The Democrats; resistance is futile; you will be assimilated.

Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated. One of the most interesting invading aliens in Star Trek The New Generation, was the Borg. The Borg would scour the Universe in a cubic spaceship the size of a planet.. The Borg does not want to destroy or kill you (however they will do either if sufficiently provoked), they want to assimilate simbient lifeforms and technology so the Borg will continue grow bigger and stronger. It is the ultimate in non-waste and  re-purposing, assimilating man and machine, combining them for particular needs and purposes and utilizing individual knowledge into a single consciousness. The inspiration for the Borg is collectivism (as a matter of fact they are also referred to as the Borg Collective); collectivism is the belief that collective needs should always override individual rights (in fact the two are mutually exclusive). The reason for this is simple; it's the belief that the welfare of the collective as a whole is more important the the welfare of any individual; the belief is the resulting society will be safer and more fair; sadly it's usually the opposite.

A Borg Drone

The drones the make up the Borg have no rights to speak of, but their needs are taken care of (as with collectivism the citizenry has no rights). With the Borg, the drones are all equal, have a job, food the eat, a place to call home and medical care if necessary. The needs of the drones are determined by the Borg and in a collective society the needs are determined by what the state thinks most people need most of the time; nothing else. Further all needs are mean tested. Socialized Medicine is an excellent example. With Socialized Medicine (or the coming Obamacare), medical costs are lowered by reducing doctor compensation and medical care is rationed (during it's implementation the facilitators lie a lot). Of the $2.6 trillion spent annually on medical care, almost a third is spent on those 69 or older. As a collective issue it makes no sense; those resources are better redistributed for other needs. In Britain medical care is means tested; a year of a persons life is worth about $40,000 to extend; so if a $100,000 operation will only extend an elderly persons life 2 years, than it would be denied. Something I'm sure would work into the Borg collective consciousness quite well.

 The unfortunate end game with collectivism has always been genocide, because in real life the only collective consciousness is the historical struggle by humanity as a whole  to be free; it's simply human nature to pursue individual rights and freedom often to the death; it's in our our DNA. . 

Weapons Bans And Other Symbolic Nonsense

The the anti-gun liberals admit in private that an assault weapons ban would be symbolic at best, the intent is to demonize firearms rather than acknowledging their need to protect freedom. Our forefathers knew that with freedom comes those that will take advantage of it. Freedom requires an armed citizenry to keep the criminals in check; in every state where concealed carry laws have been liberalized, violent crime has plummeted; in every state where firearms are restricted to the criminals, the criminals own the streets. Diane Fienstein has posted her idea for an Assault weapons ban, and then uses some cherry picked stats to prove her allegation that the 1994-2004 federal ban accomplished something. The reality is the federal ban accomplished nothing (there has been a 49% reduction in gun violence over the last 15 years that has had no connection with banned firearms); least one forget the Columbine massacre occurred right in the middle of the ban in 1999. In 2004 The Nation Institute of Justice released it's report on the Federal Assault Weapons Ban An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 In general the finding were there's no evidence that an assault weapons (AW) ban accomplished it's goal to reduce gun violence; this included the fact the pistols with large capacity magazines (LCM) were classified as assault pistols and pistols are used in far more crimes that AR(s). " ...the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban. LCMs are involved in a more substantial share of gun crimes, but it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability of offenders to fire more than ten shots (the current magazine capacity limit) without reloading." In recent history the mass casualty shooters all have some level of mental illness, but instead of responding to these psychotic killers as terrorists, the powers that be want to ban gun from law abiding citizens. Further, the police have already admitted they can't protect individuals from criminals. There is an old saying, "If you have a gun you can decide if you are going to use it or not. If you don't have a gun you can't make that decision". Even Diane Fienstein admitted to carrying a concealed weapon in this 1995 speech caught on video, I carried a concealed weapon .

 In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting that tragically took the lives of so many children and teachers the anti-gun lobby is ramping up it's efforts to demonize guns. These ideologues have never shown any interest in gun safety, i.e.actually trying to control gun violence, they simply want to regulate or ban them out of existence; the problem is this can never happen. With 300-400 million firearms in circulation in the USA, assault weapons make up only about 1%, but that is still some 3.5 million so called assault rifles. The only known action that has ever effectively reduced gun crimes is arming the citizenry with less restrictive concealed carry laws. In states were this has been done gun crimes plummeted, but were gun possession is strictly controlled, the criminals rule the streets.It's an interesting to note that if you subtract the gun violence that occurs in cities where gun possession is the most restrictive, such as Chicago and Washington DC, the national average that has been falling for decades, would plummet even more; it is in those where gun violence has increase while the national average has gone down!.  It is no accident that these massacres occur most frequently in gun-free zones. It's interesting that a shooting incident occurred 2 days after the Newtown killings and it received no media coverage at all. There an off duty female police officer saved a theater full of possible victims by wounding a deranged shooter that had just shot his girlfriend at the location, Two Wounded in Theater Shooting The moment these cowards are confronted by someone who is armed they stop. Too bad there wasn't an armed someone at Sandy Hook.

