With Choice Comes Responsibility

Being Liberal FaceBook page has the following post:

“The decision whether or not to bear a child is central to a woman’s life, to her well-being and dignity. When the government controls that decision for her, she is being treated as less than a full adult human responsible for her own choices.”        Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

They are posting this as an argument in favor of pro-choice, which by the way, I’m in favor of. I fully believe that a woman should be able to choose who, what, when, where, why and how they engage in sex. I do not believe that the government should be involved in this decision in any way, shape or form.

Where I’m confused and where the feminists don’t seem to see the logical disconnect is when they say they don’t want the government to control decisions about their sex life while at the same time asking the government to pay for their choices.

Now I don’t know about you, but where I grew up, the person who paid the bills got the final say.

Liberals constantly like to whine and moan that conservatives are trying to remove a woman’s ability to choose. In fact, it couldn’t be further from the truth. Conservatives are not telling women how they must behave sexually. They are just saying that it is not the government’s job to pay for their personal choices.

I don’t know any conservatives who are trying to outlaw abortion, or birth control. They just don’t see it as their job to pay for somebody else’s personal choices.

I believe liberals can have sex with anyone they want, any way they want. However, it’s not my job to pay for the consequences of their choices and actions or to provide props for them, such as the pill or condoms. I believe that I have the 2nd amendment right to own and carry a firearm. That doesn’t mean I think I should use tax money, some of which a liberal may have paid (though the odds are slim), to pay for my gun and ammo, or even my holster.

But the liberal mind can’t seem to grasp the concept of “My choice, my cost”. If you want to give up your right to choose and turn it over to the government, than fine, the government can then pay. But don’t forget, they get to choose, and they might choose a cheaper option than birth control or abortion, they might choose to just sterilize you and avoid the whole issue. The government always knows what's best for you, ya know.

With choice comes responsibility. In this case, if you wish to have individual choice, you need to be responsible enough to pay for your choice. If you can’t afford the cost of a condom or the pill, maybe the sensible choice would be to not engage in sexual activity.

At least that’s the way an old farmboy sees it.

iPhone vs Chevy Volt

iPhone VS Chevy Volt

So why do you suppose the Chevy Volt is such an unmitigated disaster? The federal government has directly sunk millions upon millions of dollars into its development and millions more indirectly. So why is it that it is such an Edsel? (I haven’t looked up the numbers, but I would actually bet there were more Edsels sold to a much smaller population base than GM has sold Volts.)

Compare this to iPhone sales. The iPhone is projected to sell so many units that it will actually affect the nations GDP. And as near as I can tell, it didn’t take a single dollar of taxpayer money to develop or market.

So what’s going on? Why is it that a product that the current government says we need, supports its development and, participates in its production (gave partial ownership to unions and gave millions to keep the company afloat) is such a colossal failure? While at the same time a product that the government has virtually nothing to do with is a runaway success?

I would have to speculate that the reason is simple.

Apple developed a product that quenched a consumer felt need. An easily portable, intuitively user friendly device that meets three needs that the consumer wants filled: 1) a mobile phone, 2) a personal entertainment device, and 3) easily portable connection to the internet.

The government, through Chevy, on the other hand, has provided a solution to a problem the consumer has not perceived. The need for an electric car.  Not only have they solved a problem no one has perceived, they’ve made the solution so expensive, that virtually nobody is willing to even give it a try. And to add insult to injury, at the exorbitant cost they are asking for this solution to a non-problem, they are costing the American tax payer over $40,000 per vehicle. That’s right, Government Motors is losing over $40k for every Volt they sell.

Apple, on the other hand, turns a tidy profit on every single unit they sell.

It’s an old lesson being taught once again. Government should stay out of business. It should not try and direct market activities or pick business winners and losers. Just as every centrally planned government has proven to date, when the government gets involved with deciding the who, what, when and where of business, chaos and failure cannot be far behind. The Chevy Volt, Solyndra, the EPA trying to run the coal industry out of business, all examples of the government getting involved in business to the detriment of the American people. And what does our current political leadership want to do when faced with this record of appalling failure? They want to double down on it. They ask us to keep them in place for another 4 years. This is so counter intuitive it is unbelievable. Common sense tells you the first thing you need to do when you find yourself in a hole is to STOP DIGGING!

