Why I Will NOT Be Voting for Ron Paul in the GOP Primary

The only way he'd get my vote is if his opponent were Barack Obama, and even then I'd pull the lever holding my breathe that those classified security briefings he'd receive would bring about a 180 in terms of his foreign policy views and initiatives.

The one area which the United States federal government has undisputed constitutional authority to spend taxpayer money is on the military and defense, and Congressman Paul's foreign policy views are simply too wrong for me to vote for him against any other Republican.

Ron Paul and the other GOP candidates for President debate

I like Ron Paul. I'd like him w whole lot better if is position on foreign policy and the role of the United States military in maintaining global order while eliminating threats to the Constitution and the republic wasn't so badly skewed.

The thing about him that is so maddening is that on just about every single issue foreign policy excluded, he is right-on-the-money, and towers over the other candidates in the GOP primary in terms of his positions on the issues and his rationale for said positions. However, when it comes to foreign policy, Rep. Paul has convinced me that were he to be elected President, he'd either very quickly realize how wrong he has been all these years in light of the classified security briefings new Presidents receive; or he'd transition the United States into a new Russian territory (like Cuba, for example).

It's easy for Americans to get caught up in an illusion that lends to a belief that the world is run by sane, rational and civilized people who share the values most Americans hold dear. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case.

Communism will always be a threat to this or any republic. The only thing standing in the way of another world war that would make the previous two pale in comparison in terms of the devastation it would unleash is the United States military, and the brave men and women who serve our country and defend our constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Rep. Paul's stated desire to adopt an isolationist foreign policy while slashing the size and potency of the military, including but not limited to the withdrawal of troops from strategic locations around the world, is what makes him a dangerous candidate, and one for whom I would not vote unless I had absolutely no other choice (meaning if he were to actually win the 2012 GOP nomination).

Since Herman Cain dropped out of the race, I have yet to formally endorse a candidate, but plan to do so in the near future in an upcoming post.

How Evil is George Soros?

Is George Soros the world's most evil man? The question relates to and includes women too, for whatever it's worth. I have my reasons for phrasing it in an exclusively male context (If you must know... In all seriousness, does anyone really believe that any woman who is not an ex-wife or ex-girlfriend --- your ex-wife or girlfriend to be specific, not just anyone's --- could be more evil than the world's most evil man? . . . I didn't think so).

Is he (Soros) even evil to begin with? Or, is it possible for a person to be as genuinely confused about right-and-wrong as Uncle Soros would have us all believe is the case with himself?

The question unfortunately begs numerous other questions best left to a theologian to answer. Some of these include:

• What is evil?
• Is evil defined by actions, behaviors, words, beliefs and/or some combination thereof?
• Who is to say what is evil?
• Is morality relative? What about ethics?
• Is it possible that some people who are born with fully functioning brains and organs lack what most of us would refer to as a conscience?
• Who am I to judge ("Judge not, lest thee be judged")?
• Can evil exist without the existence of God (a question for athiests and agnostics, obviously)?
• Does evil exist period?

Is there a certain threshold as to what constitutes evil in any sense (actions, thoughts, behaviors, etc.), or is whether or not something "is evil" determined on a case-by-case basis? If so, by whom (another question for non-believers, who for the record I am not judging in any way, shape, manner or form, and against whom I have not one iota of angst)?

