When the Have Nots Become the Haves October 25, 2013
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics.Tags: Dr. Robert Owens, nationalized healthcare, Obama agenda, Obamacare, Progressive agenda, Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky, single payer, socialist, socialist agenda
4 comments
Saul Alinsky the political thinker who seems to have had more impact on President Obama than any other was very clear in his most important book about what his motives were and what he was aiming at, “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. ‘The Prince’ was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. ‘Rules for Radicals’ is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”
With the November Revolution of 2008 which gave us one party rule for two years the Progressive Democrat party saw their chance and they took it. Within the two years it took for the people to realize they needed some balance the Progressives passed Obamacare which effectively gives government control of 1/6 of the economy. They passed Dodd-Frank which gives them extensive control over the financial sector. When they couldn’t push Cap-N-Trade even through a rubber-stamp Congress the President imposed it by executive order. When they likewise failed to muster enough of their own hacks to pass the Dream Act once again it was imposed by fiat.
The anti-capitalist programs of the Progressive Bush Administration’s final days were continued and amplified by the Obama Administration. TARP was followed by the Stimulus. The takeover of AIG was joined by the take-over of the auto industry and by force feeding money into the economy for years of quantitative easing as the casino we call the stock market soars.
Unemployment reporting has become totally unhinged from reality as the real rate stays at levels which would easily shine the light of truth on the fiction of a recovery.
According to the government’s own Bureau of Labor Statistics the real unemployment rate (U-6) has been continuously above 13 % for the last year. This information is readily available (one click of the mouse) and yet the media (including Fox) have told us day-by-day that it is falling and is now down to 7.2. This typifies the manufactured reality the federal government and the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media shovel into the public trough. If the plagiarized opinions I hear my fellow citizens share everyday are any indication the average person accepts the fiction as reality.
New research from the Republicans on the Senate Budget Committee shows that over the last five years, the U.S. has spent about $3.7 trillion on welfare.
“We have just concluded the 5th fiscal year since President Obama took office. During those five years, the federal government has spent a total $3.7 trillion on approximately 80 different means-tested poverty and welfare programs. The common feature of means-tested assistance programs is that they are graduated based on a person’s income and, in contrast to programs like Social Security or Medicare, they are a free benefit and not paid into by the recipient,” says the minority side of the Senate Budget Committee.
The minority side also states that, “The enormous sum spent on means-tested assistance is nearly five times greater than the combined amount spent on NASA, education, and all federal transportation projects over that time.” And the staggering sum of $3.7 trillion is not even the entire amount spent on federal poverty support, as states contribute more than $200 billion each year primarily in the form of free low-income health care.
The goal has always been to get enough people receiving benefits to out-vote the ones paying for the benefits. In the fourth quarter of 2011, (the last full year for which statistics are available) 49.2 percent of Americans received benefits from one or more government programs, according to data released Tuesday by the Census Bureau.
In total, the Census Bureau estimated, 151,014,000 Americans out of a population then estimated to be 306,804,000 received benefits from one or more government programs during the last three months of 2011. Those 151,014,000 beneficiaries equaled 49.2 percent of the population.
This included 82,457,000 people–or 26.9 percent of the population–who lived in households in which one or more people received Medicaid benefits.
At the same time a large number of Americans no longer pay any federal taxes. Even the Progressive Huffington Post states, “Some 76 million tax filers, or 46.4 percent of the total, will be exempt from federal income tax in 2011.” (Using the same year as a way of fair comparison)
Just imagine an undisciplined out-of-control shopaholic whose credit limit has just been extended. Now they can continue overspending without any accountability. That shopaholic is the U.S. government.
In the week since Congress reached a temporary deal to suspend the U.S. government’s debt ceiling the Treasury department has added another $375 billion in new debt.
The suspension of a cap on U.S. debt, which was previously fixed at $16.69 trillion, means the Treasury department can spend whatever amount of money it wants.
How much money will the U.S. government put on our grandchildren’s credit card by the next debt ceiling deadline? At the current rate of deficit spending which is $375 billion per week, U.S. public debt will reach $22.70 trillion by Feb. 7, 2014.
All these transfer payments impoverish the working middle class who pay the biggest share of their income in taxes and empower those who receive the benefits, often being the same ones who pay no taxes. Thus the have nots become the haves fulfilling the goal of the Alinsky inspired community organizing program which has become Americas master plan.
As the have nots rise to become the haves and the haves descend to become the have nots the cycle repeats itself in an endless spiral of social warfare and the only ones who really benefit are those whose goal is power irrespective of who has what.
