Author: Mrpipster58

In the worldview of the liberal left, power is best brought to an elite few in the center, and money is best disbursed out equally to the masses.

What if they are wrong? What if those two things are exactly backwards?

In the utopian worldview of the left, a wise and munificent few people do all the planning. They look out over these vast 50 states and decide—over coffee I suppose—what healthcare should look like in Pawtucket; what employment should look like in Helena; how many fish should be caught off of Crescent City; how many logs to cut from the forests of Alabama; and the hundreds—no; the thousands—no; the hundreds of millions of other decisions that have to be made—and made right—to keep a population of over 300 million prosperous, happy and running well. To quote Milton Friedman, ‘Who are these angels?” Who has the insight and ability to do that well? And who has the magnanimity to wield that power justly—and not be even tempted to use it to enrich themselves and their friends?

The fact is, that the doctors in Pawtucket are much more able to see what their Pawtucket patients need than a man in a suit a thousand miles away. The employers of Helena are there watching. They see things change before their eyes and make in-stream decisions that distant bureaucrats couldn’t hope to. The fishermen of Crescent city… Well.. you see the point. Nobody knows as much about local situations as locals. That’s why the framers of our original constitution limited the powers of Washington. They made a specific list of what the Federal Government was allowed to do. And nothing else. But today’s bureaucrats are much smarter than those rubes. No! They really are. Just ask them.

In reality, they have it backwards. Power is best disbursed to the individual. Locally. Nobody knows the individuals’ situation and the needs of their families better than the individuals themselves. But that doesn’t mean it’s every man for himself. The magic of free market capitalism is that nobody gets the prize–(profit)–unless and until they do something nice for somebody else. Until I induce my neighbor to willingly pull out his wallet and pay me for a good or service, my kids are hungry. That silent but powerful motivator is the ‘invisible hand’ that makes capitalism the most effective AND the most compassionate economic system ever devised. Three hundred billion people all trying to out-nice the other guy to get the prize. It drives innovation. It drives individual initiative. It makes for a robust economy where everybody can pay the rent.

So the Left got the power thing wrong. Let’s look at the other half of their equation. Money.

The Liberal Left would have us believe that when it comes to material things, equality rules. A wealthy person must be the reason another is poor. One congressman went so far as to say, “We want the same stuff in every house.” So wealth is taken from some and given to others. To equalize.

Does it work that way in your life? This is not a trick question. Have you ever worked for a poor person?

Didn’t think so. It happens that our economic system depends on wealthy people–pockets of capital–to support the investment and risk that is business.

So. Is that a bad thing?

Well, Bill Gates has fifty billion or so dollars? Has that made your life better or worse?

I’ll answer that. The odds are you are sitting right now at a computer brought to you by–or patterned after–his success. If his wealth had been sapped away early in his career—by ‘taxing the wealthy’–it would have prevented him from growing his mega-billion dollar enterprise. You’d still be clacking away at an old creaky Underwood and using white-out to fix your mistakes.

It bears repeating. Our system depends on pockets of wealth to support the investment and risk that is business. Take that wealth away, you strip the job creators of their magic. POOF. No fun new products. No jobs. (Kind of like what we’re seeing more and more of every day.)

Many don’t want to admit it, but Capitalism Rocks! And the thing that makes it rock is, first, decision-making power in the hands of the individual; and, second, money in the hands of a wealthy few that know how to make a business run well. Take either of those away, capitalism stops rocking. (Kind of like what we are seeing more and more of every day.)

The ONLY other alternative to that system is state-owned or run businesses. That’s called socialism. How did that work out for the Soviet Union? East Germany? Cuba? Europe?

Let’s face it. The liberal left has it wrong. Twice.

Power in a few hands cripples economies and invites corruption.

Wealth, forcibly disbursed, cripples economies and kills motivation.

With all the examples in history of both, wouldn’t you think they could see that?

We’ve heard it a hundred times. “Most Muslims are tolerant, kind, peace-loving people.” And it’s true. Most Muslims are.

But, is that useful information? Possibly not.

Let’s begin by readily conceding and even reinforcing that first point. Let’s completely agree that most of the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims are tolerant, kind, peace-loving people. They love their God, love their country and wish their neighbors only the best. It’s only the radicals we have to worry about. Perhaps only ten percent of the population?

Good. That’s our starting place.

