Are Conservatives mean?

When it comes to the issue of welfare, and many other socio-economic issues we are often accused of being mean, bigoted, racist, etc., for standing in opposition to left wing programs.  Welfare is one of the more sensitive issues, and it is an issue where conservatives get accused of being greedy and/or mean spirited for opposing it.  Anyone with an average level IQ or higher should be able to logically discern that the issue is more complex than mean-spiritedness vs. benevolence, but for the sake of enlightenment I will clearly explain what exactly the issue is.

Most of us have been to middle school and graduated from it.  Most of us can agree that the issues which are considered important in Middle School are in fact irrelevant, but much of what happens in Middle School is a microcosm for the conflicts one faces in the adult world.  Suppose Studant A is flicking Studant B in the ear from behind.  Student B tells Student A to stop multiple times, but Student A just keeps it up.  Flick, flick, flick, flick…  After a while Student B turns around and slaps Student A so hard that everyone in class hears it.  Student A is no longer flicking Student B but now Student B is in trouble, and the next thing he knows Student B is the one who is being portrayed as the bad guy.  Regardless of what anyone thinks transpired, does Student B’s reaction to Student A make Student B a hateful or spiteful person?  For the rational person the answer is no, obviously what Student B did was a reaction to the incessant prodding of Student A, and the failure of Student A to stop when told. 

The same is true of conservatives.  Conservatives are people who wish to either maintain the current socio-economic system, or return to a time in the past when conditions were better.  When we are continually prodded by people who wish to take things in a direction which is detrimental to our way of life then of course we are going to react.  That being said, any hostility that comes from our side is a defensive reaction rather than an act of pointless hate.

Opposition to Welfare

Our opposition to welfare is not based on greed or spite, but based on the obvious fact that welfare is not voluntary giving, and that such artificial manipulation of the economy has adverse side affects. 

Conservatives engage in more voluntary giving than anyone else in the country, especially the religious right, which receives more hate and scorn than any other group, both nationally and internationally.  It is a serious and grievous error to equate government redistribution of wealth with voluntary giving, or opposition of such redistribution with greed.  One cannot be benevolent with another person’s belongings.  If I go out and rob a bank, and then give all that money to random people on the streets does that make me benevolent?  What if I rob one person who is walking down the streets and give the contents of their wallet to a homeless man?  Am I benevolent yet?  A rational person would say no.  There is no voluntary giving in welfare, the government demands a certain amount of money each year, and if it is not paid then they come in force to take it.  I cannot be benevolent with my money if it is being lifted out of my pocket by someone else, because once it is taken out of my pocket it is out of my control what happens to it. 

“Oh but we have to help all the poor people!” they say.  So help them then, but do it with your own resources.  A thief with a cause is still a thief.  If you want to give then give, but don’t concern yourself with what your neighbor is doing.  What he does or does not do is between him and God, not between him and you, and if your neighbor is a successful conservative he is probably giving more than you are anyways.

The accusation that conservatives do not want to “do their part” is as subjective judgment.  There is no law of God or nature that states that anyone who does not work is entitled to earnings.  In fact, it boggles my mind how on one hand liberals are constantly ridiculing conservatives for not believing in evolution (even though not all conservatives are Christians or believers in ID), while at the same time refusing apply the principles of evolution to real life situations, or to society.  If evolution is true, then the absolute worst thing you can do is try to interfere with the process of natural selection, which is the driving engine behind it.  At this point I am certain some liberal is tempted to say, “that’s mean!” but if you will read my statement closely, I did not advocate anything, I merely pointed out an obvious contradiction.  If you refuse to stand by the principles of your own particular belief system then you should not criticize others for not sharing your beliefs. 

But I digress, the fact is there is no scientifically proven natural law, or divine law stating that people are entitled to earnings without working. When I refer to natural law I mean actual natural laws, not theories or widely accepted beliefs among “experts.” For example, entropy is a natural law.

When it comes to man’s laws, they are only as authoritative as there is force to back them, but no law of man can affect the laws of nature, or the laws of God.  Therefore, the existence of any given human law does not automatically make that law morally or pragmatically sound.  Institutionalized theft is still theft, and it is still immoral.