This is why the President and his advisors seem so oblivious to the turmoil and destruction the implementation of their plans cause. The goal of the President and of the other Progressive leaders has always been universal single payer insurance no matter what they had to say to sell it. Obamacare was always seen as a half-step in the direction of total government control. So what do a few speed bumps along the way matter when the goal is to totally transform America?
Our current administration seems to have no respect for the law.
The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) forbids the federal government from enforcing the law in any state that opted out of setting up its own health care exchange.
The Obama administration has ignored that part in the law, enforcing all of its provisions even in states where the federal government is operating the insurance marketplaces on the error-plagued Healthcare.gov website.
Thirty-six states chose not to set up their exchanges, a move that effectively froze Washington, D.C. out of the authority to pay subsidies and other pot-sweeteners to convince citizens in those states to buy medical insurance. However, the IRS overstepped its authority promising to pay subsidies in those states anyway.
The imperious leaders of the have nots now have the government, and tradition, laws, and history all take a back seat to the alliance of Progressives who want to have it all.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Liberty Tyranny and the Rule of Law October 17, 2013
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics.Tags: Dr. Robert Owens, government shutdown, Obamacare, Planned economy, Progressive agenda, socialist economy
1 comment so far
A foundational difference between a country that enjoys the benefits of limited government, individual liberty, personal freedom and economic opportunity, and one that suffers under the yoke of tyranny is that the former observes the rule of law and the latter witnesses the rule of whim.
John Locke the intellectual font from which our founders drank long and deep said, “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom. For in all the states of created beings capable of law, where there is no law, there is no freedom.”
Many people who see themselves as defenders of the common man give their support to people and programs that restrict liberty and relegate most citizens to the role of pawns in the puzzle factory of central planning. These low information voters and starry eyed fellow-travelers either wake up for elections voting for the party their parents did or they believe the demagogues who sell them some version of Utopia. The former are just taking a commercial break between reality shows while the latter honestly believe that one more program will actually usher in heaven on earth and there will be a computer on every desk, a cell phone in very hand and all will be right with the world, Kum ba yah, my lord, Kum ba yah.
The problem with the low information voters is that they really don’t care enough to find out what is happening and they believe whatever the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media tell them. You can’t do much in the face of militant apathy. The inertia outweighs the momentum. All we can do is wait for reality to shout loud enough to wake them up.
The starry eyed fellow-travelers however might be reachable with a reasonable discussion. They are after all seeking after a better world. However, they have swallowed everything the progressive educational system has been swilling out for the last few generations. Less is more: man-made global warming, it takes a village; America is to blame for the troubles of the world, capitalism, bad socialism, good, etc.
In this essay I wish to address these fellow citizens and hope to convince them that when they sign on to the various progressive plans for central-planning whether it is for health care or of the whole economy it inevitably leads to violation of the rule of law, a breakdown of the social contract and the loss of liberty.
When attempting to plan an entire economy or even of a large part, as the 1/6 that represents health care, it is impossible for any piece of legislation to specify every detail for every circumstance. Therefore the laws when passed though they may be thousands of pages long will be large guidelines empowering agencies and bureaucrats to write the specifics with the force of law. Thus the representatives of the people actually delegate their power to unelected individuals who can make law with the wave of a pen. The form of a representative government operating according to democratic principles is maintained while in reality we have rule by decree and an autocratic regime.
James Madison, the Father of the Constitution and our fourth president told us, “It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.”
In these attempts to control and plan entire economies or of large segments of economies those who direct those economies must choose between outcomes. One outcome advances the plan and one does not. Obviously since the plan is the plan whatever obstructs its accomplishment is less desirable than what moves it towards its goal. Therefore the planners must encourage one thing and discourage another. This all comes down to limiting choices and picking winners and losers.
Coal is bad because it slows the progress towards a zero carbon footprint and according to the pet pseudo-science of the day contributes to the global warming that in reality is cyclical and ended more than a decade ago. Therefore coal production and use must be discouraged.
Solar power is good because it is renewable and once you are past the production of the solar panels it causes no pollution. Therefore solar panel production must be encouraged even when it is an inefficient power source. Even after billions of dollars have been poured into boondoggles which profited no one except campaign contributors and other progressive stake-holders good money must follow bad for the plan must go on.
This choosing of winners and losers according to a predetermined plan by unelected members of the nomenclature restricts the liberty of people to work and prosper as they will while rewarding others who make poor investments and some who even go bankrupt leaving the tax payers to clean up the mess.
This is the opposite of the rule of law. Laws to be fair have to apply to everyone. When a nation lives under the rule of law the government does not deny individuals of opportunities or rights. Whenever a government launches out on the road to Utopia it is necessary that it micromanage the economy making specific decisions relating to the actual needs of people with regard to the plan. They must slow some down and speed some up if they want everyone to arrive at the desired location at the desired time.
