Ahead of SOTU, Obama makes "Giant Leap" to the Right

In what appears to be an historic defeat of Obama's radical leftism, the past few days have been witness to, perhaps, the greatest lurch toward the center from the far reaches of the radical left. Obama, the same President who believes that the Auto industry, Healthcare industry, Banking industry, etc have no place in a capitalist free market has proposed a very radical idea in regards to human space exploration - Give it to the free market.

The White House has decided to begin funding private companies to carry NASA astronauts into space, but the proposal faces major political and budget hurdles, according to people familiar with the matter.
The controversial proposal, expected to be included in the Obama administration's next budget, would open a new chapter in the U.S. space program. The goal is to set up a multiyear, multi-billion-dollar initiative allowing private firms, including some start-ups, to compete to build and operate spacecraft capable of ferrying U.S. astronauts into orbit—and eventually deeper into the solar system.

As a veteran engineer in the aerospace industry, as well as a former employee of the NASA run Orion/Ares programs, I (for the first time since he has taken office) applaud the President. Where the Ares I rocket was nothing more than a money funnel and engineering disaster, private ventures like Space-X have developed and test flown the predecessor to their human rated launcher capable of servicing the ISS for about 1/10 the cost of NASA's Ares. Their Falcons are greener, cheaper, currently in production, and fully reusable. NASA has had one barely successful test of a mock-up Ares concept vehicle which revealed the further nightmare to follow (less about a Billion more dollars a year to fix), which is extremely inefficient, acoustically non-viable for human space flight, and economically impractical. The novel concept of eliminating governmental restrictions on human space flight, opening the frontier to start-ups which promotes innovation in space exploration technologies leaps and bounds above what the old dinosaur (NASA) could possibly conceive, is nothing short of Goldwater style governing.

This idea of privatization has already made heads explode at the "two liberal for Obama" (2L4O) lefties, such as BlueLyon (who can be found in my daily blog recommendations section). The left is up in arms that "The One", with the power of a near super majority and all his grace, has in one short year surrendered to the opposition on the fundamental philosophy of state run EVERYTHING. The very idea of private ventures taking governmental bureaucracies to task on ANYTHING is in direct contradiction to the Marxist values embraced by Obama and his ilk on the left, leading one to wonder - WHY?

Why has Obama endorsed a spending freeze for all federal government agencies except defense? Why has Obama endorsed a tax cut the likes of first term George W. Bush? Why this sudden lurch to the right?

The answer is clear - it is election year and a great number of Alinsky style leftists are positioned to lose their seats, losing power for the left in the final two years of the Obama presidency. Obama's power of persuasion has been met with defeat after defeat on everything from major elections, such as last week's MA Senate Race, to the simplest task of bringing the Olympics to America. He has quickly become the least popular president after his first year in office, setting the stage for being the least popular president in the history of the country. The implementation of a Socialist Empire in America is crumbling... As such, the spending freeze, tax cuts, and budget cuts are being proposed by a man eager to win back the hearts and minds of the independents ahead of the 2010 election with hopes that in two more years he can ram through socialist ideal after socialist ideal.

Is it enough to fool some people? Perhaps. Is it enough of a veil to mask a failed first year? Maybe for some. Is it enough to hid the fact that these proposals are merely a PR mirage to cover up his true agenda? Not likely. Congressional Democrats are going to eat this president alive for abandoning their core values on the public stage, their Alinsky/Marxist values, at a time when they have held more power than any party in history. Their disarray will be clear as the elections move closer, and without the "Blame Bush" message, the Democrats have nothing left to offer other than failed socialist policies... and the people are becoming well aware of this.

In the State of the Union speech tonight I have to wonder, will a teary eyed Democrat stand up and shout down the President with a resounding "You Lie(d)", as the hopes and dreams of the radical left are systematically renounced by the one who would "Fundamentally Change" America?

Final Post on Bail-outs... maybe

If there is any doubt that we are living in the dawn of Socialist America, you need look no further than the latest plan in "bail-outs" from the US Government - The Auto Industry Saga.

Congress and the White House have reached a plan that would allow $15Billion in loans from the "green car" fund, as well as give the US government major stock in the companies and oversight of their restructuring. The automobile manufacturing trio will be nationalized within the week...

