Radical leftism, a nasty ideology of nasty people 43

We like this article by Andrew Klavan, both what he says and how he says it:

The true test of a philosophy is not what it promises to make of the world but what it makes, in fact, of its adherents. Human nature is remarkably recalcitrant, but ideas do affect people over time, for good or ill, and the societies people make will ultimately bear the image of those effects and thus of the ideas. … Our beliefs arise from who we are and we become what we believe …

Leftism is bad for people. It makes them awful. The unwashed, ill-mannered, anti-Semitic, entitled, and now violent mobs littering various parts of the nation under the banner “Occupy” believe their ideas will lead to a better society — but they actually are the society their ideas lead to. Their behavior when compared to the polite, law-abiding, non-racist demonstrations of so-called tea partiers tells you everything you need to know about the end results of statism on the one hand and constitutional liberty on the other.

This is not, of course, to say that every left-winger is a miscreant but rather that the natural, indeed inevitable, result of statism is to produce nations of miscreants. When the state is permitted to make the individual’s moral choices, the individual is forced to become either a slave or a criminal; when the state is permitted to redistribute wealth, it chains the citizen into a rigid, two-tiered hierarchy of power rather than freedom’s fluid, multi-layered rankings of merit and chance; when the people are taught to be dependent on entitlements, they are reduced to violence when, inevitably, the entitlement well runs dry; when belief in the state usurps every higher creed, the people become apathetic, hedonistic, and uncreative and their culture slouches into oblivion. I need hardly expend the energy required to lift my finger and point to Europe where cities burn because the unemployable are unemployed or because the hard-working won’t fund the debts of the indolent; where violent and despicable Islamism eats away portions of municipalities like a cancer while the authorities do nothing; where nations that once produced history’s greatest achievements in science and the arts can now no longer produce even enough human beings to sustain themselves. 

Why wait to see such results come home? Leftism is an ignoble creed on the surface of it. Its followers display their awareness of its shamefulness by projecting its evils onto their opposition. Leftists accuse conservatives of avarice, but which is greedier in a person: to seek to hold on to what is his own, or to seek, as the leftists do, to plunder what belongs to others? Leftists call conservatives racist and sexist, but who is it who wants race and gender enshrined in law? Who penalizes white or male babies for sins they never committed on the long-exploded theory that evil can undo evil? Leftists call conservatives hateful… I would answer “Read the papers!” but the papers lie because our journalists are leftists and they know down deep what they’re like, who they are. Compare instead the rhetoric and honesty — not of those selected by the media, or those quotes they’ve selected — but of those in equivalent positions at equivalent times. The gracious and open-hearted George W. Bush versus the divisive, self-serving, and dishonest Barack Obama, just to take one example.

Every one who sympathizes with the Occupy movement should take a good look at them — not as they will be in the paradise of their aspirations but as they truly are this minute. Look at them, and understand that that’s what tomorrow will look like if they have their way today. 

As a perfect illustration of what Andrew Klavan is talking about, here’s Roseanne Barr:

  • Anyone who uses the ‘anti-semitic’ card is a witless tool.
    Conservatives are just as retarded and deranged as Leftists. Variations on a theme. The police are criminal scumbags, the military are murderous sociopaths. They’re just as bad – if not worse than – the welfare office and the tax man.

    • Don L

      Ricky James Moore II: anyone with a name like that is a witless fool who’s parents ought be shot!   LOL

  • Concerned Citizen

    Pshaw. As if rightists did not stand on the shoulders of others, and as if they truly earned everything they have on their own. The true spirit of a civilized nation is cooperation, not every man for himself. I recommend everyone take a look here:

  • Concerned Citizen

    Sounds all pretty and happy like a capitalist utopia, but it is false. All you people working on this site and agreeing with this site, etc., I have news for you. None of you are capitalists. None of you have ever had the opportunity to be a capitalist.

    As a wise man once said, you are not a capitalist. You are a wage barterer.

  • Harold

    In reply to Don L.  You have got it wrong again: ” Maybe my example wasn’t the best, but a third party is the ice cream vendor who benefitted from the bearded guy, not paying for a shave, having the money to buy the family double dip cones.” 
    There is still no externality in your example.  The man chosing between a shave and an ice cream to maximise his utility is normal economics with no externality.
    From your comment: “One person better off and no one worse off…subjective BS…econometric” I take it that you reject this as a definition of efficiency?  It is objective, not subjective, although it may be hard to measure.  I had understood it to be a reasonable paraphrase of maximum utility in economic theory, but perhaps you could explain how you would determine the optimim outcome from an exchange?  You seem to be defining it as whatever the free market produces, which is a circular argument.

    You do not accept the existence of externalities.  Just for now, I am talking only of the existence of externalities, not how to deal with them.  The example of Bees is not perfect – it is possible for producers and bee keepers to come to arrangements, but it is difficult.  The thing about economics that you seem to have missed is the bit about the margins.  The fact that his bees makes all food cheaper, and he does not have to pay for bee chow does not give any incentive for him to keep any more bees.  The bee keeper at the margin will decide not to keep more bees.  If the farmer could transfer a tiny amount of money to the bee keeper, he would decide to keep more bees.  Given the transaction costs, the market cannot arrive at this outcome.  This results in an inefficiency. 

    The existence of an externality does not require that we must have Government step in.  In the bees example we could just live with the slightly less than efficient market.  Or the farmers themselves could get together and decide on a small levy to subsidise bee keeping.  No need for Government. However, without Government it is difficult to ensure compliance.

    • Don L

      Harold, Harold, Harold.  As with someone of faith…you are an irrational person…a Keynesian (pick a school – it doesn’t matter, you’re no free market capitalist!); an econmetric socialist at best.  You ask me to give explanation for nonsense…I do not accept your premise of economics.  You are the enemy of liberty and prosperity.  You are a stooge for the left…it expains your “generally accepted; widely understood” dribble.  The whole world knows you need government to decide for people and we need to measure all activity to decide whats optimal.  BS…here’ my response anyway

      “It is objective, not subjective, although it may be hard to measure.”  and the next quote “…perhaps you could explain how you would determine the optimim outcome from an exchange?”

      I don’t have to.  Yours is another bogus and false construct of an insane theory. I wouldn’t try to determine the optimum outcome.  Human actors in a free market determine values and outcomes…subjective to its core.  You can looksee after as to what the outcome was, but optimum is a demented notion of socialism.  There is no objectivity to model, mathematically, in a human choice scenario.  That’s what SOBs like yourself can’t stand.  Choice…people aren’t allowed to act freely!  They must comply with our plan for them (read ourselves). see the URL for a .pdf further down.  It shoves your empirical economic crap right up where it belongs. 

