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 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?

Posted by: Greg Huff | November 13, 2014

Taking On a Liberal “god”.

Paul Krugman recently wrote an article entitled “Triumph of the Wrong”.  The piece was so inane and full of leftist talking points and falsehoods that I felt I needed to address them.  I was especially taken by some other liberal/statists reaction to the piece, one of unquestioning acceptance, reminding me too much of the book “1984”.  I have replied to his points paragraph by paragraph, my comments being in blue.

Triumph of the Wrong

Paul Krugman

The race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet midterms to men of understanding. Or as I put it on the eve of another Republican Party sweep, politics determines who has the power, not who has the truth. Still, it’s not often that a party that is so wrong about so much does as well as Republicans did on Tuesday.

Of course this has nothing to do with the underhanded and dishonest way the Dems have been governing. I do agree that “politics determines who has the power not who has the truth” otherwise Dems would never be elected—ever. They had to lie about Obama care in order to get it through (without one Republican vote) and now years after it’s passing, people can see the fecal breakfast that has been served to them by the Dems.

I’ll talk in a bit about some of the reasons that may have happened. But it’s important, first, to point out that the midterm results are no reason to think better of the Republican position on major issues. I suspect that some pundits will shade their analysis to reflect the new balance of power — for example, by once again pretending that Representative Paul Ryan’s budget proposals are good-faith attempts to put America’s fiscal house in order, rather than exercises in deception and double-talk. But Republican policy proposals deserve more critical scrutiny, not less, now that the party has more ability to impose its agenda.

Wow talk about double-talk…did you actually say anything in the above paragraph?

So now is a good time to remember just how wrong the new rulers of Congress have been about, well, everything.

First, there’s economic policy. According to conservative dogma, which denounces any regulation of the sacred pursuit of profit, the financial crisis of 2008 — brought on by runaway financial institutions — shouldn’t have been possible. But Republicans chose not to rethink their views even slightly. They invented an imaginary history in which the government was somehow responsible for the irresponsibility of private lenders, while fighting any and all policies that might limit the damage. In 2009, when an ailing economy desperately needed aid, John Boehner, soon to become the speaker of the House, declared: “It’s time for government to tighten their belts.”

Certainly the Republicans have their flaws in the whole 2008 debacle…the Dems have much more culpability in it though. You can see my analysis of this in my article Wrong “Whys” and Universal Laws and  Are Banks to Blame for the Financial Crisis?  That being said Krugman thinks government had NO culpability in this and especially not Democrats? This is just a bald face lie.

I covered this in my article that it was the community reinvestment act that started this whole ball rolling passed under Carter. Then Clinton in the 90’s put teeth in the bill and started pushing and hectoring banks to lend to bad credit risks. I remember the Democrat’s accusations of banks “Red Lining” and that water being carried by the mainstream media (though I now call them the Pravda Press).

Frank Dodd and Barnie Franks pushed and pushed this. Banks not wanting to be pilloried tried to comply but they did not want to responsible for the crap storm that was sure to follow.

Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were tasked to buy much of this bad paper and then the banks with not just the approval but the sanction of congress went to town. The GOVERNMENT, not anyone else started this. The banks relieved of the responsibility to fund bad loans pawned them off on the government supported entities and other private institutions that were foolish enough to believe the government propaganda put out by the likes of Dodd and Franks … (and where have we heard these names since…oh yes, the Dodd/Franks bill, who, trying to cover their ass after crap storm, passing a bill to further regulate the finance industry but of course this never addressed actual cause of the crisis (well…they had to do something!). They then both promptly retired.

They along with any banks that fraudulently passed on this bad paper should have gone to jail. But to Krugman, Democrats can do no wrong and if they ever do…it is the Republicans that are to blame.

So here we are, with years of experience to examine, and the lessons of that experience couldn’t be clearer. Predictions that deficit spending would lead to soaring interest rates, that easy money would lead to runaway inflation and debase the dollar, have been wrong again and again.

Governments that did what Mr. Boehner urged, slashing spending in the face of depressed economies, have presided over Depression-level economic slumps. And the attempts of Republican governors to prove that cutting taxes on the wealthy is a magic growth elixir have failed with flying colors.

OK…do people actually check on the sort of statements you make, Krugman?
Which states are doing well right now? Not what the Dems and Dem mouthpieces such as Krugman are promoting but actually? The states that have Republican governors are the ones that are doing well, period.