Now let’s suppose you live in a town of 100,000 people that is fifteen percent Muslim. You have 15.000 Muslim neighbors. Let’s agree that only ten percent of them have that fire of radical Islam burning inside them.

That means that 13,500 of your Muslim neighbors wish the best for you. They want to live in peace and, as good neighbors, will be there to catch you if you fall.

But it also means the other 1,500 see you as enemies of their god. Many of these will require that you submit to their belief or be ready to die. They read daily from their Qur‘an: “Fight and kill the disbelievers where ever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.” (Qur’an 9:5) Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender paying the protective tax in submission. (Qur’an 9:29) And they take these things to heart. As believers. they are compelled to act on them.

This poses a difficult question.

When 1,500 or so of your Muslim neighbors are willing to kill you and others, to get you and others to comply with what they believe, how comforting is it that the other 13,500 wish you to live in peace? The radical minority is determined to dominate through terror and they will. They will terrorize you–and the other 13,500 Muslims as well–until you ALL agree to submit to them. They will kill enough ‘infidels’ that you and the rest cower in fear–submitting to their beliefs. Then they will let you live among them under terms of surrender (as Dhimmi) and regularly pay them a protective tax (Jizya). And, by the way, you must be very careful not interfere with the practice of their religion. If your non-Muslim church needs a repair, for instance, and you contract to have that work done…they are compelled to kill you.

But wait! Almost all of my Muslim neighbors are kind, gentle and want to live in peace.

Yes…it’s true. But the ten percent who are not, make that meaningless.

Let’s see how this looks in real life. You may have seen this in the news a while back.

The area of Dagestan on the coast of Russia is a textbook case. There is a lovely beach town there where people have flocked for generations. Over the years, the Muslim population has grown so that now they number more than half.

“On a clear morning last July, at around 6 a.m., schoolteacher Yelena Abduzhalimova met her colleagues on the central city beach for a round of volleyball. As the ladies changed into their swimsuits, a group of young boys began to warm up for wrestling exercises before their morning classes, right by the volleyball court. Other than the children, the beach was still fairly empty at that hour.”

“Abduzhalimova walked onto the court with her friends and she stepped forward to serve the ball. Instantly, a powerful explosion threw her into the air, flying 10 feet above the ground. She had stepped on a mine hidden in the sand. It was the third explosion on the public beach that season, and one that cost Abduzhalimova her leg above the knee. ‘The bomb was meant as punishment for women wearing swimsuits,’ she says.”

And not surprisingly, women no longer wear swimsuits. Rather, they wade in the surf, faces covered, wearing their long flowing burqa. As they must do, they comply. Comply with the wishes; no…the demands; no…the savagely intolerant oppression of the few.

And it isn’t just the beaches…

“Just this year, there have been over 200 terror attacks on Dagestan’s food stores, cafés, and saunas that sell liquor, as well as on religious centers and law enforcement. The attacks have killed hundreds of social workers, local deputies, police, high-ranking army officers, even imams. In addition, two school principals who spoke out against schoolgirls wearing the hijab were killed this year in Dagestan.”

Let than sink in for a minute…

Hundreds.

Killed.

Killed because they didn’t comply.

But wait! Most Muslims in Dagestan are peaceful and wish their neighbors well.

True…but not useful. The ten percent make that meaningless.

And it’s worldwide. Think Dagestan is an isolated case? Watch the news. The ten percent are the foot soldiers of Islam. Fear them.

But that.. that‘s ‘Islamophobia’!

Yes, it is. And when you stop to think about it, isn’t that a fairly rational response?

*_*_*_*_*_*_*_*

Epilogue

Stop it before it starts
No Sharia
Nowhere in our borders
Not today,
Not tomorrow,
Not ever,
No Sharia,
Period
Stop it before it starts

First let me say that I don't want to believe what I am thinking. Who would want to? It's border-line unthinkable. Nor will I likely reveal what I'm thinking. Who would believe it?

What I do intend here is to simply lay out some evidences. The reader will then decide for him/herself the sum of those evidences: is it just a nutty theory or should my personal alert level be raised to brilliant red.

EVIDENCES:

Evidence one: Prior to his first election, Barack Obama stated that he believes the country needs a civilian security force that is just as well equipped, just as well armed as the military. It's unclear if he said why—after these 235 years—the republic suddenly grew the need for such a lethal civilian force.