I'm not going to attempt to answer any of those questions, but for those who wish to delve into them further, I will provide to the resources I utilize to help wrap my mind around these concepts:

• Regarding Moral Conscience
• Regarding Good and Evil
• Regarding the Nature and Sources of Morality
• Regarding Sin

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other person that is alive at present that I'd consider to be "more" evil than George Soros, at least according to my understanding of evil*. And yes, that includes serial killers, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro (whom I'm still 98% certain died in 2007 or 2008, but is still "officially" alive, so he's included here for the purposes of conversation).
In the case of Ahmadinejad, while he may aspire to kill more Jews than Hitler himself was responsible for murdering, he lacks the capacity to single-handedly orchestrate such a massacre, and could only succeed in doing so with significant help from George Soros --- which he has gotten. That said, Soros has the ability to put a stop to the nutjob in Iran if he wished to do so. Unfortunately, he does not, and in fact has been an integral part of Iran's obtaining nuclear weapons, not to mention the fact that for at least the past three years, Iran's nuclear program has proceeded without a hitch, but with the blessing of the U.S. Commander in Chief, who as we all know was hand-picked by Soros, who propagandized America for long enough to get him elected. Not that he really needed to, Soros' SOS Project (SOS is an acronym for Secratary of State, which makes the complete name of this sinister undertaking by George Soros the Secretary of State Project) has been such an unprecedented success that Obama would only have needed to win about 35% of the popular vote in any of the states he won in order to "win" those states.

For anyone unfamiliar with the SOS Project, Soros funneled hundreds of millions of dollars into statewide elections for the position of Secretary of State. He did this across the entire United States. The mission behind Project SOS is to ensure that in any election between a democrat and a Republican in which the statewide demographics are such that a democrat victory would be anything less than proposerous to even conceive of --- meaning that a vast majority of the voting population would be less than 100% certain of a fraudulent outcome should the democrat emerge on top --- that the democrat wins each and every one of those elections regardless of what it takes to meet those ends.

The responsibilities of the Secretary of State on a statewide level are far different than the position at the federal level. For states, the SoS's job is typically to oversee business and corporate filings, and to manage and coordinate elections for each given state. Relative to any other position in a typical U.S. state government, the SoS has the most power to illegally influence the outcome of an election in a variety of ways, and Soros' minions have figured out all of them, mastering most in the process.

Take the 2010 Nevada election for U.S. Senate between Harry Reid (who has been termed the "Second-Most Evil Man in America") and Tea Party favorite Sharon Angle. All of the polls leading up to and even on election day (exit polls in the case of election day itself) showed Angle with a comfortable lead ranging from 3.5 - 5.5 percentage points. Not a blowout by any stretch of the imagination, but outside the margin of error for all but a few of the more obscure polls that were released. Nevada's Secretary of State, who was effectively appointed by Soros via the SOS Project, contracted with --- of all people --- the SEIU (an uber-liberal, proactive democrat PAC. The name is an acronym for the Service Employees International Union) to manage, maintain and perform "maintenance" on Nevada's electronic voting machines.

This directly resulted in two (2) different types of election fraud. Not surprisingly, both just "happened" to work to Harry Reid's advantage. The two different forms of mass election fraud from Nevada's 2010 race are:

1. Thousands and perhaps even tens of thousands of the machines were pre-programmed to cast votes for Harry Reid. Upon each vote being registered and the voting form cleared for the next voter, the device was set to vote for Harry Reid by default!! Wait, it gets worse. When intelligent and informed voters with stable minds went in to cast their ballots, hundreds of voters observed their vote for Sharon Angle switched at the last second by the machine. The switch occurred after the voter had pressed the "cast ballot" button, but was apparently visible for just long enough for several hundred voters to take notice. We can only guess at how many hundreds or thousands just pressed the button and left the polling place, never even stopping to consider that a United States Senator would resort to such scandalous and illegal tactics for the purpose of subverting the democratic process and the will of the people.
2. In heavily democratic precincts (those most predictable and most likely to favor Reid over Angle by a wide margin based on demographics and past voter behavior alone), numerous precincts submitted more votes than there were registered voters residing within and/or registered to vote within the precinct. For anyone wondering how that happens, there are two scenarios that in all likelihood both occurred. The first involved the same people voting more than once. It's no secret that this goes on in every election involving a democrat without exception, and has ever since the days when the democrat party was heavily aligned with the Klan (sadly, not much has changed on that front), with both organizations' (the democrats and the KKK) primary objective being the subversion of the rights of black U.S. citizens. The second scenario us unfortunately also fairly common in elections involving democrats. This latter scenario involves union thugs simply pulling the lever over-and-over again for Reid after the polls had closed.

