Saturday, April 29, 2017
No matter how consistently liberal economic policies fail, progressives continue to believe that by doing the same thing repeatedly, they will get a different result.
In theory, two intelligent people who disagree on something, should be able to discuss the matter and resolve the issue. In practice, I have (to my dismay) found this not to be the case. Some people seem never to learn from experience. For example, no matter how consistently liberal economic policies fail, progressives continue to believe that by doing the same thing repeatedly, they will get a different result.
There are too many anecdotes to recount here, but two of them, from my personal experience, should suffice.
I was employed in an office with mostly liberal coworkers. About two or three days before the Thanksgiving Day holiday, a charming young lady called to make airline reservations for the day before the event. When told (over the telephone) the price, she seemed horrified. I could not of course hear the other end of the conversation, but she asked, what gives you the right to charge so much just because it’s a holiday?
I would have stayed out of it, but the lady asked me directly, what I thought of, in her term, airline price gouging. I briefly tried to explain to her that if the airline charged the everyday price, the flight would have been booked solid weeks before, and she would still not be able to fly. She rejected that reply. Even when another office worker (a liberal who had voted for Al Gore for president!) explained the matter to her, it was all to no avail. The lady just felt that somehow, some way, the airlines could provide unlimited numbers of seats at the off-season price, to the destination she desired. I am sure that she still feels that way. Oh, the unfairness of it all!
In another instance of irrationality, a woman who disputed the balance due on her account defied the math. After I failed to quickly find any discrepancy, I offered to go over the record with her, line by line, in search of any disputed charges, or unrecorded payments. I felt confident that we would either find and correct the error, or else, confirm the accuracy of the billing statement. As I reviewed the statement with her, I asked at every point, is the running total correct so far? Be sure and tell me if it is not. For about half an hour, we went methodically through the record, and at every single point, the lady affirmed the correctness of the balance due. Arithmetic does not lie.
But when we got to the final line, the correct balance due, she said, well that just can’t be right. I know I don’t owe that much. At that point, I realized that she was simply irrational, and told her that it was now her responsibility to find any error. She admitted that she could not, but still disputed the balance due. I leave it to you to discern her economic philosophy. Can she possibly be a fiscal conservative?
Many more examples of this sort could be offered, but by now I am certain that anyone reading this (assuming that liberals will not read this) understands the point. One final anecdote follows.
In 1990, a tax on luxury yachts actually reduced tax revenues and increased unemployment. The tax was finally repealed (in 1992) with bipartisan support, but only after much harm had already been done to the economy. Yet, to this day, progressives still favor “tax the rich” policies, despite the fact that higher tax rates that exceed the optimum actually reduce tax revenues and impose harm on working people. Even Barack Obama, in his first presidential campaign, admitted as much -- but he still supported those kinds of taxes because they were, in his words, fair. It is simply “unfair” not to tax the rich, even if doing so harms the poor. As far as I know, prominent liberals never questioned this irrational statement.
The 2016 presidential election campaign underscored the enormous divide between those who believe that government is the solution, and those who understand that, too often, government creates the problems it claims to solve. Just ask the unemployed blue-collar Democrats who voted for Trump.
One might hope that a careful discussion with the liberal side could help resolve the disagreement, but when the other side not only refuses to have the discussion, but actually uses violence to silence those who dissent, then we are dealing with something much worse than mere irrationality.
Incredibly, it has become controversial to argue the founding founders supported natural rights and the need to cultivate moral citizenry. In the 'The Political Theory of the American Founding,' Thomas G. West offers a convincing and necessary corrective to modern scholarship.
Truth Above All
The Founders’ Political Theory of Natural Rights
Property Rights and Economics
theodore M I R A L D I.
Culture is the guiding characteristic of every society across the globe. What may astonish many, is that merely 10% of the world lives with the positive effects of Western Society. Western Culture has tamed the savage beast, giving the individual freedom of choice and higher standards of living.
But most of all, it has given higher morality a conscience in a world ripe for disasters each and every day. It's why most Western Constitutional Democracies/Republics have incremental type governments filled with checks and balances.
Many nations take Immigrants from around the world guided by the old maxim that assimilation into the cultural norms of their adopted countries are expected. Not so any longer, and that's the heart of the problem.
In the past the only way outside invaders could hijack your community was by physical force, laying the groundwork to change the norms. Now, we gleefully invite individuals from savage nations to disrupt the public safety and destroy the rule of law.
What we are seeing today are immigrants from nations with the most dysfunctional cultures crossing our borders and disrupting our social and cultural norms.
