Comments Anybody?

Mayflower Compact


In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, etc.

Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together into a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by virtue hereof to enact, constitute and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. In witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape Cod, the 11th of November, in the year of the reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domini 1620.

Comments Anybody??? Especially any comments that come to mind after a quick scan of this for seeds of "the collective".

Hint... Who gets to decide what    " ....shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the Colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. ???

This Should Creep You Out

It's TRUE. The electric company really does want to have control of your thermostat ... all for a good "social justice" purpose, right???

Click the link to see how sweetly the hook is baited ...

http://www.cpsenergy.com/residential/rebates/Peak_Saver/Peak_Saver_about.asp

Like hell I am going to let them access my thermostat. Do you really think that control of peak demand is the only thing this access into you home eventually be used for? Keep Dreaming.

Real People - Real America

I was driving down the street the other day and this caught my eye. I do think that this is what mainstream America thinks, yet that those in Washington, including even the Republican delegation simply do not care to hear.

Hopefully, that will be at their own peril, and hopefully, after 2010, those newly ushered into power will not turn their own deaf ears to those that put them there.

THAT is what I mean by Hope and Change.

Starvation the Best Cure for Poverty - So Says Heartless Bastard

Here today, a friend sends me a story that reads like something crafted directly from the center of "the collective".

"Because of our very vulnerable offspring, the fundamental task for human survival and gene replication is to take care of others," said Keltner, co-director of UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center. "Human beings have survived as a species because we have evolved the capacities to care for those in need and to cooperate. As Darwin long ago surmised, sympathy is our strongest instinct."

No, Mr. Keltner, the fundamental task for human survival and gene replication is to take care of YOURSELF. Taking care of others is one of the tools that a human can selectively use to do this, like for example, when our ancestral cave-man (or woman) would rescue THEIR child from a saber-toothed tiger (so as to save their little worker-unit without which they would have a harder time surviving(;  or when you rescue YOUR child from a burning building (and in so doing protect yourself from a sense of YOUR loss and also protect yourself from doing without a caregiver for your old age).

So then, however hard and unpalatable to accept the truth of the matter is that, whenever that (helping others) is done, the underlying basis for all of it is that the fundamental task for survival is to take care of ones self. In doing that, we may take care of others, and we may cooperate (like when we cooperate to kill others in war?), but those are tools directed and selectively used to achieve the end - survival of ourselves (and our spawn). [See my other articles regarding selfishness and altruism  - and how they are EXACTLY the same.]

Contrary to the disingenuous nature of this article, meant, I suppose, to influence the masses into committing suicide for the "need" of others, the real truth is that we have survived to this point is exactly because our ancestors and antecedent cultures operated from a foundation of helping ourselves (NOT others). The underlying theme, therefore, of survival is service to ones self, NOT service to others.

It is so sad that in today's Politically Correct climate brought about by the hot putrid off-gassing of a culture gone soft and lazy, children though are being taught a different thing - a thing that if left unchecked will result in the extinction of our culture, and later our species. For we are raising a generation that see nothing wrong with spreading the wealth; that goes to bed every night dreaming about how they should sacrifice themselves at the altar of another; and dream dreams of how their social responsibility is to become do-gooders instead of doers. To bad for our future society that in so thinking and dreaming they evolve having no concept of property, or property rights, and thinking that people are entitled simply because they have "need"  - and that the yardstick of "need" is "Does the other guy have "more".

As Ben Franklin said, "....the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." Hey that is Math 101, but certainly not in today's classroom. Unfortunately, there, today's youth are being taught that the proper thing to do is to "give back", and being taught to think that people like your dear correspondent are  oh, so cold and heartless when they rail, fulminate, declaim, and inveigh against the cancerous malignancy of the "giving back" philosophy.

And another BTW - That part about taking care of our "vulnerable offspring" which Keltner conflates into evolving based on taking care of others, . No Mr Keltner, we take care of OUR vulnerable offspring.We want OUR DNA to survive, not the DNA of others.

And BTW #2 ...... Sympathy is NOT our strongest instinct.