When law ceases to be generally applied and instead arbitrarily chooses between what one can do and what another may not do, and these choices are different, then the law is no longer creating a level playing field it is building a maze.
Aristotle taught us that, “The only stable state is the one in which all men are equal before the law.” That great Roman Cicero said, “We are in bondage to the law so that we might be free.”
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Give Them an Inch October 11, 2013
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics.Tags: Dr. Owens, government shutdown, healthcare waivers, Impeach Obama, Obamacare, Progressive agenda, socialist agenda
add a comment
Let’s see the government had three years and the entire resources of the federal government and they can’t build a website that works. Now we have a website that won’t let you leave, is open to hackers, presents people with insurance they can’t afford and we are going to fine, excuse me, tax anyone without insurance who doesn’t use it. These people are making the DMV look efficient.
Many of their own supporters and allies tried to warn them the website was not ready. The administration which estimated the cost spent to be 93 million for development of the website and ended up paying $634,320,919, which is more than it cost to develop Facebook, Twitter, or Linkedin, released it knowing it wasn’t ready. Those who have ventured to apply or to investigate report that on average 1 in 10 are able to navigate through the maze to the find the cheese of higher rates.
Maybe that’s because a website tasked with servicing millions was designed to accommodate 50,000? Maybe it’s because it appears as if no one bothered to test it before launch? Maybe it’s because instead of using the most up-to-date technology and the latest computer code the government bought some extremely high priced outdated, costly and buggy technology?
Or perhaps it all merely proves the truth of what Ronald Reagan told us many years ago, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”
The Democrats and their media allies tell us daily that Obamacare is the law of the land and we have no choice but to fund it, obey it, and carry it on our backs till the end of time. They say that Congress passed it, the president signed it, the last election ratified it, the Supreme Court upheld it, and that is that.
Congress did pass it without one Republican vote. This is the first and only entitlement that was passed without even a fig leaf of bipartisan support.
Of course the president signed this Holy Grail the Progressives have been seeking for more than a century, because they know that taking control of the healthcare system, 1/6 of the economy, and taking control of everyone’s health will give them easy access to total control. Or as Lenin said, “Socialized Medicine is the Keystone to the Arch of the Socialist State.”
The last election did return President Obama to the White House for a second term; however, it also returned a Republican majority to the House of Representatives. The Constitution designed the House as the branch of government closest to the people, and this House is listening to the people.
And yes, the Supreme Court did uphold it. How? By calling what the Congress that passed the bill adamantly said was not a tax is a tax. This was an example of philosophical gymnastics that found the argument originally used to pass the bill unconstitutional but found the law constitutional as long as it is what they told us it wasn’t.
All of which brings us to the question, “How can Obamacare be settled law when the president can change it anytime in any way he wants?” There was no provision in the law as passed for all the waivers and exceptions our imperial president makes with the wave of his pen. If it is settled law, how and why can the president change it without Congressional approval?
Is it now illegal or immoral to work to change “settled” law? Does this mean that it is wrong for people who believe abortion is murder to work to change the law. Oh wait a moment the law still says abortion is murder it is only a Supreme Court ruling that holds the laws of the states in check. Does this mean it is now wrong to protest the never ending wars that are impoverishing our nation without contributing to our security?
The First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution says, “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.” The vote to withhold funding for an unpopular law is not only proper and not only voicing the will of the people, but it is also constitutional.
How can it be constitutional for a president to change a law whenever he wants to do so? Should we just add this to the list of unconstitutional acts the present administration has perpetrated since gaining power? How long can a nation stand idly by while a rogue administration grabs power and control? How long will a timid and overawed opposition refrain from raising the cry, “Impeachment!” when faced with the illegal actions of a naked Progressive coup?
Just because something is legal does not mean it is right. Hitler gained power legally. He assumed totalitarian power legally. He built concentration camps legally. He waged war and killed millions legally. So did Stalin. Just because something is legal does not mean it is right. How long America? How long? Have we been giving these Progressive camels inches for so long we don’t even notice they have already taken the whole mile?
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Why Central-Planning Won’t Work October 3, 2013
Posted by Dr. Robert Owens in Politics.Tags: Capitalism, central-planning, collectivism, Democrat agenda, Dr. Robert Owens, Obama’s agenda, Progressive agenda, socialism
1 comment so far
Failure to plan is planning to fail. This truism has been a guiding light in my life and in the lives of countless others. Without planning we would never accomplish much in life. The haphazard serendipity of chance rarely adds up to a consistently positive result. We all know people who seem like they can fall into a sewer and come up smelling like roses. Most of us come up smelling like something quite different if we take the same fall.