      “The thing about economics that you seem to have missed is the bit about the margins.  The fact that his bees makes all food cheaper, and he does not have to pay for bee chow does not give any incentive for him to keep any more bees.”

      Harold, What you miss is the incentive of profit…after all, he doesn’t care about cheaper food. You fail to comprehend the role of entrepreneur and risk taking. The beauty of free market capitalism is that in order to make profit, you have to satisfy consumer wants and needs.  If the venture fails, the tax payer is not on the line.  The bee keeper will have as many bees as there are consumers available to buy his honey…maximize his profit!!!  The most disgusting and evil person on the planet can make profit if he’s evaluted the market correctly and then provides a service or good consumers want. CONSUMERS, like citizens in a Republic, are sovereign…the govern…not idiot econonomists through bureaucracies!!!  The intervention you would implement would misdirect resources…creat an imbalance…any correction increase the imbalance until crash…rest…government (not market) caused.  You would blame the market…I betcha!

      Circular thinking is your nonsense of taxing people to, ultimately, give to a bee keeper to keep more bees and make more honey when consumers don’t want more honey. Consumers, being taxed, then have less to spend on what they do want. And, more grown products available are only cheaper because consumers’ money was taken and wasted to make them cheaper. Consumers who were happy as things were.  And, the money taken in by politicians and bureaucrats is wasted so the inefficiency of the redistribution is greater than any, supposed, inefficiency contrived by loser lefties like yourself farting around trying to measure the immeasurable…solely for the purpose of controlling and manipulating…like any good fascist!  Go read this…your objective measurable gibberish doesn’t even hold water with your guru Krugman: http://www.mmisi.org/ir/46_02/veryser.pdf

      Incidently, did you watch the video of your other guru, Laffer, proving how absolutely useless you central planning jackasses are!

      But here is the meat and potatoes of my new found disgust for you Harold:

      “…without Government it is difficult to ensure compliance.”  

      There it is in all its horrific glory! Replace the word ensure with, the only means a government has, force.  Arrogant fools like yourself believe you know best…you play at being a market…YOU CAN NEVER EVER GET IT RIGHT.  “Animal spirits” is the name you give to people making free choices and acting in their owwn best interests…freedom and liberty is also freedom to be wrong and stupid!   Your economic theories crush people so you can measure and manipulate…how dare they not comply to our esteemed decisions as to what we think is best.

      Harold…I’m only an old fat retired cab driver.  You seem to be very “well-educated/-indoctrinated” in economics…probably had courses and passed tests with good scores.  I’ve only read a few books in the past couple years.  But, when I read “…without Government it is difficult to ensure compliance.” I know I’m talking to America’s enemy.  You and your buddies that teach, adhere to or promote this garbage are a criminals. Sadly, you believe you are so intelligent as to be right…not recognizing that your actually incredibly stupid.  But, I’d like to kick you in the n__s to ensure you comply with my wishes…Here learn to be an American…free will and free market capitalism (even you can understand it):

      Economics for Real People by Gene Callahan: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0945466412/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=teapartyecono-20&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0945466412&adid=1QNPYFF31KAKSDNVVH6J&&ref-refURL=

      Enough…you are a dissapointment Harold.

      • Harold

        Don L – you have answered one of my points – that you would not define the best outcome, thus confirming that your idea of the best outcome is whatever the market produces – a circular argument.   Anyway, if you have some time, look up “externality”.  I do not say the market is no good – it is a very good way of allocating resources.  All I say is that it is not perfect, and there are mechanisms that can explain why it is not perfect.  I have said that you may prefer to live with the imperfections rather than “interfere”.  The response is something I did not choose to talk about here. 

        Are you also proposing that anything that is “generally accepted” is wrong – or likely to be wrong?  It is generally accepted that the world is round, that it goes round the sun, the Obama is not an alien, that George Bush is not Mother Theresa in disguise. 

        • Don L

          Let’s start with “generally accepted”. The world ‘IS’ round…”generally accepted” infers that there is doubt.  It is “generally accepted” that there is a god…it is true that it is generally accepted, but it isn’t true.  It is argued, however, that it being “generally accepted” in some way makes it true (how could everyone be wrong). So, as I typed, when I see/hear someone applying the “generally accepted” or the like…red flags go up…for me.  And, as you applied them, for me, you’re full o’ crap!

          Externalities…they are like a jesus and the immaculate conception.  Christians believe it…it isn’t true.  You adhere to the economics of redistribution and government interference…for you they exist…in your world they are “generally accepted”.  They aren’t true.  They are only discussed outside your horrific theories, because you foist them on everybody.  Like the Christians push their non-existent tripe on the rest of us. Otherwise…jesus, who could come up with such an insane story? 

          your underlying premise is that capitalism causes poverty…it’s imperfect…the lie that keeps on giving to the fascists and communists as the excuse to steal.  That the theories you adhere to have been in play for nearly 100 years…look were it has gotten us.  By the way…who won that war on poverty? LOL…you see education by gov’t as a positive externality…boy are you F’n wrong…the product of your meddling is ‘occupying’, rapping…

          You see at as imperfect because you won’t accept that it human!  It drives you insane so you come up with attempts to model it to control it.  What you do is kill it…like any living thing.  Your models are collectivist…benefits to society…the State…

          An economy is made up of human beings acting in their own interests…period.  They freely interact and exchange. Just that simple..optimize is the nonsense of a mass murderer(because that’s the consequent of trying to fit people into mathematical models and then “enforcing” compliance). Throughout history, economies have thrived where government was limited. The models never work because the economy is human…and, people make mistakes and are often dumb…it’s called freedom.  You can’t stand that either…not optimal enough for ya! 

          You’re of a school that acts on the emotional “should”.  You refuse to accept what is. People are only equal before the law.  They are not naturally equal.  In a free market system (optimal all by its own self…the folks determine values…the right amount of demand and supply always work there leveling best!)…wealth is acquired only by satisfying consumer’s.  They turn over their dollars willingly.  Nobody from Purina, Nestle, Coke…ever coame to the door and forced purchase compliance!  The only monopolies are those caused by government picking and choosing.  In your example…someone in your government chose growers over others…misdirecting resources and causing imbalances…

          Ludwig von Mises: To attempt to deduce “should” from “is”, is to fail.

          Socialism attempts economic equality from the emotional “should”. Free market economics accepts inequality because it “is”.

          Poor are poor because they don’t work (excluding those who have true disabilities) or because of gov’t interference.  Cronyism min wage…it is illegal to hire anyone unskilled…at the wage justified by their skill level…they become gov’t dependent…mass murderer.

          I don’t know what you do…I don’t know if you believe in the tripe you push because you have truly been so conditioned/indoctrinated or because your job depends on it.  If the latter…Upton Sinclair’s lie fits all econists and others dependent on the gov’t teat: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it!”