When all was said and done, Harry Reid was "reelected" by a slim margin. TRANSLATION: Sharon Angle won the election by 6-10 percentage points, but Reid was reelected anyway due to the rampant fraud that occurred, which was on display for all to see, and of which little attempt was made by the guilty parties to conceal the sinister actions and intents. With a so-called Department of Justice that is in cahoots with Reid, Obama and the democrats, it came as little surprise that there was no federal investigation into these widely documented reports and claims, for which the evidence is so readily available one could fill the Mercedes-Benz Superdome in New Orleans with all the witnesses and documents supportive of the allegations.

The point of this story is that none of this (Harry Reid's fraudulent reelection) would have been possible if it weren't for a Hungarian-born devil of a man by the name of George Soros.

VIDEO: George Soros Discussing China's
Role in the New World Order





* NOTE: For the purposes of discussion and debate, I am obviously taking a leave of absence from my usual approach of deferring judgment to someone I deem more qualified than myself to judge other human beings (that would be God, for those of you in Eugene, Oregon).

Lazy 'Occupy Wall Street' Junkies Should Be Allowed to Starve (for the Good of the Country)

The lazy bums loitering in the streets of New York City (Wall Street, to be specific), Atlanta, GA, New Orleans, LA and other cities all across the United States, are an awfully pathetic bunch.  A loosely affiliated mixture of left wing radicals such as communists, anarchists, fascists and other sinister liberal groups, the one common trait shared by all of the Occupy Wall Street hooligans is that they would all prefer to spend their time "protesting" in the street against people who actually have jobs, work for a living and succeed, than get jobs themselves.  Their reason?  Because those people --- the evil Wall Street ne'er do wells --- have more money than they do.

They want everyone else to do all their work for them, as well as give them all the money the people who perform who work earn.  These people (OWS thugs) are a shining example of why food stamps should be done away with.  These lazy junkies should be allowed to starve if they aren't willing to support themselves.

Occupy Wall Street Protesters: Lazy and Stupid

The fact that we as taxpayers are subsidizing these slobs to the point they can afford to remain perennially unemployed, protesting the working man and going weeks in between showers.  They never brush their teeth, have no desire to fit in to society, much less have to work for a living.  Yet they're alive nonetheless.  They don't deserve to be alive, yet they are, and the sole reason is because working people continue to feed them.

It's time to let the monumentally lazy starve.  The benefits of doing so for the country are multi-fold.  First, some of them will eventually begrudgingly get jobs, accepting that the realization of their greatest fear (having to work) is still better than being dead.  This will add to the supply side of the labor equation, which in the macro picture will help to reduce the cost of employing workers for businesses.  When the cost of doing business goes down, businesses are more likely to succeed and by greater margins, which will go a long way toward helping to reverse the Obama recession.

Other communists and anarchists will stay true to their core laziness, opting to die a martyr rather than get a job.  This will reduce the number of democrat voters, which will make it harder for democrats to get elected, which will reduce their numbers in the House and Senate.  Less democrats in Congress means a fast economic recovery, further building upon the gains resulting from the reduced cost of doing business.

The elimination (or at minimum drastic reduction) of the Federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAPS, or "food stamps") will allow for all the billions of dollars required to feed the lazy to be used to help pay off America's debt, lowering interest rates and helping to curb the global financial panic.  This will help usher in a new period of stability in the global markets, and America will be the the leadership role of one of the greatest economic turnarounds in the world's history.

Obama's Troubles the Result of His Policies, Not His Approach

I recently came across a Bloomberg commentary piece written by a man named William Pesek. The article was loosely structured around a premise asserting that U.S. President Barack Obama and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard have much in common.