Follow the Money

Do we really think that the government even if they do "take over the health care insurance business" is going  to operate the health care insurance system themselves?

Hardly. Do not be surprised if the government side of the insurance business will be run by the insurance industry itself, or at least one or two of the major players.

As was explained to me many years ago by a friend, contrary to the idea that businesses want no regulation or less regulation, the ugly fact is that businesses WANT regulation because that levels the playing field and they know exactly what the competition can and cannot do. This knowledge then reduces their risk of operating their business and that is why contrary to their protests, they actually want it.

So then, if this national health care thing comes to pass, be ready to see the stock price of some of the players  move higher.

Would not be at all surprised to find that behind those closed mahogany doors such conversations along these lines has already been had and the template agreed upon.

Overheard at the Grocery Store

"Keep working and stay out of debt. People like me want you young people to be in debt because then we can get you and an army of people like you to work for us for the rest of your lives for practically nothing."

~ Wisdom imparted to a young man by a grey-haired senior citizen, who had earlier remarked to the younger man that he, too, in his younger day, had sacked groceries, and that was one of the reasons that he did not have to sack groceries anymore, and was thereafter asked by that youngster bagging the groceries if there was anything he could do in the current economy to protect himself.

The Ant and the Grasshopper

OLD VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long,  building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and  dances and plays the summer away..

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!



MODERN VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat and the rain all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC , PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, "We shall overcome.

 Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

President Obama condemns the ant and blames President Bush,President Reagan, Christopher Columbus, and the Pope for the grasshopper's plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident,and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the ramshackle, once prosperous and once peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses taking the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2010.

~ from tom

The Difference

If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don't eat meat. If a liberal is vegetarian, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy. A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, they quietly enjoy their life. If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful. Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal wants all churches to be silenced and God removed from public view.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his.
 
~ sent to me by Monte

__________**********__________
Editors Note:
Each of these is a colorful way of saying that the Conservative's view of the world is:

• What's Mine is Mine - Not Yours

and that the Collectivists view of the world is:

• What's Mine is Mine - What's Yours is Mine, Too.

Why Johnnie Doesn't Share

In my earlier article  Communist vs. Capitalist Vocabulary, I discussed what I meant when I said that the first word the little communist (Billy) learns in kindergarten is S-H-A-R-E, while the first word learned by the little capitalist (Johnnie) is T-R-A-D-E.

In the article I pointed out the insidious nature of S-H-A-R-E  being a first word learned and also pointed out that Johnnie - even without being taught property rights - has a very definite idea of property, and has an innate resistance to its theft.

After reading the earlier article, one may ask why it is that this little proto-human (Johnnie) has such an innate reasoning about property and an innate resistance to its theft, and it is obvious that the reason for this is that it is an evolutionary survival mechanism.

Consider, if you will, the earliest days of man, and ask yourself what man would it be that would survive if he simply turned over his scarce property (food, clothing, shelter) without which he would starve, to one who, instead of creating such things on his own ,or trading them for other things of value, was just allowed to take them. No, my good friend, the humans that did that did not live long enough to procreate (they starved, or froze, or were eaten by beasts).

Thus it is that what we have in the world today is a species whose very existence sprang from the idea of NOT SHARING. NOT sharing, meant survival and propagation, and NOT having a sense of ones own property meant death and extinguishment of that particular hereditary line.

Thus it is that little Johnnie is exhibiting a trait (What's Mine is MINE, Not Yours) that has kept the human race alive -and the reason HE has it is because he is the end result of a million years of evolution that propagated these traits and extinguished others.

Keep in mind, however, that Billy is also exhibiting a trait - also in the human condition - that it is easier to take than it is to make. Consider too, that he is also exercising a form of survival strategy. However, this is not a long term survival strategy, for if all you do is take, then who is left to make? And, even if there are those that can make, the question is "will they" and "for how long"?

Think of it this way, as long as there are others to take from, and there are others that do not mind starving and dying so that the Billys of the world might live, then Billy may indeed survive . However, the question is for how long? It is easy to see that at some point Billy is going to run into somebody that will kill him, instead of giving up that which they themselves need to survive, and indeed this is exactly how the human evolution has played out to ingrain in even the tiniest babe a sense of property and the intimate and instinctual connection of property to survival.

