers in black.

 Why The Daily Show Had to Change 

 This is total crap. How many whites voted for BHO twice? Who objected before Obama was President, to having the  first woman black Secretary of State and the first male Secretary of State? This is ALL genned up by the Dems to  explain away their horrible record in getting the country moving economically and to blame anyone else but  themselves for the crappy black unemployment which they are entirely responsible for. The race hustlers are not just  welcome at the White house, they are encouraged by it. The President who should be tamping down the racial rhetoric along with his wife are stoking the fires. It is disgraceful.

“Horrible record”? That’s rather funny, Greg Huff.

Why did you neglect to mention the “horrible record” of who caused the economic meltdown?

And why did you neglect to mention the “horrible record” of the Republican Congress who blocked every. single. effort. made by this president to solve problems?

Why did you neglect to mention the “horrible record” of the worst foreign policy blunders made by Republicans by starting the Iraq war.

As to Condoleeza Rice — first woman black Secretary of State, and Colin Powell — the first male black Secretary of State, (hold on while I chuckle for a moment), thank you for pointing this out.

First of all, Rice and Powell were both Republicans, so the racists gave them a bye because they were on the “right side”. If liberals ever opposed either Rice or Powell it was based on actual **policy**, nothing to do with race.

Try to follow me here, Greg, because I really do want you to get this. Most of the Obama haters couldn’t tell you jack diddly about actual policy or what exactly it is that Obama did to cause the intense hatred. I mean it’s so bad, Republicans go to extremes by calling this president unAmerican, an alien, the anti-christ, and that he destroyed the country. ALL they do is try to de-legitimize this president. And the amount of disrespect and vile comments about him are UNPRECEDENTED. This has nothing to do with actual policy — just hatred. Hatred of a black family living in the White House.

I forgot to reply to your other comment: “How many whites voted for BHO twice?”

Are you attempting to say that racism isn’t alive and well in this country? What exactly are you trying to defend here?

The answer to your question is the Democrats and liberals voted for him. In addition, lots of Independents and Republicans did as well — the people that John McCain scared the living crap out of when he picked Sarah Palin as a running mate. Nobody ever said all Republicans are racist, not ever — not even close. There are a lot of people who vote based purely on the issues. But I will guarantee you the racists did not vote for Barack Obama.

Thank you Cindy…I’ve responded point by point:

  • Why did you neglect to mention the “horrible record” of who caused the economic meltdown?

    This was caused by 1. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Jimmy Carter and 2. Later the Clinton Administration who put teeth in the enforcement of it. The congress and Democrat administration requiring banks to make loans to credit risks. The Bush Administration warned congress about this and pushed (though weakly) on the dangers of these policies. Barney Franks and Chris Dodd were pushing this piece of crap legislation and the enforcing of it until it tanked. There were other reasons as well, and none in congress or previous administrations are truly blameless.

    See my piece Wrong Whys and Universal Laws

    Also see: Are Banks to Blame for the Financial Crisis? 

    And why did you neglect to mention the “horrible record” of the Republican Congress who blocked every. single. effort. made by this president to solve problems?

    This is kind of a laughable proposition. You don’t say what they blocked that would have solved any problem. They passed the bailout of the banks before Obama was president which did no good. They also passed the Stimulus after he was President. Respectfully you don’t know what you are talking about and should read something besides the left wing blogs. 

    Why did you neglect to mention the “horrible record” of the worst foreign policy blunders made by Republicans by starting the Iraq war.

    You obviously forget what was going on at the time. The resolution to authorize the President for action against the country of Iraq was voted on by the congress and it had almost universal approval. It can be debated whether it was a blunder going into Iraq. However the war was won and the insurgency was put down. The only blunder I see is Obama pulling all troops out despite the warnings of his military advisors and the warning years before from GWB of the dangers of pulling out too soon.

    As to Condoleeza Rice — first woman black Secretary of State, and Colin Powell — the first male black Secretary of State, (hold on while I chuckle for a moment), thank you for pointing this out.

    First of all, Rice and Powell were both Republicans, so the racists gave them a bye because they were on the “right side”. If liberals ever opposed either Rice or Powell it was based on actual **policy**, nothing to do with race.

    Again, laughable. There were many calls by those on the left that called Rice an Oreo and several cartoons I saw that were given a pass by the left when there would have been cries of “racism” had they been done depicting a Dem black politician or Administration member. Your memory is very selective.

    Try to follow me here, Greg, because I really do want you to get this. Most of the Obama haters couldn’t tell you jack diddly about actual policy or what exactly it is that Obama did to cause the intense hatred.