While I do not necessarily dispute the premise in and of itself, the author's reasoning could not have been more off-the-mark. The main argument in the piece was that neither Obama nor Gillard are "radical" enough to overcome cynical detractors in opposition parties whose only goal is to derail the political ambitions of the two respective leaders.


The author cites GOP opposition to Obama's "Jobs Bill", in particular his unsubstantiated proposal to cut payroll taxes. What Pesek conveniently fails to mention are the accompanying tax and spending increases that render the proposal a net increase in the size and scope of the U.S. federal government.


The following passage from the article best synopsizes the author's misguided logic:

"The only answer for Gillard and Obama is to get radical -- be bold, think big and fight for your ideals. Neither leader seems set to do that, or able to sell their messages."

William Pesek obviously isn't all that attuned to U.S. politics. Obama is by far and without question the most radical president in the history of the United States. Republicans oppose his policies not because they want nothing more than to obstruct him, but because his policies are genuinely bad ideas that have already been tried (two stimulus bills, cash for clunkers, auto and bank bailouts, etc.). The reality is that to Obama, "economic stimulus" translates to "multibillion dollar slush fund for violent union thug donors".

He is the most hyper-partisan president in the nation's history, and indisputably the most corrupt --- and by a wide margin. Never before has a president tripled the nation's debt for no purpose other than to redistribute trillions of dollars in confiscated wealth to campaign donors and political allies. Obama has done so at the direct expense of the American economy.

Most Republicans are not saboteurs, and thus are not motivated to destroy the country and its economy. Anyone who doubts that Obama's treacherous policies and initiatives are designed to do just that is either naive or badly uninformed.

Obama to Blame for Food, Fuel Inflation

Wal-Mart CEO Bill Simon recently issued a dire prediction for the month of June. Specifically, Simon has gone on record and predicted that the long-anticipated inflation stemming from the Pelosi/Bush bailouts of 2008 and the Obama Stimulus will set in with a vengeance during the month of June.

Inflation is "going to be serious," according to Simon. "Except for fuel costs, U.S. consumers haven't seen much in the way of inflation for almost a decade, so a broad-based increase in prices will be unprecedented in recent memory."

There has been much talk in recent months over the prospect of food prices increasing dramatically. Food prices, like most other prices, are being driven up by inflation first and foremost.

What causes inflation?

Remember all those bailouts? Obama's trillion-dollar stimulus? All the money borrowed from China and printed by the U.S. Federal Reserve?

All of the above drastically increase the rate of inflation. Food and fuel prices are the first of which people take notice because they are commodities that everyone must buy. Most other prices lag behind because people can choose not to buy non-essential items, which causes retailers to lower prices in hopes of stimulating buying by the consumers. While the retailer is feeling the full effects of inflation, competition over marketshare prevents them from immediately passing it along to the consumer. Instead, they keep prices as low as possible for as long as possible in order to try to gain a few percentage points worth of their opponents' market share in hopes of converting that chunk of business into profit at a later date once the economy has recovered and consumer behavior has returned to its normal levels of activity.

That said, eventually retailers, grocers and the various other merchants will have to raise prices in order to meet their costs and hopefully earn a small margin (profit). When that happens, consumers will feel the full effect of the coming widespread inflation.

For a more in-depth explanation of the relationship between Obama's stimulus and inflation, check out this article, which appeared in the Wall Street Journal back in February of 2009.

Atlas Shrugged the Movie (Part 1) Now Playing in Theaters

Part one of the Atlas Shrugged movie is now playing in theaters across the country.  I've been waiting a decade (since I first picked up the book) for this movie to debut.  And what do you know, but the timing of this movie's release couldn't have been any better.  Atlas Shrugged is the closest thing to an official Tea Party charter as exists, and with a looter government in Washington rapidly confiscating wealth by way of inflation (and taxes), but especially inflation, it almost seems as if this movie was more than a half century in the making by design.