Evidence two: Due to perceived threat levels—and anticipated quality gains—it was decided to make all airport screeners federal employees. That was before this president's time, but it did plant a seed. Then, a flurry of international crises and terrorism threats inspired the country to create a 'homeland security' department. This department folded in all of those screeners. It has since grown exponentially in size and scope.

Evidence three: Who can doubt that this country finds itself in dire financial straits? The government has over promised and at the same time citizens are overtaxed. The two ends won't meet, so we borrow. This is not new. We've been doing it for years. But not like this. George W. Bush inherited six trillion dollars of national debt—accumulated by all of the previous presidents combined. In his eight years, he raised that to ten trillion. That's borrowing a huge half-trillion dollars a year. But, today's administration has taken this to soaring new heights. During Barack Obama's first four years—even with the wars scaled back—we added another six trillion dollars of debt. That's overspending by three times as much. In round numbers, it's overspending by one-and-a-half trillion dollars a year. Now wouldn't you think that sober leaders would look at that and see that it's just not sustainable; see a need to cut back? Some have. The conservative right is screaming that message. But it falls on deaf ears. The liberal left and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) say very directly, we don't have a spending problem. Their leaders refuse to look at spending cuts and continue to propose and implement new taxes and new expensive programs.

Evidence four: Rudy Giuliani, when he took over as mayor of New York City, had some serious cutting to do to get the budget back in line. He is quoted as saying that previous left-leaning administrations had tried to overload the social systems, hoping for a breakdown. Indeed, he cited a theory in radical left-wing thinking—proposed by two professors named Cloward and Piven—that if social systems are overloaded to the point of breaking, radical policies will be much easier to implement. Now, that was New York. I'm not saying that this is happening on a national level. I'm just reporting a coincidence. If it were happening on a national level, your leaders would be spending with no regard to tomorrow—and creating social systems at a feverish pace to put more and more strain on revenue sources—preparing for—maybe even hoping for—maybe even working to catalyze—a breakdown. Why in heaven's name would they want a breakdown? Well…let's just pretend for a minute. The liberal left has a well-intentioned vision of creating utopia for all. But uncooperative citizens continually impede their program–inconveniently hiding their recalcitrance behind the immovable US constitution. This prevents the left's benevolent and idyllic creation. To succeed, they need to find a legal way to rein that element in; to control it. Now suppose financial systems do break down; infrastructure is interrupted; food is not being delivered; electricity is scarce, and it is neighbor against neighbor. There is blood in the streets. Doesn't someone need to step in? Who better to do that than a well-equipped, well-armed civilian security force? Every civil right can be 'temporarily' suspended in the name of order. Those uncooperative citizens can be forced to cooperate at the end of a gun. Presto. Isn't the long dreamed of utopia then within reach? We're just pretending, remember. But it makes quite a story…

Evidence five: Enter the well-armed security force. Homeland security has just in recent weeks ordered seven thousand fully automatic assault rifles. If you're bad at math, that's 135 for each state in the union. It's curious. This is not the Army. It's homeland security. Even 'curiouser' is their ordering of 1.5 BILLION hollow-point bullets in the last year. That's thirty million for each state in the union—or five for each US citizen, if you prefer. Once again, this is not the military—who have their own more-than-ample supply of arms. This is Homeland Security. It has been recently noted that, at the rate the military was using bullets at the peak of the Iraq war, this supply would have lasted more than twenty years. But now comes the main event. The same department has just ordered two thousand seven hundred big, fully-armored Aromored Personnel Carriers. Street-sweepers some call these. Huge rolling boxes with gun ports at every angle. So let's do the math. For each state in the union they have just purchased 54 APCs, 135 automatic assault rifles and 30 million bullets! Why? What does DHS intend to do with this massive supply of armaments? Target practice? These are not for use in a foreign theatre of war. This is Homeland Security! Well…before we get too excited. Even if you think the worst–like some kind of tyrannical takeover–wouldn't a civilian population like ours resist? Wouldn't such a well-armed population as ours be a formidable force to be reckoned with?

Evidence six: Enter gun control. The liberal left is working feverishly to disarm the population. With the heinous—yet (dare we say it) possibly opportune—killing of two dozen Connecticut school children, the time seems ripe. The president has said that he will do everything in his power to sweep these dastardly killing machines from the streets. Senators are introducing draconian control measures—and state legislatures too—in the name of safety and order, of course. When and if they succeed, consider who will have all the guns. And ammunition. And APC's.