    Really? You really want me to get this? The racist gave Rice and Powell a pass because they were Republican? So…those racist Republicans will give blacks a pass as long as they are on the right side of policy? Sorry, that is inane. That logic has racist giving Obama a pass if they agree with his policy. Therefore they don’t agree with his POLICIES or they would give him a pass.

    I don’t hate Obama and I’d wager that there are very few that hate him because of his race…but I don’t have the blind devotion you apparently have toward your ideology and the embodiment of that ideology.

    You assume because he is black Republicans hate him. I certainly hate his policies. If you think it is Republicans that hate blacks, history does not back you up.

    The KKK is a Democrat invention. The Republican party was formed to fight against slavery and for abolition, it was and is abolitionist. Now listen up, ’cause I really want you to get this….It was the Democrats after the war that formed the KKK to fight against black Republicans being elected to political office. They then turned their Democrat racism to terrorizing newly freed blacks.

    History does not support the whole Republicans are racist meme. It was Republicans that supported the civil rights legislation of LBJ not the Dems. It is just that Dems are adept at lying to your face and making you believe it. It succeeded in your case and many others.

    I mean it’s so bad, Republicans go to extremes by calling this president unAmerican, an alien, the anti-christ, and that he destroyed the country. ALL they do is try to de-legitimize this president. And the amount of disrespect and vile comments about him are UNPRECEDENTED. This has nothing to do with actual policy — just hatred. Hatred of a black family living in the White House.

    Again, you are just wrong…sorry. It was Hillary Clinton that first brought up the whole birther idea during the primary campaign of his first run.

    I remember a lot of disrespect hurled at GWB. (I was not supporter of either Bush…they are big government Republicans and GWB got the U.S. into more debt than all of the other past presidents prior to him – surpassed only by Obama). There are many politicians that called him a liar …“he lied us into the war”… “he BETRAYED this country”…after they had voted to go to war and they had seen the same intelligence as the President. There was even a movie made while he was President that speculated about the assassination of Bush. It was Bush that was portrayed as the Joker first. No Dems objected to that. Yet it was so horrible and racist that Obama was depicted in the same way. Dems are disingenuous on this and many other things. Or perhaps it is just that selective memory you guys have.

    The attacks on Bush were unprecedented and so set the precedence for the attacks on Obama. Your “unprecedented” claim just does not hold water.

    Your last line of “Hatred of a black family living in the White House” is just a platitude that has no basis in fact. I am sure there are those that hate seeing a black in the White House (though strictly speaking he is as much white as he is black.) but that would be a very small minority of Republicans. (I should also say I am not and never have been a Republican). Your claim that it has nothing to do with actual policy is just a crutch … an excuse for his failed policies, not skin color, policies.

    See my essay If Obama Succeeds – He Fails 

  • I forgot to reply to your other comment: “How many whites voted for BHO twice?”
    Are you attempting to say that racism isn’t alive and well in this country? What exactly are you trying to defend here?

    What am I trying to defend?  You have to peer through the fog of your ideology but I will try to explain in simple language…The point is, if the country was getting more racist instead of less Obama would not have been elected once, let alone twice. Are there racists, yes. White supremacist are a danger and closet racists probably discriminate against blacks where they can. There are also black racists who are a danger. They don’t have to be closeted however. So there is racism. What I am saying is this is not the overwhelming problem you seem to think it is.

    The answer to your question is the Democrats and liberals voted for him. In addition, lots of Independents and Republicans did as well — the people that John McCain scared the living crap out of when he picked Sarah Palin as a running mate. Nobody ever said all Republicans are racist, not ever — not even close. There are a lot of people who vote based purely on the issues. But I will guarantee you the racists did not vote for Barack Obama.

Again, you make me laugh.

First of all, Palin all but saved the McCain campaign. Many conservatives came out to vote that never would have for McCain alone. Perhaps some of the more liberal people voted for Obama because of Palin. But what is your point? Does this mean you think Palin is racist and so the enlightened Republicans voted for Obama?

Truth is there were quite a few Republicans and independents that voted for Obama because they thought it would be historic and it would bring the country beyond this racial divide. A couple of so called conservative talk show hosts in the LA area did this. If they did, many others did.

I agree white racists did not vote for Obama. I am also sure black racists did not vote for McCain.