          Harold, you’re as bad as the theists…worse.  You believe in something that is life destroying and evil…and the evidence is all around you. All governments “generally accepy” and employ the ideas you are attempting to justify (again I totally reject anything you think is economics…it isn’t…it’s econometrics) and lives, societies, are dead and dying bercause some F___er thinks he knows best and wants to contrive objectivity where there is none and them manipulate peoples lives…for society’s optimization.  The State kills.

          Replying to you is tough…my anger in actually communicating with a real believer in socialism…”…to ensure compliance”.  Will you ever overcome the dogma you’ve been fed?  The market always balances, corrects and Say’s law of production…there is always demand…is true.

          Like a theist…I don’t expect you to see any light.  You look at the US dying on the vine and find some thing other than the “generally accepted” theories to blame.  Like David Niven in the movie Bridge Over the River Kwai when he realizes he’s revealed the command raid…someday your going to realize all the wealth lost, the freedom gone and the bodies piled up and you’ll scratch your forehead and ask yourself…”what have I done?”

          Now…leave me alone.  I think you’re dangerously ignorant. Again, I’m just a cabby…AC Pigou was an idiot. His junk isn’t working and here you are pushing it.  Go read Mises’s Human Action…learn some real economics…give up the garbage you believe!

  • Harold

    Don L:  “Either socialism or capitalism…there is no middle ground”. Economic theory desribes varieties of market failure, for instance externalities.  As you reject any regulation of the free market, do you reject the existence of these?  It seems to me that there will always be need for some regulation to correct these failures. 
    You also reject the judges role in deciding constitutionality, but who is going to decide what the original purpose of the constitution was?  There will always be a need for some interpretation.  Who do you propose to do this?

    • Don L

      The old redistributionists externalities fallacy…the excuse for stealing private property (money, real estate…)!  Socialistic/central planning theories proclaim that benefits or costs of economic activity that fall upon another create an externality and these must be corrected by government regulation…redistribution.
      The market is erroneously blamed. The market doesn’t fail…it is government intervening in the market to “correct” the contrivance of externalities that fails. Externalities occur in every transaction and costs and benefits are subjective values. Some people have beards and this deprives the barber of revenue.  So, the socialistic approach is tax everyone and give it to the barber, farmer, bank, etcetras.  This is the failure…and when it fails, gov’t regulates more to correct the 1st failure…and on and on.
      The socialists defined beard externality is not an externality from a free market perspective.  If the shop keeper nextdoor dumps his trash on my lawn…the physical violation of my property rights…it is a crime for which government was established..NOT requiring any confiscation of property of anybody for ‘fairness’ equality or any other bogus label disguising theft! Government was established by the consent of the governed in order to protect the rights to life (people alive), liberty and the pursuit of happiness(property and prosperity) from internal and external threats.
      Again, Harold apparently the only economic theories you know have nothing to do with free market capitalism. You seem to be defending the notion that markets fail and “animal spirits’ don’t allow for stability.  Or, you appear to be adhering to existing, in place, being executed theories.  Hey…see how well they are working.  See how the pro economists have never had a prediction come true, foresaw a downturn, expalnaide events they proclaimed could never happen (stagflation)…and on and on.  On the other hand, free market advocate economists (AUstrian theory being the only free market theory) has never been wrong!  The only thing Austrians cannot foresee is the depths to which the central planners will go to refuse accountability:  FED counterfeiting has kept the bubble inflated…but the balloon failure is inevitable.
      Judges:  Harold, I suspect you may be a “living document” kinda guy. The Founders were pretty clear…if it ain’t in the Constitution it isn’t a power federal government!  With the caution that the author is a christian and places too much on the Declaration’s 4 mentions of mysticism…he does ultimately acknowledge that theism is subservient to the idea that in all manner and fashion it is the governed who decide/interpret/govern…I rcommend the book  “The Original Constitution: What it Actually Saidand Meant” by Robert G Natelson (see image):
      It isn’t that I’m against judges and adjudication…I’m against socialists and their economic theories, the myth of lincoln, corrupted politicians and cronyism, the economically-unaware who complain but refuse to learn…the idea that government has a role in more than protection of rights and defense of the united States (States Are, not is).

      • Harold

        Don L.  You have misunderstood externalities.  A man keeping his beard thus denying a barber income is NOT an externality.  An externality is a cost or benefit that is not included in the price that acts on a third party.  Who is the third party in your example?  What is the cost / benefit?  To maximise economic efficiency the cost / benefit of externalities must be considered.   If I keep bees for honey, which I sell, an externality is pollination of crops.  Bee keepers do not get this benefit, so probably they keep too few bees  for maximum efficency.  We can make at least one person better off without making anyone worse off by keeping more bees, but this is not achieved through the market.  This is basic stuff, and I am surprised you do not accept it.

        The market is good because it maximises economic efficiency.  Therefore  not acheiving maximum efficiency  is a failure, and markets do fail.  This is widely accepted.  The collapse of the grand banks fisheries was not prevented by the market.  This is an example of “tragedy of the commons” – well known and accepted.

        You may still argue that the market is best left alone, even accepting these failures.  However, to justify this position you must take into consideration the costs of the externality vs the cost of interference.  To do otherwise is simply promoting a point of view based on faith (in the market).  This is a position you would not usually support.  It is somewhat foolish to deny the existence of these failures when they arise out of the most basic economic theory. 

