Peace Through War

I think the only way we can have peace in the middle east is if all the different terrorist threats are annihilated. These terrorist organizations are what destabilize governments and furthermore kill innocent civilians. For the most part I think the terrorist threat is Iraq is under control. I think within a couple years the terrorist threat in Afghanistan will be dealt with. Pakistan seems to be trying to fight the terrorists within its own borders. If Israel was allowed to fully topple Hezbollah there would not be a terrorist organization in Lebanon. Now Israel is fighting Hamas. If Hamas is permanently defeated then that's one less terrorist threat in the world. One by one these organizations need to be dismantled and the leadership needs to be held accountable for their actions. Until all of the world's terrorist organization all defeated we must accept the 1 to 1000 rule. For every single innocent person a terrorist organization kills the world ought vow to kill 1000 terrorists. Within several months the idea of joining a terrorist organization will seem so unrealistic that their membership will evaporate.

Biased Reporting

Is it me or does every article you read regarding the Israeli and Palestinian situation make Israel seem like they are only killing civilians. Who is writing these articles? American reporters are starting to embarrass me. It seems like they are just getting talking points from Al Jazeera. Do they not realize Israel is fighting terrorists? These terrorists hide weapons in people's house, in schools, and anywhere else there are civilians. Our reporters have completely stopped trying to find the truth. Every single article has a statement like "according to Mustopha Jabar (made up name), a Palestinian teacher, Israel has killed 11 children under the age of 15 and 7 women." What kind of crap is this? Does anybody realize that this teacher is probably lying? These liberal media is rotting the American culture from the inside out. These agenda driven journalists do not care about what the truth is, they just care about having a shock and awe article. It's like if you have two journalists and one is writing the truth and one is writing biased articles from the terrorists point of view, which article do you think will catch your eye first?

Complete Defeat of Hamas

I am so sick of these Dark Age terrorists. Hamas needs to be defeated once and for all. They are not a government, they are a terrorist organization. Nobody feels sorry for Hamas. I hope those animals are getting what has been coming to them for a long time. No water, no electricity, no medicine, nothing. Let them rot. If you are in any way supporting these terrorists you ought to be treated as an enemy combatant. Israel can not allow its citizens to constantly be bombarded with rockets. They must send a message to Hamas and any other organization that wishes Israel harm. The defeat of Hamas will be a strong blow to terrorists around the world. Death to Hamas! Long live Israel!

Israel's Right to Self Defense

Can you imagine what would happen if one missile came from Cuba and struck the United States of America? Would the American military be justified in retaliating? How far should America go in terms of retaliating? What should be the conditions of the cease fire?

First and foremost, if America got attacked by Cuba there would be an immediate retaliation. Americans would not care what the rest of the world had to say. In the words of John McCain "Americans don't live history, Americans make history". Can you imagine how the US population would respond if the government did nothing? There would be riots within hours in every major city. The government would have no choice but to act. Remember the President takes an oath to defend this country from enemies both foreign and abroad.

Next comes the question of justification. Would the US be justified in its retaliation to the attack? Of course we would. What is the point of having a great army if we don't retaliate against attacks on the homeland? If Cuba starts bombing us then we have the right to defend ourselves. Obviously some civilians would die (in any war this is known as collateral damage) but Cuba knew that when they initially bombed America. If your worried about civilians dieing don't start a war. Any country is justified to use military force when the safety of its citizens is threatened by another country's military.

How strong should the retaliation be? Just using common sense I would think the retaliation should be strong enough to serve two purposes. First, to let Cuba and the rest of the world know that even the thought of attacking America is so devastating to your home country that it is unthinkable and second, the retaliation needs to set Cuba so far back that they will not even have the opportunity to attack America for decades to come. If you just do a light bombing all your doing is pissing people off, but if you lay waste to the country the people will know that their government messed up when they attacked America.

Last but not least comes the conditions of the cease fire. There ought not be a cease fire until Cuba can no longer carry out attacks against the United States for decades to come. They will need to be taught a lesson about how to interact with the US. There is no point of declaring a cease fire if nothing has been solved. To solve the problem the American government would need to weed out every Cuban responsible for the attack and execute them. This will stop the attacks and at the same time send a message to not mess with America.

Now reread the article but instead of saying Cuba say Palestine and instead of saying America say Israel. Its the same thing. Let Israel defend itself. Let Israel do whatever is necessary to lay a foundation for future safety. If Israel does not exterminate the terrorist threat this time it will keep coming back for more.