If you believe “There are a lot of people who vote based purely on the issues.” Then it invalidates your point that This has nothing to do with actual policy — just hatred. Hatred of a black family living in the White House.” and everything to do with my main point that ALL the racism noise is being genned up by the black racists in the White House and Justice Department.

Bookmark and Share

Posted by: Ted | February 19, 2015

Bad Government Sold Under Disarming Names

Politicians use these wonderful names to sell bad government programs to the masses.  Some of which are:  Net Neutrality, Affordable Care Act, The Patriot Act, National Defense Authorization Act, all designed to create more government control over our daily lives.  Fear is what they are selling and if we buy in, the police state grows!

Rule of Thumb: if it sounds good and it’s a government program then it’s probably bad for you.  If you use that as your basis for knee jerk reactions, then you will be right more often than you will be wrong.  It is a natural action for government to grow by taking away individual rights as opposed to providing more freedom.  So, sell out your freedoms if you will but don’t complain when the wolf/taxman comes to call!  It is a bit childish to expect big government to protect us from big business/government or forced charity, that’s a fight we as citizen must fight alone and the power of the purse is our best and most effective weapon.

I believe many in our country realize we are truly on treacherous path as talked about in this article. I also believe most of us have great hope for this country to regain it’s once solid footing, a very challenging accomplishment. Our American spirit has allow us to accomplish many great thing in the past. If that is to continue, we must regain our financial and moral discipline, or we are bound to become one more casualty on the scrap pile of great societies of history. For the sake of our children and future generations, let’s hope we can once again return to the honored traditions of our founding fathers. Those elements of sound but limited government, spelled out in the Constitution which they fought so hard to provide us.

The US vs. China: A Study in Opposites (from Doug Casey’s International Man Communique’)
by Jeff Thomas | February 16, 2015

In the first photo, taken in 1972, US President Richard Nixon made what was then considered a bold move, visiting Mao Zedong in Communist China. Literally, as well as figuratively, Chairman Mao is on the left and Mr. Nixon is on the right.

In the second photo, taken over forty years later, we have US President Barrack Obama making a similar visit to China. This time, again literally as well as figuratively, Mr. Obama is on the left and Chinese President Xi Jinping is on the right.

Over the ensuing four decades, both countries have been changing dramatically. The US has become increasingly socialistic, more focused on Big Government and more of a totalitarian state. In 1972, it was the world’s foremost creditor nation; it is now the world’s foremost debtor nation. By contrast, China, since the death of Chairman Mao, has opened up considerably, with billions of people becoming upwardly mobile, in response to China becoming increasingly capitalistic.

To be sure, both countries retain some of their historical features, but increasingly, the US is acting like a country in decline, whilst China is acting like a country on the rise.

As a result of successful capitalism, the US became the world’s foremost power after World War II. Then, in the 1960s, the US began apologising for the spoils that came with that capitalism. It became increasingly popular for Americans (largely at the urging of the media and the political structure) to be ashamed of capitalistic achievements and to head in a more socialistic direction. Republican politicians have needed to soften their views on capitalism in order to appear to be “good people.” (“Good people” has essentially come to mean “those who are prepared to take from the rich and give to the poor.”) They are now Republicans in name only. The US still has two major parties, but one is a moderately liberal party and the other is a vehemently liberal party.

China has gone in the opposite direction, becoming increasingly capitalistic. The results have been dramatic. Many Chinese now have all the trappings that Americans do. In addition, their government is expanding more each year into capitalism.

Again, these developments have followed along the lines of “Declining Empire” vs. “Burgeoning Empire.” Increasingly, the US approach to the world has become one of demanding that other countries subjugate themselves to the US, as though they are subsidiaries of the empire. The US has demanded that trade in many essentials (particularly energy) be settled in the US dollar. As this relationship has been crumbling in recent years, the US has responded by threatening other countries, creating sanctions against them, and even invading them. In doing so, the US has earned the reputation as the schoolyard bully of the world—the country that the world loves to hate. They still have to play ball with the US, but the resentment is growing globally.

(It should be noted here that, if and when a schoolyard bully does fall from his position, he is stomped on, not only by his challenger, but also by those who resented and hated him but had previously deferred to him and pretended to befriend him. Similarly, when empires fall from grace, “staunch allies” frequently switch sides rather quickly.)

In contrast to the US, the Chinese have, in recent decades, displayed the sort of capitalism that is indicative of a burgeoning global player. They are, in effect, saying, “We’re open for business and we’re here to deal. We have some creative ideas to offer that we think you’ll welcome.” They’re not twisting arms behind backs. They’re offering creative opportunities for other countries.