        • Don L

          Hi Harold:
          Maybe my example wasn’t the best, but a third party is the ice cream vendor who benefitted from the bearded guy, not paying for a shave, having the money to buy the family double dip cones.
          Bees…pollination.  It’s the typical false argument.  The bee keepers absolutely get the benefit of pollination. First, it isn’t pollination…it’s bees feeding.  Would you keep bees and have profit opportunity if you had to buy bags of Purina bee chow? Whoa…wadda ya tink dem bags would cost if Purina had to send out bodies to collect pollen, making sure not to ‘pollinate’ as to cause an externality, and pay a grower for the pollen? But, in fact, bee keepers and growers do communicate and achieve mutual arrangements…the benefits to both are accounted for…there are pollination services…growers and bee keepers contract. There is no market failure. One person better off and no one worse off…subjective BS…econometric
          The tragedy of the commons is the consequent of the collective mentality.  Private ownership is the proven cure!  If the government can ‘own’ its bits of the oceans…why not a private citizen or venture. Of, course Government should sell off it’s holdings.  Maybe keep some gunnery ranges…nah, let ’em rent!  LOL.
          The hippy days of collectives, Soviet farming, on and on…if it isn’t privately owned, and protected by law as the Constitution requires..you bet it will fail and the resource wasted if not destroyed.  Humans make choices for their benefit…governments force a bureaucrat’s unknowing/uncaring rules.
          The idea of externalities as the excuse to intervene is bogus and a product of ‘welfare, entitlement’ loser economic thinking.  Again, the externality mindset already has their ‘widely accepted’ crap in place.  How’s it going?
          The problem with the externality thinking is there is no way to measure ‘utilities’…they are all subjective. If someone doesn’t like factory smoke…too bad.  Using this as an excuse to tax or regulate is absurd.  How do you measure the the cost of I don’t like smoke in the air…a guess. The owner of the factory making smoake…for goodwill, will likely negotiate with the complaining party.  They know their circumstances best. If, however, there is intentional real physical/bodily consequences…then a crime is commited and law already exists to adjudicate and correct the matter.  Taxing, redistributing, equalizing is not required.  
          Oh, the positive externalities…greening America, Solyndra, mass transit, government owned streets and highways…cronyism disguised as some sorta “public investment”.  No such thing…it’s more polical speak and just consumption spending.  Without a price system and profit motivation…inefficiency is the norm.  Man that government funded educational externality has been an efficient idea…for progressive indoctrination…not for educating.
          Your accepted economics is failed.  Harold, you have to get out of the box…it is this ‘government has answers’ that has given us America on the brink of bankruptcy, facing unfathomable generational debt and a domestic enemy is in the White House. 
          Markets aren’t the failure.  Government intervention fails.  If consumers want something…they will pay for it and there will be someone who will see the opportunity and provide it.  In free markets consumers rule.  The free market system is self correcting.  In your accepted economics, had it been as entrenched then as now, we’d still have buggy whips and manure filled streets becuase we’d have to protect the buggy whip guys from the negative externality of cars.
          Like a theist…Harold…you have faith in your government interventionism.  I don’t have faith in capitalism…I have evidence, it has worked everywhere it has been allowed, across the planet and across time.  Your interventionism has failed, or in process of failing, everywhere it has been set lose..across the planet across time.
          Finally, I’m no Ludwig von Mises on economics…I’m certainly not a great thinker, but a but the comment, regarding economics, like “widely accepted” is an immediate red flag…a warning that total stupid is present.  Whatever you believe is accepted is failing right in your face.  Like a god lover…you are the refusing reality.  Basic stuff…I deny the existence of market failures…Harold…watch this video…The only guys correct are Austrian economic guys…not widely accepted…they don;’t see market failures either.  Your guys…Idiots like your concept of economic interventionism!  Watch This…it’s 10 minutes and if you can open your mind…it’ll wake you up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnekzRuu8wo
          Try these read too:
          Economics in One Lesson: The Shortest and Surest Way to Understand Basic Economics -Henry Hazlitt:http://www.amazon.com/dp/0517548232?tag=teapartyecono-20&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0517548232&adid=006GNVBREABABHJ96ZF3&
          Privatization of Roads and Highways by Walter Block:http://www.amazon.com/dp/193355004X/ref=as_li_ss_til?tag=teapartyecono-20&camp=0&creative=0&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=193355004X&adid=11EF32K7Z8BE46WEAQQX
          Toward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics by Murray N Rothbard:http://mises.org/rothbard/toward.pdf

  • George

    Don , first of all  I never stated  anything about ignoring you at anytime whatsoever and now you’re putting words in my mouth . You made a comment some time ago about the term  “picnic”  and I stated that I have  heard that the term represented a racial slur and you said it was a hoax. So I therefore checked further and found that the term  originated  in France as meaning a “family or couple outdoor outing i.e. luncheon and in that regard you were right and then I found out that many southern white racists had adopted the term also as a slur meaning ” pick a n****r ” and in that sense I was right and I stated such in full detail on a follow up post  in intricate detail and nothing I stated was directed at YOU whatsoever.  
            In that regard there was nothing for you to freak out about in the first place.      As far as you speaking on the subject of Scottish-Austrian economics , I never rejected such at anytime and I made a couple of comments on the subject and then you went “ballistic on me as if the world were coming to an end. I only  inferred that to my knowledge we haven’t conclusively found a “perfect” system as we know it. If that system as you speak is truly the best out then I would undoubtedly support it totally. There was no rejection by me.
                       You have some nerve telling me  —-shame on me when you’re the one coming onto the discussion forum calling everyone  ” sons of bitches and sons of bitchettes ”  and I certainly never called YOU any name whatsoever and that certainly FREAKED ME OUT and then you passed it off by claiming it was suppose to be ‘stimulating” .   Bullcrap !  No –you got it butt backwards —so shame on you.  I    also don’t  have  any intent to be nitpicking with YOU as well and with that attitude acting as though I claim to be a know it all , the person that is coming across as a  know it all is yourself and at no time did I ever insult you or even reject your economics presentation.    Since you say that you don’t care if  I study your website or not then that’s fine with me as well.  I’ve been your number one supporter and internet friend and now that you have proven to me how back-stabbing you are in return then the feeling is mutual and as of now I will simply voluntarily cease and desist any further comment to or about you likewise  . The feeling is mutual !!!!!!    You’re the one acting as if you’re too smart for your britches –not me and I have NEVER at any time engaged in any offense to you whatsoever and I find your comments to be hypocritical and damning. You’ve been on this temper attack upon me incessantly . The attacks have been   coming from you upon me perpetually and I never rejected any suggestion, advise or information that you have ever brought forth at any time whatsoever.  You’ve made your point and I have made mine and I’m freakin’ terminating my discussion on the matter as of now and I’ll start right now by NOT replying to your perpetual attacks upon me .  Matter settled.   Have a nice day sir !

  • George

    In continuation to my previous post of 1 hour ago —-   , I also have problems with the Fair Tax and as  I have previously stated that I would indeed make changes / modifications as well  ( to that system) which would probably make it no longer the system that it was originally proposed to be.  One internet site indicated that the founder of the Fair Tax  (allegedly ) was a member of the federal reserve. I do not know the facts on that assertion , and I have no comment to agree/disagree on either side .   I will simply have to look into the claim further.  I have seen corruption in all these systems that the politicians are pushing and  I do not trust politicians —period  ( none of them ) !   
                        I don’t claim to have the answers or the “perfect” solutions and the reason why so many people are skeptical and distrusting is because so many have pushed these political positions  for ulterior reasons and dubious personal agendas which fits THEIR concept of doing things and according to the great majority of them ,  the people as a whole be damned.   
                           People as a whole are “turned off” by politics and politicians because they have seen and still see so much corruption and dubious agendas masquerading as if it’s in  the best interest of the citizenry in general.  As soon as they put their trust in a position that they sincerely believed was in their best interest and/or  the best interest of the nation —– the populace gets “burned” as usual. When this happens regularly , the people become fed up and then “tune out” totally which leads to a more disastrous predicament as before.

