Wednesday, November 30, 2011
For me, it was the easy smile, the relaxed gesture, the firm handshake, the stable haircut. He was likable and consistently so, non-threatening and able to make even his liberal-leaning platforms seem plausible. But something changed.
During an interview November 29 with Bret Baer of Fox News, Mitt became agitated while receiving for the millionth time a question regarding "Romneycare." By itself, this means nothing. However, Baer reported to Bill O'Reilly that after the interview Mitt came to Baer and complained that the interview had been too aggressive. I don't know about you but this makes me shudder.
The end game we all fear, as it concerns our nation, is a tyranny. Such a terrifying scenario must include a leader who is delicate and egocentric. With Barack Obama, our country is in peril, gripped by a megalomaniac. The rumblings for this were self-evident during the 2007-2008 campaign season, when Obama and his team used such tactics as denying entry to certain reporters and punishing others for their questions. In other words, the precedent for recognizing a tyrant is already set.
Mitt, unfortunately, chose to either play that game or show his cards. It's not that he aired his frustration. It's not that he didn't have a legitimate complaint, having responded to that same question over and over. But once a candidate identifies himself as more conservative than not, he or she surrenders the right to be offended by anything less than the equivalent of a nuclear bomb. This is why we may forgive Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann for their respective attacks against a hostile media (in most recent incidents, Cain vs. unproven allegations, Bachmann vs. Jimmy Fallon). They were set ablaze, strafed. Mitt was grazed, and he groused without apology for his outburst.
To me, this separates the conservatives from the liberals. Conservatives already ought to have a hardened shell against any media barrage. And for Pete's sake, it was Fox News! That Mitt felt attacked by those who actually support him does not bode well for his future temperament.
Therefore, to nip this in the bud, I must eliminate Romney from my top tier.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Let's say the Herman Cain story is true. This means as a moral people we should move away from Cain. Not because it's true but because he denied it. BUT... have you noticed that as Republicans have lost a little zeal for Cain, the media has begun to bash the Republicans. Yes, that's right. If the story is true and Republicans don't turn away from Cain, the media will make Republicans to be slime. However, if the story is true and Republicans DO turn away from Cain, the media will make Republicans to be capricious and - yep, you guessed it - racist.
It's already happening. Have you heard the little tirade where a certain reporter suggests that Republicans are afraid of a black man's "predatory sexuality"? What does that mean? It means that all of a sudden the media is shifting ever so slightly towards Cain, ready to pounce on the fair-weather friendliness of Republicans. The media has already won.
Let's say the Herman Cain story is false. The mere fact that some Republicans began to turn from Cain writes the same story.
"But... but," you protest, "The media TOLD us that Herman Cain was to be avoided. They certainly can't criticize us when we do what it is they trumpeted we ought to do." Oh, really? You mean the media can't play both sides at the same time, then attack the very conclusion that they themselves drew?
Let me tell you - not only will the media dig up the dirt, fabricate the story, push the witnesses to come forward, promise them treats if they spill their guts, and vomit the concoction all over everyone - they will also destroy the witnesses (as soon as they're finished), refute that they ever told such a story, attack anyone who says otherwise, and attack anyone who believed it in the first place. And that's if the story is TRUE!
If it's false, they will also make sure to cry "hypocrite!" to anyone who would hang the cross of blame onto them, associate those people with right-wing conspiracies, and ultimately make everyone look like a kook.
Consider the "birther" issue. Who started it? Hillary Clinton. Who took the blame? Right-wing conspiracy. Who made the transition? The media.
So, it doesn't matter to the media whether the Cain story originated with the Left, the Right, or the media itself. Eventually, they plan to take down not Cain, but the entire Republican Party, the Tea Party, and any black person who sympathizes. This is their terrific master plan. Hee haw.
What to do? Since Republicans will be blamed anyway, I say let's protect Cain until there is some concrete evidence he did something wrong. He's innocent until proven guilty, isn't he?
Monday, October 31, 2011
Today, Cain denied ever sexually harassing anyone (except his wife) but did acknowledge that false accusations had been leveled some 15-20 years ago while he was head of the National Restaurant Association (NRA). Concerning the alleged "settlements" paid out, Cain said he knew of none and that if the NRA had done so it was without his participation.
The question is, Who put this out to the media? Was it Mitt Romney, he most likely to benefit from a Cain fall? Was it Rick Perry, labeled by many a dirty player? I think not. I believe it was Barack Obama.
It would not be the first time that Obama has done such a thing. During his 2004 Senate race, Obama managed to have revealed the sealed divorce records for primary challenger Blair Hull and general challenger, Republican Jack Ryan. And don't forget that when Obama ran for Illinois State Senate his primary opponents were all disqualified for one reason or another. This is Obama's modus operandi.
Meanwhile Barack Obama has resisted and rejected every effort to make public his school records, his health records, even his financial records. And let's not forget how long it took to get his birth certificate.
I believe that Obama is behind the personal attacks against not only Cain but also Marco Rubio. A black or Hispanic conservative is a threat to the image carefully groomed by the progressive Left that "minorities" must vote Democrat. It busts apart the unthinking cliche that Democrats are the saviors of the oppressed and middle class. But more than that, it marks a contrast between racial politics and character politics.
What about the ineptness of Eric Holder? No, nothing on that. Only that Allen West, another black conservative Republican, is "rude" for his outspokenness. In actuality, they are calling West "uppity" while making Holder's arrogance "good politics."
This double standard is not new, and I was not born yesterday. But simply because the Democrats "always do this" or that the media is in the tank for them doesn't mean that we should let them get away with it.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
by Tom Wise
Number 9... Number 9... Number 9. Herman Cain's "9-9-9" tax plan may have its flaws but so did John Lennon's excursion into the morbid avant-garde, his mosaic "Revolution 9" found on the double-LP The Beatles, otherwise known as The White Album. Maybe "9-9-9" tries to do too much at once but so did "Revolution 9." Neither at first glance seems cohesive but if you know how it was constructed, and with which premises, they both make sense. Well, at least to their respective creators.
But I'm not bashing Cain or Lennon. Both have (had) a vision and both are (were) not bashful to have the public love it or hate it. Like Lennon, once Cain finished with his proposal he moved on to the next thing. You have to admire someone who has the courage to push the envelope and cause peers to respond as if they were just about to do the same thing (see Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich).
Keeping with the theme, Cain has amended his "9-9-9" to "9-0-9," which is just fine with fans of the Fab Four. "The One After 909" might be another term for Cain's next policy decision!
Don't forget also that "Taxman" witnesses to the concept that there's "one for you, 19 for me." This fits with the Cain theme that the government is seeking to eventually tax the rich at a rate which would push even more capital to other nations. Taking the Ron Paul approach to that, how long before they put up a fence to keep the money in? No, not a literal fence, but an economic trigger that disallows the movement of money out of the country. You shouldn't have to "keep all your money in a big brown bag inside the zoo"1.
Cain definitely understands that "Money" is what we want! We are a capitalist nation built upon industry, creativity, invention, and resources. The best things in life are free only for those hippies at Occupy Wall Street who didn't surrender to a nice cozy hotel room. Well, I guess they thought that "money was heaven sent”2.
