President Obama wants "sacrifice" from citizens to create a "healthy economy". That is what ABC Radio told me.
What President Obama does not understand is that a successful economic environment is not created by people sacrificing, as if there is some fiscal Volcano god waiting in the ground about to grant prosperity.
Economics is about choice, interaction, purchases, and the movement of capital.
An economy is made healthy not through sacrifice but investment, willful and deliberate spending (which is an exchange of capital for a product or service, which for businesses is often just more capital), risk, and return. People invest in things when they expect some sort of benefit at the end of the effort. They do this believing that after the series of expected events they will earn a profit directly as a result of their own respective intentions and actions. Most of them, but not all, understand that actions which could produce a great profit are also the ones with the greatest potential to lose their investment capital. People only work for something in this field when they expect something back! The losses are, for educated investors, par for the course! The losses usually occur because someone else's investment in a different product, industry, or service, was fruitful. Because of these investments and purchases people who are employees get paid and spend money/capital on services and products, which in turn allows other people to get paid as they traded time/capital and effort/capital to create these products (which sometimes are services).
These are all simple ideas.
"Sacrifice", except in the case of Old Covenant (Old Testament) Christian theology and Jewish theology (as well as the cosmological and theological viewpoints of some other religions) is where one eliminates something of his or her own that is valuable in exchange for nothing, for the purposes of some greater good. Secular sacrifice tends to be for nationalist or patriotic purposes, and in that case it is usually in exchange for national and/or civil defense against a hostile enemy, which in that case sacrifice leads to a direct and logical result. The important thing about "logical results", which makes them logical, is that they are linear and can be explained later in a direct and deliberate fashion, linking one action, a cause, to an effect. The Bible links blood sacrifice to forgiveness if sin(s), as a cleansing ritual. This is explained as a how, if not a why. During the great wars of the first half of the 20th Century it was explained how war bonds and scrap drives, various rations led to supplying military forces for the direct purpose of fighting American enemies such as the Second and Third Reich, the Japanese Empire, and just overall the Central Powers from 1913-1919 and the Axis during the forties.
The "sacrifice" that the President asks for today is something he asks for in an environment, a nature where sacrifice has never brought anything. Sacrifice is antithetical to any economic or fiscal principle I have ever read or heard. Every economist I put any stock in has insisted that people take part in an economy for the sake of self-benefit. There are those who insist on concepts of "fairness" and "social justice" and a lot of math-men who have been working for decades, literally, to create a formula that would incite maximum reward from various investments with a minimum risk of losing the investment. The people who work hardest to create products and services that people wish to purchase do not work that hard for strangers; they work that hard so that people will purchase their products and/or services. The people who purchase these wish to purchase the best; they have little interest in wasting the products (the paycheck) of their own investment of time and energy (work) on something that will not satisfy them. The concept of "sacrifice" for a secular system of currency-exchange is an anathema to these people; especially since most of them do not think of any of this at all and simply wish to get the most benefit they can muster for all of the hard work they put in to the whole deal.
When people suddenly understand that "sacrifice" means "work for nothing" and God is not involved then suddenly they stop working and what happens to the products and the quality thereof after that?
This whole focus on "sacrifice" of the citizens in order to get a non-sacrificial system of citizen participation is only part of why we are in trouble, but it is indicative of how we will get into further trouble. Remember, when we will not willingly sacrifice when we are asked to, we will be made to sacrifice. Beyond that we will be sacrificed.
There will be a volcano god, I am sure. Whether it involves literal volcano or a metaphorical one I am not entirely certain but I believe the literal volcano might end up being a more pleasant end given what I have learned of government.
Third Annual MSU Israeli Film Festival (Movie / Film)
1:00 p.m. Sisai: Filmed in Israel and Ethiopia this film follows a young man's emotional journey in search of identity, heritage and love. 3:00 p.m. Israel- Our home?: Reveals opinions, experiences and lifestyles of Israelis from the former Soviet Union. 4:15 p.m. I'm a 2007 Haredi: Reveals opinions, experiences and lifestyles of a variety of members of Israel's ultra- orthodox Haredi community. 5:30 p.m. Dinner available for purchase onsite. Catered by Woody's Oasis Mediterranean Deli. 7:00 p.m. Praying In Her Own Voice: The struggle of a religious women's group and their movement for the right to pray at Judaism's holiest site. more information...