CONCLUSIONS

I offer no conclusions. Only dots. Hard evidences of… well, who can read the future with certainty? How the reader connects these dots is for only the reader to decide. Each should do their own research to confirm or debunk these concerns. Conclusions or individual actions are then a personal thing. The purpose here has been simply to report to you a coincidental, some would say more-than-ominous, synergy of events converging on our sweet Lady Liberty at this moment in her always-perilous history.

The crowd roars as the teams stream onto the field. There is a hush as the coin is tossed and just that fast, the game is underway. But immediately, you notice something very odd. The kickoff ball! It’s set on the 50! No one explains why. It just is. Driven tight against your own goal line, you begin to fight back. Play after play the referees flag your side and march off penalty yards; but over and over they miss the holding, the facemasks, the clipping by the other team. The announcer cheers their yardage and shrieks approval when they reach the end-zone, but barely notices your gains; in fact highlights every one of your numerous penalties—there’s even a biting comment about an amateur team playing sleezy football. A few people boo. It seems surreal to you. The late afternoon sun is in your eyes and a stiff breeze is in your face. A decision is made to not change ends at each quarter. No one explains why. It just is. As the fourth quarter winds down, you look at the scoreboard, its tied! In spite of everything, your team has played its heart out—and it’s tied! You cheer in the final minutes as your kicker clears a long field goal against the wind. But it’s called back. Holding. You saw none. A review is denied. The ten yard penalty puts you out of field goal range. Your hail-Mary fails on the fourth down and they get the ball. Two penalties later they are at your goal line. In the final seconds they punch it in. You are heartsick. You know deep down that your team was twice as good—played just as hard. But there it is on the scoreboard—and burned into history forever. They won. You lost. Deep in your soul, you know something is terribly wrong.

A Democrat, will read here an interesting story about football.

As a Republican, you see it at a much deeper level.

You see a ‘Justice’ department that sues a state that’s working to clear dead people off their voter rolls; a ‘Justice’ department that sues states requiring voters to produce picture ID of who they really are; a ‘Justice’ department that declines to prosecute baton wielding thugs for obvious voter intimidation; a ‘Justice’ department that sues a sheriff that dares to research highly questionable documents presented by a candidate they favor.

You ask yourself, ‘How many? How many votes was it worth to open the door to ineligible voters; intimidate others; and silence those who might object?‘

You see voting machines that mysteriously tally a vote for the opposing candidate when the vote was placed for yours; machines that automatically default to the opposing candidate when the machine malfunctions; machines which leave no paper trail for further verification.

‘How many?’ you ask yourself. ‘How many votes were silently moved from your column to theirs?’ You realize there’s no way to ever know.

You see early voting and drive-up registrations—by the busload. You see a military defending their country that somehow didn’t get their ballots in time.

How many, you ask yourself? How many busloads were out there voting early and often? How many of our military were denied even a chance to have their voices heard?

You see debate ‘moderators’ that tailor their questions to softball the opposing candidate and back yours tight into a corner; ‘moderators’ that jump in to help your opponent with ‘facts’ that turn out not to be.

‘How many?’ you ask yourself again. ‘How many low information voters failed to see through this stealthy bias?’

You see a media complex that, as a chorus, makes a rock-star of the opposing candidate—but misses no opportunity to kneecap yours; a media complex that trumpets for weeks a years old tape of your candidate defining the electorate, but buries dozens of tapes of your opponent misleading a nation, promising things he never does, contradicting himself and privately revealing his true intentions; a media complex that blacks out important stories that might damage your opponent’s chances until after the voting is done; a media complex that mocks, labels, ridicules and demonizes anyone who steps up to challenge your opponent or who dares to bring up important but unflattering facts.

‘How many?’ you ask yourself. ‘How many people only heard the jaundiced view of your candidate—the laudatory view of your opponent? How many votes was it worth to silence others who might dare to speak a damaging truth?’

You see a campaign that draws in money with no website filter for credit card location—enabling the illegal donation of millions in offshore funds; a campaign and administration that rewards large donors with billions in guaranteed loans, most of which curiously fail, leaving taxpayers poorer and donors wealthier—to give again.

‘How many?’ you ask yourself. ‘How many voters were influenced by ads bought with campaign dollars that never should have been?’

You see a culture that places ‘victims’ on a sacrosanct pedestal and demonizes as ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’ anyone who deigns to disagree with the substance of their policies.