Of course, "money can't buy me love" and Herman Cain knows the value in growing up poor among loving parents. His humility in defeating cancer lets us know that he has a better outlook than most of the rest of us.
So, let the White House understand that "if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow"3. The fundamental transformation of our country is about to come to a screeching halt and, better, reverse. Then, as in "Yellow Submarine," it'll be "full speed ahead!"
1 From “Baby You’re a Rich Man”
2 From “Lady Madonna”
3 From “Revolution”
Friday, October 14, 2011
While watching the disorganized and increasingly chaotic “Occupy” mobs, one thing has become painfully obvious: All people need leaders. The pileup of garbage, used condoms and human stench are reminders that directionless persons are without respect. This is also to be seen in the violence now rearing its head in Egypt, “democracy” showing itself to be nothing more than either majority rule or the law of force. While one may say that Occupy and Egypt have nothing in common, the marketing of Occupy designees billed these rallies, at least initially, as inspired by and geared towards a repeat of Tahrir Square gatherings held in the spring of 2011. It should therefore surprise nobody if Occupy dissolves itself into melees and rioting. But for now it is disturbing enough to witness the slovenliness with which these “protesters” conduct themselves and the disrespect they accord to the property of private citizens, not to mention that of the public.
Let us recall that the Tea Party gatherings have nearly all been free of violence and litter. No arrests were made at any Tea Party meeting, regardless of size. When Glenn Beck held his 8/28 rally in Washington DC (not technically a Tea Party event), not a speck of refuse could afterward be discovered. Even when Jon Stewart held his mocking Rally to Restore Sanity, there was every expectation of peace and cleanliness, even if only to show Glenn Beck that his leadership abilities were not unique. However, Occupy protestations have in many cases been leading to an increase in hostility and land pollution, not to mention rudeness and poor hygiene. For anyone to ever again equate the Tea Party with mobs or vice versa is simply intentional disparagement for reasons of ideology.
What is frightening must be the plain truth that those who have no respect for civic beauty, the calm assembly of petitioning, and in actuality each other will be the same souls who are going to begin making demands, and expecting counteraction if those demands are not met. If they cannot conduct themselves with dignity at this beginning stage of their movement, we should not expect them to cultivate any better manners or class at the latter stages. Believe me, painting this picture affords me no pleasure. Yet, I cannot see at this juncture any further than a brainless herd repeating partial sentences from the mouth of an equally deranged failed life coach on megaphone.
Let me lead now to my conclusion, which is that the rules of human conduct seem to be disappearing. This is unfortunately as I have predicted. When those without a firm foundation come upon one with a sweet message and similarly gelatinous scrip of regulation, there is a marriage of sorts which can go a long way. This, however, is not beneficial to society. It in fact makes community quite unbearable. Apparent among the Occupy crowd is the propensity to surrender individuality for arbitrary ordinances. Nevertheless, they are not arbitrary but well-documented by would-be dictators. This leads inevitably to fascism or communitarian compact, both of which are undesirable (whether or not you believe we currently serve under such regime).
The solution is Torah. The tried and true rules which are the Law of God trump in all cases the play-pretend dictates from amorphous group control. Torah is morality, and is the basis of everything from Christ. Even Islam is based on Torah. It is also the foundation of our Constitution. The atheist also knows Torah, as the “golden rule” and “love your neighbor.” With Torah, there is no need to conduct assemblies through political call-and-response. If you already to subscribe to this correctness, the evil performed as soul-sucking at Occupy millings is abruptly manifest.
Each person should hope for, or be himself or herself, a potential leader at an Occupy, willing to redirect individuals from the collectivism of the megaphone to the freedom of Torah rule. In this way, each person may not only be aware and awake but also responsible. This is not to send them packing but to instill in them a maturity which acknowledges a future. For it is not apparent that anyone there is thinking beyond the next moment, and this is truly hopelessness.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Let's be straight. The "protesters" in lower Manhattan who have become vagrants in the business district, and no more than that, are among the most pathetic of beings. Not only do they have no particular collective message, nor meaning in their lives, but they wish to infect all who they meet with this disease of the mind. If only they possessed the Hegelian dialectic so that we might uncover their deceit and use it against them. But - alas! - they are like blind protozoa, scurrying amid teeming pools of nutrition, with no eyes, no arms, and no central nervous system. We can learn nothing from them, and they will take away little from their experiences.
Ah, but who arrives to egg on these zombies? None other than the cultural elite, exiting limousines to deliver weighted speeches directly from method acting. It is to our eternal regret that we have not raised children keen enough to recognize that an actress in front of a captive audience is not the same as a motivational speaker. These Sarandons and Moores are sanctimonious hypocrites, lecturing the uneducated on matters of which it is well known they are ignorant. They are only slopping the hogs before going on to their next multi-million dollar project.
If in fact anyone cared for these disheveled and hopeless souls, it would be to offer them substantive work. But as it says in the Book of James, and I paraphrase, "Your prayers do not feed the hungry, and your hearty positivity does not shelter the homeless."
Extrapolating, is it truly surprising that bankers have turned out to be pure businessmen and not shown compassion? Apparently, demagoguery is effective, for this Occupy Wall Street crowd is under the impression that the purpose of a bank is to provide capital for lazy nitwits, then to forgive their debt as it becomes necessary or suits rabble-rousers. Surely, those who are "protesting" must realize that this protracted act of rebellion cannot possibly convert financiers into Santa Claus or George Bailey. Or have they so taken such leave of their senses that their mission is not to convince but to estimate some ability in themselves to topple a system in which they in fact have not a whit of talent? They cannot occupy a position at any firm, let alone occupy Wall Street!
Chaos. It might not be in the hearts of these disillusioned, but it is the desire of those who would see bankers "get theirs." Yet, those with such motive are not interested in the spare lives of these mere puppets, but have greater dreams of grandeur, such as establishing new world currencies. The irony is that the Occupy Wall Street-ers are only pawns in a great chess game between capitalism, communism, and fascism. If there were any logic to spare between them, those who occupy would become those who awaken. Perhaps actual conversations concerning individual success and what that means might take place within conclaves of self-interested and motivated, not to mention like-minded, beings. But we see that their despair has overtaken them, and not for poverty but for some concept of "fairness," as if the opportunity to attain is not available to every one of them.
On display is the worst type of idealism, cries for new economic and governmental frameworks which have already failed many times over - democracy (mob rule), socialism (mediocrity), communism (death), anarchy (a lie). It is as if history means nothing or never occurred. We should not, however, be surprised at this since these functional illiterates also cannot fathom that their "heroes" live as well or better than those they apparently oppose. If they cannot see through the Hollywood activist, how shall they know that their successful future is a gulag. Or do they truly believe that they will thrive when a strong leader comes to fill the power vacuum? Please....
And then there is Roseanne Barr, who projects her fear as violent fantasy. Her calls for guillotines against stubborn capitalists is not new but its openness leads one to believe that she is racing to the finish post, afraid that if she is not in charge of the beheading she will herself be a victim. But why so panicky, Ms. Barr? Can it be that your wealth is visible and you think that if you behave as the mob behaves it will save you? There again is a Tinseltown queen reciting her good Marxist lines while she counts her own off-shore savings. Please...