People and businesses are leaving New York and California in record numbers. It is hard to believe that Krugman can get away with this sort of drivel but recently having debates on Facebook with some committed statist, it is plain to me that they will believe anything one of their breed tells them without further inspection.

I might add that one of the reasons the American economy has not succumbed to runaway inflation and a debased dollar is that the Fed is pumping trillions of dollars into the economy and due to the depressed state of the European economy; they are investing in the US because it is still the safest place for their money. These chickens will at some point, come home to roost.

In short, the story of conservative economics these past six years and more has been one of intellectual debacle — made worse by the striking inability of many on the right to admit error under any circumstances.


Then there’s health reform, where Republicans were very clear about what was supposed to happen: minimal enrollments, more people losing insurance than gaining it, soaring costs. Reality, so far, has begged to differ, delivering above-predicted sign-ups, a sharp drop in the number of Americans without health insurance, premiums well below expectations, and a sharp slowdown in overall health spending.

Again, this is just an outright lie. The above statement is not reality; it is Krugman’s wet dream. I guess you could say: “above predicted sign-ups” IF you do not use the original predictions but the revised lower ones, but that is just not very good form and not at all honest. One might think you are trying put one over on your readers. Premiums are increasing as well as deductibles, if they were not, people would be pleased with the bill. They are not.

Paul, Paul, Paul…you really should not believe the left wing blogs touting this stuff. Of course you and they are safe with the true believers; they will never check the facts and never question your very spotty integrity.

And we shouldn’t forget the most important wrongness of all, on climate change. As late as 2008, some Republicans were willing to admit that the problem is real, and even advocate serious policies to limit emissions — Senator John McCain proposed a cap-and-trade system similar to Democratic proposals. But these days the party is dominated by climate denialists, and to some extent by conspiracy theorists who insist that the whole issue is a hoax concocted by a cabal of left-wing scientists. Now these people will be in a position to block action for years to come, quite possibly pushing us past the point of no return.

Give it a rest Paul. There may have been a time when the environmental left had the upper hand in getting out this false story. The only problem is there has not been any warming in what…15 years or more? The predicted melting of the icecaps has not come to pass…sorry. Your Al Gore “god” was mistaken. Ok, I know you and the rest of the statists changed it from “warming” to “Climate change”. That is what statists do…if the lie isn’t working the way it is, change the verbiage to something more palatable.

Even if it is conceded that there is “warming” the blame that it is man made cannot be argued with any credibility. When the weather can be predicted with any accuracy for over a week I might be able to buy into the computer models that are the source of these predictions.

Krugman is more propagandist than economist. Don’t get me wrong I have no love for the Republicans that have been trending progressive over the past years, who, afraid of their own shadow fail to stand up to a President that would be tyrant. The people who voted in the past election wanted to stop this President and his agenda, not to mention his toadies in Congress.

Now is the time for those who believe in limited government and the Constitution to press this advantage and put the intellectually bankrupt progressives/statists behind them. It is this progressive/statist faction that picked the lock of shackles that bound the federal government. Make it plain to the new crop of Republicans we expect them to use all the tools they have to start getting the government back into those shackles.

Bookmark and Share

Posted by: Greg Huff | September 1, 2014

Death of America?

Socialism and Communism do not work. This datum (and viewpoint) I am sure is no surprise to those who regularly read my essays. That it does not work is starkly demonstrated by the current Chinese regime. They have abandoned communism with regard to their economy, though it is still ruled by an oppressive leadership that allow no political descent.

There are various logical reasons why they do not work, though to those with false data and fixed ideas no amount of logic will have any effect to break through a concrete wall of belief that it does. If false data is ingrained deeply in the psyche there is no fact or even a legion of facts that can dislodge it, at least not without intensive effort.

It takes an honest and alert mind to recognize that something does not make sense and investigate the truth of it even when it slams up against what you have been taught from childhood.

There are very few examples of such things. David Horowitz is someone that grew up as the son of dedicated communists; steeped in the far left ideology but was perhaps more intelligent (or had more of a conscience?) and started to question the indoctrination he’d been saddled with. When he saw the hypocrisy of the leftist ideology and the product of it; his fixed ideas were somehow dislodged.

The same can be said of the handful of former Muslim terrorist that have repented and are speaking out against their former cohorts. Certainly in a lot of ways these people have it much rougher than Horowitz did. They not only have to overcome their own ingrained teachings but as well, the very real physical danger to themselves and their families for speaking out at all.