    • Don L


      shame on me for not recognizing how much you are irritaded by me.  Your “tongue in cheeK” was in fact, it turns out, not a comical retort but a veiled insult. Again shame on me for not stepping on eggs soft enough to suit your temperament…”I’m not nitpicking here!”

      When I first came upon and posted on this site, you were the first to reply to me.  Within a few replies to you, light chat, I happen to use the word ‘picnic’. Remeber O’ learned one? You attacked me as some ignorant human, you even forgave me, for not knowing that this word was coined by muderous racist as describing recreational lynching of negroes on Sunday afternoons…or something like that.

      I was totally freaked out.  After all, you stated that you had done all this amazing and comprehensive research and study on this and you were totally correct…you couldn’t be questioned!  Wow…how I could I have not known this?  Indeed, how could so many girlfriends and others that have joined me on picnics have not known this?  I immediately googled…lo and behold…the first thing, the very first thing,  I found was the reference to the hoax going around. That was my comprehensive research. So, I’ve had your number, nautically — the cut of your jib, figured out for quite awhile. How much research did you do on Scotland’s and Austria’s economies?  You sure know your stuff OK, oh boy!

      If you don’t go to my site…I could care less.  You certainly don’t seem to care that you claim capitalist and then spew un-capitalist notions.  Just what school of economic thought do you adhere to?  Sounds/reads like it’s the “Make it up by what ya feel school”! Your choosing to remain ignorant of the subject is not a sweat item for me.  I appreciate you disagree…It’s not worth my time to tit for tat with you.

      Oh no…here comes the “You’re a know it all attacks”.  Not stopping to appreciate I always presented sources for the ideas I discussed/presented. Unlike yourself always applying the dubious ” I researched it” claim…hmmm sorta like the kid crying wolf. Incidentally, they haven’t been my ideas, but those of incredible minds going back hundreds of years.  Disagree with them all you want…show better or shut up and learn.  Oh no…I’ve suggested strongly…how will he handle it? You’re just too smart to learn anything new.

      So, Here’s the deal…ignore me. If you see me post, don’t reply.  I will do the same for you. I’ll start by not replying to your inevitable attack on me.

  • Hochuli’s Biceps

    Wow, Klavan really smacked that one outta the park. When he forgoes references to Christian moralizing, he’s really, really good.

  • Loutre

    Wow, and you have stooped to putting Roseanne Barr up there to make your point?  How sad and pathetic.

    • George

      Actually Loutre  , the point was to illustrate absurdity by letting the absurd put their own foot in their own mouth and to display their own absurdity using their own words for for people to see for themselves. That’s actually the reason behind it .

  • Ralph

    When a right wing politican puts a bullseyes on certain states the media condemns it for being inflammatory and divisive. When the left occupies, riots, burns and demands decapitation the media tries to explain their grievances and that we should be tolerant and understanding. I do understand their hypocrisy. 

  • Ralph

    National Socialism, Communism and now the American Left advocate violence, racial hatred and theft. Perhaps those are the reasons the left is tolerent of Islam?

  • Jillian Becker

    Milfsftw – 

    Where did this nonsense come from? Please tell us. I couldn’t find it through the link you provide.  

    “Hitler’s  political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.”

    What’s wrong with it? If it’s meant to be explain the difference between “far right” and “far left” it fails. But there’s lots else that’s wrong:     

    “He advocated racism over racial tolerance”: So did Karl Marx
    Many communists are and have been against “freedom of reproduction” (eg the present left-wing environmentalist movement is against it.) 
    Hitler’s definition of “merit” was anti-intellectual. His superman had no merit in the usual meaning of the word.   
    “Competition over cooperation?” Where? When?
    Pacifism? The USSR backed the peace movements in the West while it built up its nuclear arsenal, because  by “peace” the Soviets meant a world under communist dictatorship. 
    Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro –  all advocates of “dictatorship over democracy”. 
    Capitalism? Hitler? Capitalism means free enterprise, the free market – who was free in the Third Reich other than Hitler himself? 
    Hitler not an idealist? What was the Nazi cult if not an ideology? 
    Hitler was a racialist, not a nationalist. The Germans to him were not a nation but “the Aryan race”. 
    Exclusiveness? Okay if dominance by “the Aryans” is meant. 
    Common sense? Hitler? Absurd! He was a raving psychopath. 
    If “pragmatism”  here means using naked force and waging war, and killing as many Jews as possible, then yes he was pragmatic. But to use naked force, to make war, to destroy the Jewish people, to dominate Europe and as much of the rest of the world as possible  – those were his principles. 
    Finally, HE WAS NOT AN ATHEIST. To the end of his life he iterated that he was a Catholic.  There is no record that he ever declared himself to be an atheist.       

    • George

      You’re absolutely right Jillian.  When I first saw the post by Milfsftw —- I became rather suspicious [ especially the first four letters of her username ——–“MILF ”   ] . That says it all   !!!!!!!!!!!.

      • Andrew M

        This young’n would also like to mention that “ftw” is Internet lingo for “for the win”.

        This guy is sexually interested in attractive females with children.

        • Don L

          Couldn’t post below…doin’ it here

          Andrew M,

          You are correct.  Indeed, there was much not included…as has been pointed out…in the lengthy post.

          Living in AZ the lack of assimilation among mexicans that have even become naturalized is abhorent.  I have seen transalated documents printed by the Mexican government of the strategy to retake “their” lands by the womb…similar to the Islamic strategy.  In many schools in southern AZ, they even pledge allegiance to Mexico.

          Yes to English.  That our elected officials refuse to do enact this is testament to the political corruption. I’m not sure about “competency test” for voting, but certainly a requirement for school accredidation would mandate the teaching of civics, economics and the basics of math & english. at young ages. 

          Again yes to a Ron Paul like slashing of departments.  It is a shame that his excellent free market (Austrian economics) are so right on and then he falls into the libertarian pacifism.  And, it isn’t thatb he’s wrong on proclaiming America gets into to many foreign entaglements…it’s that he turns his back on and just ignores the monsters we may have created.

          The basic premise of my site is that we have a nation on the brink of bankruptcy, facing unfathomable generational debt and a domestic enemy named Obam in the White House because Americans are economically-unaware…a situtuion purposefull perpetrated by a progressive ideology compulsory schooling system.  And, it is this civic and economic ignorance that allows progressives (socialists of every style — communists and fascists) to get away with emotional nonsense which lacks any substance…you bet we will be labeled all manner of evil uncaring devils…to be taxed before being burned at the stake.