So, if anyone from Occupy Wall Street should be reading this, wise up. Your best strategy to wealth is not to take it, not to whine about it, not to congregate in a mass therapy session, and not to take the advice of actors and madmen. In fact, it is as it always has been - wealth is created by providing value, and having many customers who see that value. But if you take wealth by force, distribute it and spend it, where do you think it will end up? That's right - in the hands of the same people you claim to despise. You who must have an Apple iPhone or iPad, a Yamaha guitar, a Volkswagon, a Pepsi, a Snickers bar - you will have none of it because no one will produce value unless the system for profiting from value produced exists. You are therefore poor and silly children, tearing down the very structure that feeds, clothes, shelters, transports, communicates. Are you Amish? Are you technophobes? Are you nomads? What lifestyle are you aiming for? But whichever it is, I guarantee you that George Soros, Michael Moore, Van Jones and the rest are not going to live in a tent with you. Think about that.
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
As a snack, Krispy Kreme is a delight to many. It epitomizes the American way of life in that it's sweet to the taste, filled with empty calories, and can be had in many flavors.
To each his own, but not as it concerns the welfare of the body.
Chris Christie has his sweet moments, such as when he tells a constituent to "mind your own business" as it concerns the education of his children. But the outer crust is flaky. Out of the donut parlance, Christie has quite a few RINO (Republican in name only) attributes. For example, his stand on global warming is alarming in that he would offer legislation to combat it. In this way, Christie is co-opted by Marxist desires.
Christie is also not very nutritious. Sure, he's limited some teacher's unions, but the state of New Jersey is not exactly financially on best legs. There is a vacuousness to his aggressiveness. Not that I oppose the abolition of the federal Dept of Education, or even organized education on a state level - yippee! let's get 'er done. But now what? Christie's ideas concerning replacement education is almost anachronistic, and certainly unoriginal. Why is that important? Because either the old ways have not worked or shown themselves to be unable to pass Senates. At the very least, a Presidential candidate needs to have a grasp on national policy, if only for the veto. Christie in this regard is weak or, as he says, inexperienced.
As to flavors, Christie appears to have a sliver of the appeaser in him. "What?!," you cry, "Christie is single-minded and Teddy-Rooseveltian." Consider this: perhaps he's just loud. In a sea of civil Republican tongues, that may sound enticing but, if volume equals ability, Bernie Sanders or Barnie Frank ought to be genius-in-charge. Don't get me wrong: I like fun fatties like Jackie Gleason and Chris Farley, but I like them because they're great at clowning. Is Christie a box office smash because he makes us smile, or does the scriptwriting have substance?
Pardon me while I put on my "superior" cap. OK, ready...
What's going on in the world? Marxism.
Wall Street protests? Marxism.
Islamic fascism? Marxism.
Unemployment for 99 weeks + ? Marxism.
Invasion of Libya? Marxism.
China going to be the dominant economy? Marxism.
A silent and docile media? Marxism.
Class warfare? Marxism.
RINO Republicans? Marxism.
Anti-Israel sentiment? Marxism.
Anti-capitalist sentiment? Marxism.
Hezbollah in Cuba? Marxism.
Flotilla to Gaza? Marxism.
Is there any trouble in the world not Marxist? Sure.
Crony capitalism. Um... no, that's a combination of state power mixed with corporate goodies. Marxism.
Genocide in the Sudan. Um... no, that's militant ethnic cleansing based on false premises derived from Islam. I'm gonna call that Marxism.
Tyranny. Forerunner of Marxism.
Muslim Brotherhood. Marxism.
Back to basics, I guess.
Monday, September 19, 2011
by Tom Wise
Our way of life is changing. Jobs are scarce, having been shipped to places of cheap (or slave) labor, or fallen victim to a domino effect of deterioration. Factories close, only to reopen in a different country. To find a U.S.-made appliance or electronic gadget is a miracle. We are still the number one manufacturer in all the world, but you would never know it in comparison with two decades ago or by asking the man on the street. Not that the spirit is missing. The work ethic is alive and well, only the opportunities have greatly diminished.
The solution is not one-dimensional but it is fairly simple: unleash resources. Several industries presently stifled can become juggernauts if allowed to prosper without undue regulation. Here, I present two.
(1) The first you have heard before. I propose that we legalize marijuana.
However, there would be caveats. One is that importers should pay a true tariff, this to keep the domestic crop competitive and attractive. Naturally, this measure encourages smuggling. Therefore, any illegal importation of the weed would receive harsh punishment. This would serve as a “tariff” on those who would in any way undercut American growers. The question may also arise concerning children using marijuana. Under my plan, no one under 18 may purchase marijuana. Those caught selling to the underage would be subject to severe penalty, more so if the child was under 16. Sharing with the underage would be considered child abuse. A related issue is public safety. This is solved by legalization. As long as marijuana (as alcohol) is legal, transportation companies (for example, airlines) can rightfully require urine tests. But as long as pot is illegal, a urine test presupposes that you are guilty of a crime, not only of irresponsibility. Now, if the complaint is public health, I think we can agree that a rehabilitation center (if you will) is more cost-effective than arresting recreational users, crowding our jails and juvenile halls, and wasting police resources on misdemeanors.
Marijuana is a cash cow. If only 20 million people in the United States (less than 10% of the population) crave the stuff, and are willing to pay out at the same average as the cigarette smoker or alcohol aficionado (roughly $10 per week or about $500 a year), we are talking about a $10 billion annual sales figure. Presupposing a flat tax of 10%, the federal government would derive revenues at about $1 billion (this sounds small in today’s trillions, but it’s really quite good). Entrepreneurs might invest also in storefronts, wholesale paraphernalia, and various related cottage industries (more tax revenue). The economy also benefits greatly because all that money stays within these borders rather than going to Mexico, Colombia, Jamaica, Thailand, and other known growing areas.
Arguments against legalization are weak. “Marijuana is the devil’s weed.” No, that was conceived in the 1920’s, and it began as a racial condemnation. “Marijuana leads to other drugs.” Beer leads to whiskey. “Marijuana is a scourge.” No, mafias and cartels are scourges, marijuana is a nuisance at most. Marijuana will be smoked whether anyone likes it or not (I do not smoke it), and the money will pour to other lands, likely to criminals who grow in power daily. Marijuana is a mild health risk, no greater than moderate legal alcohol.
(2) My second proposal is more mainstream. Drill, baby, drill!
Our energy needs are buried under our very feet, and yet necessary drilling and delivery is buried under unending regulation. Some of these impediments are environmentally motivated, some political. Regardless, it is my understanding that America has enough natural gas to last a century or more, and enough oil to last 50 years. The result of domestic exploration and drilling is cheaper fuel, which can only help the consumer, causing some to accrue enough capital to create more jobs. The plenty in natural gas can also help many transition from gasoline-driven autos (whatever their reason). Of course, all this new activity equals JOBS. As well, domestic oil keeps our dollars out of the hands of repressive governments in the Middle East, Africa and South America.