The reader may now ask what does this have to do with Communism, Socialism, & Collectivism, and I will now proceed to show what it has to do with it. The connection is that the grown-up Billys of the modern world are not stupid, and by executing various survival strategies over the past 2000 years, they have learned that if they can convince a group of sufficient size (but not too great a size) that the need of the "have-nots" stakes a moral claim on those that "have", then they will be able to persist in their strategy of "feeding" without producing much of anything themselves.

Thus it is that the smart collectivist does not mount a frontal assault against the producers, for to do that would polarize the producers and in not to short a time there would be few collectivists. In addition, if a frontal assault succeeded, then in not to short a time (50 years?) the collective would perish as there would be no one left to produce.

No, the smart collectivist, executes a different strategy. He insinuates the ideas of the collective into the population via slogans, symbols, art, literature, religion, and especially into the minds of the children (the kindergarten scenario above) - and, critically important, he does this so that not all are turned into collectivists. This is critical - that not all be turned into collectivists, for even the true collectivist knows that if there were nothing but collectivists, that nobody would eat because, as in Jamestown in early America, where all land was held and worked in common, with rations distributed evenly from a central storehouse, there was no incentive for an individual to work harder and, with such an attitude of "Why should I work if my neighbor is required to make sure I do not starve", everybody indeed starved.

No, the smart collectivist, tries to, in the mass of producers, create and then calve off from the main mass of producers two groups.

The first is a mass of modified Johnnies, who after 15 years of exposure to such pap as "share" because others are in need and you have more - or the pap that selfishness is bad - or the pap that what's his really isn't his, have been body-snatched and re-educated to the collective and thereafter turn into community organizers, marching all around town (with Billy) trying to organize all the other body-snatched Johinnies and Billys of the neighborhood to come together into a shouting mob to take from the producers of the world - all while carrying signs accusing the producers and property owners of the world as being selfish. (Hell yeah, they are selfish - it is THEIR property.)

The second group is different in that they have not yet been completely body-snatched, but have been sufficiently indoctrinated with the kindergarten lessons, to be useful to the collectivist agenda which is to propagate and survive.

The members of this second group are the kind that get up and pronounce that private property rights should be respected - but that all children should be insured; or that complain about the government taking over health care - but in the next breath intone how it is "society" that should come together to pay for care for their aging parent; or that talk about how people should bear the consequences of their acts - but then participate in engineers without border, doctors without borders, carpenters without borders, habitat builders without borders, etc, where they go into a society that in 5000 years has not learned to, for example, drill a water well, and proceed to drill it for them, thus upsetting an entire societal structure with their do-goodedness.

These are the same people/groups who talk loudly at tea parties against government intrusion - but when that government intrusion is going to throw pork their way, are nowhere to be seen, but everywhere to be heard, as they grovel ,grunt, and shove their way to the head of the line. (A perfect example of this being individual members of a national engineering society who while protesting the evils of Obamunism, try to move themselves to the head of the handout line by raising a hue and a cry about how their profession should get government money for work that is not in need of doing, and if it is in need of doing, should be funded at the local level instead of at the national level.

These in-betweens & bystanders are very useful to the true collectivist because they are economically productive, are attached to their station in life, and are attached to the fruits that they have been able to gain and retain by in essence being closet collectivists, or by averting their eyes from what it truly is that they obtain their wealth and possessions. Essentially, they are people that are so wedded to their comforts in life that they will suffer giving up a portion of their property - if they can convince themselves (and indeed they do so convince themselves) that they can just be left alone to enjoy the rest, or if they judge that it is less work to just give up than it is to fight. (BTW - The IRS tax structure is EXACTLY set up with this in mind.)

As a stark lesson in what I mean, consider Nazi Germany and the work of extermination of the Jews. Ask yourself, if they came for your Jewish neighbor, but not for you, would you have stood against the Nazi boots - or would you have "stood-by"? If the answer is that it depends on the cost to you, then you might be an in-between , or a bystander.

