Weather or Not

Severe Outflow by R. Edwards

If I Were Liberal, I’d Vote For…

by Leave a Comment

If you are a liberal and thinking of voting for Hillary Clinton in your primary…for MotherEarthGaiaNatureGoddess’ sake, why? Are you out of your socialist/humanist/Utopian mind? Quaff that kombucha or sip that frappucino, dear grasshopper, and read on about the real deal: Bernie Sanders.

Forget Martin O’Malley; he’s going nowhere meaningful except as a possible VP candidate for the ultimate winner of the Hillary-Bernie contest. And yes, that’s the real contest, and contrast. Old Uncle Joe, the lovable/sexist bumbling buffoon and gaffe master that he is, already decided that the Democrat Party’s liquor cabinets are too blocked off for easy access, and wisely abstained from attempted pantry entry.

Why look further? Your best candidate ever is right there! That candidate is Bernie Sanders–consistent, idealistically pure as can be, a ’60s radical who never sold out to Washington pollsters or corporate money, who takes no donations from Fortune-500 high-rollers, who supports abortion and “gay rights” and always has, who took the same positions Hillary claims today but back when they were politically unpopular, who voted against the Iraq War when Hillary voted for it, who opposed DOMA when the Clintons (and they are a team, remember?) signed it into law. In other words, Bernie’s real.

There you have Hillary+Bill, who haul in mountains of corporate cash (and corporations are all evil, all the time…remember?), who again supported that hideous DOMA and Iraq War, whilst Bernie voted against them…she who only lately has come around to your views on several issues out of political expedience and pollster-popularity pandering. Hillary’s authenticity, ethics, honesty, temper, and decision-making are all highly questionable–and that’s the opinion of almost as many Sanders supporters as Republicans. “What difference does it make!?!?!?!?!?!?” I’ll tell you…

Bernie! He says what he means, means what he says. Hillary says what she thinks you want to hear; Bernie says what you want to hear, but truly means it himself! He doesn’t pretend to be anything he’s not, and has been remarkably consistent with most positions for decades. The one substantial shift (varying degrees of gun control) is something about which Hillary has wandered the spectrum also; so that’s a wash.

Okay, Sanders is an old white guy. Can you ever, possibly overcome your offense at that, and forgive him for such a genetic curse? Can you look past your negative racial and gender stereotyping of that demographic, Ms./Mr./M-whatever Leftwinger? Set aside his age and gender and your own argumentum ad novitatum bias, and view his ideals in the name of open-mindedness. Can you?

You damn well should, because his ideals are your ideals, to the core, and were back when Hillary was a pandering “moderate” still trying to wash the figurative (and maybe literal) semen stain from the bluesy-dressed reputation of her philandering spouse. Wait, she still is a pandering “moderate”! Be honest, she is, and you know it. Vote for her and you also get…Bill back in the White House (whoa…radical, duuuuuude). Meanwhile Bernie offers you a veritable cornucopia of marvelous free stuff like higher education and medical care and ganja brownies for your lumbago, damn the national debt (it’s just an irrelevant abstraction anyway, right?). He wants to tax those ghoulish, horrible, inhuman and inhumane 1%ers so hard they can be heard screaming in agony from repossessed yachts and mansions the world over.

But Sanders is “unelectable”, you say? Hogwash, or (for you holier-than-thou vegans, or two-faced Islamo-apologist “feminists”, or pencil-armed coffee-house metrosexuals who barely can bench-press a gender-studies textbook), lentil-wash! Sanders is as electable as the votes he receives, so why not vote for him and do your part to make him electable? I’m serious, Sanders really is your best candidate.

Now it’s no secret that I am a fiscal and social conservative, strong and true: unflinchingly, sternly and unapologetically so, in your face and in the face of all societal fads and whims, so much that I would advocate my positions were I the last person to do so with a hundred of Obama’s war drones aiming guns at me. If your senses of humor and tolerance are gone and something I write offends you…great! Suck it up and deal with it. I’m principled, idealist, iconoclastic–and I wear those labels (along with any of the usual array of “tolerant” insults hurled by the left at ill-educated backward rednecks like me) as a badge of honor.