In any case, I this will be the first movie I've gone to see at a theater since April of 2005.

The official movie trailer can be seen below.

Why Newspapers Won't Report Jennifer Rexford's Claims

Those of you who have been following the Jennifer Rexford agitprop scam are in for a real treat in this post.  Now might be a good time to go get some pretzels and a cold soda and get comfortable so you can maximize the enjoyment of watching as I demonstrate exactly why no news agency is willing to print Jennifer's "story" in their newspapers, discuss it on their television programs, radio shows, websites, blogs and any other medium you can think of that I might have missed.

In response to those who have privately questioned why I would even give her story the publicity it is receiving by appearing three different times on this blog, the answer is that I felt it was important that the record show that the woman claiming to be Comrade Rexler's story is complete and utter bullshit, and that she was publicly given a chance to prove otherwise and failed to do so.

The person claiming to be Jennifer Rexford left almost two dozen combined comments on the previous two posts.  The following is my response to those comments:

Re: Comrade Rexford

Comrade Jennifer, I am going to ask you to provide some specific information about your purported story.  If indeed your story does check out, I will do the following:

• Remove the previous two posts addressing this topic
• Issue a formal and public retraction and apology
• See that the story gets picked up by a major national or regional newspaper as well as wire services within not more than 72 hours following my receiving the information
• Establish a charitable fund in your name to help with your medical expenses and make a $100 opening donation

If, as I am expecting, you will be unable to pass the upcoming credibility test, public record will show that your story was debunked beyond the possibility for interpretation.

Please provide the below-requested information which can be submitted privately by using the form found here (use the "domains" field as you would the "message" or "body" field on a standard form).  If you wish to publicly show that you provided the information requested, you may do so in the "comments" field below.

Please provide the following information:

• The date at which you began performing Gulf oil spill cleanup restoration efforts
• The date at which your employment cleanup-related employment ended
• Your employer (the name of the firm)
• The name of your immediate supervisor (the one directly above you whom you answer to daily)
• The name of any other lower, mid and upper level managers/supervisors employed by stated firm involved or associated with the project(s) on which you allegedly worked
• Your job title
• Your job responsibilities
• Specific job duties that placed you most at risk of physically handling oil and oil-related byproducts with your skin, and job duties that placed you at risk of breathing in unhealthy contaminants that you claim caused your litany of medical conditions
• State of employment
• Parish or county of employment
• Name and clinic/work phone number of physician who will state on record that he or she agrees with your stated assessment of your purported conditions and their respective cause(s)
• Name, floor and unit of the supposed nurse mentioned in your allegations and in your vidoes
• Hospital in which said events were filmed
• Name of a physician with whom you had an in-office visit 12-24 months ago
• Signed waivers (one per person) to be sent via certified mail granting your permission for every medical profession whose name is requested above to speak on-record about your condition (I will pay all costs associated with shipping them)

If you're telling the truth and you really want to let the world know just how badly BP screwed you over, you should have no trouble providing me with the requested information.  Use the form linked to above to send me a private email address at which I can send you a mailing address for the waivers. If you are telling the truth, I will keep my word and uphold the promises listed above.

However, I'm not expecting to receive any much less all of the information needed to verify your claims.  You had asked why I didn't bother contacting you before annihilating your unsubstantiated allegations.  The reason is because you aren't going to send me that information and your claims will never be verified --- the same reason no one else will touch your story with a ten-foot pole.  Your accusations reek of unsubstantiated hearsay.  You have a chance here to prove otherwise, but I'm not holding my breath and neither should anyone else.

I am so confident that you are a disgruntled commie environmentalist wacko who fabricated a story full of nothing but lies and distortions intended to inflict damage to the one region of the country you and your comrades deem the biggest obstacle to your dream of an all-out dystopian socialist takeover that I was willing to place my reputation and social media following on the line and risk being viewed as a bully who picked on the sickly volunteer woman who is suffering symptoms including "severe neurological damage, paralysis, internal bleeding and death" in order to establish for all to see that you are a phony, a fraud and a scam artist.