Considering the above, is it any wonder then that the signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their lives, their property, and their sacred honor, instead of pledging 5% of their income, or a couple weekends of their time working in a homeless shelter.

How many of us would do that - Pledge our lives? Pledge our property (all of it) ? Pledge our sacred honor? Not very many of us, I am afraid, and THAT is exactly the strategy of the collectivist. To take as much as can be taken without causing a complete attack from the production tribe, and to even bribe part of that production tribe with promises and selective delivery of economic gain to those that can be body-snatched and induced to continue to stand-by.


It is these in-betweens and bystanders that the collectivist needs, for it is they that set the tone of social acceptability and pressure, it is they that work in the factory or the office, and it is through them that the true collectivist achieves his aim of creating a system where a sufficient number of producers continue to produce, and where he the collectivist, just as a vampire bat, can feed.

Government's Aspirations??

Cass Sustein, Obama's Regulatory Czar as seen on the Glenn Beck TV show 22 July 2009

"What Roosevelt did in altering the American government's aspirations for its citizens is capture [in] the second bill of rights better than anywhere [sic], Government's aspirations for its citizens"

Government's aspirations for its citizens?!! What the &^@*(!!!

1. The government is not a being with aspirations, not a father figure who will take care of me.

2. I am not "its" citizen. It does not own me. I own it.

3. Therefore I don't want the government to have any aspirations for me. I have aspirations for it, to curtail its power.

The entire premise of Sustein's statement is an assault on my liberty -- before we even start talking about the abomination referred to as the second bill of rights. Indeed, the premise [a government having aspirations and a government that possesses citizens] is exactly an encapsulation of the ideology of today's mainstream Collectivist.

Just for the record, what was really happening was that Roosevelt was trying to use the governmental machinery to impose HIS aspirations on those he considered to be HIS citizens.

~Cato


Seneca's Comment: Oh No, it looks like I have created a monster. Cato and I have debated the various meaning(s) and consequence(s) of the ideology contained in my statement "What's Mine is Mine". This of Cato's seems to embody the sentiment very well.

Obama Finally Explains His Dysfunctionality

Says Obama: speaking about Fathers Day ... .."When fathers are absent, when they abandon their responsibility to their children, we know the damage that does to our families."

Well my good friends and fellow citizens, not only do we know this without having to be told by the Messiah, but we also know that such damage to the family can then itself lead to the coming into adulthood of a damaged man who will later damage the country and liberty. So then, is it here where we find the reason that Obama is off-center and charging pell-mell over the abyss with us all in tow???

Says another article about Obama on knoxnews.com "He implored fathers everywhere - and the kids when they're older - to be involved in the lives of their own children."

Tell me now, WHY, just why, should I be involved, for it is YOU that are involving yourself in every aspect of my family and indeed are trying to take over my role.

Why should I bother to hold a job, if I can get the government to rob others so as to pay me money.

Why should I save money to cook breakfast for my kids, for if I drink it all up at the liquor store, I know that the government will give my kids breakfast and lunch?

Why should I bother to teach my kids morals, when my lack of teaching begins to show, I can just claim race or some disadvantaged "youtism" and get free housing or food or a host of other giveaways?

For those neural network kind of people out there, the question is stated as "Why should I do XYZ if in sum there is attenuated negative back-propagation?

Remember, it takes a Village -- NOT!

Obama to Ration Health Care

From Good Morning America, 24 June

OBAMA: The measure of the quality of care is not quantity, but whether or not it is making you better. What we've said is, let's put out the research, let's study and figure out what works and what doesn't.

SAWYER: Will there be a board making Solomonic decisions about best practices --

OBAMA: What I've suggested is is that we have a -- a commission that helps -- made up of doctors, made up of experts, that helps set best practices.


Hey Obama - Cato speaking here - we already have someone to determine best practices. It's called your family doctor and his team of specialists. What does a committee know about the best way to treat me? What you really want is someone to ration and distribute "best practices - someone to determine the best economy of practice (aka rationing/treatment delay tactics), not what is the best medical treatment practice.

There is no other reason for a higher "commission". Typical liberal, using words that say one thing, but meaning another. Tell you what. You tell me exactly what this commission will do, then we'll see if the American people want it.