The impetus behind welfare is not charity or moral outrage, it is a two pronged attack on economic freedom by those who wish to have something without having earned it, and by government elites who are trying to push a socio-economic agenda.

The Purpose of Welfare:

Welfare is nothing more than a state sponsored dysgenics program.  There is not one iota of evidence that welfare is something the Founding Fathers intended, or that it is necessary, or that it is having a positive impact on poverty. 

If the Founding Fathers intended for such an institution as welfare to exist then they would have established it immediately.  The fact that they did not is quite telling.  In fact, no one believed that such a thing as welfare was Constitutional or American until the 20th century after it was already established.  People were hoodwinked into accepting a socialist program.

Since welfare was established the amount of people on welfare and the sheer numbers of poor people in the country has skyrocketed:

For a program which was ostensibly established to get people back on their feet it has failed miserably, in fact, it has done the opposite of the ostensibly intended affect.  This is why I believe that the purpose of welfare is something other than helping people get out of poverty.  To the rational person with an average or above average level IQ it should be obvious that when a behavior is incentivised the end result will be a net increase in that behavior.  To put it simply, if you pay people to not work then they will continue to not work, if you increase their not-working pay when they have additional children then they will have more children.  The result is that there are ever increasing numbers of non-working people who exist off of the state.

The issue is further compounded by immigration, specifically unskilled third world immigration.

Thirteen years after Congress overhauled the American welfare system, 57 percent of immigrants with children &#151 those in the country legally or not &#151 use at least one government, welfare program according to a report released Tuesday by the Center for Immigration Studies.

In comparison, 39 percent of native-born Americans with children are signed up for welfare, the report found.

In Texas, 54 percent of legal immigrants and 70 percent of illegal immigrants receive welfare assistance, with illegal immigrants generally receiving benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children, according to the study, written by a think tank that favors reducing immigration into the U.S.

Source: Houston Chronicle  http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/04/study-70-of-texas-illegal-immigrant-families-receive-welfare/

Why are we allowing the country to be flooded with so many unskilled immigrants when there is already a good portion of citizens who are perpetually out of work?  When it comes to illegal aliens, and arguments about whether or not they have a right to be here, one often hears the argument, “we need them because they work all the jobs that white people don’t want to.”  The fact that we have so many citizens, white, black, whatever, who are not working is a testament to the fact that we do not need hordes of unskilled immigrants each year, and whether or not they want to do the work is immaterial.  If their welfare is cut off and they begin to starve then working on a farm or construction site all of a sudden begins to look good.  Immigration should be cut absolutely, except in cases of high need, and welfare should be cut at the same time.  Those welfare people can then work on the farms and constructions sites, or they can become janitors, fast food workers, warehouse workers, dock workers, etc.  With the government no longer incentivising their lifestyle they will have less children, because they will not want to bring more beings into the world than they can support on their own, and our socio-economic system will gradually return to a more balanced state.

But of course this is not what the government wishes to do, especially not left wing politicians.  On the one hand they want to continue welfare, and on the other they want to flood the country with unskilled immigrants and allow them to drain from the system as well.  The effect is that we have growing numbers of people with low-IQ.  The left is notorious for it’s preference for cultivating masses of people with low-IQ’s.  They want to have masses of low IQ individuals who will accept whatever they say or do without questioning.  What they want is to be able to tell people a dog is a duck, and have the masses repeat “it’s a duck…” like a droning crowd of mindless zombies. 

For the time being the left wing leadership insists that these people are entitled to earnings which they did not work for, and that they have a right to be in the US, but as their numbers grow then the system must eventually break.  The expenditures necessary to support these people will greatly exceed tax revenues, and the GDP.  The end result will be a collapse, which will probably take the form of a communist style revolution, with the left wing leadership carefully inserting themselves as benefactors and leaders of the revolution.  At that point the welfare will stop, but the government will have fully established a command economy where private production and ownership of property no longer exist.  The amount of low-IQ people will greatly surpass that of intelligent people, so the intelligent people who are not party members will become increasingly irrelevant, and if they complain they will be silenced one way or another.