This is your chance to prove me wrong.  The information needed for independent sources to verify your claims has been formally and publicly requested.  You can publish the requested information here on this blog and across the web proving me wrong and revealing me to be a heartless, soulless defender of big oil.

What if you send me the information but I refuse to publish it and claim not to have received it?  Publish the answers to your questions and a photograph showing that the certified mail was indeed received and another photograph showing the completed waivers along with the alphanumeric sequence 19U&IOF%F818@#7!1$24451L9GH4-23-88YUI71$ contained within the main content area of the page to any other page on the web (blogger, wordpress, tumblr, posterous, amplify and other services offer free blogs and have community features that allow you to quickly build a couple of links to your page/post from elsewhere on the site to ensure it gets indexed by search engines - for example, this would entail clicking "like" on someone else's post at Amplify, or leaving a comment or two).  Readers from this post can search for the specified character string and if you did indeed provide the information anyone reading this post will be quickly able to find it with a quick check of Google.

I've given you every opportunity to prove the validity of your claims and get your story out there.  Will you do the unimaginable and actually prove your accusations; or will the record show that your claims and of yet unsubstantiated allegations be shown to be false beyond any stretch of the imagination or any reasonable interpretation?

In the event of a dispute over whether or not the information was provided:

Search sequence for confirmation of certified shipment of signed waivers: 19U&IOF%F818@#7!1$24451L9GH4-23-88YUI71$

Search for the above sequence of alphanumeric character in the absence of evidence either in the comments below this article or in a future post confirming the truth or falsity of the purported claims by Rexford. The absence of information in the comments section of this post or in a post appearing on this blog seven or more days following this posting can be interpreted as an announcement by myself that she had failed to confirm the details of her story. I've already done three posts on this subject, so unless she surprises me and produces some verifiable facts I'm going to assume it's because her story is bullshit.

However, if she does provide the info, I will uphold my commitments outlined above and retract my two previous posts while issuing a formal apology.

Therefore, if you don't see or hear anything else about this story here on this blog, search for the string of characters.  If you find a page created by the purported Rexford claiming to show confirmation of certified delivery of signed waivers but find nothing on this blog confirming nor denying such a delivery, please notify me in the comments section.  If necessary, the USPS can ultimately state who is telling the truth and who is lying if the delivery were to be contested by either party.  POINT BEING, if this issue finally ends here, that means she failed to provide the info.  If she claims she provided the evidence requested and has proof of certified delivery of the signed waivers on a webpage not on this blog, it means she's likely hoping to claim I received the information but would not acknowledge doing so.  In such an event, the USPS will have proof either way whether or not something was shipped via USCM from her to me, and I will have videotaped recording of me opening envelope/package upon receiving it from her to verify its contents.

It won't matter.  Her story is a steaming pile of bovine excrement and it's not going to check out when given the credibility test.  If she does try to lie about providing the info, someone please inform me so that the authoritative and decisive documents eliminating all doubt can be requested.

NOTE: In the ostensible event that your described medical condition is accurate (as is proven through correspondence with your medical caretakers and verification of their identities and contact information), albeit not a result of Gulf cleanup work, I will still establish the charitable fund and make the $100 donation --- IF --- you do the following:

A) Admit you lied and made up the part about your medical condition (if that even checks out) being related to the Gulf oil spill or the ensuing cleanup efforts - both here in a guest post on this blog as well as on your own site and in a YouTube video
B) Apologize to the people of the State of Louisiana, the Gulf Coast region, BP and anyone else who may have read your claims and/or watched your videos
C) Delete all Youtube Videos alleging your condition is related to Gulf cleanup work and any websites and/or blog posts claiming likewise
D) Agree to use social media more responsibly in the future

Granted, I still have serious doubts about Rexford's purported medical condition that are every bit as significant as my other doubts about her wild and until yet unsubstantiated claims. We shall find out though, as her actions will leave no doubt about exactly which if any parts of her story hold water and which (if not all) do not.