In about a month we will find out just how dumb the American electorate is. We have a chance to stop digging. As the saying goes, ”we will get the government we deserve”. God help us all if we continue to dig.

Update: Watch What You Wish For

I’ve recently been reading where Christians in Egypt have been having real problems with radical Muslims. Over 50 churches have been closed. Christian businesses have been targeted for attacks. Christian women and girls have been attacked and raped. Yesterday, a Christian protest was attacked by a Muslim mob.

This would appear to be another case of “Watch What You Wish For Because You Just Might Get It”. I remember during the uprising to overthrow Mubarak, that the Christians were out there side by side with the Muslims and I thought to myself that this could easily come back to bite them on the butt. Knowing that the Muslim Brotherhood was one of the driving forces behind the uprising and that Iran was helping fan the flames, it was clear that this could easily go sideways for the Christians. And sure enough it has.

This is yet another example of how the enemy of my enemy isn’t necessarily my friend. We have been taught this lesson many times. The Soviets in WWII and the mujahidin when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan are two examples that quickly pop to mind.

In Egypt the Christians were duped into believing that this was a general uprising without an islamic factor being involved. When in reality, it was a completely islamic uprising to remove a politically moderate leader. The Iranian backed Muslim Brotherhood wanted Mubarak gone for several reasons. First and foremost, he had suppressed them, knowing full well that they were. Next, he was somewhat friendly with the US, the “great satin”. And finally, he recognized Israel’s right to exist and had signed and kept a peace agreement with them. Each reason by itself sufficient to draw radical islam’s ire, but a trifecta of all three gave the islamists a massive case of reflux. So of course, when the opportunity to remove him presented itself, they were quick to take advantage.

Please don’t mistake my comments above as meaning I think Mubarak was a good guy. He wasn’t! He was a brutal dictator in many ways. But he kept a lid on Egypt. He kept the radical islamic faction in check and allowed his country to move forward in relative tranquility.

Now what do they have? They have a bunch of Iranian backed radical islamists running rampant in the country. They are targeting Christians for subjugation or termination, and if given a free hand, that’s exactly what they will do. And to think that our administration, a Democratic one, didn’t learn the lesson from Iran when we helped Khomeini over throw the Shah (Jimmie Carter, another Democratic administration). Good ol’ Barak Hussein Obama and his Keystone Kops administration helped replace an administration that was friendly towards the US with one that will soon be violently against anything western. (Am I seeing a pattern???)

Once again, if you don’t learn from history, it will be happy to teach you the lesson again!

Update: 8/3/12 http://www.theblaze.com/stories/if-you-dont-leave-you-will-all-die-christians-flee-egyptian-town-after-deadly-riot/

(The Blaze/AP) — When the angry mob was rampaging through town, storming her home and those of other Christians, the 70-year-old woman hid in her cow pen, pushing a rock against the door. There she cowered for hours, at one point passing out from tear gas being fired by police that seeped in.

When Sameeha Wehba emerged just before dawn, she found she was the only Christian left in this small Egyptian village just south of Cairo, the location of some of the country’s earliest pyramids.

Dahshour’s entire Christian community – as many as 100 families some estimate – fled to nearby towns in the violence earlier this week. The flock’s priest, cloaked in a white sheet to hide him, was taken out in a police van. At least 16 homes and properties of Christians were pillaged and some torched and a church damaged.

What Liberals Call Fairness

OK, I’m having a little trouble getting a handle on the definition of “fairness” according to LibPos (Liberal/Progressives). It seems to be a moving target, depending on what topic they are on and who they are talking about.

Now as I understand it, if you are talking about fairness as it relates to a productive citizens taxes, it is only “fair” that they pay a bigger percentage of their income because they make more, while a less productive person will pay a smaller percentage merely because they make less. Others may actually receive money “back” when they never paid any taxes in the first place, all in the name of fairness. Even though there would appear to be nothing fair about this at all.

Just where exactly is the “fairness” in this?

A productive citizen will put more into the system than the less productive citizen will even if they pay the same “rate” just by the simple math it. Twenty percent of 100 is more than twenty percent of 10. To make the productive citizen pay a penalty for being productive is negative reinforcement. Pavlov proved a long time ago that negative reinforcement extinguishes behavior. A “graduated” tax schedule is, simply put, a negative reinforcement of productive behavior. Fortunately for the takers, many productive citizens believe they can out produce the negatives effects of the current confiscatory tax policies and thus they continue to produce.