On an individual basis planning is absolutely critical. For society some things also need planning such as coining money, defending the nation, and delivering the mail. All of these require planning and for all of these things it is possible to plan realistically and effectively.
There is no argument between the citizen supporters of constitutionally limited government and our perpetually re-elected Progressive collectivists and the fellow-travelers who support them about this. Some planning is both necessary and good. However, this is where we part company. Those who believe in a constitutionally limited government do not believe that it is possible or advisable to try to run an economy and a society through central planning.
The very attempt to use central planning short circuits the myriad of personal decisions which make up the routine functions of a free economy and that is the bedrock of a free society. Every group that advocates central planning, no matter what they call themselves are Utopians who believe that they can do a better job making decisions for everyone than everyone can make for themselves. That is the essence of the Nanny-state: government knows better and must protect us from our own bad choices.
There is one common feature that is clearly a part of all the various collectivist systems no matter what they call themselves. They all call for the deliberate organization of society to accomplish identifiable social goals. That a free society lacks this focus and its activities are guided by the personal whims and feelings of individuals all seeking their own good is always the complaint of the Utopians.
This brings the basic difference between the collectivists and the advocates of personal liberty into stark relief. The different types of collectivists: Socialists, Communists, Fascists, and Progressives may differ as to the specific societal goals towards which they want to drive their populations, and they may differ in their methods depending upon the amount of control they exert over the choices of others. However much they differ from each other they all uniformly differ from the advocates of individual freedom in that they wish to regiment all of society and all its resources to achieve whichever set of goals their particular brand of collectivism sees as the pathway to Nirvana.
Whatever the social goal is whether it’s called the great leap forward, a worker’s paradise, a classless society, the common good, the general welfare, or the Great Society it doesn’t take much reflection to see that these terms are so vague it’s impossible to determine their exact meaning so that any specific course of action could be decided upon. It’s like a war on terror, or drugs, or obesity how are you supposed to know when the goal has been reached or victory achieved?
The welfare and happiness of people cannot be measured on a scale of more or less. There are too many variables. There are too many possible combinations of circumstances that can become either negatives or positives depending upon another set of widely diverse situations. The “good” of any society cannot be expressed as simply or succinctly as the collectivists pretend. It is just too complex.
To direct all of society’s energy and resource by one plan assumes that every need and desire is given a rank in order of importance and a place in order of time. It also assumes that an absolute lineal order of occurrences must proceed from every action. If this happens that will automatically occur. Besides asserting through action that it is possible to order all things as one desires it also inherently expresses the idea that there is one universal set of ethics by which good and bad are obviously seen by the planners. All of these assumptions, assertions and expressions are not only false they are obviously false. No one is as smart as everyone.
The very idea of having a universally accepted and complete code of ethics is beyond the scope of human experience. People are constantly choosing between different values as they go through their daily life. What is best today in this situation may not be best tomorrow in that situation. However, when all of society and all of its resources are to be harnessed and driven in one direction toward a preselected set of goals such a universal and complete set of ethics are not only a necessity they are a prerequisite for success. Since this is unattainable success is also unattainable. If this sounds harsh please view the tattered hulks and broken lives which litter the history of all Utopian collectivist societies.
Only God can plan the end from the beginning. Only God has an ultimate and a true ethical code that is universally applicable to all people in all situations. Only God has a right to order events to suit His purposes. He created all things, and all things exist because He holds them up. All things are His, and He has the ability and the right to do with them as He pleases.
The problem we face is that collectivism puts the state in the place of God. Collectivists believe that government, through its bureaucracy, can make decisions and take action that could only work if designed and carried out with the aid of omniscience and omnipotence neither of which qualities have ever or will ever belong to government.
A scientist once said to God, “You’re not so much. We have learned how to make life in our laboratories.”
God answered, “Is that so.”
The scientist proudly said, “Yes it is and I am willing to have a contest with you right now to see who can make life faster and better.”
“All right,” God said, “let’s go.” With that God stooped down and picked up some dirt and started molding it into a man as the scientist grabbed his test tubes and started pouring liquids from one to another.
Just as God was about to blow the breath of life into His creation, he looked at the scientist and said, “Hey! Get your own dirt.”
There is one thing I have learned in this life: God is God and I am not and neither is anyone or anything else. Sounds like a pretty basic lesson; however, it took me about half of my life to learn. If we could only get those entrusted with our government to learn the same thing maybe we would stop our slow slide into that long dark night.
Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion. He is the Historian of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com © 2013 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook or Twitter @ Drrobertowens / Edited by Dr. Rosalie Owens
Dr. Robert Owens Chronicles the History of the Future 