‘How many,’ you ask yourself. ‘How many people voted their guilt? …Or faux magnanimity? …Or practiced that special racism that supports a person simply because he’s ‘our kind.’

You see an administration that uses your money to generously pass out free goods—especially in states where elections might be close. An administration that repeatedly refuses to enforce standing laws—each time benefitting huge blocks of the electorate.

‘How many,’ You ask again. ‘How many people voted simply to keep their free perks? How many votes was selective lawlessness worth?’

Republicans have become accustomed to these things; have learned, almost, to expect them. For decades now, they have watched their Democrat colleagues champion a collectivist ideology. Watched that ideology spread: a mutant malignancy, invading and degrading the very free-market institutions that made their country the strongest, most benevolent force on the planet. This latest election just ices that cake; a panoply of corruptions striking at the heart of our most fundamental democratic institution—the vote.

‘How many thousands–even millions of votes were turned by the cumulative weight of these many inequities?’ Republicans ask. ‘What if elections were actually fair?’ They grieve a future that could have been—should have been—if only the playing field was level; a future with runaway spending brought under control; a future where the constitution is respected and strengthened; a future where opportunity replaces dependency; a future with global order shaped by a strong, stabilizing American hand; an optimistic future, prosperous and free.

Instead, for another four critical years, they are forced to watch their beloved nation continue a slow, steady spiral down to centrally managed stagnation.

Deep down, they know their team was twice as good; played just as hard; held twice the promise. But there it is on the scoreboard—and burned into history forever. ‘They won. We lost.’

Looking ahead they see their precious offspring never knowing the sweet freedom and prosperity that was the America they grew up in and loved.

Looking out into a perilous world, they see wolves—circling a stumbling beast—waiting their moment.

If atheists
should, at last, succeed
in eradicating
all vestige of religion
from the public square,
they will have achieved
a monopoly.

The only religious
point of view
then allowed expression
will be that of the
atheist.

First, let’s examine the premise. ‘It would be a safer world without guns.’

Ok.. I suppose that’s possible. Never mind that before guns were invented, people found a myriad of ways to kill each other. Never mind that far more people are killed by cars than guns. Never mind that the world would be safer still, without nuclear weapons. But a good argument could be made that, in a country without guns, there would be fewer gun deaths. This means, however, a country with NO guns. None. Add even one gun and that equation changes a lot.

Next, let’s dispel a notion. ‘By passing enough laws, we can get rid of all guns.’

Seriously? In a free nation with over 200 million guns? We could ever get rid of every single one? Never mind that the second amendment says that won’t/can’t happen. Wouldn’t people—some people at least— just bury their guns or hide them away? Wouldn’t there be a black market for guns akin to moonshine during prohibition? The best you can EVER hope for is fewer guns.

So. Would that be a safer world? Let’s do the math. Let’s round the number of guns in the US to 200 million. If each gun owner has, on average, two guns, that makes 100 million gun owners. Approximately one American in three. (Not sure if that’s the real number, but it’s close enough for this purpose.)

Now let’s bring it to the local level. Say you live in a city with 300,000 people. One in three means you have about 100,000 gun owners in your town. Can we agree that 90 percent of gun owners are responsible, law-abiding people? I wouldn’t go to the mat on that percentage, but certainly it’s ‘most’ gun owners that are responsible. Let’s give away another ten percent and say 80%. There are 80,000 responsible, law-abiding gun owners in your town. They lock their guns up, using them only for defense and recreation. The other 20,000 people? Not so much.

Now pass a law that confiscates everybody’s gun. The eighty percent, being responsible, will mostly comply. Let’s say you get 90% of their guns. (Even responsible, law-abiding people have their limits…) So you have confiscated 144,000 guns and it looks really good on the news. You are sure you are finally getting this thing under control. Those responsible, law abiding people still have 16,000 guns tucked away where they can’t be found—or easily accessed.

Now let’s focus on the other 20%. These are gun owners who are less responsible and less law-abiding. You think you’re going to get 90% of their guns? Try 10%. They don’t obey other laws, why would they obey this one. Realistically, you’ll get a token 10% or so. Just to be on the safe side, let’s call it 20%. So you have collected 8,000 guns. And that population still possesses 32,000 guns.
Unless I’m missing something here, THE BAD PEOPLE IN YOUR TOWN NOW POSSES TWICE AS MANY GUNS AS THE DECENT, LAW ABIDING PEOPLE!!!

AND YOU THINK YOUR TOWN IS SAFER?????