This phenomenon has led the takers to believe they can keep taking more and more from the productive citizen cash cow and it will just keep providing. This is an error. The non-productive takers, if left to their own devices, will eventually confiscate from the producers to a point of diminishing returns and the producers will stop producing.

If you doubt my words, take a look at what’s happening in high tax areas around the world. Now that the takers are in control in France and they are looking to implement a near 100% tax on income over certain levels, the producers in France are exiting the country at an alarming rate. In California, where the LibPos have been in charge for decades, they have created a system where they are giving more away than they are taking in. They have been doing this for many years while increasing the taxes on the productive class to pay for their largess. It has reached a point where the productive citizens are looking for the exits as fast as they can. Texas alone is seeing an influx of over 300 California citizens per day. New York is seeing the same phenomenon for the same reasons. And yet the takers can’t seem to see that it is their own policies leading to their downfall.

So, when it comes to taxes, for LibPos, unfair is fair. If on the other hand, we are talking about health care, LibPos seem to feel that everyone should receive exactly the same treatment. No one (other than the LibPos themselves, who are making the rules) should be able to have any better or worse care than anyone else. If someone is able to afford a “Cadillac” health care plan they will be fined, excuse me, taxed, to punish them. Because in this case, they really do want people treated exactly the same, with the noticeable acceptation of the rule makers themselves.

This is in contrast with most Conservatives.

To a Conservative, fairness is getting what you earn. If you earn more, you should have more. If you choose to put in the effort and the grit and take the risks to be a high achiever, you should not be punished for doing so.

Many years ago, I made the choice that I wanted time with my family and didn’t want to dedicate my life to work. I willingly made the choice to forgo the possibility of possibly achieving large amounts of money because personal time was valuable to me. Others chose differently and created large fortunes. I do not begrudge them what they have earned. They made different choices that led to different returns. I am happy with my choice and see no reason the system should take more from them just because they earned more.

And YES they earned it, as opposed to what the LibPo in Chief might think. If his position were true, that the roads and all the other infrastructure the government puts in place is what made a business successful, then every business would be a success. Every business has access to the same infrastructure so they should all be successful. Right? Every business operates under the same government regulations. Clearly, if the LibPo in Chief were correct, every new business would be a success no matter what effort the business owner put in, or failed to put in.

LibPos then seem to have developed a rather free form definition of “fairness” that allows them to call it up to justify whatever logically contradictory positions they might choose.

The word “fairness” is one that is impossible to argue against, because it would seem to be un-American. However, when we allow the LibPos to control the language and let them use good words in such a cavalier manner, it makes it near impossible to publicly argue against them. Those who do not think in a clear and concise manner will be easily swayed by such slight of hand use of the language.

Conservatives need to point out these inconsistencies and call bull shit on the LibPos at every turn.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Government Regulating Personal Behavior

Where does it end?

First we let the government define places where someone could smoke and where they couldn’t. Originally, it was businesses themselves who chose whether to be smoking or non-smoking. Which is just the way it should be. If a business doesn’t want people smoking in its establishment, so be it. They get to set the rules. It’s theirs. But then the government got involved and said you can only smoke in part of an establishment, then it progressed to not in the business at all. Now they are saying you can’t smoke in parks or at the beach. (Understand that I am an ex-smoker. I don’t believe in smoking. I believe it’s harmful to you. I don’t want my kids smoking. But I don’t see that it’s the governments place to say where you can or can’t do something, or where it will allow you to do or not do something in your own place of business or home.)

Next came motorcycle helmets. In the majority of places, governments demand that you are to wear a helmet if you are going to ride a motor cycle.

Then came seatbelts. I believe in seat belts, my wife and I trained ourselves to wear our seatbelts before it was the law, because we believe it is the wise thing to do. I do not believe the government should be able to mandate that you wear them. I believe it is OK to make the car companies put them in the cars for you to use. No, I take that back. I believe it’s OK for the government to make them an option you can choose, I don’t believe the government should force the car companies to put them in. If they are a good idea, and I believe they are, consumers would ask for them to be included and competition would most likely force all car companies to include them in order to keep up.