It follows then that most of those who have this affliction will find it difficult or impossible, for example, to recognize things such as all behavior is not necessarily the moral equivalent of another. That not all verbal slights justify horrendous retaliation or in the Jehadist world; that cartoons don’t  justify murdering the drawer of that cartoon. Or that writing a story does not justify a Fatwa to murder the author. Or making a movie doesn’t justify murdering the filmmaker…

Another example is with the so called “Stimulus” package. You have every bad actor, the banks, Fanny Mae, Freddie Mac, and all of those that have lived beyond their means, being bailed out by those who were prudent and lived within their means.  You also have the government itself as a bad actor that encouraged even demanded the banks fund those bad mortgages and cover their ass with the Dodd/Frank law putting horrendous regulations on banks when Dodd AND Frank were the most vocal legislators pushing banks to do this!

Those advocating bailouts or any action that takes from the prudent to give to the imprudent, will never understand one of the basic laws of human interaction: When you reward bad behavior and penalize good behavior, you get bad behavior.

This is the reason the Great Depression was great. The government stepped in and sought to help by rewarding bad behavior and penalizing good. With government engaging in such actions, there is no incentive for the prudent to be such or for the imprudent to be anything else.

During rough times those who have, try to help those who don’t. Charity is voluntary. “Entitlement” is confiscation by the government and redistribution.

The mentality that any good can become of bailing others out of their responsibility for their own actions is that which needs to be nullified. That someone is “hurting” or down on their luck is not a license to confiscate resources from one to give to another.

In a free society those that are down on their luck will have to rely on the charity of those that have enough resources to give a helping hand to them. This is moral and it is beneficial to both the giver and recipient of the charity.

When government steps in, it is no longer a moral activity. Instead of being voluntary charity it becomes confiscation and extortion by the government. Instead of the receiver of the charity knowing it is charity and something to receive only long enough to gain one’s footing, it becomes “entitlement” with no imperative to stop receiving because, after all, it is an “entitlement” and thus instead of gaining ones footing the entitlement culture never gains footing but gains a life-raft to carry them along life’s stream without the necessity to even get one’s feet wet.

Not reversing the concept that entitlement is moral but indeed immoral and degrading to both those being extorted and those receiving the extortion will spell the inevitable decline and finally death of America.

I still hold out hope for the country. Certainly more people are waking to the product of a statist government (or progressive or liberal or socialist or communist one; as they are all of the same ilk).

More people need to wake up and it is the responsibility of all that are awake to awaken others.


Bookmark and Share

Posted by: Greg Huff | June 24, 2014

If Obama Succeeds – He Fails

I wrote this in January of 2009.  It was posted on the previous Politically Empowered site and was not transferred to the new one.  I am re-posting it now as it is still relevant.

“He is my President.”  “He is OUR President”.  “I want him to succeed” is being echoed by many of the conservative pundits. I guess Rush Limbaugh is the only one who is saying he does not want Obama to succeed.  It has almost become a catch phrase on the right and a longing to befriend the opposition leader, perhaps in an effort not to be like the hateful and obnoxious far left zealots that continually called Bush detestable names and not give him credit for any accomplishments.

But what does it mean if Obama succeeds?  What is success in Presidential terms?

There are two meanings for success and it is what Rush has been trying to get across to the population at large and why he (Rush) has been vilified for it.

Obama can be a success getting his policies implemented.  He can grow government along with the Democrat Congress, raise taxes, spend oodles of money, put the screws to the “rich” and elevate to a high level the mediocrity of the “working man” or to the supreme degree the “victim that can’t work”.

To the degree Obama succeeds the country will fail.  The converse is probably (but not necessarily) true.  If Obama fails the country will succeed.  Obama can fail to fully implement his policies and have the Congress run roughshod over him and both he and the country will fail.  This is what history will judge him on in the long run.  Not whether he succeeds in getting his policies passed and implemented but whether or not the Country expands its economy, prosperity, and standard of living under his watch.

In order to ensure the Country succeeds, he cannot succeed in getting his own policies passed and must stop Congress from getting its agenda passed. In fact he must not only sabotage his own agenda and that of the Congress, he must actively roll back many of the policies of his predecessors that are actively creating a drag on the success of this nation.

How does the Country really expand its economy, prosperity and standard of living?