Obama Wants the United States to Fail

Here is Obama, giving one of his daily pronouncements, this time in Egypt:

"Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail." Found at: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23334_Page2.html

**************************************
Here is the commentary on this inane statement of Obama's ...

Is there no shame in this guy Obama, that he can say such things with a straight face? Any ordering of the world that does not allow that [elevation] to happen naturally will be an order that crushes liberty and crushes enterprise. The very thing that all the "less elevated" countries have is less freedom. And it seems a little naive to think that you, Mr Obama, can alter the world order, except by making the united States a ward of your new order where we all live in shared poverty and misery.

Want to bring this into focus? Apply the same maxim to individuals. Yep, that's what Obama is trying to do to us -- make sure no one has any more than anyone else, by taking away from some who have rightfully earned more, and give that excess to others who have not. Of course the decision as to what constitutes too much will be made on careful reflection while jetting to NY so as to attend dinner and a play all while talking about how America is arrogant. Ah yes, indeed it is true that "All Pigs Are Equal... Except that Some Pigs are More Equal Than Others."

By the way, Barak Hussein Obama, you are not the president of the world. Of course, I can see how you might think you are, since you identified yourself as a citizen of the world, not the United States. You sir, are instead, a sociopath of sorts, who just like Ted Bundy was all smiles and sincerity ....... up till the moment his victim was irrevocably ensnared.

It's finally clear to me -- Obama, you do not want America to be great. To you, any greatness is oppression, any advantage is wrong per se. I had not wanted to believe this of you, but I cannot deny it now. You are angry and have a chip on your shoulder - (In some places they call this "having a bug up your ass")

You simply do not understand that America is economically and politically influential (and is great), not because of oppression, but because of freedom and its founding values.

California Dreaming (for Gvt Bailout)

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzI3OGZlMjlkMGMwY2I5Yzg4YjdkYTNlNTFiZmIxNmU#more

Great – now we are not only subsidizing irresponsible people who cannot pay their mortgages, but talking about subsidizing entire states that spend recklessly!

Oh well, all long as I can still get "mine" at your expense, then everything is OK by me. THAT is the mood of the day.

On Charitable Contributions

OK, I admit it, sometimes I am slow on the uptake, and I confess that it took me a while to understand the implications of the Obama proposal to eliminate the tax deduction on charitable contributions.

Here is the reason Obama wants to do this - Obama is a collectivist and he wants NOTHING to come but through the government. The entire thrust of his Administration is to complete the attachment of the people to the government so that the citizens are reduced to a people of the government, rather than a government of the people. For this reason, he must sever all connection of the people to any entity other than the government.

How Did It Get Like This? Part 2

Just got off the phone with Rush and he asked me when I thought it was going to get better.

I told him that it will get better when the people who go into Starbuck's begin to understand that selling water to "help starving children in Africa or wherever" (the Starbucks "Ethos" water), is all about things OTHER than helping starving children in Africa.

I also told him that that it will get better when people finally get it that the "green movement" is really the "Green $$ movement".

~Seneca

America - Land of the Free?

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. Thomas Jefferson

Thus it is then that we now have in these United States the following:

car czar
energy czar
health czar
education czar
welfare czar
drug czar
food czar
security czar
finance czar
etc, ad nauseaum...

Plus all the assorted "Wars on This or That"

Am I the only one that is appalled at the fact that in these United States we have the existence of these departments, and, am I the only one that is appalled, and indeed frightened, that the term "czar" is so universally used in conjunction with discussions of them?

To me, the very fact,

a) that these positions exist,
b) that they are called "czars",
c) that "the people" are not appalled by the existence of these entities, and,
d) that the people, doubly, are not appalled at the use of the term "czar" in connection with them,

is proof of the tyranny that has spread, like a cancer, through these States. States, I might add, that united so as to overcome what was billed then as the tyranny of King George and the intrusion of his government into every aspect to the lives of the colonists.