The deal is so open ended that it is unclear as to if the US government will have voting rights on the companies' boards, how involved they will be during the bankruptcy style restructuring, and what role it will play in determining new products and marketing of their respective automobiles.

What is clear is that this "entity" known as the "government" is less "of the people, for the people, by the people" and more ruling class tending to their pleebs.

The people of America have been fooled... and I am almost tired of yelling it time and again - what good is it doing?

Don't the subjects of America, the consumers of this nation, understand that it has been excesses in LIBERAL ideas that have led the corporations across the nation to fail - not free market capitalism... FMC is taking the blame based solely on the assumption that a Republican is in office during this downfall, Republicans believe in FMC, therefore FMC has failed!

B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T

The truth is that the lack of ability for these banks and businesses to operate more freely, making sound business calls - not meeting government mandates - has led to this downfall. From forced loans made to live up to "houses for everyone", to government driven mandates on automobile standards (which may not be all bad), and namely Union Gestapo Thugs creating job banks, near full pay retirement benefits for life, etc... with some blame falling on CEO greed and inability of management to do just that... This is not FMC. This is government and Union intervention - mobster tactics from both...

And now the only way to survive these waters is to sell out to these interests... A mobsters dream!

And that is what the US Government has become to the free market - bullies, gangsters, thugs!

They set impossible rules, support impossible standards via unions, and then conduct violent take-overs of the companies when they fail...

Here is the solution:

• The US government needs to STOP. We cannot sustain - and we should not allow the US Government to operate outside the roles of the Constitution - not even for one moment!
• The auto makers need to file bankruptcy - shed all of their contracts with unions, and restructure... if the laborers want to strike, they lose their jobs... others will gladly take them in this recession/depression we are slipping into (or already in).
• Trade Tariffs should be lifted or imposed to force other economies around the world to give these automobiles equal footing in world markets, and equally allow a fair market for other world automobiles on US soil - something that is generally done today in the US.
• The companies should be allowed to thrive or fail based on their ability to follow market needs/wants... The industry giants became so because they gobbled up failures before them... If they also fail, they should downsize or eliminated based on the market.
• The general laborer should educate themselves, and strive to better their situation should a lay-off come. Be prepared to take care of yourself and your family... doing so means personal responsibility... a term that is equally as targeted as FMC.

Our society is failing - not because freedom and liberty are failing - but because we are allowing the government to rule. Shame on us - or those of us who are doing nothing to stop it!

Inasmuch, I am tired of repeating the same message week after week... Am I living in a pipe dream - that FMC stands a chance - that liberty is a desire in the hearts of all Americans... that we all strive to be free...

Are we living in a society that would rather be protected, even if it is to the point of fear of our rulers in lack of civil liberties? Have I got it all wrong, and before my eyes America shifted into a Socialist Authoritarian State?

Unfortunately, all signs are pointing to yes...

Socialism - the initiation of force is evil

In a recent debate between myself and a member of my family, the following gauntlet was thrown:

"STEVE, I CHALLENGE YOU TO EXPLAIN WHY SOCIALISM IS BAD. WE SOCIALIZE OUR ROADS, OUR POLICE, OUR FIRE DEPARTMENTS. WE SHOULD HAVE UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE TOO. THE "FREE MARKET" APPROACH IS NOT WORKING. THE IDEA IS TO PROVIDE BASIC UNIVERSAL SERVICES FOR CITIZENS. IT IS REPUBLICAN JOE MCCARTHY SMEAR & FEAR & GUILT BY ASSOCIATION TACTICS [HE'S A MUSLIM. HE'S A SOCIALIST. HE'S NOT PATRIOTIC ETC] THAT HAS GIVEN SOCIALISM A BAD NAME."

My response, posted below, should be an indication that free market principles, and a grasp at the historical importance of liberty and the role of government are not only important, but VITAL to the preservation of our Republic (NOT Democracy!!!!!) If the fundamentals of our way of life are not udnerstood, then our way of life has already been lost - and we should accept that the government has grown into an authoritarian powerhouse - and we should accept that a Democrat victory in November will spell the end of liberty, and end that Bush has helped usher in! I digress... My response to the question of Socialism is as follows:

To be honest, it is socialism in history that has given socialism a bad name. The premise to socialism is a large government - large governments with authoritarian control. The presence of large governments in America is a current reality, which is a direct affront to liberty.