Obama's Recipe for Success

I think President Elect Barack Obama has an extraordinary opportunity to strenghten his party, bring about prosperity, and maintain both. First off, Obama needs to redefine what it means to be a 21st century democrat. Second off, Obama needs to let people know what economics is and, just like physics, that there are certain rules that can not be denied.

I don't know why but it seems Americans prefer Democrats to Republicans when the two are evenly matched. I know not always, but it seems like its almost more politically correct to be a democrat then a Republican. I think its because democrats market themselves as the party trying to move America into the future and try to make republicans seem like the party trying to maintain the status quo. Whatever the reality is, it is not important because in politics perception is everything. Obama, as a democrat, needs to embrace free market thinking. Remember, the far majority of Americans believe in the free market and want leadership that helps the free market not hinders it. The problem is that many Americans have associated democrats with socialists. To be completely honest, its not that crazy of a connection to make. Supporting welfare, higher taxes, unbalanced budgets, huge government programs, constant intervention in the free market, polarizing the the poor and middle class against the rich, forcing legislation down people's throats, and constantly attempting to redefine the constitution has led many people to fear the direction the Democratic party is going. If Obama makes it his policy to balance the budget, lower taxes, initiate a new era of self responsibility, and untangle the massive web of unnecessary legislation he can take away Republicans whole argument in future elections. I think a good platform to govern from is to embrace economics and conservative fiscal policy and to make social policy determined state by state. When it comes to economics there is a right and a wrong which can be proven mathematically, but when it comes to social policy let the individual states decide what their people's values are. Social values are determined to be right and wrong based on philosophy. Of course there are things that self evident to all people like justice and fairness but there are gray areas that philosophies can not explain. If a state wants to have gay marriage then they should definetly be allowed to have gay marriage and the federal governmnet must recognize it as such. On the other hand, if the people vote to ban gay marriage then the courts should have no reason to interfere. Remember, our founding fathers strongly supported the rights of states. Everything I have mentioned is proven to be very healthy for the economy. If you do not think so please, please, please read some basic economics textbook.


This brings me to my next point. Economics is the law of the land not just some distant theory. Can you imagine trying to build a building without implementing the laws of gravity? One of the basic laws of economics is that taxation is bad. Whether the employer, employee, customer, or supplier is taxed, it reduces economic activity. Especially a progressive tax system. Just think about it for a second, the more money you make the bigger the slice the governmnet take. If you make $50,00 a year you give up at least $15,000 for income taxes (30%). If you make $200,000 then you give uo about $80,000 for taxes (40%). Here comes the fun part, if you make between $0 and about $20,000 a year the governmnet takes close to 0% (after factoring in stimulus, health programs, and other financial help). People wonder how tax cuts stimulate the economy and when you know the most productive people in society are forced to pay at least 40% of their money to the government it starts making you think. Following economic laws should not be something that is up for debate. Does two plus two equal four? Its really that simple when you put political iseology aside. The governmnet lowers taxes, this would allow for companies to hire more people and it would allow for products and services to be cheaper. Aren't both of these results highly desirable? Here is some reality. You can not stimulate an economy by stimulus checks, government regulations, bailouts, more welfare, raising taxes, or any other socialist policy. The only way to stimulate an economy is encourage businesses to hire more people and encourage people to consume products and services. Now think about this, how can the government encourage companies to hire more people and to make shopping seem more appealing? LOWERING TAXES!!! If the government lowers taxes people will have more money to spend on goods and services, companies will have more money to spend on labor, and prices will go down because a company's cost structure changes. Why do you think socialist states either fail or are in a state of extreme poverty? Its because they do not follow self evident, economic laws.

In short, President Elect Barack Obama needs to embrace free market principles. If democrats can become fiscal conservatives then republicans have no chance in upcoming elections. Most Americans are tax payers and want to see their taxes go down. Remember Obama promised to lower taxes because he knows you will never win an election by running on tax increases. Do not flip flop on this Mr. Obama. If democrats become the party of living within your means then republicans will become a minority party for a long time to come.

What Happened to the Cowboy President?

Up until about two months ago you could say whatever you wanted about Bush but you could not deny the man had strong principles and stood on them in the face of great opposition. But now, that image seems like a distant dream. I remember how lively he was in his first campaign. I remember how courageous and resolute he seemed in the aftermath of 9-11. I remember the verbal beating of the war drum when he felt Iraq was a threat. I remember the warrior President of the re-election. I also remember his never say die spirit in putting forth a troop surge. What has happened to this man!? Our President. I guess at some point even a cowboy's spirit dies.