Speaking of Obama’s war drones, guess who else besides me and Rand Paul opposed them (and Bush’s far fewer war drones before that)? Guess who besides me and Rand Paul opposed NSA spying and snooping that Hillary and Obama have supported? Guess who besides me and Rand Paul opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal before Hillary? Yep, you got it, Ms.-ter: Bernie! He was anti-war, pro-privacy, back when your parents were pissing in their own diapers. Sanders stands staunchly in opposition to the military/industrial/fossil-fuel/financial-sector complex that has heavily bankrolled the Clintons since today’s millennials were pissing in their diapers. The environment? Bernie is so green that he could be mistaken for a shrunken, elderly mutation of the Incredible Hulk. Check his voting record.

See, I actually was a liberal once, for a short while, as a young physical adult, conformably nonconformist and properly offended at everything representing “the Man”. Then I finally grew up. I read deeply and critically and discovered what a moral, ethical and economic dead end leftism is, and quickly matured past that shameful and shallow phase of pseudo-thought. No regrets, however: as a result, I know how a liberal thinks and easily can play the part, pretending to be one in any game of devil’s advocate (a very appropriate term for such a role, of course). [Whoa, I think I can hear more offended gasping…cha-ching! If I had a nickel for every time…]

Moreover, I still am a hard-core idealist. I know one when I see one–even when I can’t stand what he stands for. Bernie Sanders is that–or at least, the closest you’ll find in any national politician–and has been for far, far, far longer than flip-flopping, corporate-teat-sucking, dishonest, poll-pandering Hillary. He is the liberal light personified, your best representation, and it’s not even a contest. Bernie, far more than the Clintons, is aligned with your views, with a proven willingness to express them when not expedient. He is the real deal, honest and authentic in representing The Cause, in stark contrast to She Who Fakes Southern Accents When in Arkansas.

Again I ask: If you are a liberal and thinking of voting for Hillary Clinton in your primary…for MotherEarthGaiaNatureGoddess’ sake, why?

If I were a liberal, I would vote for Sanders. No hesitation, no doubt, no question. He embodies the left-wing ideal the very best, by far. If I were a liberal…

Thank God (not MotherEarthGaiaNatureGoddess) that I am not.

Secular and Religious Implications of Government as Robin Hood

by Leave a Comment

The idea of helping the poor among us is noble and correct–a grand calling of good. Of that, I know no practicing Christian (and few secularists) who disagree. The only dissension is in how that should be accomplished.

I prefer that charity toward the less-fortunate be done on the individual level, as each person’s conscience and/or personal duty to the Lord shall compel, through either direct aid or through reputable charities. I also prefer charity that helps the poor to help themselves–rather than the equivalent of dumping money into enabling of destructive personal addictions and dependencies (including dependency on government).

Any of us who are not sufficiently charitable in this life (even if that includes me) will have to answer for it in the next. And for those who don’t believe in a next life, you had better hope you’re right…and even then, there’s still your own conscience (if any) to which you are nominally accountable.

By contrast, some leftist Christians (including our President, apparently), indicate that it is the believer’s duty to make sure government will take from one to give to another, sanctimoniously supposing they or the government best knows the needs of poor and rich private individuals, as well as how best to spend hard-earned money of others once it has been taken from them.

[Odd how it’s others’ money the left wants, isn’t it?]

Just because we are supposed to “render to Caesar” doesn’t mean we encourage Caesar to steal more. And by the way, Caesar is dead, and so is the Roman Empire. This entertaining gentleman puts it another plain-spoken way, which I certainly can appreciate. To his reasonable rant, let me add more food for thought…

Forcible or coercive taking of resources, money or time from a person, in any form, is called theft. Ever heard of “thou shalt not steal”? Does it say, “Thou shalt not steal except to give to the poor via government bureaucracies”? No. Question answered.