          The free market has no end of work to be performed and unemployment is a passing phenomena as new innovation replaces old: buggy whips go away and workers get into auto industry jobs.  It is government interference that creates permanent unemployment and the poor…never acknowledged by the lying left.

          I’ll end before it gets too long…I agree with you with only a tweak on where and how competency testing might be introduced.

        • Don L

          Hey, just had a friend email me this link to a test on civics:  http://www.isi.org/quiz.aspx?q=FE5C3B47-9675-41E0-9CF3-072BB31E2692

          It’s pretty good.  I got a 90.91

  • Don L

    There only appeal is some emotional BS.
    “Socialism promises not only welfare and wealth for all; but universal happiness and love as well. This part of its program has been the source of much of its popularity.” – Ludwig von Mises
     To attempt to deduce “should” from “is”, is to fail. Socialism attempts economic equality from the emotional “should”. Free market capitalism succeeds because it accepts inequality because it “is”.
    Socialism, in all its forms (Keynesianism, monetarism, supply-side, public choice, etcetras) are incoherent, incomplete, cortived and unsubstainable.  All are based on central government  management of the economy.
    Scottish-Austrian economics, contrarily, is the only completely logical –common sense — coherent and comprehensive theory of economics ever put forth.  It sees economics as being the result of humand action: free will choice.
    Or, Capitalism is by human design as opposed to socialism being of government planning.
    It is an impossibility that any committee, commission, bureau, appointee or likewise can emmulate the determinism of millions upon millions of individuals acting freely in exchange.  It is why socialism fails everywhere. 

    One need only query any of these lefties as to particulars as to how their economy would work.  Indeed, once the wealth is taken from the rich…how does it actually get redistributed?  Yet, the poor continually believe the lies of the elected Left that the thefyt will be to their benefit.  Not in this or any other lifetime!

    They cannot answer any question as to production, prices, distribution, resource use, etcetras absent the consumer determined profit and loss tools of capitalism.  Long-to-short…socialism is only an emotional construct.  It has no means by which to satisfy conumer needs and wants nor protect scarce resources.

    The one question they fail to answer just tickles me:  “how much wealthier were the poor before the rich stole from them?  Indeed, ask them just how the rich actually do steal from them.  They will never ever discuss exactly why the poor are poor.  The answer, of course, is because of government interference!


  • George

    Roseanne Barr   ?        Ha !       I couldn’t stomach to watch the full video because everytime I look at this woman IMO  I get nauseated and want to puke.   On one side of the fence we have the  “radical right” and on the other side of the fence we have the  “looney left” —both competing with each other for power.   The Christian fundamentalist right-wingers  ( many who promote  the Republican Party  specifically )  have virtually  “hijacked”  the conservative position in America and the radical left-wing liberals ( who promote the Democrat Party ) have virtually “hijacked”  the secular freethought position in  America. Liberals are the most self-destructive and socially & politically suicidal people on earth.  Liberals are emotionally driven—not logically and rationally driven.   Since conservatism is logical , one would tend to think that conservatives would be automatically secular freethinkers (atheists )  and that liberals who are emotionally driven would actually be staunchly theological (religious).    It’s  butt backwards !   Go freakin’ figure  !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Milfsftw

      Its because there is a middle ground, a well regulated capitalism that combines both ideologies. There is a reason most secular Americans are not social conservatives, social conservatism is bread from religion and is just as damaging to society as Islam is.

      • George

        While there are many “avenues” stemming from conservative paramaters such as the Christian , Jewish, and Islamic ideologies ( which I will be the first to acknowledge ) , I also recognize that whenever I attend any of the multitude of secular group meetings , they almost invariably and perpetually push a radical leftist political agenda that is astonishingly void of rational and/or logical thinking—but rather an emotional (feel good ) mindset.     So , therefore on one hand you do have a point and yet on the other I have experienced just the very OPPOSITE .

        • George

          In continuation — I have also looked into  Scottish-Austrian economics and while it does have it’s very good points, it too is NOT ideal or near a perfect system. It also has it’s flaws and the Austrians and Scottish are having their problems as well and have also acknowledged so .     Also, on Don L’s post of 32 minutes ago, I believe the first word of his first sentence should be    “Their” and not “There” .         I’m just messing with Don the way he does to me—-ha ha .  I can also relate to what Milfsftw is stating—– considering that a tremendous amount of the status quo mindset and so-called conservative/right wing ideology does indeed come from Christianity.     I try to be objective and as open minded as possible in analysing  the social and political situation.  Whenever I mentally “view” these points , I try to put myself in a “neutral” position and look at it from a well-rounded perspective.   Even though I am secular , there are SOME things in SOME religions that I like , but they have absolutely nothing to do with believing in some supernatural being or the paranormal but SOME social and personal behaviors.    I’m glad we have a mature forum to bring these issues to the forefront .

        • George

          Oooooops——-I had a typo below.    I wrote “analysing ” when I meant to say “analyzing” .   I had to correct that B4 Don L gets on my case ———————–ha ha !!!!!  Take care ————– this extra cheese pizza is delicious  !!!!

        • Don L

          I can’t reply to your post directly.
          Misspell acknowledged.
          Austrian economic thinking derives from the Scottsman Adam Smith…hence sometimes reffered to as Scottish-Austrian economics.  It has nothing to do with eirther Scotland’s or Austria’s actual economies.  And, if you can name a scholl of economic thinking better than the Austrian school…please enlighten me. 

          The Austrian school is the ONLY school encompassing free market capitalism.  So, you are telling me you think there is a better economic system…do tell?

        • Don L

          Have to post here:


          Boy, what have I done to deserve such adulation?  Thanks, but I think someone has to take your temperature and give you a high colonic!  LOL.

          OK…in response to “…how ’bout it?.”:

          To begin, again, don’t know that I deseve the position.  Indeed, I would have gone for the broken ceiling and placed our blog publisher Jillian at the top spot.  Her class-act, experience in all these topics, her truly excellent word skills and rapid analytical skills are extremely impressive!  You did not list a secty of Treasury…Eh, I probably wouldn’t qualify there either…not Pres, but a Ron or Rand Paul would be great there.

          Continuing, respective of Condell, although I agree with him, placing him in gov’t would be nearly as divisive as placing Billy Graham or one of the televandelists in office. I beleive a firm understanding by all elected and appointed government officials, including justices, that there is freedom from religion should be sufficient. 

          As to Ms Gabriel, certainly as an advisor…to be listened to…but the post needs someone capable of kicking ass and changing the mindset in that 5-sided world unto itself.  Perhaps a new building would shake things up…breakup of fiefdoms.  A bit of realistic competetive bidding and contract adherence needs to be implemented.