Dr. Bob Basso is Thomas Paine in this wonderful internet meme. Listen. Get angry. Get inspired.
Jerry Doyle tells me/us that the President of the United States is "disturbed" (the President's own words) by Dr. Basso's actions and statements and believes that President Obama will and is attempting to intimidate the Doctor, a private citizen, away from his own First Amendment rights! I believe it. I'll write more on that in May, assuming there is a May.
I agree with almost everything in this video and insist that we carry out almost all of it, with some exceptions.
I am generally against term limits and only accept them where they are Constitutional. As a pragmatist, however, it may be the only way to pry some of these power-hungry demagogues away from their seats, yet the idea of not letting the people choose their representatives, however poor the choice, still rankles me.
Dr. Basso speaks of the Electoral College as some sort of violation of tradition, tearing away from the American spirit yet not only is the Electoral College Constitutional, it is an original part of the Constitution. Our Founding Fathers included it in our Highest Law, as part of the highest law of the land, because they envisioned a system where our popular vote could not be the method of choosing our President, lest the candidates only take it upon themselves to visit population centers in their respective campaigns. We should keep the Electoral College, if for no other reason than it is only a PR statement that a "majority of people's votes" is an accurate reflection of national will.
I think compulsory military service is wrong, for the most part, because a professional army of the most deliberate and willful volunteers/mercenaries is the more enthusiastic fighting force and generally makes for the smartest, most intelligent, best-trained, and well-taught soldiers. The alternative is a group that serves their country out of duty and is without a doubt well-trained, but a group that lacks the fervor as they are conscripted and mildly resentful. To some extent they would be federal slaves. On the other hand some situations require a larger army in a pinch and if that situation came upon us, I would quickly enlist in the Navy rather than risk getting sent to the desert.
Compulsory civilian service smells contrary to the American dream, and runs contrary to American spirit.
Congressional pensions are way too high. We should not cut them for the sake of saving money; we need to cut them as a cultural move to make Congressional service more of a service role and less of a plush job with lifelong rewards. Some of these people screw up the country. I am looking at you Representative Frank! That fink Frank could get ousted in November 2010 and would continue to make the same annual income for the rest of his days.
Mark Schauer is a fake Moderate and real leftist. He is one of those genuine Progressive nanny-state politicians and I tell you he is not in Washington to represent you, but to "care" for you, regardless of what you think, feel, want, desire, and value.
Let us send this Arch-Democrat (and lawbreaker, but more on that later) some signs of our displeasure!
Do as Dr. Bob Basso recommends and mail this guy some teabags!
There is a third major religion in India, I suppose it is prominent, in my own mind it is, the Sikhs. A website exists subtitled "information on the Sikh Nation"
These sources and readings were for a HST (history) course on India for Michigan State University. The Sourcebook was hosted by Fordham University. The Mughals are a sect/sort of Indian Muslims, a branch of Islam located in India, I suppose it is most proper to say.
I recall hearing the Treasury Secretary speak of "ending risk" on the radio
Tim Geithner asserted, as I recall, that his overall goal is to end or minimize risk in economic dealings from now forward, through the use of government regulation.
All that really means to me is that he wishes to have government determine what is acceptable level of reward, and to regulate reward, as I take literally the axioms about greater rewards demanding greater risks, and greater risks being what determines how great the reward.
"Don't Give Up" I heard you say you would love for a lifetime Now you complain a lifetime just doesn't feel right for you Another casualty of casual love Another soul out of place, a heart that gave up Why do we break the promises we make? Are we living for ourselves? [Chorus:] Don't give up on love and throw it all away Don't give up on love and let it fall away When did it become so easy to run from your pain Don't give up on love and throw it all away I heard you say you can't change a stubborn heart I can relate 'cause that's how I feel when I talk with you Why should it take losing everything to realize it might be time to change? [Chorus:] Your restless heart won't win 'cause you take but you don't give And you'll keep moving on until you learn what love is Don't give up on love and throw it all away Don't give up on love and let it fall away Don't give up on love
[Thanks to Blake Richardson (richardson_pv@comcast.net) for these lyrics] [ www.azlyrics.com ]
It's very catchy and very singable on the radio.
I think it appeals to a sense of stubbornness and even pragmatism, if you have the wisdom for it.
I give you my post for Monday, March 23. Now go away.