Then came salt, cholesterol, transfats (what the hell ever those are), sugar, and the list goes on and on and on. Now NY has proposed limiting the size of a drink you can order. And the health board or whatever it is called, is considering including milk drinks and coffee drinks it thinks you shouldn’t have.

OMG! Is there no end to this madness?

Now that the snowball has been rolled over the crest of the hill, will it ever stop getting bigger and bigger? Will they ever stop intruding in our lives?

What’s next in the Libpo’s (Liberal/Progressive) fevered brain that they want to force us to do, or stop doing? What if they conduct a study and find that people who have sex once and only once a day live longer, healthier lives requiring less late life care. Because of government run health care they will then want to set up sex stations where you and your partner are to come and complete your daily sex act under government supervision. If you don’t have your own partner, you will be required to have sex with a government assigned partner that day. If you fail to have sex one day, you will be fined, but they will call it a tax. The Non-F#$king tax.

This would be done under the reasoning that if you weren’t having sex, it would cost the government more to provide your health care so of course they are just recouping the cost that they will have to pay out later when you get sick more often because you failed to f#$k. They will have actuarial tables and everything to justify and quantify these fines/taxes.

Of course this is an absurd proposition. But in the 1950’s can you imagine how absurd it would have sounded and how they would have looked at you if you told them about all of the government restrictions there would be on smoking. Or that the government would make you tie yourself into a car. They would have looked at you the same way you were just looking at the metaphorical me as you read my speculation on forcing people to have sex once a day.

But we’ve all seen what crazy things the government has forced folks to do or not do for our own good. Because they know better than we do. Because they think they are the smartest kids in the room and thus should be able to tell the rest of us how to live by their rules.

Well I’m sorry (no, really I’m not), but I think the government ought to stay the hell out’ta my life. The only time the government ought to tell someone what they can or can’t do is if the individual’s actions will impact another’s life, liberty or property in a negative way through force or fraud.

If a bar owner wants to allow smoking in his/her establishment, it’s nobody’s business but their own. If people don’t want to go there because of the smoke, the business will not survive. They made a poor choice. Too bad. So sad. It was their choice and they made it. They don’t deserve to be bailed out by the government because of a poor choice on their part. Nor should they be kept from making the choice by the government because the government knows best.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Why Government Employment Doesn't Spur The Economy

Recently the PotUS put forth the proposal that the way to pull the economy out of recession is to employ more government employees. Federal employees, state employees and local government employees is the answer to our economic woes according to our New Party PotUS.

Well, I have to agree that if all the various levels of government were to hire more people, more people would be working. For a short period of time anyway.

The problem as I see it is, LibPos (Liberal/Progressives) don’t seem to understand the economics of government employees.

For there to be an employee in the private sector, a business must produce a product, good or service that someone else is willing to give the company money for. They must be willing to give them enough money for this product/good/service to cover the cost of production, distribution and sales plus enough left over for the owner to pay the employees to do these tasks. Additionally, there must be enough left after all of these costs for the owner to meet his own basic levels of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. If the business doesn’t produce enough for the owner to meet the first two levels of the hierarchy for the owner and their family, there is no point in the owner keeping the doors open. Thus negatively affecting all of his employees also.

If the business wishes to increase its number of employees, it must sell enough of its product/good/service to meet all of the afore mentioned costs, plus enough extra to be able to pay for the new employee. (Understand that a $10 an hour employee will cost the company between $12.50 and $15 per hour when you add in things like taxes paid by the company, insurance, holiday pay, vacation pay, etc. etc. This does not include the hidden costs like the extra time it will take to do the extra paperwork, etc. that is required for each employee.)

Again, the business owner must generate this money above and beyond the monies required to run the business at its current level.

Now consider a government. Any government; Local, State, Federal, it makes no difference. How does a government generate its money?

It gets its money by taking it from its constituents. It does it through taxes. Be they personal taxes, consumption taxes or taxes on businesses, they are taking taxes from those who are out there being productive. Where private businesses must produce something and sell it to someone who wants it. A government just takes it from its citizenry by force through a byzantine tax structure that is nearly impossible to understand by the average citizen. (This is proven by the fact that there is a whole area of accounting dedicated to assisting individuals and business stay out of trouble with the various governmental agencies as they deal with the tax system.)