Let me explain further.

Can we agree that the initiation of force is evil? This is not to be confused with defense, etc... but the initiation of force.

Assuming your answer is yes, I will continue.

The idea of taxation is the essence of the initiation of force, by the government on the people. George Washington referred to the policy of taxation as "inconvenient and unpleasant" and an "intrinsic embarrassment" - though he did recognize that there was a necessity of taxation with the purpose of paying down debt. In his farewell address to the nation, paragraph 30, Washington discussed debt: "...avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertions in time of peace to discharge the debts..." He also advocated for neutrality in regional conflicts, as the idea of forcing free men into foreign wars was an initiation of force as well. There is an historical precedence that indicates that the initiation of force is evil, and that taxation is a nasty side effect of government with the purpose of paying down the debt. It was not until 1913 when the idea of an Income Tax was made a reality - opening the doors for a continued large scale government. This was not part of the original intent of the free nation.

Furthermore, classical economist Adam Smith indicated that the government has three functions: national defense, administration of justice (law and order), and the provision of certain public goods (e.g., transportation infrastructure and basic and applied education). The existence of these three functions provided the atmosphere for the best economic growth - indicating minimal taxation, minimal government interference in private life, while stressing the importance of collective needs which do not hinder liberty, but serve to increase fundamentals of a society (access and education). This answers your question regarding fire and police protection... classical capitalism requires the administration of justice as a means to secure private property.

Ultimately, the existence of liberty - true personal freedom - lies within personal responsibility and minimal government intervention. As stated above, the ideology of socialism is predicated on the existence of an overbearing government with the power to intervene in personal decision making. This intervention (through taxes or authoritarian laws) is the initiation of force, and by definition, evil.

Let's use an example that was on the Colorado Ballot - a change to the Colorado Constitution dictating that an employer with 20 employees or more shall provide healthcare coverage. This is an example of the initiation of force by the government. What laws of this nature encourage is economic slowdown - as an employer now has just cause not to hire a 20th person, or has just cause to lower wages to cover the cost of the mandatory service, or risk taking the money directly out of his/her small business earnings. A more appropriate (small government) path would be to fix the high cost of healthcare by encouraging more citizens to go into medicine, and tightening loose laws on malpractice lawsuits (lowering insurance premiums for doctors - thus lowering costs).

The reason why healthcare is not working now is because the system is in a pull between the idea of free market and the false system of "insurance" that has propped up as a safety net - artificially driving costs through the roof.

One thing is for certain, the Socialist dictum of "to each according to his need, by each according to his ability" would indicate that a doctor MUST provide a service, regardless of goods received, because they are able. However, doctors are businessmen, who take on large loans/debts to pursue a career - to serve their duties as doctors as they see fit. The same can be said for educators, musicians, and engineers. What right does the government have in dictating how we use our skills, at what price we charge for our skills, and where we can use our skills? This idea of a "government entity" that is separate from the people, able to dictate such nonsense, is the absence of liberty.

Remember also that this conversation is in regards to the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, which is dictated by the constitution of the united state. Should a state or local government so choose to provide services, the 9th and 10th amendment dictate that it is their right to establish their own local laws and way of life.

In short, Socialism is bad not because McCarthy told me it is bad - even though that is the stigma associated with "He's a socialist". It is not smear if it is true, btw. Socialism is predicated on the initiation of force by a government entity, dictating unnecessary taxes and social behavior through such use of force. By this definition, Socialism is evil.

(as a side note, regarding economies tending toward socialism - history has shewn that free market capitalist societies with tax rates no higher than 20% nominally show fastest economic growth, while countries which have attained a status of "wealthy" who trend toward increased social programs and higher taxes see an economic growth plateau. See the history of Sweden and Ireland as examples of Socialism and Capitalism (repsectively) and the effects on their economic growth.)

SNL Satires the Bail-out - Upsets the Liberal Left

Saturday Night Live has an infamous history as of late regarding politics - coming down hard on Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin, and the show's political voice is clearly left when former cast-members like Chevy Chase hope that the show goes further and "decimates" our next VP.