Education Reform Not About Hating Teachers

I came across a link to a NY Times story while perusing headlines on Amplify the other day about teachers throwing a pity party over perceived scorn by the general public. The headline for the Amplify story read: "Why do Americans hate teachers?".

Since like most liberal propaganda, this story - regardless of where it goes or how it unfolds - is based entirely upon flawed logic. In this case the fallacy is the good ole false premise. True to form, the premise upon which the story and any arguments made therein are based is faulty, and the reader must accept the false premise as being true in order to proceed in logical fashion.

Americans Do Not Hate Teachers

Growing calls for education reform in America have absolutely nothing to do with the perceived "hate" that an apparently paranoid group of American teachers sees as being directed towards themselves.  To equate demands for major education reform and calls for an overhaul of the education system with hatred of teachers is every bit as ridiculous and absurd as crying "racist" against the Tea Partiers for cheering wildly as Herman Cain announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee.

It's not that Americans hate teachers or anyone else for that matter. An increasing number of Americans object to the systematic ideological brainwashing of the nation's youth by way of a government-run, taxpayer-funded education system.

The public is quite cognizant of the fact that for every subversive there is a legitimately good, caring teacher who has no intention or desire to thrust an ideological agenda upon developing minds. However, the public is also well aware of the fact that the problem is severe and must be dealt with sooner rather than later.

Our nation's schools - at all levels, from elementary school right on through college - have been increasingly underperforming while steadily increasing in cost (both to taxpayers as well as private tuition costs) at a rate far in excess of the rate of inflation.

The fact is that the brainwashing taking place throughout both the primary, secondary and higher education systems is largely responsible for the election of Barack Obama, whose destructive policies and agenda has terrorized the American economy for more than two years now. The consequences of inaction have become too severe, necessitating the need for immediate education reform.

One final thought, for anyone quick to dismiss the charge of organized and systematic brainwashing as unfounded or too conspiratorial in nature to be legit, I leave you with the following:

KGB Used (Past Tense?) U.S. Education System and Media to Brainwash Public

Unfettered State Socialism: Where To Draw The Line

I recently came across an interesting post over at LibertarianMinds.com about what the author termed "unfettered state socialism". I enjoyed the read, and generally agree with the author's position. That said, I do have a couple of observations, which are outlined below. I started writing this post initially as a comment at the bottom of the Libertarian Minds post, but it quickly grew to be lengthy enough to merit its own post.

First, the term "redistributive justice" is an oxymoron.

Second, in virtually all of those poverty-stricken, third-world countries (or "developing nations" for the politically correct) referenced within the post are themselves victims of unfettered state socialism. Cuba and Venezuela, where virtually everyone lives in abject poverty, are probably the finest examples, but the list is extensive. In Africa's case, the poverty afflicting several countries is a bit more complicated in nature than state socialism, largely due to dysfunctional governments failure to provide the basic security necessary for any sort of functional economy to develop. That said, governments and African rulers in general confiscating the wealth and assets of the respective nations' citizens is a common theme throughout. It's a matter of semantics more than anything else I suppose.

Finally, the line should be drawn at the point redistribution of wealth extends beyond providing food, shelter and medical assistance to those physically or mentally UNABLE to work.

Unemployment "benefits" should be available for no more than a month. Likewise for food stamps. The overwhelming majority of all other entitlement programs should be cut entirely.

The only other exception I can think of is military veterans who were active duty during wartime. They should receive whatever they need.

When people know they can get paid for up to three years for NOT WORKING, those of us who do choose to work will be carrying an unsustainable share of the burden. At that rate, sooner or later Atlas will shrug. It's more a matter of if than when.