The technology is available. All we require is the will and fast action (like yesterday).
These ideas don’t require the next Bill Gates. The infrastructure is obvious and partly constructed. The demand is settled science. All we require is strong leadership and a willingness to try. This is only part of my plan to restore jobs to America, which in turn is just a slice of a greater economic plan.
It's time to think big. Maybe my ideas have flaws. Maybe my ideas are too idealistic. Let's discuss it.
by Tom Wise
Consider our American southern border. We have not a defense there, but a sieve. We also have increasing violence at that border, spilling into at least Texas and Arizona. Criminals enter, and some or many cause mayhem within the United States. Cartels employ human mules to carry their trade to a waiting clientele. Human slavery follows as mule organizers decide to make their own dirty centavo by continued oppression of these poor souls. Reports of Hezbollah involvement with drug cartels doubles the danger. Our Mexican-American border is now a cesspool of murder, violence, drugs, slavery, smuggling, terrorist plotting, and other illegal and immoral activity. Our border defense is a joke.
The solution is simple but hard. We should immediately offer the people of Mexico a choice, with a brief window of opportunity and permanent consequence. If they will rise up against their corrupt government and the drug cartels, we will offer every assistance, military and moral. In the end, Mexico would become part of America. If not, the United States must build a wall of defense so impenetrable and guarded that Mexico would literally be quarantined, subject to even more rapid demise from within.
(1) Mexicans come to America every day not only for the prospect of opportunity but also to escape fear. Their country is essentially on fire. Whether or not my offer is accepted, the Mexican people must show a backbone. It is the only road to their self-empowerment and real freedom. I think no reasonable person would argue this is necessary.
(2) Assuming they cannot accomplish this on their own, legal attachment (annexation) to the United States has many attractive features which benefit every Mexican and every American.
(3) Through annexation, the American border is in real terms moved southward to the line between Mexico and Guatemala. This stretch of 541 miles should be much easier to defend than the current 1969 miles between Mexico and the United States. At present, antiquated treaties with Mexico prevent the United States from adequately protecting even its own border.
(4) Through annexation, all Mexican illegal immigrants automatically become American citizens, as would all citizens of Mexico. This is not amnesty but auto-citizenship by fiat. This also solves grievances concerning the possession of the southwestern United States. One for all, all for one. Naturally, prejudices and old hatreds must be alleviated, but this would likely be motivated forward by exactly such a plan.
(5) Through annexation, Mexico becomes lawfully eligible for military intervention against cartels, terrorists, and other enemies of peace and freedom. The Mexican people should likely welcome this. Presupposing marijuana can be decriminalized, the cartels can simultaneously be weakened; if not, smuggling will continue as big business.
(6) Through annexation, Mexico's natural resources become available for a united people. (1) Oil. Naturally, the current market system, wherein America buys back its own oil from multinationals, must be reworked. Nationalization, however, is not the answer. Instead, "first rights" must be implemented for the good and security of the United States. Presupposing that the Federal Reserve can be reined in, increased natural resources equals less inflation and a stronger currency, and minimizes any need to protect oil interests halfway across the world. (2) Land. Currently, foreigners cannot but lease property in Mexico. Mexicans should have the right to sell their property to whomever they like.
While the idea is simple, it’s hard. First, would Mexico agree? Second, would the United States government ever have the guts to suggest such a thing? Third, would our politically correct society think it feasible or compassionate? Fourth, it appears imperialistic (though libertarianism only works when borders are secure). However, I'm not speaking of conquest and exploitation (the history of Mexico) but of dual salvation. Mexico's release from bondage (with a price tag) is America's freedom from border insecurity.
Before full dismissal, remember that America was not always 50 states. It has been built by settlement, purchase, and even war. As recently as 1959, Alaska and Hawaii became stars on the flag. The United States currently has many territories, including Puerto Rico and Guam. Cuba itself was once American-owned. If one can erase the thought that America is “complete” or that it has no further land mass beyond the 50 states, annexation of Mexico is perfectly reasonable. Another clue that such a union is within the realm of moral possibility: the Monroe Doctrine was conceived to protect our hemisphere (though not always used for that purpose).
What is the alternative? Shall we allow Mexico to destroy itself? Shall we turn a blind eye and think it proper? Shall we build a wall? If so, when will that be finished? In fact, to ignore the reality of Mexico's violence and the continuing influx of illegal immigrants is not compassion but foolishness. Will it be real enough when Mexican civil war breaks out? When cartels set up compounds in America? When Hezbollah explodes a bomb in El Paso?
It's time to think big. Perhaps my idea has flaws. Perhaps it’s too idealistic. But it's an idea. Let's discuss it.
Friday, September 16, 2011
by Tom Wise
Originally published October 2004.
John Kerry is a right-winger. He's so far Left he's actually Right. Consider:
1) He is an imperialist. I don't mean in the manner that he imitated George Bush ("we will hunt down and kill terrorists"). This is not imperialism anyway, this is just life as we know it. I mean that Kerry is part of the Heinz empire which, by necessity, must capture land from farmers, rape it with agricorporate aplomb, and then discard it as useless and move on once it has depleted every square inch.
2) He is a square capitalist, and no hippie. His Left side may be overgrown, but Kerry is part of the Establishment, which is Heinz, Washington DC, and the American Bar Assn. He ain't growin' organic tomatoes, he ain't showin' up for Congress to 'rock the vote' on Capitol Hill, and he ain't representin' penniless anarchists. His vice-president would be about the most clean-cut bubble-gummer since Bobby Sherman, and yet another lawyer.
3) He is a warmonger, voting for Iraqi action, and promising "more of the same" if elected. The difference between Kerry and Bush is that Bush knows first-hand (oil business, 4 years in the White House) how the Arabs work and what they're up to.
4) He is a fascist, who facilitates (with his wife) the organized protest and boycott of the Republican National Convention, Christian broadcasting, and an anti-Kerry show called "Stolen Honor" with tactics that are so beyond American "free speech" that it borders on being a Nazi. His idea of free speech is that he can attack and nobody may attack him. His actions, those of his campaign, and those of his followers are CENSORSHIP and MEDIA CONTROL, both ills usually blamed on RIGHT-wingers!
5) He has delusions of Right grandeur, going so far as to purchase a gun for goose-hunting. Ha!
by Tom Wise
I am a conservative. There, I said it. I’m out of the closet. I am who I am. I might even claim that I was born this way. Yes, I used to be a liberal but one day I woke up and realized that I couldn’t live a lie anymore.
I am now willing to be shunned by society, friends and family. I will take the snide comments, rude barbs, and tarnished labels. I know I will be called names like “neocon” and “Zionist” and “puppet of the rich.” For all intents and purposes, I am now a maligned segment of the population.
I expect even that soon and forthwith will come accusations that I hate minorities, the poor, and Social Security. Perhaps I will even hear that a concentration camp is too good for me. As a Jew, that will be doubly repulsive to me.
But I do not want nor require any pity or government aid. In fact, as a conservative, I insist that it all be withheld. I do not want to be seen as a victim. I need no group to take up my plight. All I ask is a fair shake.