In a matter of about two or three months President Bush has become the biggest socialist in American history. I know that he and others feel justified in their actions but nevertheless it is what it is. One bailout after another. It has gotten to the point that he is siding with union leaders. A republican president siding with union leaders. What has happened to him. This is a man who looked the world in the eyes and without blinking said he was going to launch a preemptive war regardless of what anybody else thinks. Now this man can not say no to a union leader. Not just a union leader but anybody who he has already bailed out.

This is me talking to you President Bush. For the most part, I have supported your Presidency. Not because I am ultra religious or because I am a hawk but because I am a strong fiscal conservative. I know you sent the national debt sky high but we fought two wars and its understandable. But what you are doing now is unforgivable. You are bailing out one millionaire after another. Now I'm not saying you should bailout everybody I'm saying you should not have bailed out anybody. You have messed with the free market in a way in which we will be feeling ripple effects for years to come. I understand you want a decent legacy but you need to understand who you are. You are the fearless cowboy. The man who always did what he thought was right. The warrior President. Our warrior President. You will not turn out like Hoover. Hoover made many mistakes. He raised taxes, cut the money supply, tried to increase the cost of labor, and did many other foolish and socialist policies. Do not fall into that trap. Remember Mr. President, in the words of Ronald Reagan, "Markets go up and markets go down." So simple yet so true. Remember you created your legacy. If Iraq and Afghanistan turn out well you will be remembered as a great leader but if those countries collapse they do so alongside your legacy.

Not Rich vs. Poor, but People vs. the Government

The American Revolution was not fought because almost everybody was poor and some people were rich and the poor wanted what the rich had but instead the revolution was fought because the rich and the poor alike were getting mistreated by their government. Remember such slogans as "No taxation without representation" or "Give me liberty or give me death"? Does this sound like the cries of the proletariat (In the Communist Manifesto, the worker class)? Of courses not. This sounds like the cry of a people yearning to be free and equal in the eyes of the law. Obviously the founding fathers would have seen that some were going to be rich while others were not. Also, all of the founding fathers were wealthy and they still chose to revolt.

This is the clash of events from which emerged the United States of America. Now I know we have not always been perfect but American logic has a self correcting mechanism to it which we will explore later. Other countries had their revolutions almost exclusively based on the idea of wealth redistribution. In France people we starving to death in the streets while the clergy and nobility dine on the most elegant and exotic food of their time. Same thing with Russia and so many other countries. We in America never had monarchs or ruling classes. We know that all the wealth of this nation was created by hard work, never ending ambition, and sometimes a little bit of luck (I try to downplay luck as much as possible but there is always some luck). America was not formed how other countries were formed.

In other countries a bunch of small warrior kings came together hundreds and thousands of years ago, chose a leader or King and went from there. Everything was given to these people and everything was stripped of everybody else. Individuals had no rights, for the most part no property, and very little money. The only real purpose these systems of kings, lords, knights, and serfs served for the serfs was protection from foreign invaders. Eventually a bunch of people were like enough is enough and decided to move to the new world. In this new world families were all equal and everybody got to reap the fruits of their labor. Over time the parent country (England) tried gain control in the new world and transfer its system of injustices there. The founding fathers were not having this and went to war.

That's how we started. Fighting the government. Its in our blood to fight the government. We do not fight amongst each other because some might be rich and some might be poor. As Jefferson said," Some must be rich to let others know they can become rich as well." The rich and the poor should not fight against each other but should fight together against the government. In this country if you work hard, follow the rules, and find your niche you can not fail. Our government over the last two hundred years or so has fooled us into believing that we are the cause of all the problems and not them. Rich people think its poor people's fault and poor people think its rich peoples' fault when in fact its the government's fault.

Everything is the government's fault, both historically and today. They are the reason housing has collapsed, they are the reason the big three need a bailout, they are the reason education in this country is failing, they are the reason we fight one pointless war after another, and so much more. The original creators of the government were people like us who had seen what government can become and wanted to set up system in which that would not happen. Why do you think the US Constitution is so short and to the point were as today's laws are so long and pointless? Its because the longer it is the more loopholes the politicians have put in their. Look at other countries' constitutions. They are as thick as textbooks. Why? So the government can do whatever it wants whenever it wants.

The US Constitution is self correcting. I truly believe the people who wrote and voted to ratify the Constitution knew that one day it would abolish slavery and give every man, woman, and child the same rights as everybody else. What happens is the politicians who are in office try to reinterpret what the Constitution actually says. There is no need to reinterpret anything. The Constitution says what it says for a reason. Everybody ought to be equal in the eyes of the Constitution but unfortunately that is not the case. Some people are forced to give up more than half of their money to the government while others receive money for doing nothing. Some people are put in jail for a simple marijuana possession while others get probation for killing people while drunk driving. Government has created all of these injustices.