The man of low IQ is less likely to question the authority structure, and less likely to recognize when depredations are being worked on him or on those around him.  If the authorities tell the low-IQ masses that they are better off under the new conditions then the masses will believe them.  The intelligent man is more capable of independent thought, and is less likely to view those in the authority structure as inherently superior.  As a result he is more likely to question both the actions of the authority structure and the legitimacy of the authority structure, which is why in the long run intelligent people will not be allowed to exist outside of the authority structure. 

Nothing I have said here so far should be a shocking revelation, neither is it anything new.  These ideas, and concepts have been around since at least the 4th century BC, where ideas which sound as though they were taken directly from George Orwell’s “1984″ or the “Communist Manifesto” were penned by the Chinese statesman Shang Yang:

Sophistry and cleverness are an aid to lawlessness; rites and music are symptoms of dissipations and licence; kindness and benevolence are the foster-mother of transgressions; employment and promotion of opportunities for the rapacity of the wicked.

(Shang p. 167)

A weak people means a strong state and a strong state means a weak people.

(Shang p. 222)

The motives of the left wing leadership are inherently tyrannical, and geared entirely towards establishing permanent rule.  That is how it has always been throughout history, and that is why the execution of intelligent people is a common theme throughout every single communist regime.  The only people a tyrannical regime has to be nice to are it’s military.  If the country is populated by low-IQ persons then they will accept as good whatever the regime tells them is good. 

The agenda of the left wing leadership and the type of society it will culminate in is best lined out in George Orwell’s book “1984.”

The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake.  We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested only in power.  Not wealth or luxary or long life or happiness: only power, pure power.  What pure power means you will understand presently.  We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing.  All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites.  The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives.  They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal.  We are not like that.  We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.  Power is not a means, it is an end.  One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish a dictatorship.

(Orwell, p. 302)

Although 1984 is fiction, we can see that it is based in historical fact. If one steps back and objectively examines the effects of left wing policies, not the stated purposes and goals, but the actual effects, then it becomes obvious what sort of socio-economic structure is on the horizon.  All of this madness that is going on now has to be stopped. 

I have had liberals tell me that if we cut off the welfare these people will riot and come after us.  I do not believe that they will.  People of low IQ do not originate revolutions, and if they get stirred up over something then it is their own neighborhoods which bear the brunt of their wrath.  Without direction they are only dangerous in the places where they live.  But, for the sake of argument, suppose they do decide to spread out from their areas to loot and kill?  That’s why we have police with guns, and we as citizens are also allowed to have guns.  If you are worried, get some guns, stockpile some bullets, and shoot at them from the windows of your house when they come.  But again, I do not believe it will come to that.  Worst case scenario they will wreck their own neighborhoods, and after the initial spasm we can work on returning to the age of private charities, and we can establish better trade schools for these people. 

This is a comment I saw on a yahoo news article, but it was so good I decided to repost it here:

So apparently the liberal media is calling Sarah Palin racist because of a comment she made on her facebook page pertaining to Obama’s incompetence regarding the Libya situation, where they attacked our Ambassador to commemorate 9/11. 

“Why the lies? Why the cover up? Why the dissembling about the cause of the murder of our ambassador on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attacks on American soil? We deserve answers to this. President Obama’s shuck and jive shtick with these Benghazi lies must end,” Palin wrote.

They are saying it’s racially charged and is a reference to his blackness.  So let me say this to the liberals, and I know 99% of you guys won’t listen or believe, but I am going to say this anyways.  WE DON’T CARE ABOUT RACE NEARLY HALF AS MUCH AS YOU DO.  I cannot over-emphasize that.  The reason why we don’t talk about it as much, or are as “sensitive” as you are, is because we don’t care about it or think about it nearly as much.  I’m not going to lie and say that there are no racist conservatives, there are, just like there are plenty on your side as well, but on average race is on our minds far less than it is on yours.

To all my people/fellow conservatives.  It’s long past time we stopped caring whether or not liberals think we are racist.  Who cares?  They use it so much it’s meaningless.  They are all steam and no substance, so let them blow their steam and eventually they will run out of that.  Stop letting them trick you into taking a defensive position when you don’t have to. 