          Sorry George…Fair tax is as socialistic and government centric as you can get.  Any consumption tax is.  First, it is an immediate claim on every dollar, digital or paper, in existance.  No one works or saves to never spend…so, every dollar everywhere is whatever percentage less…and it has already been taxed…many times.  What is needed is a firm definition of what governments job is and then a interactive cost build up method to determine a budget…then collected at a flat rate at the point of income production…once.  The idea that government just willy nilly sets a budget at some percent of GDP is absolutely insane.  They need only keep changiong the definition of GDP…as they continually do…with all the bogus and contrived indexes/indices.  We aren’t in a depression because they merely changed the criteria…otherwise, by comparison to 1929…we are worse off today!  Flat tax assessed by a real cost of doing business is the fairest tax method…that there should be one.

          Scottish-Austrian economics:  Ah George…I just have this sense that you have still not accepted the invitation and gone to the site and acquired the TeaParty Econ 10-Pack.  I appreciate your letting folks know about it, but somehow, comments you have posted are not comnsistent with someone who has actually reviewed the material.  It isn’t questioning, denying, agreeing or…well, if I’m wrong let me know.

          Austrian economics has been tested George…the writings of its proto and current contributors over 250 years have been correct 100% of the time…i.e., see the Want Proof—Watch The Video page on my site: http://teapartyeconomics.com/0005TheMostImportantVideoYouWillEverWatch.html

          Again, I have posted before that having discovered Austrian economics only a few years ago, given my age, many decades of false information and believes were positively shattered.  I am enthusiastic.  Yet, my objective is not to convince anyone…merely to casuse folks to make time to take time to lookk.  I know someone will actually have to work and do some reading.  And, overcoming ones self-image of I know all I need to or the conditioning imposed by a indoctrinating compulsary-schooling system is tough.

          Back to economics…the Founders’ economist was a french count… he enhanced the work of Adam Smith and Jean Baptiste Say (It is Say’s economic laws that socialists break and he introduced the idea of entrepreneurism).  Indeed the count coined the word ideology to eliminate the theology, collectivist and divinity influences, embedded in then political economies.  It was an economic policy of free market capitalism.  Then as now, it has always been miseducated, ignored and demeaned since it demonstartes, irrefutably, the failure of government inteference  and central planning of/in an economy. One would be hard pressed to find knowledge of these guys in any economics classes; grade school -to- university.

          Close the Borders and All illegals deported.   Certainly close the borders sna establish a qualification for entry.  And, implement a workasble system for verifying those let in. As for deportation…I don’t know if that is physically possible.  First I would require anyone who is here illegally to register as illegal with the punishment being if you don’t and a plan is deviced…if you are found to be illegal and not registered…over the wall you go…immediately!  Returning again, illegally, 25 years in prison.  Then, anyone here less then five years, OUT! Criminal record any lenght of time….OUT!  Oh…end the born here your a citizen enticement nonsense. Point is, pick and choose those who are contributing, impose appropriate (financial ?) penalties, require strict citizenship qualification requirements and oath.  Implement a employer/employee contract work visa system.  Would be employers can open offices in Mexico and hire their…the employer becomes responsible for their contract workers…and so on.  More though of consequences is needed, but security and retaining our resources is paramount while still supporting free exchange and right to contract.

          Certainly, eliminate foreign aid and support for the UN.  I have not done a complete consideration, but support for Israel, as a defensive post for our interest, is not off my books.  The allies can look out for themselves…allies…yeah right.  They have suckled at our teat too long already!  I still believe in Star wars…missle defense…plasma weapons for destruction and killing massive waves of troops. 

          Fix economy:  End the FED, 100% free banking and return to a bimetal monetary system.  This immediately ends most corruption and threats to individuals’ earnings and savings. The entiltles must be ended, while protecting those who close or in the retirement system already.  Healthcare must be freed from all government interference…free market. The free market will regulate fraud…the correct purpose of government will handle criminal acts. All acttions that can be handled by private enterprise (there are very few that can’t be) will be turned over to free enterprise.  Government will not “invest”/stimulate/subsidise or in manner or fashion involve itself in any private enterprise issue…lobbying will get ya nowhere!

          Speaking of which, the judicial system is so corrupt.  I would consider rounding up every living supreme and all level of federal judge and lock ’em up as traitors to the nation and to their oath of office.  Discard the case law nonsense and repeal, quash or as necessary any preveious ruling contrary to the original intent of the Constitution. 

          End corruption…reinforce the 10th and repeal the 17th amandments; as a beginning.  And, a get a term limits amendment ratified…to begin.This would mean no federal government involvement in abortion or other faith-based/moral issues…other than enforcing religion freedom (of and from) situations. 

          Enough…Have a good one!

        • Andrew M

          Don L, I like much of what you have written in the enormous post below this one, and while I cannot say I’ve read the economic documents at your site, I’ve grown to appreciate the value of the free market through many other media.

          Nevertheless, you are forget one very important matter tangentially related to the issue of foreign nationals illegally residing in America: our own, “native”-born population has much assimilation left to do itself. The twenty-somethings of my generation are largely ignorant of the finer details and debates of American history, yet many seem to convey a sense of Euro-style shame for the successes of Western civilization. Of course I cannot know this for sure, and there are certainly patriots abound, yet I get this distinct impression whenever I discuss salient political affairs with many of my friends.

          Furthermore, the situation is only getting worse. Arabic street signs are the norm in Dearbornistan, Michigan, and certain parts of the border regions seem to consider English a secondary language. Multilingualism should rightly be valued as a critical skill for an upwardly mobile America, but not to the extent that it jeopardizes communication on important affairs. My uncle is married to an immigrant from Mexico who has NO desire to learn English. Hell, we can hardly communicate with each other in our native language because the terminology is so easy to mutate to your own biases!

          How our recent forefathers managed to incentivize behaviors like this are beyond my reproach, but we must make the big decisions very soon: English must be the official language of civic affairs at the federal level, while respecting the decision of the states to recognize historically important secondary languages. Scrap the Department of Education, but implement a (much!) smaller government-mandated apolitical civics program to be administered to all high school students. Voting rights are incumbent on passing a basic competency test related to these materials.

          I defend these measures, especially the government civics classes, in the name of national defense, and ideally I would prefer a Ron Paul-style cut to all of the other bogus “Departments” to help fund these measures. Democracy fails when the population is not well-educated and well-informed about national affairs. Of course we will be attacked as mean old racist bigoted conservatives who are trying to make the lives of inner-city kids worse with our evil America-loving measures, by the mainstream media and all of those who accept their pablum without a second thought. But it still must be done.

          Critiques are welcomed and appreciated.

      • Don L

        “well regulated capitalism” is an oxymoron.  If it is anything, it is fascism…socialism. 
        Either socialism or capitalism…there is no middle ground.  Hitler and Mussolini promoted the 3rd way…if you want examples.