My hero is Sarah Palin. She has illuminated that an out-of-the-closet, flaming conservative can beat the odds. She is unabashedly in-your-face conservative. She has proven once and for all that you don't have to compete with liberals in order to validate your worth. Even surrounded by haters, it’s worth it to be the person I was born to be. Thank you, Sarah.
by Tom Wise
Originally published October 2004.
Should we attack Iran? How are we doing in Iraq? There are two schools of thought on this, at least in the classroom of MY head. First, the insurgents in Iraq are diminishing in number because we're capturing or killing them. Second, the insurgents are NOT diminishing and will increase in number despite our best efforts to gain control of the area. As to the first, it's not shown up in the evidence. As to the second, the evidence is still coming in. For the most part, here's how we can break it down: sometimes our initiatives cause the groundswell of terrorism to abate, sometimes it doesn't. Depending on when you say the words, the talk of winning this war is either true or not true. So now, what is the truth? The first piece of evidence (Exhibit A) is that militant Islamic terrorism is not limited to Iraq...it exists in Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Indonesia and elsewhere. The second (exhibit B) is that Islam is spreading throughout the world. Exhibit A shows clearly that winning the war in Iraq does not rid the world of havens for terrorism. Exhibit B shows clearly that the "army" from which Islamic terrorism can recruit is growing. Thus, with only these pieces of evidence (basically, these are facts, not opinions or assumptions), we can see that our efforts are tiny in comparison to the problem, even if our firepower is awesome and our will is strong. So, what about Iran in particular? Even if we take out both Iraq and Iran, the other havens will exist and the possible recruiting base grows. The liberals are correct about one thing-- we ARE inflaming them. However, if we do NOTHING, they will not leave us alone for that much longer. Let's be real. These people ARE different on the inside from us-- it's their culture, maybe even their genes. As different as "ghetto" is from "whitebread." Taking out Iraq and Iran does remove some of the problem, but only temporarily, for we still have to deal with the other havens and the newly-inflamed recruits, INCLUDING those out for revenge because we killed their relatives. Unlike our culture, they look at war as a PERSONAL thing. It's not ideological to them. They are on the same level of cultural snobbery as Hitler. They believe Jews are inferior, and in fact refuse to even recognize their existence except as something to exterminate. They think Americans and even most Europeans are evil and in league with Satan. They think they're RIGHT! They're not criminals who know "the law" and are trying to "get away with a crime." They are not "revolutionaries" who are "bucking the system." That latter notion is a liberal mindset because they can only think of American flag-burning through the eyes of civil disobedience, in protesting American policy. It's an immature structure built on the 1960s when flag-burning meant draft-dodging, war-protesting, and other peace movements. The liberals think that the Arabs are peaceful people who just want an end to war. The liberals think that the Arabs identify with them. The liberals are sick in the head that way. In a way, Islam has awakened the world to how sick it really is. It forces the liberal to see that not all anti-American rhetoric is meant in the name of building a stronger America. It forces the homosexuals to see that America, even with its problems, is better than living under Muslim rule, because their lifestyle would never be tolerated as it is here (and in other parts of the world). It forces the feminist to see that all the burning bras in the world are not going to change the mind of the Arab man. Where were the feminists applauding the USA when Afghani women voted? In short, taking out both Iraq and Iran will not stop the Arabs from thinking that they're right. The Islamic world is now beyond the borders of the Arab world, but the Arab mind is being transferred along with it. In Sudan, tribal warfare has become the type of extermination usually seen by Nazis. In Indonesia, bombings where before only the pleasant sway of Balinese culture existed. In the Netherlands, intolerance where tolerance was the world's bellweather. The spread of Islam is not a religion melding into a culture, it is a culture itself. It is the Arab culture, anti-American, anti-Jew, strict in punishment, severe in law, hateful in revenge, disgusting in war. The emblem of this culture is Yassir Arafat and also Osama bin Laden. They represent, to many people, the way that a true Arab acts. Ironically, money (Mammom), which has funded these villains, can be their only downfall, for the lure of lucre swindles everyone of dignity, honor, and honesty, even that of an Arafat. It seems clear to me that the US military is not going to topple the spread of this new type of Nazi. Nor will it be the indignation of the world, which is being colored more Islam every day. Even the corruption of the principal players may not do it, for the followers of radical Islam are not poor sheep, like Jim Jones' Guyana or Manson's clan. There are TONS of wild-eyed Arabs who are ready, willing, and able to take over Zarqawi's role or bin Laden's status. Perhaps they would even do these things WITHOUT a leader. We assume their leaders propel them onwards. What if they are just...that...way? Then what?
by Tom Wise
Originally published October 2004.
I was speaking with a friend today. She's a Democrat. Liberal. Bush-hater. She makes no bones about it. As is common today, she also makes a link between George Bush and Christian conservatives in a conspiratorial way. While the connection is obvious, she concentrates on the more sinister aspects, much the same as hippies of yore connected the military and industry into a complex. In her mind, there is no question that George Bush invaded Iraq for its oil, and that he justified this move by marking Hussein as a madman-monster with delusions of world domination and stockpiles of WMDs. She also accuses Pres. Bush of using the Christian flag to lead the brigade. Sort of a Christian-Texan complex. A new Crusade, if you will. To some, this may sound like gifted vision. I think it's quite naive. First, Iraq is not the only country that has oil. Venezuela has oil and is closer to home. Saudi Arabia has oil and would be much more likely to accept an American military presence to preserve the kingdom peace in exchange for exclusive oil rights. Kuwait is chock full of oil and easy to invade as well. In fact, Iraq is one of the more dangerous countries to invade. It borders Iran, Turkey, and Syria, and is almost totally landlocked. It had a Communist dictator as ruthless as Stalin, and also divisive Islamic factions bent on taking control and destroying each other. It has a fairly-large, harsh terrain. Second, she does agree that Hussein is and was a madman, a monster, and a mad scientist looking to take over the world. She also agrees, with reservations, that he did use WMDs on his own people. She just feels that we should have had either more proof of the WMDs or else sent in more troops initially so that American troops wouldn't have suffered so many casualties. However, if we had deployed more troops, and Hussein DID have WMDs, then those troops might've been wiped out. All in all, the cautious deployment was the best move. Third, I disagree that the Christian flag is being used as a banner to herald the invasion for oil. I believe the invasion is ALL about Christianity. In fact, I think even the claims of seeking out WMDs was a secondary consideration. Oil, a third. The primary agenda in Iraq, I believe, is to contain the spread of terrorism....period. By terrorism, I am of course speaking of Islamic terrorism, which is the tool used by the Arabs to further and complete their religious and cultural overtaking of this world. I believe George Bush as well as John Kerry are quite aware of the spread of Islam and its influence in such places as the Sudan, Indonesia, Australia, China, France, and the United States, as well as the influence of the extremist Muslims in homelands such as Saudi Arabia (a kingdom), Libya (a dictatorship), and Iran (a former shahdom). I'm sure Bush and Kerry both realize the power wielded by the PLO, Hamas, the Taliban, and other black