Even the term "assault rifle" was manufactured by the anti-gun lobby. The term was meant to describe an AR-15/AK47 (the AR in AR-15 does not stand for Assault Rifle, it's stands for ARmalite, the company that designed the AR-15), the civilian semi-automatic versions of the fully automatic military grade M16/AK47 rifle. But since an assault rifle is defined by how it looks, not how it operates, there are numerous guns the operate exactly the same as a so called assault rifle, are just as deadly, but would not be included in any ban. There are also many restrictions already on guns; automatic assault weapons are so highly regulated the may as well be banned, short barrel shotguns are banned and so are exploding rounds. One of the justifications for banning assault rifles is the fact that at the time of the Constitution's writing the long rifle of the day was a musket; but the Constitution does not describe a particular arm. Our founding fathers wanted the miltia (best defined as an armed citzenry)  to protect itself from enemies foreign and domestic, so it is reasonable they would have wanted the citizenry armed with whatever the weapons of the time was. It would be absurd to believe anything different. Further there is the argument that it takes more to buy and drive a car than to obtain a gun. Regardless of the validity of this statement, the 2nd Amendment describes a right, not a privilege (like driving a car. The right to own a firearm is no less restrictive than the right to vote; something always lost on the left. Have you ever noticed that when a liberal agrees with the constitution it's a right, but if they don't it's a privilege?

 Any politician that wants a weapons ban and refuses to afford our children and schools the same safeguards they enjoy with armed security agents simply has an agenda that is not centered on saving lives. The primary way to address illegal gun violence is to enforce existing laws and provide armed security for schools. The reason that pro-gun advocates get a little crazy about gun bans is they know they it will not stop the killings like the massacre of children at the Sandy Hook school. Pro gun advocates want to protect their children and don't want liberal ideologues in the name of "not letting an emergency go to waste" and ignoring the cause of mass shootings, to simply push forward their agenda. If the powers that be get their assault weapons ban, they'll walk away saying " look we did something to save the kids," when they have done nothing but demagogue. Then they'll wait for the next mass shooting and start the process all over again. We all deserve better than this.

Things to Keep in Mind When You Vote

The following is a collection of letters I have sent to the Santa Cruz Sentential. Although they have printed my articles in the past, recently they have had a partisan change were well thought out arguments from conservatives have been censored.

 Prop 37; What You Don't Know Will Save You Money!

Monsanto is telling us that cost of GMO labeling (Prop 37) will be over a billion dollars a year and an increase in grocery bills of $400 a year. What Monsanto doesn't immediately explain is where these costs will come from. One might think it's the re-labeling costs or expected litigation, which is not the case. The huge costs of prop 37 will be the result of consumers not wanting GMO food products. In other words Monsanto is telling you that it's best not to know you are probably eating GMO products than for you to make the choice to not to buy it if you don't want it! The billion dollars is the price Monsanto says it will cost for farmers to switch from growing GMO crops to non- GMO crops. Are you really going to buy the argument that it is best to vote to stay ignorant because it will save you money? 

When Job Numbers are Propaganda. 

 The September jobless rate that fell below the 8% mark to 7.8% is one of the most manipulated numbers in the history of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Lets look at the numbers; only 114,000 jobs (out of 12 million unemployed) was reported to the BLS. But a household survey showed 873,000 jobs. This immense job growth was accomplished through a mid-year "seasonal adjustment"; meaning this number was arrived at by multiplying the household survey preliminary numbers because October is normally a slow month for job growth. If the 873,000 number is true it would be the highest one-month jump in 29 years; this is obviously very doubtful. Either 342,000 people were "Raptured" or the BLS is grossly under-reporting job growth. There is a third possibility and that is the job numbers were specifically tweaked to bring the jobless rate below 8% to help Obama's re-election campaign.
Bureau of Labor Statistics is controlled by the Department of Labor which is an Obama Cabinet position. The secretary is Hilda Solis, an extreme left wing environmentalists who has been vocal in her disdain for Bush (43) and his Department of Labor that reflected a pro-business agenda. Solis revamped the Department of Labor as a more regulatory agency, working closely with labor unions and investigating and fining businesses for safety and environmental violations.