Governmental extortion via taxation has proved for decades not to solve poverty anyway, by virtue of the simple fact that poverty still exists. Making an idol out of big government isn’t the answer. Charity–especially small, locally-based charity, is.

Every dollar taken from us in taxes is one dollar less we have for charity. This is mathematically unavoidable fact–not opinion. Now, for some experience-based opinion: indeed, private charity and philanthropy are much, much, much better equipped, in terms of compassion, familiarity and efficiency, to handle solutions to poverty than distant Washington bureaucrats with their bloated overhead, wastefulness and policy inertia. Maybe there’s a good reason that conservatives are more charitable as a group (individual exceptions being averaged into the general trend)–whether with money, time or blood.

Far be it for liberal Christians to assume that there is something inherently, socially noble about using government as a vector to commit Robin Hood style theft. Again, read the Eighth Commandment: “Thou shalt not steal.” That commandment applies equally to governments as to individuals; for governments are composed of…you guessed it, people! This means that all the criminal ills that afflict society at large also are present within government–including extortion, embezzlement, bribery, kickbacks, favoritism, cronyism, and assorted anti-whomever prejudices.

Those who work in some form of government, including me, are bound by our ethics (and faith, if religious) to check any such inclinations at the door. Even if only a tiny percentage of government fails to do so, that’s still many tens of thousands of people on a national scale. Do you trust they won’t get their grimy paws involved? Do you trust them to deliver the goods with your money more efficiently and effectively than, say, a local charity that is more directly accountable to the giver than some distant, faceless, nameless Washington bureaucrats? If so, I’ve got some land between Key West and Havana to sell you.

For all who claim, “Taxes are a moral issue!”, I agree–they are–just not in the way you might think. And for all those who advocate higher taxes (again, typically for others): for years, I have offered one simple challenge that no higher-tax advocate–I mean not one single person–has had the moral wherewithal or courage of conviction to take up! That says something about those who push for higher taxes, their willingness to stop bellowing hollow ideology and instead put money in place of mouth.

For the very few who might include themselves in the request for more taxation: do you believe you’re being generous and charitable by paying more taxes? If you’re part of the Christian left, do you think that somehow will get you deeper into Heaven, or earn brownie points with the Big Man that somehow aren’t available to those anti-intellectual, heathen, backward-thinking right-wingers–the folks whom you look down upon while claiming some high-horse position of pseudo-egalitarian social-justice advocacy?

Or if you’re secular, answer this: how is forced altruism (i.e., you can’t back out or change your mind!) not an innately self-contradictory idea? The Soviets could tell you: “It is, and so what. We take, regardless.” If you get your wish, that’s your fate, and that of everyone else too. I suppose then we’re all equal, all right…equally screwed!

————–

For more on poverty problems and straight-talk solutions, see my four-part series on poverty in America: (Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4). Part 3 is especially pertinent to this topic, and contains the taxation challenge.

“You Didn’t Build That.” Like Hell I Didn’t!

by Leave a Comment

Last Friday, Barack Obama revealed his cluelessness about how businesses works by arrogantly crediting government with the success of any entrepreneur. It was a classic case of open-mouth, insert-foot:

    “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that.”

Say what? That statement is presumptuous, misleading, naive, arrogant, inaccurate, patronizing, and wholly insulting–not only to everyone who runs a business, but to the very core ideal of the American Dream. Only someone of deep misunderstanding about entrepreneurship, who never has run a private enterprise, and who understands essentially nothing about what it takes to build and operate a successful business, would say something so inane, and actually mean it. If it weren’t for Obama’s sycophantic marionettes in the mass media, an utterance that asinine and condescending would doom his chances for re-election (as it may anyway).

For every bit that any entrepreneur may benefit from governmental opportunities that he/she chooses to grab, the same person has to overcome massive heaps of burdensome governmental regulation, paperwork and taxes–the latter on a yearly basis through a gelatinous maze of ever-changing forms and accounting rules. Government giveth, and government taketh away! My wife runs a small business, and through that, I know of these things first hand. Obama’s business background? Hmm…crickets chirp while we search in futility for that.