stocking operations. The difference between the two candidates is that Kerry wants to negotiate in various ways and by various means, likely either by imposing useless sanctions or else giving economic aid, while Bush has no intention of doing either. Perhaps Kerry would eventually use force, but Bush has made himself clear on this point. Terrorism is now verboten, both by the President's edict in September 2001, and de facto in the name of everything human. Terrorism is not about frustration, it's about Power. This mindset of power through violence is spreading. Bombings are becoming common worldwide. Never mind the IRA. They are small pumpkins compared to the PLO and its ilk. The IRA is not looking for anything beyond the borders of Ireland. The US invasion of Afghanistan was meant to find bin Laden, the mastermind behind the WTC attack. Invading Iraq had nothing to do with that. I believe Bush's plan was and is to flush out terrorism everywhere and destroy it. Why pick on Iraq? By deposing Hussein, and ridding Iraq of the dictator's iron grip, Islamic groups would be more likely to initiate a struggle for the ultimate power in Iraq. The terrorist groups would be more ready, willing, and able to launch such an offensive. In effect, by getting rid of Hussein, we exposed the terrorists and their desire to conquer and control. Look what has occurred. Since we've invaded Iraq, Al Zarqawi has come to light as a terrorist Mr. Big holed up in Northern Iraq. Fallujah has been revealed as a munitions dump. According to military sources, nearly every house in Fallujah had hidden enough armaments to start a small revolution! Neither Al-Zarqawi nor Fallujah are results of the US invasion. Zarqawi has been there for years, and the arms were built into the WALLS of Fallujahan homes years ago. We may not have found WMD, but we have found a country that is literally wall-to-wall with terrorists and their weapons. We've also uncovered training camps for terrorists, file cabinets with master plans for bombing American and European cities, and (let's not forget) videos of torture and beheadings that are medieval, gruesome, and terrible. It may be that other countries have such things, but that doesn't make the terrorism nor violation of human rights any more just or justifiable in Iraq. The invasion of Iraq should actually be seen as as the ONLY humane decision. Shouldn't human rights activists be APPLAUDING this administration for finally doing something about Hussein's oppression, his sons' rape rooms, and terrorism's abductions and violence in that country? Shouldn't feminists be applauding the freedom now enjoyed by Afghani (and soon, we hope, Iraqi) women? Shouldn't America in general be applauding a decrease in the number of terrorists and their armaments on this planet? Shouldn't Jews be applauding that we are FINALLY going over the head of the anti-Semitic United Nations and no longer relying on their witless inspections and impotent sanctions? Shouldn't Christianity be applauding the protection of Christians worldwide by this move? Shouldn't civilization be GRATEFUL that America is standing up NOW (rather than later) to the seemingly-unstoppable force of Islamic conversion and what that has meant in countries like the Netherlands, Pakistan, Spain, and elsewhere? As to this, my friend thinks that the Arabs are minding their own business, that the oil is theirs (as opposed to America's food being "the world's"), that their inner squabblings and domestic issues are not pertinent to America. She thinks that terrorism is awful but is a product of oppression, on a par with, say, the Watts riots. She is an isolationist (as is John Kerry) who believes that Christianity, especially American Christianity, is not only interfering, but also provoking Islamic violence. She questions not Muslims but Christians. Specifically, she thinks Christians suck. This is based on her experiences with people who claim to be Christians, yet are overtly anti-black, anti-Jew, anti-"queer," or who otherwise engage in things violent, oppressive, or pornographic. I responded to my friend this way: these people are not Christians because this is not how Christians are supposed to act. They are frauds. I begged her, please don't think Christianity is bad or Christians are bad because there are fakers, or even extremists who quote the Bible to justify their own sins. I concluded by asking her to reconsider her own reactions. I said, "If you meet someone like this in the future, please don't say to yourself, 'See, Christians suck.' Instead, say to yourself, 'THAT's not a Christian.'" My friend seemed a little taken aback. I asked her, "Do you think that Islamic terrorists who invoke the name of Allah are true Muslims?" She said, quite swiftly, "No, Islam is a peaceful religion." "Then," I said, "why do you not accord the same thoughts to Christianity?" Her response, believe it or not, is that it would be better that we bombed the Vatican than Iraq. I don't know if there's a connection, but my friend is Catholic.
For a long time, I've wondered what it is about Barack Obama's speech pattern that drives me crazy, but finally I have it figured out. It's the clipped nature by which he peddles his soap. It's the characteristic head and eye movements, the sincere and confident manner in which he relates his superficial feelings. There is a motive behind his every move. Who else, I asked myself, behaves in this way? A used car salesman. A very GOOD used car salesman.
"Let me tell you about this medicine. It can cure cancer... it can restart the economy.. it can provide immigrants with security." Basically, he is a snake oil guy, the precursor to the used car salesman. He is the itinerant merchant rattling through town in his covered wagon full of outdated and dangerous panaceas. He'll tell you whatever you want to hear so that you'll line up for the patent tomfoolery.
He is a huckster. A circus barker, yelling at passersby to come see the bearded lady, the two-headed cow, the mermaid. If only you will give him a thin dime, he will provide you with a lifetime's worth of enjoyment.
He is like the televangelist who promises you a thousand dollars return from God for every dollar you send to his ministry. "If only you would have faith, there would be a miracle in your life!" There is an urgency to it, that only what is in the pocket of the magician can alleviate this crisis.
He is a manipulator. He says, "Love me!" and he means it. He is bereft of love in his life. Motherless, fatherless, even without a country, Obama seeks approval from the teeming masses he actually despises. In return for your love, he will make unemployment carry on forever, the skies clean, and the sea levels diminish. "If you love me, you have to make sure Congress passes this bill!" It doesn't matter which bill he means, it's all about him, isn't it?
Will you receive anything from the hustler? Do you believe the words of the gigolo, who provides fake love for real money? Why do you want to make Obama feel loved anyway? Is he such a poor waif that he requires such things? After all, he resides in the White House and you... well, you...
He has a job, a family, a pension. Do you? What is it that Obama lacks? What does the Bernie Madoff of politics need that you, the victim, can or should willingly give? If you knew Madoff was a crook, would you ever invest in his ideas? Then why would you believe in the pipe-dreams of Obama?
Obama is like a crack addict, an alcoholic, telling you he will use your money to buy a suit so he can get a job, or that he will honestly get a hot meal. You can trust him, can't you? After all, just because all other politicians are bums, street tramps, that doesn't mean this urchin is cut from the same cloth, does it?
You are a fool, a mark, a patsy, waiting to be hoodwinked by talk of headwinds, external catastrophes, and past histories inherited. You are to be sympathetic to the plight of this poor unfortunate who just happened to enter the White House, by no effort of his own. His lot is bad luck. We ought to feel sorry for the man, give him a break, as he said!
We should applaud his efforts in the midst of adversity, as a retarded child who can put on his own clothes. His standards must be lowered so that he can feel right, have self-esteem, walk tall. We ought not mock the challenged, but keep silent as he walks into walls. It matters not that our economy is sinking, or that our war efforts are reaping only more hatred against America - we need to keep marching to the drum of the lowest common denominator.