We have seen the dramatic results in our cities, towns and communities and sit idly by contemplating the usefulness of marginal players upon an ever expanding welfare community.
And although Immigrants have contributed to our expansion and power in the past, the majority of the newly arrived care less about becoming American citizens.
We are being raped, morally, economically and legally by a wave Immigrants bent on confrontation and bully tactics. They call Americans Racists who stand up and defend our Laws or Beliefs.
The United States has been looked upon as the last best hope for the world, by the rest of the world.
Immigrants have been welcomed and embraced throughout our history. Those who feel they have some special privilege are wrong. We as a society give that honor to those who are deserving.
It's time to put the bullies back in the bottle! If you're here Illegally, you have NO RIGHTS!
Thirty years ago, I said the huge influx of Immigrants from our southern border would set our nation back 40-50 years in social development. Why? The left decided that assimilation was either too much trouble for government to oversee, or the immigrants themselves had no intention of assimilation into an English speaking nation. Seeing no clear future adjustment in policy the flood gates remained open.
Americans are now seeing the truth regarding this charade from the left as merely a plan to make this nation less white, and by extension less successful. What could be more irrational than that?
I suggest anyone who still promotes the fantasy that cultures must be embraced should move their wives and children into a community filled with foreigners who disrespect our citizens and nation daily. Try getting a job, try defending your national honor.
It is apparent in cluster communities. The same communities civil rights leaders have opposed as a form of segregation. Have we learned so little, or is this a planned invasion?
One must feel the fear of an ever growing population that wants to tear away the foundations of Western Culture. It's the very culture that offers the rest of the world hope of a better and safer life.
Diluting the power of the American Dream needs to be resisted at all costs.
The fact that there are more Non-English speaking immigrants in our nation than any time in history should be a dead give-away regarding non-assimilation.
Immigration needs to be slow and with the intent, so that anyone who wants our Freedoms must prove their allegiance to our standards of an orderly society, and not that of a nation that they are fleeing.
When you have figures like Jose Ramos spewing his hatred of White America and its values, gleeful of a possible future when Whites will become the minority, it's time to act.
Multi-Culturism is failing around the world, and it's not the first time!
My apologies to those Immigrants who love and serve our nation, sometimes with their lives. We welcome you with open arms.
To those who insist on resistance, maybe you're in the wrong place.
Friday, April 28, 2017
EDITH M. LEDERER
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- North Korea's deputy U.N. ambassador said Friday that U.S. efforts to get rid of his country's nuclear weapons through military threats and sanctions are "a wild dream."
Kim In Ryong told The Associated Press that North Korea's nuclear weapons are never part of "political bargains and economic deals."
"In a nutshell, DPRK have already declared not to attend any type of talks which would discuss its nuclear abandonment, nuclear disbandment," he said, using the acronym for the country's official name, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Kim reiterated North Korea's longstanding contention that its nuclear program "is the product of the United States hostile policy towards DPRK."
"That is why every solution will be possible when the United States hostile policy is withdrawn in advance," he said.
Kim "categorically rejected" Friday's U.N. Security Council meeting on the North Korean nuclear issue - which his country declined to attend - as "another abuse" of the council's authority, acting on instructions of the United States which is a veto-wielding member.
The United States holds the council presidency this month and organized the ministerial session that U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson chaired.
Tillerson called for new sanctions on North Korea and urged all countries to exert pressure on Pyongyang and implement the six U.N. sanctions resolutions. He also stressed that the Trump administration will only engage in talks with Pyongyang when it exhibits "a good faith commitment" to implement Security Council resolutions "and their past promises to end their nuclear programs."
Kim responded saying: "As we expected, (the) U.S. has taken issue with self-defensive nuclear deterrent of the DPRK, and not only to justify their anti-DPRK aggressive war racket but also to create atmosphere for sanctions against DPRK at any cost."
He said the United States "is wholly to blame for pushing the situation on the Korean Peninsula to the brink of a nuclear war by staging the largest-ever joint aggression military drills against the DPRK for the past two months" and deploying "nuclear strategic assets" to South Korea.
While the United States once talked about nuclear disarmament, Kim said it is spending a trillion dollars "in a bid to secure a nuclear edge" - and he said this issue should be addressed "before tabling the denuclearization of the DPRK."
"The nuclear force of the DPRK just serves as a treasured sword of justice and creditable war deterrent to protect the sovereignty and dignity of the country and global peace from the U.S. threat to ignite a nuclear war," Kim said.