See to it that the Country is secure as a whole:

The first duty of the Federal government is to see that its citizens are protected from force from without and within.  This means the borders are secure.  We know who is and who is not coming into the country and who is leaving.  It means we have a means to swiftly and summarily deport those who are not here legally.  It means we have a swift and legal way for temporary workers to get into the country to fill jobs and then leave again when the job is done.  It means that those who immigrate to this country know it is an honor and highly valuable thing to become a citizen and that it will not be given away by means of “amnesty”.

It means we have accurate intelligence on external threats, which is the responsibility of the CIA and other intelligence agencies.  It means we have accurate intelligence on internal threats, which is the responsibility of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies.

It means we have a standing army that is capable of deterring any external threat and forces that will protect the coast and borders.

This gets into the second duty, which is to see to the security of individuals in their persons and property:

It means that the individual city and state police as well as the federal police are actually investigating those who perpetrate fraud and protecting individuals against force and not engaging in it.

A major part of this protection is the enforcing property rights.  This means individuals have the right to the product of their effort and are not to have these rights extorted by individuals (the mob) or (the mobs big brother) government through excessive taxes or in fact ANY taxes that are used to redistribute to those who are less capable, inept or lazy.  Charity is the function of charities not government and charity works much better than extortion and redistribution.

These two items are the HAT of the government.  If the government will do these two things and only these things then the country will do well.  The country will succeed and thus Obama’s Presidency will succeed.

When the government is doing something else it is NOT wearing its HAT and the country will not succeed to the degree it is OFF HAT.

To say we want the President to succeed only means we want the Country to succeed.  The policies the President and Congress want to implement means the Country will go deeper and deeper into debt, destroy the dollar and mortgage the future of all of our children and great great grand children.

The productivity of the people of the U.S. is thought by some to be a magic piggy bank that will never run out of cash.  The wealth of the U.S. though vast by any other standard in history, is finite and the shoulders holding up the world will at some (not too distant) point break.

I want the country to return to those principles and policies that made the country great: Small government that wears the HAT given to it by the Constitution to protect the Country and the individuals that make up it citizenry.

Given that the President (and Congress) has shown the predilection to want to implement policies that are counter to that HAT, the President (and Congress) will succeed to the extent he fails.

Bookmark and Share


Posted by: Greg Huff | January 30, 2014

Government is Coercion not Compassion

This essay was written just before the 2008 election.  It was posted on an earlier Politically Empowered site and so was lost.  I am re-posting it now so these thoughts and data are available.

 Recently candidate Obama wondered why McCain and the Republicans want to make “selfishness a virtue”.  This is an amazing statement especially since Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University in researching his book, “Who Really Cares”, says: “When you look at the data, it turns out the conservatives give about 30 percent more [money to charity]. And incidentally, conservative-headed families make slightly less money.”

Brooks found that the conservative/liberal difference goes beyond money:

“The people who give one thing tend to be the people who give everything in America. You find that people who believe it’s the government’s job to make incomes more equal, are far less likely to give their money away.”

This is only one of the reasons Socialism is bad. When the government gets involved in the charity business it muscles out the competition.  It not only ceases to be charity, it becomes something much worse.  It doesn’t just become “redistribution of wealth” it becomes extortion of the productive by the non-productive, of the able by the unable.

In her book “Atlas Shrugged” Ayn Rand via her character Francisco D’Anconia instructs the “liberal elite”, in the fallacy of money being “the root of all evil” or made on the back of the poor.

“But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak?  What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles.  Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think.  Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? … Money is made – before it can be looted or mooched – made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability.”

 In a brilliant essay Government is Not Compassion by Glen Allport he correctly identifies the true nature of Government and the dangers of projecting on to it a compassionate nature.

“Government is nothing more than structured, widespread coercion, and the idea that it can implement compassion for us by force is simply a vile and cunning lie.  It is cunning because people are primed and willing, even desperate, to believe it.  It is vile because government allows, facilitates, and encourages mass murder, widespread torture, needless famine, and every form of tyranny. ”

“As a result, the creation of an emotionally healthy, free, and genuinely compassionate world is most strongly opposed today by a tyranny that is being sold as Paradise.”

 You can read his article here:

To Obama you are selfish if you do not want your income redistributed by government.  To Biden you are not patriotic.