Furthermore, I pause to point out the most Orwellian of terms "Homeland Security", the indifference of the people to both the existence of such an apparatus, and an indifference to the use of such appellation, indicating to me that the only thing necessary to complete the conversion to the collectivist despotism is the speaking of Russian.

Next thing you know we will have Bill O'Riley talking about how the government needs to "... do something about the economy". But wait ... that has already happened!

~Seneca

________________
PS - No, my dear reader - "the economy" is not the function of the Federal Government, and those of you that buy into such pap may as well enroll in Russian language class, for it is exactly that kind of uncritical thinking that leads to a government system that controls everything you do.

Socialism/Collectivism For Dummies

Sent to me by a friend and it was too good to not post. It fits in exactly with my take on things ....

An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "Okay, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too; so they studied little.. The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the third test rolled around the average was an F.The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away; no one will try or want to succeed.Could not be any simpler than that...

The Epitome of Failure

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/25/AR2009042501870.html

At the link above, you will find the epitome of the liberal/collectivist failure and a harbinger of the future.

I have news for this poor sister -- she cannot keep up, and neither can Obama. This is what awaits the entire country: complete exhaustion, the destruction of the goose that lays the golden eggs. Why? Because the government simply cannot, nor should it, take care of anyone or everyone, meet all their needs, ensure that the house is not foreclosed, the gas bill gets paid, the job saved, that everybody uses energy wasting environment-destroying fluorescent bulbs, etc..

Liberals want utopia secured by the government, but want what can never be, and in trying to achieve their utopia, they destroy the very thing that created the wealth of the world.



P.S.

About 1/3 down the article says:

Now she sometimes wonders aloud to her husband, Charles: "When does it stop?"

Councilwoman, let me break it down for you. It stops when you and your kind move your eyes to the right hand side of this blog, read the "About Me" section, and start to understand that it is exactly the views and morality espoused there that built the country, and that government policies having their basis in your views, are leading to its very destruction.

It stops when you wake up and realize that that lazy brother of yours will suck you dry, exactly BECAUSE you are giving him a handout.

It stops when you realize that there is ALWAYS going to be a "lazy-brother" and that your handouts of MY money, do nothing but increase his number.

It stops when you realize that you could take all the wealth of all those evil rich people, distribute it to all those you deem "in-need", and raise the standing of "the people" by perhaps as much as only .00001% . (aka shared misery)

It stops when you tell that "friend" of yours that they need to pay their own "... $168 .. water bill".

From all of us that grew up on the farm and know that if you put out free cream for one cat that the next day there will be 3 more freeloaders, none of which will catch mice anymore, we tell you that you are playing with matches in the closet.

Burn Baby Burn

On Ponzi Schemes and You

~ from the Securities and Exchange Commission Site.....

....Ponzi schemes are a type of illegal pyramid scheme named for Charles Ponzi, who duped thousands of New England residents into investing in a postage stamp speculation scheme back in the 1920s. Ponzi thought he could take advantage of differences between U.S. and foreign currencies used to buy and sell international mail coupons. Ponzi told investors that he could provide a 40% return in just 90 days compared with 5% for bank savings accounts. Ponzi was deluged with funds from investors, taking in $1 million during one three-hour period—and this was 1921! Though a few early investors were paid off to make the scheme look legitimate, an investigation found that Ponzi had only purchased about $30 worth of the international mail coupons. Decades later, the Ponzi scheme continues to work on the "rob-Peter-to-pay-Paul" [emphasis added] principle, as money from new investors is used to pay off earlier investors until the whole scheme collapses.


Regarding that last part, "Robbing Peter to Pay Paul". Perhaps it would be a good use of time to go back and read the above while considering the recent "bail-outs," and the schemes of social security, universal health care, children's health insurance, welfare, free education, food stamps, set-asides, immigration "reform", global warming, carbon taxation, save the hungry, feed the whales, aid to Africa, aid to China, be kind to trees movements, and a host of other programs/causes.

Great schemes - all designed to "reach across the aisle" so as to get money out of your pocket and into somebody elses - and also to wrest control from YOU and install it elsewhere. But then, that is OK as long as, in the end, I am able to get more of "mine" at your expense, than you are able to get of "yours" at mine.