In addition, they’re not aiming for immediate gratification. Their aim is for long-term benefits, just as US goals once were. Today, the Chinese are buying up properties on every continent, setting up businesses, and making sure that the locals benefit from their investments.

In addition, they’re creating deals with governments that those governments could not create on their own. They seek out a country like Venezuela that is on the ropes economically and offer to buy heavily into Venezuela’s primary asset—oil—to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. The deal is not intended to provide a major return for China in the short term, but it does place China in the economic catbird seat in Venezuela over the long haul.

Around the globe, state-backed Chinese developers are offering creative deals to other countries’ political leaders. For example, if a small nation needs, say, a new port and the port costs $50 million (an amount that the country does not have), the Chinese offer to build the port for, say, $30 million, a bid that no other developer can meet. The Chinese developer takes a loss on the construction, but a part of the deal is that he gets a significant portion of the income of the port for, say, 50 or 75 years.

Chinese developers are now executing such deals in nearly every country in the world. What they lose in profits upon completion is made up for in long-term income. As a bonus, China not only owns property worldwide, it is a shareholder in the economies of countries worldwide.

This rapidly expanding global Chinese capitalism is receiving little notice in the US media, but that, most certainly, will change. As the US reaches its own economic tipping point—market crashes, currency collapse, etc.—and finds that it can no longer pay even the interest on its debt, it will also discover that it cannot pay out the benefits promised to the 50% of its population who pay no tax but are recipients of governmental largesse. The US government will then find itself desperately trying to keep this portion of the population at bay, as payouts to recipients decrease. As a result, governmental capital projects will fail to receive funding. Someone will need to step in and offer “creative bidding”. Enter the Chinese.

Once the US is on more of a Third-World economic footing, it will have little choice but to accept the kinds of deals that are now being offered by the Chinese in Jamaica, Egypt, Nicaragua, etc.

The result will be Chinese ownership not only of considerable US real estate and corporations within the US, but ownership of US infrastructure.

Today, the vestiges of Communism undoubtedly remain in China, but the move is decidedly away from Communism, toward capitalism. Conversely, the US seems to be hell-bent on replacing US capitalism with a socialist totalitarian state. Since more than 50% of Americans are now on the dole in some form, it seems highly unlikely that the US will suddenly reverse that direction, since the majority of Americans will vote for continued (and increased) government hand-outs.

Both Chairman Mao and President Nixon are now pushing up daisies, and their present-day replacements are reverse images of them. The future belongs to those who are productive.

As investment guru Jim Rogers has stated, the future belonged to the British in the 19th century and the Americans in the 20th century. The Chinese will own the 21st century. Accordingly, Mr. Rogers now lives in Singapore.

We are passing through the early stages of a period of dramatic change. The economic and political world is in the process of turning upside down. Those who come out the other side of this change with their skin on will be those who have diversified both their wealth (however large or small) and, indeed, themselves, so that they are positioned to thrive in the future, rather than to remain where they are and be a part of the decline.

Posted by: Ted | February 10, 2015

The Hidden Dangers of Safety

I sit here this morning pondering what I should do with this website/blog. I have not posted here for some time and it becomes a decision to remove it or to use it. So I go down a new road, as opposed to sharing great detail, I will pose more questions and ask you to think about where you stand on the issues posed.  So below is my first attempt in doing that:
We are all danger adverse yet we know that danger is all around us and if we protect ourselves from everything we would live in bubble-wrap and even there, danger would lurk. So what is the right amount of safety that one should strive for? What level of safety should we try to shelter our children with? Do we anticipate danger and throw up protections against it before it is actually shown to be a danger? When we provide all these safety requirements do we really cause more harm as we expect safety and fail to prepare ourselves for the danger that is always there? Needless to say, some safety measures are important and true purpose of government is to protect citizens’ safety and well-being, it’s just how much do we want government to protect us from and what are we willing to give up in the form of freedom, to achieve that level of protection? Also, it’s not enough to pass a law and have the safety exist, it requires enforcement and that will require intrusion into our lives. Think of drones, police state practices, phone taps, body scans, zoning, regulations with attached fees, restrictions on entry into fields without “adequate” training, etc. there are just a multitude of things that are designed to make us safe that limit our freedom. There are many restrictions place on our ability to live our lives as we wish, the question is how much interference are we willing to accept and are we willing to have politicians who we might not agree with making those decision for us?  Where are you’re limits and what limits should we place on our politicians in their imposition of safety regulations which limit our freedoms?

Older Posts »