I also made a vlog on this:

Article complaining about Palin, poor babies with hurt feelings: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/palin-accuses-obama-shuck-jive-schtick-212555554–politics.html

I have to say, the more Obama talks, the less I like him.  I have never seen a politician more fake than this man, or even a human being for that matter.  Everything he says is either insincere or poorly stated, but mostly insincere.  It seems like every time he says “the American people” he chokes a little.  Just watch him.  He has a hard time getting it out.

Obama and his followers, as well as the media sycophants, continually attack Romney for his 47% comment, but that comment was 100% correct.

All Romney did was call attention to the elephant in the room which everyone knew was already there.  Of course Obama is saying that he is the president of all of America, and that he cares about everyone, but that comment is blatantly false.  The truth is Obama has done nothing at all to connect with the most iconic group in the US, which is the traditional American.  He’s all about class conflict, race baiting, and world pleasing.  He knows that the traditional American is not going to vote for him, so he makes no effort to reach us, and the positions he takes on many issues are such that preclude any chance of garnering our support or sympathy.

His “Wake the F*** up” commercial with Samuel L. Jackson is a prime example of the disconnect between him and us.  In that commercial he presents a false view of welfare recipients, and he makes the claim that Romney is against unions, “gay marriage” and that he wants to cut welfare.  If that is true then God bless Romney.  Am I really supposed to identify with his support of homosexuality, unions, and parasitism/welfare?  None of those are causes that traditional Americans can identify with.  This is another elephant in the room, just like Romney’s 47%.  We know it and Obama knows it.  Also, since when is it not vulgur to use the F-bomb in a political ad.  What sort of people is Obama trying to campaign to here?  Is that supposed to be clever and gimmicky?

Also, I know what Obama thinks about me and others like me:

“And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Obama said back in 2008.

No I will not let that statement go, because it’s a statement of his position, and it shows how he disdains the traditional American.  Tell you what Obama, we will keep our guns, our religion, our money, and our freedom, and you can keep the change. 

It’s an insult that a man like this says that he is everyone’s president, when clearly he represents a set of interests that the traditional American cannot identify with.  I don’t want anything his man has to offer.  I don’t want more gun regulations, more taxes, more government involvement in my life, more government involvement in education, welfare, planned parenthood, treaties with the UN, military reduction, and I sure as shamrocks do not trust Russia.  This man has his prioties backwards.

I especially do not care for his economic plans (which are tax and spend), or the class warfare he advocates.  He talks about the wealthy paying their “fair share,” when the top 5% is already paying over 50% of the taxes.  This man has a skewed idea of fair.  Actually, he does not care for fair at all, he hates achievment, and he wants to punish it.  He talks about Romney’s financial success and his running a business as if it were a bad thing, but that’s a good thing, because it actually shows that he knows how to generate money and how to manage it.  If Obama had some experience in that area then the Federal deficit would not be what it is.  As I have stated before, I want to keep my job.  To me job security is more important than a socialist “safety net” which I would never use anyways on moral grounds.  If my employer goes under than so do I, and in fact many small businesses will go under if the government interferes with their ability to meet operational costs, which is what Obama plans to do with his higher taxes.  Also, raising taxes does no good whatsoever if spending is also raised.  All that will do is open the hole in a leaky boat even wider.

The other day I was complaining to my dad about how I lose about $400 a month in taxes, mostly Federal but some state.  That was when my dad told me that he loses $5000 a month to taxes, and Obama wants to raise that amount.  Why would I want taxes raised on an family member, especially my parents?  It’s ridiculous, but Obama is always making comments about how the wealthy should pay more because they have more, and trying to portray them as greedy and somehow less virtuous than everyone else, and with a different set of interests.  That’s my family Obama is talking about, and they give more in to charity than the average person makes in a year.  My dad was audited once because some dolt in the IRS could not believe how much money he gave to charity that year.  The fool there was simply incredulous, because the average liberal and government worker cannot conceive of voluntay giving on such a scale.  What they like is government giving, which involves taking money out of one persons hands and putting it into anothers.