However, sometimes they get it right... as was the case in their representation of the $700 Billion Wall-Street Welfare plan. There has been much controversy surrounding this direct slam on the Democratic Party for it's actions regarding the bailout, as well as directly attacking Pelosi, Barney Frank, GW Bush, and labelling George Soros as "the Owner of the Democratic Party". They did a great job of calling out the leadership of this nation, and showing how ridiculous such "welfare" plans are and how Democratic ideology actually is the root cause of this entire mess.

If this gets high play, perhaps some on the left might question the truth behind the cause of the economic crisis. There is a long list of causes dating back to the creation of FDIC in 1933 and Fannie Mae in 1938 all the way through to the Clinton and Bush administrations' enforcement of CRA and the "ownership" society. This has nothing to do with the free market (as Obama would indicate, as he did in last night's debate) - our financial markets have not been "deregulated" and anyone who claims so is dishonest. The real key has been a fiat paper currency that is managed by a central bank who has continually tried to eliminate risk but has instead fostered malinvestment, bubbles, and increasing leverage throughout. The solution is to defend individual property rights, free banking and the gold standard.

How Free Men Squandered a Free Society

This blog was inspired by a BBC documentary call The Century of the Self

As a modern day conservative, it is expected of you to embrace the modern model of progressive capitalism. The Republican Party is clearly the party of business, and operates under the banner of a "free market society".

In fact, I am currently going through training on the free market system and the fundamentals of the conservative principles, called the Leadership Program of the Rockies. An excellent training course for future leaders, indeed.

However, I find myself observing a conflict with the fundamental founding principles and the concept of modern capitalism. Let me explain...

A free market, in it's simplest form, works when one person has a need and this person is able to freely choose how to fill the need... without government involvement. Where we are with the current form of progressive capitalism, is in an entanglement of government over-regulation of business and industry, and thus an alliance/power-share of government and business. The more government involvement in business, the less of a truly free market society we have.

As well, the founding principles discuss an endowment of natural rights, allowing the pursuit of happiness. Understanding that the original intent of the word "happiness" was property, one has to question why the word was changed to a broader term "happiness" and question if it was because the founders understood that property does not equal happiness. And I would go further to argue that today's society has confused capitalism with gluttony and greed, and as such the economy is crumbling under the hammer of credit and over-consumption. Therefore the pursuit of happiness is being hampered by the exit ramp of over-consumption and over-credit.

This is where the above video comes into play. The video discusses the surge of emotional marketing, and how it started a consumer nation in the US. It is a very interesting video, and to fully understand the state of the nation, and of the world, you should take a moment and watch it.

Now that you understand the original intent of the founding of this society, and understand the new consumer nation that has replaced the free society, you may understand my next argument.

I am surmising that the combination of government over-regulation of the businesses and the consumer crazed populous has created a situation in which we have freely offered up our fundamental freedoms in exchange for goods.

There is a reason that the approval rating of our congress, the freely elected "representatives", is in the 9% - 11% area. The reason is that the citizens of this great nation are being sold "success of the society" by economic and consumer reports. And the leadership of the country uses the same consumer based mindset to sell the people a bad product... themselves.

We have become trained to react to our emotional instincts... and marketing continues to reinforce these emotional responses.

And politicians have learned the same techniques. This is why you hear "vote for me, I can win", instead of "vote for me, I am a man of principles"... And thus we are left with the "lesser of two evils" vote. In doing so, we are continually perpetuating a strengthening ruling class who's ultimate goal is to, by keeping the people subdued with consumerism, change the face of the free society into a government protectorate, government dictatorship that intends to have ultimate control over the world citizenry.

I am not a conspiracy theorist... consider the following source: Video on Globalism.

Ask yourself... how free are you? Is this freedom perceived, or does it exist?

As a conservative, should you support a free market society, or a consumer nation masked as a free market society?

And, does Capitalism have borders? More importantly, SHOULD capitalism have borders? For instance, how free of a market is it if I want to enter the textile industry when all other textiles are produced in nations where free market is a pipe dream (China, Pakistan, Indonesia).

So to answer my heading, Free Men have Squandered a Free Society by submitting to their baser emotional instincts, and have submitted that as long as they have items to consume, and thus appear happy/content, the government can continue to increase in size and reach, reducing our liberties. By keeping the people Fat, Dumb, and "Happy", the leaders have succeeded in squandering our society around us.