        I recommend the book “Liberal Fascism” by Jonah Goldberg.  http://www.amazon.com/dp/0385511841?tag=teapartyecono-20&camp=213381&creative=390973&linkCode=as4&creativeASIN=0385511841&adid=1VQSFGK9ZA7GHR2ZXFDF&  You’ll find this to be an eye opener!

        • George

          I agree Don ,   and I heard a staunch capitalist radio talk show say the same thing years ago—  .  Most people don’t even know the true difference between socialism and capitalism. 

        • Milfsftw

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law   first  reply impressive,  and PS   “Hitler’s  political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.”

        • George

          Don , I couldn’t respond to your post below so I am here.  First , I never put a “ranking” meter on the Austrian school free-market capitalism, as I happen to be a capitalist and I wholeheartedly detest socialism and especially  communism.   My post  was simply to say that there have been a couple or so “model”  systems that have been devised but they have NEVER been put into place on a national level. I have heard critiques of that as well and I went  and did a re-check and even it has its flaws ( none are perfect ). If it makes you feel better , I would certainly embrace as you say the Austrian school of  capitalistic economics over what I have seen and experienced so far .  My point to you was to say be careful and please don’t push this as some form of perfect utopian system without it’s drawbacks.  We must always keep our checks and balances . Not to restate what I have stated before , but if I had to vote for a system of choice considering our status quo system and the wacko system that Obama is pushing , then I most certainly would indeed support the Scottish-Austrian economics and also if it makes you feel better , I would truly elect you as the head overseer and implementer of the system ( considering that we’re BOTH secular conservative freethinkers ) .  Your opponents won’t come from ANY of us but a selective group of   “conservative”  manipulative cronies who want to do their own selfish thing and of course without question—from LIBERALS  who adamantly hate such a system.  Plain and simple . 

        • George

          Don , I agree here and also I responded to your previous post a few minutes ago.  There is no opposition here , just relaying info that I had checked myself  on the subject.  You make good points above and I believe this person Milfstw is a radical liberal IMHO drinking ffrom the same old “punch” . Also, you may get a bunch of “hits” from people checking out your website —-from me spreading the word for you.  Also, why don’t you get a Don L radio talk-show going or even a TV Don L  TV news hour and that will really shake things up.   But be careful Don , because you will need a body guard and have to wear soft body armour every where you go because of all the wacko nut-cases out there  if you did. It’s an uphill battle trying to be rational with the irrational —as if you don’t already know —-but still we try and we have to keep up the fight. 

        • George

          Next election—

          Don L —————-President
          Pat Condell———-Vice President
          Jillian Becker——–Secretary of  State
          Brigiite Gabriel——Secretary of Defense

          Political agenda

          * Fair Tax
          * Scottish-Austrian economics
          * Close our borders ( put troops on our borders and seaports)
          * All illegal alliens deported
          * Put a cap on immigration ( only those allowed from countries who are allies to the USA and have something to offer to advanxce our nation )
          * Stop sending our money overseas ( especially to those countries and regiems hostile to the USA and our allies ).
          * Bring our troops home and train & supply our allies to protect their own.
          * Strengthen our military/national defense and strengthen monitoring of the hostile groups within the  USA and enforce law violators vigorously.
          * Fix the f***ing economy ( see number 2 above ).
          * Weed out the corrupt politicians ( that’s about 99% if not all ) IMHO.   

          Wellllllllllllllllllllll  how about it Don ?

        • George

          Don , I read your rather lengthy submitted post , and while some things I agree , there are indeed some I respectfully disagree. As far as my posting that you run for President , that was done as you would say– ” tongue in cheek ”  and not meant literally , and of course I would indeed vote for Jillian Becker for President in a heartbeat ( as she stands for more of my posiion than anyone else I know )–IMHO.     
                        I  do believe that the  Fair Tax needs modifications but it is definately NOT socialistic.   Yes, the GDP can change in that regard but even those receiving government welfare would pay a tax on  their purchases –even though they still are NOT wage earners .   A flat tax would take  at a flat rate the income earners , but welfare recipients and others would not be paying a tax.  Before you start going off on me as usual for not being in total “lockstep” with your economics proposal , I have NOT rejected your stated economics plan in any sense but only raised certain questions and it is certainly not fair for you to accuse me of not being  “consistent”  , however  after seeing how you are so staunchly “engulfed” in this matter I can see why.
                                I’m sure that you are set in your mindset of how you view economics but just because others don’t fall in line with YOUR perception or viewpoint automatically of oue economic situation doesn’t automatically make YOU undoubtedly right .   I’m open to check out any proposal that I believe has merit and as I stated before I have not rejected your POV/proposal  on this  matter.  However if you continue to be abbrasive in your presentation with the attitude of your position and presentations , then you will eventually turn more people “off” than you will attract.  Just food for thought.

      • Don L

        I can’t reply to your last post directly:

        I again would refer you to the Goldberg book.  Irrespective of megolomania peculiarities…fascism is socialism…not on the right.

        Communists and facsists fought because they appealed to the same audience.

        There are only 2 difference between fascism and communism:  Communism seeks a world application and fascists are only concerned with individual states (nations); Communists seek total ownership of the means of production and fascists totally control the means of production through regulation, decree, rule and statute while leaving the appearance of private ownership.

        Incidentally, the early 20th century criminals Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Gen Franco all got their ideas from Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and FDR.  Hitler was absolutely amazed and dissapoited that FDR actually went to war with him…since they saw so much alike.

        Ah, wkipedia merely regugitates the prevailing progressive-written history.  Progressivism is socialis, fosters eugenics and is prevaleny in both political parties.

      • George

        In your post far below you assert that Hitler was an atheist. No he was not. Hitler himself acknowledged that he was iondeed Catholic. He confessed and acknopwledged his religiocisty ( Catholicism ) in his speeches, in his notes and in his book Mein Kampf.  I have a multitude of quotes from Hitler acknowledging that he was doing the Lords work and his acknowledgement  on many occassions of being Catholic.   You propaganda campaign isn’t working—-try elsewhere where the peopel are stupid enough to believe your BS.   Hitler apointed chaplains on the battlefields among his brown-shirt henchmen.   The troops of Hitler wore the inscription on their  belt buckles that read– ” Gott Mitt Uns ———  meaning ” God With Us ”    This assertion by fundamentalist Christians in America that Hitler was an atheist is one of the biggest lies ever told .   If you believe this BS then you have indeed been profoundly hoodwinked .   I can see that you’re not here trying to engage in dialogue but trying to engage in your pathetic trolling behavior on the sly.  Everyone  has a right to their opinion and even to disagree but at least be truthful of which you are certainly NOT  !!!!!