Obama; Fanning the Flames of Class Warfare 

President Obama says he wants to raise taxes on the rich at the same level as President Clinton. What is missing in this comparison is the fact that when Clinton raised taxes the US had full employment and the economy was healthy. To raise taxes now with massive unemployment and in the middle of a recession would be a disaster; even to a Keynesian (raise taxes during boom times and decrease taxes during recessions). Further as Paul Ryan stated in the Vice-Presidential debate, the revenue generated by a Clinton era tax increase would be a rounding error compared to the deficits being created by current president (Obama has admitted as much). The only way to create a health economy is through jobs; not the Presidents fuzzy numbers, lowering the unemployment rate by counting those that have dropped out of the job market, but real jobs; and a lot of them! 

Obama's Creates a Dependent Voting Block 

If the best the Liberals have is the latest Romney tape where he says half of America is on the public dole, than Romney is a shoe in. As Romney explained, the reason is all these Americans have been made dependent on Government. If you are dependent on government you want more of it; if you are not dependent on government you want less. The dependence is the direct result of government policies and the consequences of the welfare state. As Benjamin Franklin said "When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. Sell not liberty to purchase power."

The Banker Bookies Extort Government to cover Losses

With the election coming up, we need to look back to remember why the economy is in such a mess. If one looks at Wall Street and Investment banks as bookies it becomes quite clear . In 1999 under the Clinton administration, a 60 year old law was repealed that had forbid the Investment banks from being bookies. A good bookie will make sure that bets he takes are balanced out, so an unexpected win or loss will not wipe him out. But the Investment Bookies took in trillions of dollars (with a "t") of bets that the mortgage market would fail, believing it could never happen; so when the houses started to go down in value, the bookies looked like they were going to fail and had to stop lending money. The other effect was the glutted housing market sunk under water; wiping out much of the wealth of the middle class and stalled housing construction. The Federal Reserve stepped in and threatened complete financial break down unless the government cover the banks losses. The responsibility for this lies with the Congress (not president Clinton and/or Bush), as it was the Congress that voted to again allow Investment Bookies and has yet not voted to end them.

More Democratically Skewed Polls

This blog is a continuation of a previous blog of mine  Lies, Damn Lies and Opinion Polls

A recent article at the examiner.com , shows how CNN skewed their most recent poll the show President Obama 53% to Romney 46%. Lets start out with some facts. The way likely voters stack up is approximately 35.4% Democrat, 34% Republican, 35.4% Unaffiliated. So what was the break down of the CNN poll? 50.4 Democrat, 45.4 Republican and 4.2 unaffiliated (no that not a typo, 4.2%!). If the under-sampling and over-sampling are accounted for, suddenly the numbers are reversed; Romney 53% to Obama 46%.

 In another poll by washingtonpost.com resulted in register voters for Obama 55%/ Romney 40%; likely voters was closer with Obama 49%/ Romney 48%. But when one looks at the skewed sampling it once again shows a Democrat bias; 33% Democrat/ 23% Republican/ 37% unaffiliated. Once again the Republicans are under-sampled leaving results similar to the CNN poll after the skewing was accounted for.

The reason for these skewed polls is the belief by the liberal media that unaffiliated voters will vote for whom ever the polls show is going to win. It is a patronizing concept that has failed every time it is tried; but like socialism, the left is tied to failed belief systems and always thinking that if they can manipulate the citizenry to go in a direction they really don't want to go, they'll get it right next time.

The Gaffe That Wasn't a Gaffe

Last July Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney identified Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Most of American press had a field day with this such as the Christian Science Monitor headline, Romney:  Another City, Another Gaffe. What makes "gaffe" even more interesting is that in 2008 Presidential Candidate Barrack Obama made the same Gaffe in front of a American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington! Of course it was not reported as a gaffe, because it isn't. By traveling to Israel and calling Jerusalem the capital of Israel, you are aligning yourself with Israel in the land dispute for Jerusalem. For decades the both Republican and Democratic platforms have included the statement that Jerusalem  is the capital of Israel to show support to the country. However this year is different; while the Republicans continues to back Israel with it's platform  “We support Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state with secure, defensible borders; and we envision two democratic states—Israel with Jerusalem as its capital and Palestine—living in peace and security,” the Democrat platform has removed any wording that would aline itself with Israel on the fate of Jerusalem , falling back on,  "the status of Jerusalem is an issue that should be resolved in final status negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians." What is really in question here is how the media could be so misinformed that it would call the Romney statement a gaffe; of course as an example of the media's continual distortion of the news to favor the liberal agenda, the the answer is self evident.

This article based in part on this Wall St Journal posting;
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/09/04/obama-attacked-over-party-platform-on-jerusalem/

Obama and His Economic Fairness

Four years ago the President Obama based his election on a promise of hope and change. Interestingly enough no one in the liberal media ask then candidate Obama what he planned on changing. Today there is little doubt that the American people feel more hopeless than they did four years ago. The change seems to be the consolidation of power for the executive branch, ignoring and actually voicing his disdain for the constitutional  separation of powers. While the huge deficits brought on by President Obama are certainly nothing new,  the rapid increase of governmental spending and debt has been mind boggling. Another issue totally ignored by the liberal media was candidate Obama's call for a “Civilian National Security Force;”   “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military.”No one even bothered to ask  why the US would need a federal civilian army that is as big and well supplied as the US Armed services,  yet the size of Homeland security continues to expand exponentially.