Government should just be there to perform its Constitutionally approved job. Let human nature and the free market do the rest. All this government is doing is going back to the days of the feudal system. Everybody is going to be fairly poor while the select few remain extremely rich. But not rich from hard work but rich because they stole the rewards of others'. Think about it, Carolyne Kennedy might get a Senate seat because she is a Kennedy. She has no experience for that position and I have never heard of her working hard to get something accomplished. I said it once and I will say it again, the government has no right picking winners and losers. Whether its for the Senate, car companies, or individuals THEY ONLY DO WHAT BENEFITS THEM.

People Win, Unions Lose. No Bailout!

Where have these Reagan Republicans been hiding for the last 20 years or so. Last night we finally saw a little glimpse of them. Democrats deserve credit for this one too.

Bailout Failed!
Bailout Failed!
Bailout Failed!

At least, for now. Once the new year starts I guarantee this will be brought back up. That's how bailouts work. Once there is talk of bailout people tend to expect that it will happen. Looking at it this way, if somebody was pondering whether to give you a million dollars or not you would already be planning on what you will spend that money. You might even make some decisions as if you know for sure you are getting the money. Same thing with business. Once somebody in government mentions bailout it creates a great deal of market volatility because investors willing to bet on a bailout buy stock hoping that a huge infusion of cash will make the price of the stock go up.

I say stop the madness. This government was already part of the biggest government intervention scheme in history. How many more corporations does the government need to control for people to realize whats going on? The government sets up Freddie and Fannie. Then they allow dishonorable and not very bright people to run these two socialist companies. These companies have advantages in the market place other companies do not have because they are partially government run. Finally the government allows these institutions to buy bad loans from almost every bank.

WHAT DID YOU THINK WAS GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!? Fannie and Freddie got stuck with a bunch of sub prime loans that people were not paying. Had these people been properly screened they wouldn't have had those loans in the first place. By the way, during this whole scenario the government was forcing banks to lower lending standards and the President was pursuing weak dollar economics.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that when government gets involved in matters it knows nothing about you will have negative results. If I was a social worker all of the sudden I had full control over which businesses fail and which succeed and once I decide which get to succeed I get to run the businesses. Do you think I would be successful? I mentioned this in an earlier post, if politicians knew how to run businesses better than businessmen and businesswomen then they wouldn't be politicians. Remember CEOs make millions and politicians make thousands.

When individuals, households, and small businesses fail that's it. There are no bailouts for us, there is only restructuring (redo the family budget) and/or bankruptcy (IRS takes your house, car, etc). Think about this. Say you have some bad luck and get laid off. You have house payments, and other bills to make and it becomes too much so you file for bankruptcy. They will come and take all your valuable assets, freeze your accounts and investments, and pretty much drag your name through the mud. Then the government takes all your stuff and sells it, takes the money from the sale and gives it to a multi billion dollar corporation because they are about to go bankrupt. Why didn't you get a bailout? Are you or is your business really that meaningless? The government has no right to decide winners and losers. That's the job of suppliers and consumers.

Senate Debate

Did anybody watch the closing speeches in the auto bailout debate? Generally not liking either party I honestly think Republicans have an upper hand in the situation. They seem to be the only ones demanding some kind of corporate restructuring attached to a deadline. Another thing, just hearing the words Car Czar coming out of the mouths of my elected politicians makes me feel very uncomfortable. I don't remember a czar being a popular American icon. The far majority of Americans do not want the auto bailout. It is a majority much greater than the majority by which most politicians win their offices by. Stop trying to scare Americans into supporting any bailout. Everybody knows that if these corporations go into chapter 11 their assets will not be liquidated. All chapter 11 means is a restructuring. Americans are not stupid and I think people are getting pretty tired of all these bailouts. Bailouts never end. How do you decide who to bailout and who to let fail? Should individuals get bailouts? State governments? Locals governments? Basically politicians are trying to scare tax payers into soothing over the tough times for people who don't need soothing. The top 1% should have never got a bailout either.

No More Bailouts

Where do these bailouts stop? Governors, Mayors, CEOs, and all kinds of other leaders from various organizations all seem to have a hand out waiting to collect. I say you didn't earn that money and you shouldn't get to spend that money. Since when do we trust the government to properly allocate money? Has nobody seen the huge bureaucracies government has created? And the idea of a car czar is repulsive. Have American managers really been that dumbed down to where they no longer know what is best for their companies? Plus if there was somebody in government who could assume the position of car czar then they would already be a CEO earning millions of dollars a year instead of a politician earning just over 100k (don't get me wrong 100k is big). Hopefully Congress stops the bailout.