So basically Obama is taking the stance of those “occupy” crackheads.  He wants to appeal to the entitlement and freeloader mentalities.  Usually people are wealthy because they are smarter than the average person and harder working.  If you want to go to work 10 hours a day and be on call during the weekends, and do everything you can for your employer as if it were a personal project and a matter of personal pride then you might just become wealthy.  The class warfare does not appeal to me at all, and I find it much easier to identify with the wealth creators than I do with either the government or the perpetual welfare recipients. 

Earlier today I read that Native American activist Russel Means has passed away.  I make no personal judgments on that man at this time, but I would like to take the opportunity to thoroughly state my position on Native American nationalism.  In many of my debates liberals have mentioned Native Americans, as if saying “Native Americans” were some kind of trump card.  Each and every time I have suprised them with my position, so here it is in full detail.

I thoroughly support Native American nationalism.  Any conservative who respects the philosophical basis upon which the US was founded should also support Native American nationalism.  Why?  The driving force behind the American Revolution was the belief that different people groups had the right to rule themselves and to determine their own fate.  The fact is that the American colonists and the English had become separate peoples.  The idea that people groups have the right to self-determinism and to govern themselves does not stop with just the American colonists separating from England, but it applies to all people and it was stated accordingly in the Declaration of Independence. 

I believe that different peoples have the right to form their own political boundaries, and appoint rulers for themselves which come from their own group.  If a Mexican living in the US gets tired of being ruled by white people, speaking English, and having to be around white people he can always go back to Mexico and be surrounded by his own people.  If a Native American is tired of being ruled by white people, having to obey their laws, having to speak English, or even having to look at them what can he do?  Nothing.  He has nowhere to go.  As it stands now he has the choice of being ruled by anyone but his own people.  Native Americans should have the same options that Mexicans and almost every other people group on the planet has.  If they don’t want to be ruled by Washington, they should not have to be, and I think that is a sentiment that many traditional white conservatives can agree with because many of us feel the same way about ourselves.  Let us also extend that same respect to others.

Here is what I would like to see happen/what should happen.  Every Native American tribe should receive their own fully autonomous country.  There should be a homeland for each tribe because each tribe is a separate people.  I do not advocate vacating the entire US in order to abandon all the land to the Native Americans, especially given that their total number is less than 1% of the US population.  To even attempt to do so would be a logistical nightmare which would create more problems than it would solve.  Land should be parceled off to each Native American group in the area of their original homelands, and in reasonable proportion to their numbers.  For example, part of Georgia would be parceled off to the Creek.

Once this is done all the Native Americans would be given the choice to either remain in the US or move to their fully autonomous homelands.  If they move to their own homelands then they are no longer US citizens, which means they will have their own passports, elect their own leaders rather than vote in US elections, make their own laws, and they will not have to obey any US laws.  They will be fully autonomous and independent nations.  If any choose to remain in the US then they will be treated just like everyone else, which means that they can still vote in US elections, but there will be no more special status for them.  They will receive no special scholarships from the government or affirmative action just for being Native American.

I am a 100% European white male, I have nothing to gain personally from Native American independence, but I advocate what I advocate as a matter of principle.

That being said, let us also take a moment to examine why and how the Native Americans lost their land.  I want to get away from villifying white people.  I absolutely abhor the concept of white guilt, and in fact I spit on it.  The idea that white people are mean spirited bullies who came to pick on Native Americans and take their land because they are inherently racist is an idea that needs to be destroyed.  First of all, holding people responsible for something that you THINK their ancestors might have done is throughly asenine.  No one can help what their ancestors may or may not have done, and what is in the past is already in the past.  In fact, most of our ancestors came to the US after it was already established. 

Furthermore, the land was not taken from the Native Americans in one fell swoop.  There was never a day when white people woke up and said, “Let’s take all the land from the natives because we’re racist.”  No.  The land was taken a bit at a time, and it was actually parceled off by the US government.  The government was the driving force behind the land grab.  Part of the problem was that many Native Americans did not understand the concept of land ownership, especially the plains peoples, so many of them sat back and allowed the land to be taken, and the white people did not feel bad about taking it for those reasons. 

Let’s say that Bob walks out into a field and finds Roy standing there.  A large watermelon is growing in the wild next to Roy.  Bob says, “Is that your watermelon,” and Roy says “no.” Bob says, “whose watermelon is it?” and Roy responds by saying “It’s no one’s.”  So then Bob asks if Roy would mind if he takes it, and Roy says no.  Does Roy have a valid reason for getting mad at Bob if Bob takes the whole watermelon?  Of course that is an oversimplification for illustration purposes, but everything factors in. 