Now we have the President running on Economic Fairness. Most believe that this is a plan to raise taxes on the rich to redistribute wealth down to the poor, but as Charles Krauthammer explains,  "The tax plan on which the President is basing his economic strategy is a 4.6-point increase in the marginal tax rate of 2 percent of the population". The President has admitted in one of his more candid moments, that raising taxes on the rich is only for fairness not help the economy. This is the same as when candidate Obama said  for the purpose of fairness, he would raise the tax on Capital Gain even though it would reduce the amount of revenue collected in taxes,.

What can not be disputed is Economic Fairness is a brain child of Marxist communism; it is a call to end capitalism and the free market by using draconian economics to force equality. What made the US the success is what has been coined the Protestant work ethic (which has no real connection the Christianity); the Protestant work ethic  is based on hard work, thrift, and efficiency in one’s worldly calling and the lack of a work ethic has economic consequences. Economic Fairness says success via the law of supply and demand is simply not fair, so the government needs to mandate wages; not a Living Wages, which is only a minimum wage on steroids, Economic Fairness would determine the fair wage of every worker is only possible in a socialists society. Calling someone a socialist is neither a pejorative or a conspiracy theory, it is simply the belief in a certain world view of Economic Fairness.

Obama's War on the Middle Class Part 2

President Obama may make speeches to the contrary but suburbia is one of his main targets; suburbia represents to Obama all that is wrong with America. First the flight to the suburbs took with it funds that had been used to fund inner city schools. Second the lavish comfort of a single family in a suburban home is the kind of inequality and flaunting of capitalist success that runs contrary to his socialist’s roots and the gas wasted driving to and from the suburbs. The President has reacted by letting gas prices double in 3 years, a plan to increase taxes on those making over $250,000 and allowing middle-class healthcare to increase substantially . The president believes that except for the government elite, the preferred method of housing is small high rise apartments near ones work as the President has praised in China.

 The NYT recently performed an accidental act of journalism with an article titled Ambiguity in Health Law Could Make Family Coverage Too Costly for Many.

Remember those immortal words by Nancy Pelosi, “We have to pass the bill to find out what is in it?”; well there has been more “find(ing) out what is in it”. Turns out when determining what is affordable healthcare Insurance, the IRS says the dollar amount should be based solely on the cost of a single employee and not his family; family insurance usually cost 3-4 times that of individual insurance. Healthcare advocates say this will result in millions who are currently insured, not being able to afford healthcare for their families or afford private insurance from the “State Exchanges” and will not qualify for any subsidies;  further those that are being priced out of their health insurance, will now have to pay a fine for not buying health insurance!. The Democrats who pushed the Healthcare bill through late on Christmas Eve despite the public’s dislike, believes this “interpretation” of the Healthcare law is wrong. But the IRS who has been tasked to implement ObamaCare, simply says their interpretation of the health care rules were drafted by, “our legal experts — career civil servants who are some of the best tax lawyers in the world,” and if the IRS runs out to be wrong, even though $70 billion @ year is already being gutted from Medicare, the cost of ObamaCare will once again increase substantially. In affect the ObamaCare, which was supposed to make healthcare available to millions of uninsured Americans, will take away affordable healthcare from millions of employed lower middle class families that previously had insurance but won’t be able to afford healthcare under Obamacare; and the uninsured will be primarily women and children which advocates say will “unravel much of the progress that has been made in covering children in recent years”.

This continues President Obama’s war on the middle class and perpetuates the belief that ObamaCare was designed to fail so the electorate will be more receptive to socialized healthcare. Apparently President Obama’s belief in the redistribution of wealth is not restricted to the rich, unless you consider those that make $30,000 @ year, rich.

If you're going to have a war, it's better if your opponent is unarmed.The recent mass shootings in Colorado and Wisconsin are beyond tragic; but the idea that somehow the lack of gun control is the cause, is political correctness at its worse and admittedly will not stop the killing. The simple fact is small arms make terrible mass causality weapons compared to what else is available to terrorists. In the United States with its gun culture, a semi-automatic firearm is the weapon of choice. However in countries were fully automatic firearms are common, terrorists use bombs. The reason is very simple; a bomb will kill and injure 10 times that of a firearm. Further, all that’s needed to stop an armed terrorist is an armed citizen. If gun control is taken to its logical extreme, we will have to rely on government to protect us, something the police admit they cannot do, as all they can do is respond after the fact.