The governmental fools spent our cash to save the nation's largest insurance company. So we own it. But since the law that spent our money to save a corporate batch of idiots maintained some old contracts that let the idiots get free multi-million-dollar rewards. The idiots get rewarded by the government for failure. The government allowed it. Since the government probably should not be carrying this responsibility (but it does) I would let it go. The biggest reason to let it go is that the bonuses are legal and the loan to save the company was in the so much billions that the bonuses are not even 1/10 of 1% of the loan.
The fact is the President and the Congress have spent about a trillion dollars in the last 9 weeks or so. They are wasting precious time and government resources making virulent declarations about mere millions of dollars. In terms of public policy concerns this just hacks me off. If the President of the United States prioritizes like this, why should I take him seriously? His authority and power demand my attention but his office demands my respect. His actions and declarations, however, concern me because he is targetting individuals because of Chris Dodd's lack of attention.
Then Barbara Boxer talks about "the corporate culture". Whether these sales vultures earn the money or not, whether the money should exist under AIG auspices or not, are not items up for discussion in a smart world. The federal legislature is not a smart world. The fact is these sales vultures deserve the money not because they earned it but because it is in their contracts. If Congress drafts laws to nullify individuals' contracts, individual contracts, by name, is this not a great threat to liberty?
Never mind that, Barney Frank is using federal energy, resources, to hunt the most dangerous game: men in ties!
This is like spending 90 days to clean a thimble when your home is being threatened with foreclosure in 100 days!
A Special Message From Mike Huckabee To members of Vertical Politics Institute
The following is taken from a Facebook mass message. I use it without permission.
President Obama Reverses Course On Stem Cell Research
If you glanced at your newspaper on Monday morning or read your news online instead, you might have seen an innocuous headline like this "President Obama Reverses Course On Stem Cell Research." And if you didn't know much about the issue you might have moved on.
I didn't move on and I know conservatives nationwide were just as appalled as I was by the headline.
As Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said immediately afterwards, the government was "for the first time, incentivizing the destruction of human embryos at the expense of the U.S. taxpayer."
Indeed. I am enclosing below, links to two articles, I encourage you to read them and pass them on to friends and family.
ACTION ALERT - President Obama's assault on life continues
Expanding the Federal Funding of Embryonic Stem Cell Research
On March 9, President Barack Obama announced and signed an order to overturn President Bush's limits on the funding of embryonic stem cell lines. President Bush had previously limited federal spending on embryonic stem cell research to embryonic stem cell lines created before August of 2001. In his orders, President Obama will give the National Institutes of Health time to develop guidelines to decide which kinds of research they will fund and what restrictions there will be. It is likely that, at bare minimum, the NIH will fund research on embryonic stem cell lines created from human embryos who were originally created for in-vitro fertilization. Some scientists desire that embryonic stem cell lines created from human embryos who were created for research also receive funding.
During his announcement, President Obama took no position on the Dickey Amendment. This amendment has prevented federal funds from going toward research into the creation of human embryos and the killing of human embryos since 1996. Some members of Congress have talked openly about attempting to repeal this amendment by removing it from appropriations bills.
President Obama also said that "human cloning for reproduction" is "dangerous, profoundly wrong and has no place in our society, or any society." What President Obama didn't mention was that he signed on as a co-sponsor to S.B. 1520, the euphemistically entitled "Human Cloning Ban Act of 2005" which would have kept human cloning legal and only banned the implantation of human clones by deceptively defining "human cloning" as "implanting or attempting to implant the product of nuclear transplantation into a uterus or the functional equivalent of a uterus." Products of nuclear transplantation is a scientific term for clones.
Or, write to: The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500
Junking Conscience Protections
On March 6, President Obama's administration moved to completely rescind a rule entitled, "Ensuring That Department of Health and Human Services Funds Do Not Support Coercive or Discriminatory Policies or Practices in Violation of Federal Law." This rule was designed at the end of the Bush administration to protect the consciences of physicians and health care workers.The rule was put in place after prolife health care workers raised concerns about their conscience protections. The ethics committee of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists had issued a paper in which they called on doctors who are opposed to abortion to refer women to abortion providers, claiming that conscience protections shouldn't prevent prolife physicians from referring women to abortion providers.
Federal law has prevented discrimination against health care personnel who refuse to perform or assist in abortions but the Bush administration policy required institutions which receive federal money to certify their compliance with the laws protecting the conscience rights of health care personnel and was intended to prevent federal funds from going to hospitals and other institutions who ignore those rights.