Another factor was that many Native Americans sided with the English during the American Revolution.  That was of course a tactical error on the part of those groups, and certainly not all Native Americans should have been punished for it, but again, everything factors in.

The Native Americans had America for thousands of years, and they did nothing with it, so they got beat out by another people group which was more inventive and industrious, but they were not beaten out of spite but rather attrition over a long period of time.  Furthermore, I believe that the creation of the US was a good thing, and it is a fact that white people have brought the world electricity, computers, internet, telephones, cars, and TV’s. 

I cannot believe that most Native Americans would like to return to the standard of living of their pre-colonial ancestors, but what is in the past is in the past, and if they want to have their own countries and their autonomy today, then they have a right to it.  The fact that after all this time being ruled by us they have remained as separate peoples gives them the right to have their own countries.  Everyone has the right to exist as a people, and to govern themselves as they please. 

I am not talking about holding white people responsible as a race for something that happened in the past, or even holding the current US government responsible for what happened in the past (even though they were the primary culprit).  What we can do, and must do, is hold the US government responsible for a failure to do the right thing now, in the present. 

I have a question, what is it about Obama that makes people lay down in mud puddles so that he can walk over them instead of getting his feet wet? 

We have Hillary who has taken full blame for what happened in Libya.  Hillary has killed her career so that this man could look like less of a bumbler in the next election.  Of course, he still looks like a bumbler, but some people will absolve him because of her.  During the Democratic primary she also gave up her bid for this man and switched to join his camp.  What is it?

What is it that caused Judge Roberts to switch sides and allow Obamacare to remain?  What did Obama have on this man?  Or what did Obama do for him?  Roberts didn’t need to be re-elected, why didn’t he stand up to Obama?

Why is the media campaigning so hard to get this man re-elected?  The liberal media of today is every tyrants wet dream.  Most of the time tyrants have to coerce the media into running their propaganda, but the mainstream media does it in the US for absolutely nothing.  It’s shocking, and absolutely disgusting.

They have done nothing but try to influence the election in his favor.  They will not say a single bad thing about Obama, they will not talk about how his policies have effected the economy.  They will not talk about how his policies are making the country weaker both militarily and economically. Romney trounced Obama in the last debate.  The only way the smack down could have been more complete was if Romney bent him over his knee and literally spanked him.  He had an answer for everything that man said, and he penned him to his record.  Obama got trounced, how can the media turn around and say it’s a win for Obama?

What is it about this man that causes people to literally worship him?

Yes, I mean worship.

It is one of the most disgusting things I have ever seen.

Listen, this man is the biggest hypocrite ever to enter politics.  How is he going to tell us what sort of healthcare we should have when he is clearly not qualified to make intelligent decisions about health.  Yes, I’m talking about his smoking.  If a Republican were trying to pass health care reform and he were a smoker then the liberal media would chew him up and spit him out.  Why is there no talk about Obama’s smoking?  Also, if Obamacare is so good then all these forsaken politicians should be the first to sign up, but they exempt themselves.  Why? 

Also, I don’t want to be lectured by fiscal or personal responsibility by the king of wasteful spending.  In the real world people with poor credit are discriminated against.  Why should Obama be an exception?  These are the questions I want answered.  What is so great about this man? 

I can’t understand this kind of loyalty that goes beyond all sense. 

According to the polls I have been seeing it looks like this is going to be a close race.  To me it’s unbelievable that this can even be close.  It’s simply unbelievable.  Obama is he greatest human disaster ever to hit the US.  I’m going to break this down as simple as possible.

Are you better off after four years of Obama?  Think about it:

I know I’m not.  I’m earning about $5000 less in net income than I was in 2007 and I don’t have medical.  But forget about me.  Are things better overall after four years of Obama?  Is anyone better off after four years?  Given the facts I don’t see how anyone can want for more years of this man. 

I used to think that Obama was the greatest stumbling dolt ever to go into politics in the US and possibly in the world, but lately I have come to see him as a saboteur. This man is doing everything he can to damage and weaken the US.

