THE INDIVIDUAL IS THE FINAL MINORITY

Sun Tzu in Art of War stated the following precept: When your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
The GOP this last election cycle completed the dulling of their weapon & their ardor on the altar of moderation and the high road in a competition where the opposition took whatever steps were necessary to win. Read More »

I found this on the ANTI-POSITIVIST blog but its worth repeating for the simple fact that it sums up the WHOLE issue of rich vs. poor & taxes. Read More »

“I think it (the comprehensive plan) will take away some property rights but it will be on a very limited basis,” Woodcox said in a phone interview Tuesday morning. “It’s like taking somebody’s property for a road, but that’s still progress. You’ve got to do it.”

This is the statement made by a county commissioner in Burleigh County North Dakota.

WONDERFUL VIDEO PARALLEL OF THE CURRENT DEMOCRAT MENTAL PROCESS

Consider this,

One presidential candidate has openly stated the basic premis of socialism/communism, “Spread the wealth around”.
in Specific application the “spread the wealth around” phrase is indicative of the idea of the collective right myth superceding the fact of individual wealth. The full quote of which his statement is based goes as follows:
“In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”

Now consider the implications of that statement put into practice and its practical results.
A man or woman looks to open their own business. They look at the cost involved at getting started vs. what they expect to make. 1st thing they look at is what will they make as a result of this new company.
IF they make over $250,000 then they have to consider that “The One” will tax them more than if they were less successful.
IF they have over a certain number of employees then the government at the point of a gun called federal mandate require they provide healthcare to the employees or face a fine such that they and all the other taxpayers support the employees healthcare coverage.
 Do you think that a person or group of persons will consider really working harder to create a new business when they know that they will be saddled with MORE taxes and regulations than if they stay at the income level they are now.
Do you think that a person who owns a business now will consider hring MORE employees in order that he will be saddled with these new compulsory expenses?

The Socialist/Communist mentality of Obama if implimented by the vote of the masses will mean that we will make the slide toward a more welfare state system rather than capitalist state system.
Till now we call this country the United States of America. with his ideas implemented it would be better served to be renamed the United Socialist States of America.

At that point the declaration independence and its statement of the following becomes hollow rhetoric.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. –That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” — Jefferson et al, The Declaration of Independence

Notice the words “pursuit of happiness” NOT gaurantee of happiness. This is held constant as long as basic property rights are the form which all other rights spring.

Remember that without property rights no other can exist as it is a basic tenant of the individual ethos to own property and without that one cannot implement the 2nd amendment or any other of the constitution.  Money is the absolute basic property of commerce and industry among men and when the government removes the absolute right of ownership of the product of ones industry then the right of property is abrogated.

Be very wary when you hear the term “Share” when spoke in context with government distribution of private confiscated goods. This is the calling card of an altruist putting you on the altar to sacrific for his intentions.

Consider also that these same altruists that want to sacrifice you are the ones that call money evil. To that end you are encouraged to read a treatis on the taking that statement to its logical conclusion “So you think money is evil?”

Today, Sen. P. Lahey stated in a conference that he was proposing the justice department go after OPEC for violations of the anti-trust act.

Has he gone completely around the bend?
Who is going to enforce it?
How are you GOING to enforce it?

Just something to think about.

Pitching his message to Oregon’s environmentally-conscious voters, Obama called on the United States to “lead by example” on global warming, and develop new technologies at home which could be exported to developing countries.

“We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK,” Obama said.

“That’s not leadership. That’s not going to happen,” he added.

When will the left leaners (led for the moment by Barak) figure out that we don’t need to permission of other countries.
ALL of these countries that would be upset must be reminded that if it were not for OUR economy they would be even POORER than they are now.

Yesterday (5/13/08) The city council of B’ham approved diverting $7.9M from the fund for schools to add to the fund for the fairpark project.
As some of the council members said (before they voted no) I think it is deplorable that needed money is diverted to a recreational project from a necessary project.

How LONG is the city coucil going to placate the current Mayor and his utopian dreams that so far have been nothing but boondoggles and a further expense the city does not need.

The continued support for these ideas that are not a mandated city responsibility are why no one trusts city government or has the faith that what their representatives on the council say will happen in their disstricts will occur since the mayor decides to be vindictive against them when he doesn’t get his way.

If we didn’t know better we would think that the city government is being run by a spoiled child.

Today the Washington Post has a piece exposing a little dirty secret of the housing industry.
That secret being the immigrants are being hit harder than others with the mortgage problem.

According to the piece “Nationally, 375,000 high-interest-rate loans were made to Hispanics in 2005, and nearly 73,000 of them are likely to go into foreclosure.”
That is easily explained when they later state:
“Unfamiliar with the U.S. mortgage market, unable to speak or read English well and vulnerable to the blandishments of real estate professionals who told them property values always rise, many immigrants are struggling to deal with high mortgage payments as their homes sag in value, making it harder to escape the loans by selling.”

I think that the crowd who has pandered to the pro-illegals are the biggest to blame for this.
When english only in schools is proposed they have kittens over it.
Then they can’t understand the contract for home sales, they cannot understand street signs and therefore are proportionally higher in percentage of vehicular accidents.

Just think about it and see if you don’t say right along with me.

AWWW POOR BABY!!!

People claim a smoking ban is a public-health issue. I can’t seem to remember there being a right to force other people to not use a product simply on a premise of “public health.”
If the product is deemed by the government to be deadly and yet the government profits from its distribution, then the government, by extension, would be disingenuous to do anything to prevent its distribution. To prevent this conflict, the logical conclusion would be for the government to ban the product altogether.
Anything else would be a violation of the free association clause of the First Amendment, because the law punishes people using a product in common in an area.