So for the government to hire a $10 an hour employee they must take enough money from those being taxed to cover the same $12.50 to $15 per hour that a business would. That means for every $10 per hour employee the government has they, there must be 3 to 5 $10 per hour employees and their employers in the private sector to take the money from. For the LibPos to fund another employee without having to borrow the money from another country they must have another 3 to 5 privately employed individuals to take the money from.

Only a Democratic LibPo would think that more government employees will help stimulate the economy.

The ONLY thing more government employees will do is either: A) Increase the country’s debt to foreign creditors which will require increased future taxes to pay off, or B) Require higher taxes now on those employees who are currently working in the private sector, thus reducing their expendable cash and therefore depressing the economy even further. The higher taxes route will also reduce cash in a company’s coffers that might be used to employ more people.

This is such a straight line correlation that you would think anyone with two synapses firing would be able to see. Clearly the LibPos who are currently in charge of the Senate and the White House can’t see what’s so obvious to those of us who are realists and understand cause and effect.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

Eric Holder And The (In)Justice Department

Just finished reading this headline in The Miami Herald “Feds to Florida: halt non-citizen voter purge”.

My initial reaction is “WHAT??? That can’t be right. The purpose of the Justice Department is to protect America and Americans. How could they possibly take steps to insure that American elections of American legislatures by Americans would be tainted by Non-Americans voting?”

Then it hit me. This Justice Department is headed by a first and foremost politician, Eric Holder, rather than a law enforcement person. His, and therefore the Departments, decisions seem to be made first from a political position which always trumps any legal considerations.

I’m not saying this based on readings of this current situation. Mr. Holder has a long and distinguished record of making politically based decisions. My first knowledge of his efforts (though I’m sure there are many preceding my awareness) revolve around his part in the pardoning of the unrepentant Puerto Rican terrorists in New York, just in time to bolster support for Hilary Clinton’s run to become the US Senator from New York.

My next knowledge of our fearless hero’s exploits comes when, after being installed by our current White House resident, he and his Justice Department fail to prosecute the Black Panthers on voter intimidation charges. The Black Panthers had basically accepted their guilt and all the Justice Department had to do was show up and they would have been convicted. But Holder chose not to follow through. No US Attorney showed up to court on the date required and the judge was forced to throw the case out.

The next time I recall hearing about our sterling Justice Department headed by Eric Holder, operating under the direction of our Democratic POTUS, they are refusing to protect our border against illegal immigration. Not only do they refuse to enforce our laws, Holder actively attempts to keep Arizona from passing and enforcing laws which mirror current US statutes. And if memory serves me correctly, they even filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mexico as they sued Arizona over its attempts to protect our borders. They have since taken steps to try and prevent other states from trying to protect themselves from this foreign invasion. (I use the term invasion purposely as I believe it is an attempt, by some, to take over our country as one can clearly read in materials from organizations such as La Raza and others.)

In a related matter, we hear where the Justice Department has run an out of control gun tracking program called “Fast and Furious” or something of the sort. In this program they were to have tracked weapons sold to known miscreants who were then taking them to Mexico to be used in the illegal drug trade. Of course Holder’s Keystone Cops organization let things run amuck, and to date, at least 3 weapons from this program have been involved in murders. One being a US Border Patrol agent.

Next came Holder and his (in)Justice Department’s efforts to squelch any and all voter ID legislation. Claiming it would intimidate minorities and act as a restriction to keep them from voting. Really? The need to prove that you are who you say you are when presenting yourself to vote on who will make the laws of the land is too burdensome and would keep voters from the polls? And thus we can’t ask for photo ID’s? We all know why this is taking place. They are against these laws because it would reduce the chance of shenanigans taking place on voting day. And historically, what party has taken advantage of these opportunities to affect the outcomes? I believe a close inspection of the facts would indicate that it would be Eric Holder’s and his boss’s party.

So it should have come as no surprise when I read the article in The Miami Herald. It was merely a case of more of the same. Of course they wouldn’t want illegals removed from the voting rolls. Who would illegals be most inclined to vote for? I don’t think it takes a Mensa member to figure that one out, it would be for the folks who are doing the most to protect them from justice.

Or so it would seem to an old farm boy.

It's World Wide Builderberger Weekend.......Everybody Celebrate!