Now let’s look at the larger quote:

    “If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Well of course everybody has had some help. That’s an irrelevant straw-man. Who would be foolish enough to turn down any beneficial circumstance that may arise? Certainly not any successful entrepreneur–who by the very nature of the word will take advantage of opportunities to make their own success! And therein lies the embarrassing fallacy in his argument–one that is well illustrated by this image that has been floating about the Internet:

The spider web is a splendid metaphor for business or personal success.

Let me guess. The spider sat on her lazy butt and watched the web build itself? Or did the government build that web for her? No, and hell no!

Whether or not the government helped to provide the tree or post on which to construct the web, or some of the prey she ate with which she manufactured the silk, is completely immaterial. If she doesn’t build the web there, she goes elsewhere and still does it anyway. Maybe it’s harder, or there’s less prey, but she still does it. Either that, or she neglects to seize initiative and take advantage of her opportunities, no matter from where they arose, and she fails. It’s a life-or-death matter for the spider, and for any business.

Statements like Obama’s, and similar ones from Elizabeth Warren and other politicians-nee-academics on the left, represent an ivory-tower mentality of facile genuflection at the altar of the welfare state, born of the long-discredited Marxist notion that the proletariat is a hapless victim of The Man. I don’t know how else to explain how such otherwise book-smart people can be so clueless about reality!

Given my own personal circumstances, such presumptuous bullcrap is insulting and demeaning. It’s well known among friends and associates that I grew up in the inner city, in a household now often referred to as “working poor”–that is, when there was work to be had for my dad. [My mom was a visually impaired homemaker.] Yes, she arranged for us to have food stamps and unemployment benefits on a few occasions–over the sometimes extremely angry and profane objections of my dad, who was intensely ashamed of it and did everything he could to get off the public dole as fast as possible. Being ashamed of welfare is the right attitude to have. It is supposed to be a temporary safety net, not a lifestyle!

My childhood household had no car, no air conditioning (yes, in Dallas’ urban heat-island summers). Drugs, gangs, welfare dependencies, and other chances for failure swirled all around. Rare was the July or August night that I didn’t hear sirens or popping noises over the fan propped in an open bedside window. Those circumstances posed far more opportunities for failure than for success! Yet I decided not to follow those paths; nobody else made the choice for me.

Yes, I’ve had great teachers, benefactors and mentors, public and private, who offered sound advice and beneficial knowledge, and in the case of college, partial financial assistance. For them I’m forever grateful, and I’ve told them so. Nonetheless (…and here’s a key concept…) I firmly believe I would have found a way otherwise, somehow, through determination and work ethic. I think each of the folks who have contributed to me would agree.

The truth is that I had the choice whether to make something of that advice and those chances, through diligence and effort, or to sit around and waste it. I chose the former. And it is a choice…for each of us, no matter our backgrounds.

Yes, God gave me the talent, ability…and the free will to choose success or failure! We all have capabilities and talents. We all have a chance to succeed, no matter from where we arise. Of course it’s harder when climbing up from the bottom–but that makes the success more rewarding and better appreciated. And I personally resent those who would disparage my success by claiming I had nothing to do with it.

And I’m nothing special in this regard…if I can rise from poverty and take advantage of all opportunities, no matter the source, anyone can! Therefore, I don’t suffer fools, entertain excuses, or subscribe to the insidious left-wing cultivation of victimhood, dependency and public entitlement.

Success and failure are parts of life. Circumstances out of your control can and do occur. What you do with them is your choice and yours alone. If you want it to happen, by God, make it happen! You honor yourself and your creator by striving for excellence and accomplishment in whatever aspirations you have. No matter the hurdles…do it!

As for Obama’s misguided bloviation: nevermind anything else he has or hasn’t done. By that statement alone, he is proven unfit for executive office. Nobody that naive should be President. Please vote accordingly. And if you are a business owner who votes for Obama, knowing now how irrelevant he sees you in your own success, you are shooting yourself in the foot.