Janet Napolitano, appointed by the Obambastic as the United States Secretary of Homeland Security, is a member of the Democrat party, that group who gave us Political Correctness so many years ago.
Those who adhere to the PC doctrine are deathly afraid of hurting the feelings of any group of people you care to name. This includes Muslims who stand together in silence while their brothers wage their Holy War against Western civilization, especially the United States, Great Britain and a handful of other European nations.
Because of liberal-born PC, leadership from the Democrat Party has reached a state where they prefer to engage in ruthlessness against our own citizens before they even begin to think about applying that ruthlessness against our enemies.
As a matter of fact, once they capture an enemy, they let them go to be “repatriated” only to have them rejoin the militant army from which they came so that they may again have an opportunity to kill us.
So, the next time you go through TSA’s screening process, as I have, remember this; none of the human-based incidents, such as the so-called Christmas underwear bomber, originated in the United States. Furthermore, Al Quaeda has modified their tactics, relying more upon inserting bomb material into cargo flights originating outside of the United States.
At the end of the day, the bombing attempts come very close to succeeding while the TSA fondles U.S. citizens.
Maybe one day our nation’s leadership will grow up and begin to profile.
Two short years ago, with the election of Barack Obama securing the White House, and having already gained control of the Congress in 2006, the Democrats were absolutely giddy.
The defeat of the Republicans in 2006 and 2008 were seen with a sense of finality. There were some that even suggested that conservatism was dead. I thought such an analysis was ridiculous given the fact that John McCain had lost to Barack Obama by a mere 6% of the popular vote in a year when the odds were so heavily against the Republicans. Nonetheless, there was much talk about the Republican Party being in complete disarray.
For several weeks my friend and fellow Caffeinated Thoughts contributor David Shedlock has been after me to write a piece on the nature of Islam, and with the recent flap between Bill O’Reilly and the ladies of The View being something of a news media sensation, I thought perhaps now would be a good time to address the subject…
“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometric progression as they rise”
I came across this quote on a popular social bookmarking site where left liberal, atheist, unemployed twenty-something year old males are the main demographic. It isn’t uncommon to stumble across a quote like this, often phrased in such a way to be an authoritative statement that must mean something. I could make up my own example to show what I mean. Imagine a post like this on a site like Digg or Reddit:
“Barack Obama is a great president because he has accomplished most of his agenda and done some amazing things for this country.”
Then I could list forty or so legislative “accomplishments” ranging from the health care debacle to the blunders in Afghanistan if I wished to go further. However, my statement conveys an authoritative tone: I am right because I make a definitive statement in a confident manner, ending it with a period. If I post this on a website where most people would agree with me, my sense of pride in my statement goes up and it makes it harder for me to change my mind in the future. After all, everyone agrees with me, who dares to oppose me?
This is the problem of the “hivemind”, a geeky word used on most websites frequented by unemployed, over educated white males. Going back to the quote by Thomas Jefferson, I found a post extolling the virtues of progressive taxation. Sure enough, most of the comments were in favor of the idea. The opposition was more or less non-existent and was stifled by cries of: “You’re like Glenn Beck, screaming ‘Marxist!!’ at every person who is in favor of business regulation!” Despite considering themselves freethinkers and above petty political differences, they tow a party line that truly is reminiscent of Marx, Lenin, and Castro.
Thomas Jefferson’s quote was one of emotional anguish. If you take the time to read the entire letter, you will see him describing the horrors of pre-Revolution France. It was not the best of times for those in the peasant class. France’s monarchy had long ceased to be effective at controlling itself and was in the beginning stages of choking the life out of itself. After all, what is a monarchy if you simply treat your country like you’re a petty dictator? A dictatorial system of government is further from monarchy than we tend to think. This is largely due to the way history has been taught since the French Revolution and Marx came on the scene. But I digress.
Jefferson probably knew better than to be an advocate for progressive taxation. Given that he steeped deep in debt, I do not think he would have written such a silly statement after realizing he was writing under emotional distress about this woman and the political-economic situation in France at the time. After all, Jefferson was consistently against taxes in nearly every form. To consider him some sort of socialist god as the users do at the website I visited is incorrect. Jefferson would be better fit for the free market system’s founder in America (as opposed to Hamilton, but that is a tale for another day).
In the following quote, Jefferson shows us where his passions truly lie:
Whenever there is in any country, uncultivated lands and unemployed poor, it is clear that the laws of property have been so far extended as to violate natural right. The earth is given as a common stock for man to labour and live on. If, for the encouragement of industry we allow it to be appropriated, we must take care that other employment be furnished to those excluded from the appropriation. If we do not the fundamental right to labour the earth returns to the unemployed. It is too soon yet in our country to say that every man who cannot find employment but who can find uncultivated land, shall be at liberty to cultivate it, paying a moderate rent. But it is not too soon to provide by every possible means that as few as possible shall be without a little portion of land. The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.
History shows us that Jefferson was fond of the ‘republican’ form of government with a ‘republican’ people: no big cities, lots of small farms and towns, and a people clamoring for liberty. Given that economic thought was severely underdeveloped during this period (Adam Smith had only just published On the Wealth of Nations), it is no surprise that Jefferson saw progressive taxation as a way to free up the landed system. In America, progressive taxation did not occur in most places until the twentieth century. This allows us to see what happens in a country with progressive taxation: Corporations can still buy the government, a huge portion of the tax burden is placed on the middle class (not the rich alone), and many rich people can escape paying taxes altogether through loopholes in the tax system. All the while, the poor benefit from economic “equality” by receiving benefits and producing nothing.
This is real equality, and it is stupid.
Jefferson’s vision of the poor cultivating farms was rooted in them doing actual work. It was not based on their receiving subsidies for simply living and being unproductive the rest of their lives. Oh, I’m sure that the average socialist will quickly negate my claim, saying that they will be productive once they have jobs, but evidence shows otherwise.
The only way to have real equality in this country is to eliminate equality laws and destroy taxation completely. Equality is about being free from government and being treated no differently by the government–it has nothing to do with economic standing, success, or opportunity. Once again, a Founding Father of this country has been taken out of context without correct economic thought providing a reason for the perceived conflict in his letter.
The socialists should try harder next time.
This is from the Connecticut race for U.S. Senate a couple of nights ago.
While I am no fan of McMahon, she knew the right response to her own question. Blumenthal is a prime example of the sleazy American politican: an elite bureaucrat that has to campaign to keep his position. He has no concept of how the market works. Jobs are, to him, some sort of campaign promise to people so that he can keep his job that relies on taking money from the tax payer to fund his lavish cocktail parties.