Comments may be submitted either electronically or by regular mail:
1. Electronically. You may submit electronic comments via email to proposedrescission@hhs.gov
or by visiting the link above and clicking the add comments button.
2. By regular mail. You may mail written comments (one original and two copies) to the following address only: Office of Public Health and Science, Department of Health and Human Services, Attention: Rescission Proposal Comments, Hubert H. Humphrey Building, 200 Independence Avenue, S.W., Room 716G, Washington, DC 20201
To learn more about President Obama’s assaults on human life, visit Right to Life of Michigan at www.rtl.org and check out the Prolife Action Center.
Later I may be redundant in stating viewpoints concerning Barack Obama's slights against the British. In the meantime there is this Newsweek article about the White House replacing the Churchill bust. The point is this comment I pulled from its front page.
Posted By: ikon_o_klast @ 03/05/2009 4:37:07 PM
Lesser man? One definition of "lesser" is: "not as big or important: less significant or smaller in size or amount". Obama is certainly not the lesser of Churchill with respect to this or any other definition. It takes a real nematode to call this President of the United States anything less than brilliant. Further, it would take a right wing psuedo-intellectual skinhead to assume that President Obama disparaged Churchill based on this article. That would be both presumptuous and dumb. Perhaps this is indicative of your ability to think before you write your "lesser" tripe.
The point of ripping this idiotic paragraph is to epitomize some senseless Obama worship.
I feel silly stating that the President of the United States is targeting Michigan. For the past six or eight years Governor Jennifer Granolm blamed the economic ruin that she has transformed our state into... on the President of the United States. Back when the American economy, for the most part, was healthy, vital, whole, and growing, there were only two (or three) states that were not enjoying economic growth. There was only one state in 2005, 2006 that was not by a hurricane that underwent economic collapse. That was Michigan. Michigan was the only economically ruined state at the time. Governor Granholm never owned up to her responsibility in the damage to Michigan and its residents' lives. She always blamed the state's problems on Governor John Engler or President Bush.
It was always stupid to claim that the world or national economy was good for every state except Michigan. It was especially stupid that so many Michiganian voters believed her. They were stupid at the time in November 2006. How could President Bush target Michigan just like that?
Enough with this prefacing:
President Barack Obama's proposed cap-and-trade system on greenhouse gas emissions is a giant economic dagger aimed at the nation's heartland -- particularly Michigan. It is a multibillion-dollar tax hike on everything that Michigan does, including making things, driving cars and burning coal.
It still looks ridiculous, except that President Obama is the man with the mind that in a recession we should raise taxes. Michigan runs, when it runs, very precarious on a set of industrial output. Cap-and-trade is merely taxing. Whatever the tax dollars are spent on is not an even transformation, one that is useful in comparison to what is lost.
So as it is we have really do have a specific policy that can do harm to the citizens, taxpayers, economy in general specific to my state, among others.
I miss Paul Harvey and have trouble coping with his death. That is while I am not emotionally reeling right now, I have trouble believing he will not be delivering the news next week.
When I first heard of his death last Sunday I started to tear up on the road, emotionally overwhelmed. More on that later.
I regret to state I do not have time right now for a full and fitting obituary to this great man and conservative. I hope I can force it this week, late after my midterms.
ABC Radio has prepared a tribute to Paul Harvey, who passed away Saturday at age 90, for the radio stations which carried Harvey's "News and Comment." About 37 minutes long, the audio/radio program narrated by Gil Gross recounts Harvey's life and includes many excerpts from his newscasts and speeches he delivered, as well as some about his "The Rest of the Story."
ABC Radio News has a tribute page, with a statement from former President George W. Bush: www.abcrn.com
MP3 audio of the 37-minute "ABC News special on the life and career of Paul Harvey," check: caster.wgnradio.com
MP3 audio of the 6 minute version of the special narrated by Gil Gross on Harvey, see: caster.wgnradio.com
WGN Radio in Chicago has a page with about two dozen MP3 clips of Harvey from over the years: wgnradio.com
Unfortunately for those who followed up, I have not been capable of updating since Wednesday afternoon. Even more unfortunate is the fact that I will not be able to comment on CPAC until Wednesday evening.
This is because of midterms.
Posts between now and then will be reprints or embedded media.
(517) 432 -3493