John P. Holdren, the director for the White House Office of Science and Technology has stated on the record that he wants to de-devlop America. 

“A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States,” Holdren wrote along with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich in the “recommendations” concluding their 1973 book Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.

These people are thoroughly contemptuous of the United States.  Listen, one of the first things Obama did after he got elected was cancel the Constellation program.  This goes to show where science, progress, and the future of the United States fits on his priority list.  He has thwarted every attempt to gain energy independence.  He cuts our military while giving aid to our enemies.  To support this man you must either hate America or you must be wilfully woefully ignorant.  There is no other option, it’s either one or the other. 

I am not an evolutionist, but if Obama wins I am going to become a supporter of Eugenics.  If Obama wins this time after four years of this garbage then a strong and profound case is made for Eugenics.  There is no way around that.  The fact is this man, like every other left wing totalitarian tyrant, requires masses of stupid people to flourish.  That is not anything new.  Emperor Chin, the first Emperor of unified China, also relied heavily on mass ignorance.  He was one of the first autocrats, possibly the first, to carry out both a book burning and a purge of scholars.  He did it because he had an advisor who told him that intelligent people are more likely to rebel against totalitarian rulers.  If you ever read the book of Lord Shang you can see how it is essentially the BC version of “1984″ in terms of MO and reccomendations. 

But purges of intelligent people and limiting access to knowledge are common all throughout history.  They did it in China, they did it in the USSR, they did it in Cambodia, they did it in North Korea.  There are two ways of doing it, one is to kill people out right, and another way is to use dysgenics.

Lisen, I’m not trying to be condescending here, but this is an important message that everyone needs to understand.  The purpose of welfare is not to help anyone, it is nothing more than a two pronged attack on America.  There are generations of people on welfare, and rather than breaking out of poverty they stay in it for generations and multiply.  If you incentivise a behavior you will get more of it.  Incentivise success and you get more success, incentivise failure and you get more failure.  The Democrats use welfare to both buy votes and to increase the numbers in that particular voting bloc.  They also bring in masses of unskilled workers from 3rd world countries to increase their voting bloc.  The result is a net increase in unintelligent or less intelligent voters.  Again, I’m not trying to be condescending but I cannot think of any gentle way of putting this.  If Obama wins the case for Eugenics is made.  It’s made.

Anyone who is older than me and even semi-aware will say that the ideological difference between Republicans and Democats has grown into a yawning chasm.  The difference did not used to be so profound, ever in history, and this is taking into account the fact that the Republican party has been appropriated by neo-cons.  Why is this happening?

I was born in 1981, and since then I have noticed a vast change both in the ideological separation of the parties and their constituincies, and the campaign methods used, as well as campaign methodologies.  Obamaphone!?  “Wake the f*** up!”?  Get serious.  What is this?  Middle school?  I have never seen such a vast bloc of ignorant and dependence minded people before.  The amount of people on welfare and government assistance has skyrocketed.  Back in the 80′s it was about one third (still too much), and now it is nearly half.  The immigration and welfare policies have really caused this bloc of people to grow between now and then.  In another 30 years the US may no longer even be recognizable if these policies continue.

If Obama wins, you can probably forget about having any more elections after that.  There may be elections, but if he wins he is going to cut loose without limit because it will be his second term, and he will bring in so many immigrants from Mexico that our votes simply will not be able to overcome them.  If the immigration from Mexico ever slows down he will flood us with immigrants from Africa and the Islamic world.  He will do it.  Another four years of Obama and you may as well forget about going to the ballot after that.  Forget about it, because your vote will make no difference. 

Think about it.

I have been debating with Obama supporters for some time online, mostly on news articles, and I have come to the conclusion that sometimes I use too many big words for them.  So I am going to break this down as simply as possible, and use pictures so that no one will get lost.  Of course I do not expect to persuade any Obama supporters, but what I can do is make everyone aware of what exactly they are voting for. 

I have been hearing lots of talk about raising taxes on the rich, as if it were a magic wand that will magically cure all of the financial problems and create jobs.  So let us take a moment to step back and look at how this actually works.  This is going to be a lesson in real life, plain and simple.  I will try to keep the big words and ideological catch phrases to a minimum.