President Obama is a leaf in the wind, not responsible for his results, his fate sealed by cruel destiny. It's not his fault, and don't blame him! It's a mess created by Congress, by Republicans, by talk show hosts, by smears. If only they would leave him alone, he could concentrate on his job.
And, hey, now that you know his story, "What will it take to get you into a Chevy Volt?"
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
So, the commies will gather on Wall Street, literally, Saturday, Sept 17 2011? Let's first get in a couple of cheap shots:
(1) Hope they enjoy protesting empty buildings.
(2) How do communists get bailed out without money?
Now, let's move on to the meat of it. As long as they're all in one place,
(1) hose them down with honey and unpack the army ants,
(2) release the hounds,
(3) set up speakers all around the area and constantly play patriotic music,
(4) set up paintball snipers from the windows,
(5) lay down a gigantic sheet before they arrive, then lift it and them with several helicopters and drop the whole mess in the Hudson River.
It only goes downhill from there.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
by Tom Wise
In the beginning... there was Feudalism. This followed the Dark Period of man.
Theocracy was also prevalent, the Vatican controlling extensively in the political realm.
Oligarchies were common, and the era of Machiavelli was at hand.
Kings ruled with God's "blessing."
Along 1750, a new concept began to be formed, that colonies could be free provinces, although at that time these thoughts were not well-defined.
In 1776, many great men broke from the traditional methods of rule in order to form a country "by the people, and for the people."
These first great freedom fighters I term "the Old Left." They believed in freedoms: speech, religion, pursuit of happiness. They believed in limits: checks and balances, the rights of the individual not to exceed the rights of another. Even so, majorities were the deciding factor and God the overriding concern.
In 1789, the French copied the Americans, toppling their maniacal sun-god king, but they allowed mobs to rule, their so-called "democracy" going awry.
The shift from religion to science began in earnest in the late 1800's with the advent of the theory of evolution.
From this sprang the modern-day fascists, communists, socialists, humanists, secularists, atheists, and the like. All of these viewed religion as an enemy. Each of these tended to subvert the might and grandeur of the greatest era for freedom, 1750-1800.
Philosophers took center stage: Nietzsche, Schopenhauer. Hitlers were hatched.
Freedom of speech became a battle of volume. Freedom of religion became anathema. The pursuit of happiness came to apply only to the fringes.
The New Left was born. Whereas George Washington was a radical Leftist of his time in that he opposed religious persecution and tyrannical taxation, the New Left of 20th century dictators and 21st century post-fascists opposed religion as an attack on the perversions of feminism and homosexuality, and begged for handouts based on begrudged back compassion (for want of a better term). The latter manifested itself in welfare states, anti-discrimination laws, and frivolous lawsuits, laying waste the values and purses of both state and individual.
The same New Left which cried for money then blamed the government for faulty spending!
The Old Left became the New Right, attempting to maintain the religious freedoms and government restraints of the founding fathers.
Some from the Old Left became unwitting members of the New Left, moderate Republicans and radical Democrats.
The New Left became the worst of mankind, befriending enemies of ideology for the sake of world domination. Evil met evil.
The end of this story is yet to be written.
There are five levels of wealth redistribution:
(1) The first level is the most benign. It is voluntary charity. Here, one with excess wealth, or with the mind to think that way, distributes to one less fortunate. In doing so, there is no exercise of coercion but of the spiritual variety. It could be that religious experience presses guilt upon the conscience, but it should not be dismissed that this type of giving is from the heart and without government. Despite cries that the Torah and/or Jesus demands care for the poor, the actual Biblical model is personal. The state is given no power to force the blessed into accommodating the afflicted. It is a command from God, any omission of duty recorded as a sin between the Lord and the individual.
(2) The second level is intrusive but provides value. It is taxation with representation. In this schematic, wealth is extracted by law (fairness depending on various factors), a semi-pleasant way to say that the giving is coerced. Allocation of funds is at the discretion of the governing body (for example, the United States Congress). However, representation of the constituency brings an overall general welfare, at least in theory. In such framework, the poor as well as the wealthy enjoy common defense, enforcement of law, healthy roadways, public facilities such as libraries, and other necessities and amenities. This level becomes corrupted when special interests (corporations, unions, racial blocs, etc) take hold of the system.
(3) The third level is coercive but limited. It is theft. There is no value provided, no exit other than self-defense. At least it is quick, a singular event, and generally not life-destructive.
(4) The fourth level is coercive and wide-ranging. It is taxation without representation, that is, tyranny. A king, for example, sets the rate of taxation, his noblemen exact such dues by force if necessary, and the services provided are arbitrary and open to capricious change. The less coercive or more reasonable is a tyrant, the less he is such and the more so a representative of the people (there is an aspect in this level that perspective paints in the gaps of this image). Nevertheless, monarchy and totalitarianism are not models of government upon which secure societies and stable economies are built.
(5) The fifth level is coercive and devastating. It is change of civilization. When, for instance, the barbarians pillaged the Roman Empire, the residents of said empire were thrown from their wealth without even a chance of recognition by cultural kinship (as perhaps a tyrant might have for a fellow countryman). The overthrow of ownership is complete, and without mercy or regard for previous legalities. This level encompasses full-scale successful invasions as well as transformational revolutions.
by Tom Wise
We often hear that America is broke, that we have to dig out of this mess, and that it’s not moral to stick our children and grandchildren with the bill for our own excesses. Most of this is true. But the solutions are not as complicated, painful or dangerous as some may think or say.
First, let’s identify the problem: (1) The government spends too much on projects, both warranted and not. There is built-in cost overrun, budget projection and COLA (cost of living adjustment). There is waste, negligence and irresponsible funding. There is fraud, theft, and embezzlement. There is nepotism, favoritism, and collusion. Well, you get the picture. It’s a mess. (2) As a people, we use credit like it’s cash. We buy houses and cars we can’t afford, put gas and food on the card, and treat many luxuries as necessities. That’s when we work. Many people either don’t work or otherwise have their hand out to the federal government for “assistance” and “benefits.” Illegal aliens show up at the social service office for their undeserved piece of the pie. It’s a cycle of class warfare, the have-nots coveting the haves, using every resource at their disposal to live large or at least as tall as the next guy.
None of this would be detrimental to our economy if we had an economy. Our manufacturing jobs have been shipped overseas, along with the machinery and fixtures necessary to make anything. Our service sector has become an ad hoc consortium of temp workers and ill-trained goofballs. Unions demand wages which were in vogue and affordable 40 years ago, while producing merchandise half as worthy. Entrepreneurs drown in a mountain of red tape from local to federal officials, then compete for a scrap once the hurdles are overcome. Meanwhile, foreign entities entice corporations overseas with cheap exploitable labor, low tax rates, easy regulation and a judicial system that protects nobody. China manipulates its currency and tariff system, OPEC manipulates energy, and our own federal agencies manipulate the American labor force.
The end result is that we’re high on the hog while earning a pittance.
Don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against the vagaries of capitalism. It’s a hell of a lot better than living under the dictatorship of the proletariat (socialism on the way to communism) or the gold dinar (Arabic sharia law) or any eco-centric utopia which never has and never will fly. However, no one is telling the American people that it’s time to pull back on the extravagance, but at the same time there is another faction screaming that compassion is being trampled by thriftiness! Capitalism can’t right itself under those circumstances, and will probably continue to drift into oligarchy as long as our elected officials are purchased through tax lobbyists rather than kept straight by informed and active citizens.