Forget for a moment the immorality of robbing the productive to give to the unproductive (of course it is sold as redistribution from the greedy rich to give to needy poor).  Think of it in practical terms of getting the most bang for your buck. You will find that the government is not only a bad steward of your income (much of that dollar being eaten up by the bureaucracy itself) but as with government programs of any kind, the fraud that takes place is rife.  It will cost upwards of forty cents on the dollar to administer and ferret out fraudulent claims.

Charity is a good thing.  Giving to charity makes the giver feel that he is helping another person in need.  The receiver gets a helping hand and knows that it is charity and in most cases tries hard to not be a burden on the giver.

This is turned on its head when the government gets involved.  Now, instead of being freely given it is extorted from the individual.  The receiver no longer has to feel he is being a burden to some one else because it is no longer “Charity” it is an “Entitlement”.  There is no reason to get off the program because you “are entitled” to have it.

At the same time it degrades the person receiving the benefits.  It puts him or her in an “out exchange” condition.  Being non-productive yet still receiving benefit is probably the most degrading thing you can do to a person.

So, Obama says it is “selfishness” to those that are the most unselfish.  He advocates extortion and redistribution over voluntary action and actual compassion.  He advocates inefficient and corrupt government entities over the more efficient and honest charities that will actually do some good.  He wants to enshrine that which will never work and disembowel those entities that do work.

It is a disgusting ideology.  If he is elected I pray we won’t have to bury too many people before his term is up and I hope it won’t be too late to recover from the damage done.

Bookmark and Share

Posted by: Greg Huff | January 26, 2014

The Marxist Religion

This essay was originally published just after the The Republican Convention in September 2008.   It was published on the original Politically Empowered site which is no longer available and is being republished now so it is available for your information.

The Republican Convention is over and now the real fight begins. Mercifully we will only have to endure two months of the campaign ads and accusations of “going negative”.

I was glad to see Sarah Palin knocking down (effectively I might add) the opposition presidential candidate, and the media. She did it with humor and aplomb. She seemed well at ease and skewered the Obama balloon with as they say: “a rapier wit.”

In the end this won’t matter if she and McCain do not win. The democratic spin machine (usually you just hear about the republican spin machine) will go into full extractor mode now that Sarah has refused to be cowed and humbled by the MSNBC’s of the world.

Just like any jungle one is in, you have to recognize the true danger to you and the true source of attacks. It has been said that what you can confront you can handle. Conservatives need to confront the ideology of the left.

We have said in the past that we have defeated Communism. We haven’t. It has just cloaked itself in other mantles: environmentalism, feminism, liberalism, progressivism etc., ad nausea in order to gain power and win converts in the various causes. (Defending the Earth is a popular and seemingly noble cause to win over recruits to the ideology.)

Marxist have claimed dominion and the high ground over many if not all wedge type issues. They have taken over the universities and control the Teachers Union. Primary and secondary education (our kids) is in their hands.

They agitate and rebel rouse those who are here illegally to claim they have “rights” and they are being treated “unfairly” because most Americans would like immigrants to come here legally and actually have something to offer the country besides gardeners and anchor babies. Then they label you “racist”.

The women’s movement has been commandeered as well. The “NAG” (National Association of Gals) as Rush Limbaugh calls them, ousts those who are not on board with their leftist agenda. NOW (National Organization for Women, their actual name) was chartered to promote the interests of women. They actually only promote the interests of women who promote the Marxist agenda. They fight like cornered animals when their sacred cows are challenged but poo-poo the concerns of traditional Americans. This is why it is so hard to get common sense legislation like educational vouchers passed.  This ideology, (dare I say religion) has made many of its gains after we purportedly “defeated” Communism. Marxism in this country has all the hallmarks of a religion and a militant one at that. Converts accept the tenants without question. Those that do question aspects of it are excommunicated or at the very least ostracized.

All of these various “movements” need to be recognized for what they are, tentacles of the same squid.  ”

Marxist in their political guise (usually Democrats but not limited to such) decries being labeled as “Anti-American”. “We are just speaking up for what is wrong” “we are looking out for they down trodden” is the self-righteous mantra they assume. We need to recognize that the Marxist philosophy and ideology, in any of its aspects, are inherently Anti-American.

We’d better confront it and terminatedly handle it if our country is to survive. It is true there is freedom of thought and freedom of speech in this country and that means traditional Americans have the right and duty to call this ideology its true name and label it for what it is, anti-American.

See Alinsky’s Bridge to Socilism

Bookmark and Share

Older Posts »



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.