There are three types of people concerned here, the employer, the employed, and the unemployed.  They will be represented as follows:

Under the best of circumstances the amount of unemployed people is low, but there are still always those who are unemployed.

This picture represents where people are in the economy:

The group on the left is a large business/corporation, the group in the middle represents people who are unemployed for any reason, whether they lost their job, never had one, or are freshly out of college, and the group on the right represents a small business.  The goal of the people in the center SHOULD be to join the group on the right or the left, or if any of them are smart enough, to do something really good that people will pay them for so that they can get more work and more work until they have so much work that they need others to help them do it (which means they can hire people).  So basically they want to change their color to blue or red, but most people don’t have what it takes to be red so they will become blue.

Now let’s say there are too many people in the middle section.  Why is that?  The economy is poor so hiring slows.  How do we fix it?  Along comes a politician and says that lot’s of people are suffering, and he says that the red guys are not paying their “fair share” and he correctly points out that they have a higher standard of living than the blue guys and black guys.  He says that he can take a lot more money from the red guys before they are hurt on a personal level, and that by redistributing it to black guys, and a few of the lower income blue guys, then he can reduce the amount of guys in black.

So here it comes, the Good Ship Government to take some more money:

While he’s at it, he is also going to take some money from some of the blue guys who make higher salaries, but not as much.  When this happens, some of the people in blue and black cheer, because they think the guys in red and the higher paid blue guys are undeserving, and that they should have their money taken away from them.  This is what those guys get for being greedy. 

While I’m at it, let me put myself in the picture.  You can put yourself in the picture wherever you fall, but there is me, a middle manager for a small business.

So here we are, the government is sucking out money from these high earning guys, and some of the low income and unemployed guys are cheering.  If you stare at it long enough you can almost hear the sucking sound of money going into G.  Of course my taxes have not gone up, and in fact they may even be cut.  Some of the lower earning people are getting tax cuts, some may even be getting extra money from the government, and all the men in black are getting money from the government.  The solid pink lines represent money flowing out of the government to people:

What happens next? Well, the employers now have less money in their hands, which means that they cannot afford to spend as much money as they used to spend, which means that they cannot afford to have all the employees they used to have.   They may cut expenditures in other ways, and perhaps raise the price of their services, but some people are going to have their paychecks or their jobs cut.

The big business will downsize, but it will probably still survive, and the people who were laid off can now receive money from the government, but it will not match what they previously made.

For the small business things will be worse.  The small business owner now has less money to pay the costs of running the business, and to pay his employees.  Of course losing a single employee is a much bigger loss for the small business, so the owner is faced with three choices:

1) He can retire, since his business is no longer generating revenue then the most he can expect out of trying to continue is to end up becoming personally bankrupt.

2) He can go try to work for a big business.  Since he has above average skills and intellect to begin with he is more likely to get a position than a fresh college grad or someone trying to enter a different field of employment.

3) He can leave the country and take everything he has left.

But whichever he opts for, the effect on his employees is still the same:

So now I’m out of a job, and so is everyone else. At that point do I care about whether or not I got a tax cut? Not really. Am I glad to be eligible for welfare, foodstamps, or state run medical care? Not really.  Am I better off? Not really. Is anyone? Not really.

So here is what it looks like now:

Rather than stimulating the economy there are now a good deal more people unemployed and on welfare, or at least eligible for it. The government now has more people to support, but less money to do it with, which means that things will only get worse rather than better. People who are unemployed now have more people to compete with for an even more limited supply of jobs.  This is why conservatives are saying that socialism is trickle up poverty.   

I hope everyone can understand this, and I hope that I have made this simple enough. A vote for Obama is a vote for unemployment.  

I agree with this man 100%

I have been thinking about Obama vs. Romney, and how the liberals and their media are feeling shocked and let down by Obama’s performance.  Obama had nothing to say other than his talking points, and he could not answer any of the challenges that were put to him.  Whenever Romney pointed out the poor achievements of his record he hung his head, and to me it looked like he was hanging his head in shame.  I almost felt sorry for him, ALMOST being the operative word here.