So, what’s the solution? As I see it, we need an economic reset. This has been kited a number of times but never with the vigor such a suggestion demands. In fact, most plans of this sort are mealy-mouthed paeans to the current financial apparatus while simultaneously bad sermons to impudent punks. Basically, most who approach a grand solution to our ills plead with Wall Street while preaching to Main Street. This won’t work and it won’t do. Instead, let me give to you this bold idea:
Scrap the mortgage system.
Let’s face facts: Even at 5% APR, a homeowner pays over a 30 year period about double the asking price ($386,000 for a $200,000 purchase), not counting taxes, insurance, maintenance and repairs. There are two inequities here: (a) The lending institution is making a profit by loaning money not its own. It’s bad enough that the lender is actually a passive earner, but in most cases the mortgage writer receives its infusion of capital from the Federal Reserve (the Fed), and this consortium of banks (not government agency) creates these dollars out of thin air. They don’t even truly “print” money anymore but just adds zeroes to the account of whomever is in a position to ask (not you). Thus, the homeowner must work for decades to pay off an initial liquidity position, that is, to pay off the loan. The Fed has risked nothing (except perhaps reputation and certainly the strength of our nation), and the bank little (the mortgage will soon be bundled and sold to another investor), but the homeowner is at risk every month to lose his or her home. (b) The interest paid to the lender is capital not available to the homeowner and to the nation. Assuming thrift, that interest could be placed in savings for college education, medical emergencies, starting a business, or simply retirement. But that sum will never go anywhere except to the mortgage department, where it will be used to build offices, pay employees, and entice further suckers (ahem... I mean, help generations of Americans).
Again, don’t get me wrong. Any business that offers a service has the right to expect payment for it, handsomely if they can extract it. However, there is currently a monopoly hold on the structure. The Fed controls capitalization by its Fed funds rate, the banks control the mortgage industry as a consequence of this capitalization (that is, to lend at interest is justified by borrowing at interest), and the government controls the flow by means of the “mortgage interest deduction” on income tax, a scam if ever there was one. There is a better way.
I would allow banks to charge only a service fee, not perpetuate an ongoing mortgage interest plan. If, for example, a borrower needed $200,000, a lender might charge 25% flat fee, or $50,000. This could be financed by amortization, without interest. The key is the Federal Reserve. Banks must be capitalized, but if they are charged interest it is unfair to ask them not to pass on that cost; and since rates bounce around, it’s only natural a bank’s APR change day by day. But what if the Fed charged not interest but also a fee? Is that so insane? It’s not like the Fed borrows the money, they simply “invent” it.
How high can the bank fee fly? That is negotiable, but certainly even asking 50% from a potential borrower is not out of the question. At that rate, a $200,000 loan would cost $300,000, much less than the $386,000 due at 5% over 30 years. Good old competition and economic conditions can keep fees manageable, and a bit of federal regulation should be put into place to keep collusion out of the system.
Now, it gets better. Without mortgage interest, there is no necessity for a mortgage interest deduction. Without that linchpin, one which most Americans expect, the entire tax code may be overhauled. The mortgage interest deduction is in reality only a way to keep borrowers hooked to an archaic system of home ownership. The ability to lower one’s tax burden is enticing but is valueless if one is able to save and grow without it. This teat can and should be removed from the mouth. Instead, a flat tax or Fair tax (national sales tax without income tax) can replace the behemoth in place. The federal government should not cry foul either, since it is this deduction which permits nearly 43% of the population from “paying their fair share.” And, with a flattened tax rate, no one is mortally wounded.
The borrower would be greatly empowered. All things (wages, inflation) being equal, extra liquidity (cash) would grow the American economy in a dynamic and diverse manner. Allowing for creativity and freedom to profit, there is no reason many craftsmen and industrialists shouldn’t invest in their own future. The more, the merrier. If the market should demand fruit vendors, the capital would be there. If a small appliance found favor, its production even in limited numbers should be possible. Such a service, agricultural or manufacturing base may seem small, but multiply this by thousands and soon America would be supported by its own might rather than by chintzy foreign goods foisted by soulless multinational corporations. Not that such mega-entities should perish but their power should and must be diminished, for the good of all.
The Federal Reserve would also be muzzled. Since there would be no necessity for an institutional lending rate, the Fed would not be able to manipulate markets by monkeying with interest rates, keeping them artificially low to attract capitalization or high to bring in bond buyers. The market can and should set the levels at which money is available. The interest rates on other than mortgages is in any event better set by local lenders who understand the community. As for money supply, there is no one alive who would argue that this is overinflated to the point of absurdity. A system such as I have described would at least bring the “printing presses” to a manageable speed, if not a halt. The resulting burst of certain bubbles is nevertheless a necessary consequence in allowing free markets to determine value by putting a stop to bailouts. This applies doubly to business failures, even at the highest levels. If such entities have some intrinsic value, and the Fed (in its infinite wisdom) decides to lend out funds, let it be at reasonable service fee rates, not manipulated interest rates which give strength to weak currency and weakness to actual commodities. The machinations here are complex but the solution is simple, if extreme.
It should be mentioned that I am not advocating for loose lending. In no case should any potential borrower be permitted to evade a qualification procedure of good repute and just fairness. Special favors should be reserved to those who can afford to take chances, who have collateral. This is just good sense, not class warfare. If any proof is necessary to the danger of imprudent lending, the decades 1990-2010 ought to suffice.
Finally, the national debt. If the power over interest rates is removed from the Federal Reserve, the Congress of the United States would not be able to count on unreal funding. The Fed with only the power to charge fees might still apply minimal credit standards for Congress but that’s OK as long as things like “long-term interest rates” are abrogated from that body. Now, if the Fed is prohibited from that practice, the Treasury would be likewise bound. Therefore, T-Bonds would be sold as promissory notes rather than indenturing instruments. The national debt would instantly be paid by these notes, and the amount would be forwarded to a settlement date. Thus, the $300 billion in interest payment currently due might become bundled as a balloon payment later. Such a move would put the United States in a greater position to pay its international and national debts, keeps its current promises re entitlements (they still need major overhaul), and restructure still more systems. The revamped tax code would likely bring an increase in revenue, making this payback accelerated.
There is still the issue with politics, but this is a project for another day. In short, however, it rests with the people. Even such a drastic change as the dismantling of the mortgage system will not save the nation if citizens do no actively and en masse decide that corruption cannot claim the day. The people must elect representatives and other officials who will adhere to strict Constitutional ground. This includes slimmer government, fewer entitlements, fair taxation, correct regulation, protection for the Bill of Rights, and defense of our borders and necessary friends. It means putting many federal workers into the private sector, ceasing mismanaged retirement and health care schemes, allowing entrepreneurs and inventors the ability and protection they need to succeed against the rapacious Chinese, keeping vigilant over the tyranny of the Executive branch, and keeping our hemisphere friendly and helpful.
Thank you. Come again.