Somewhere In Kenya A Village Is Missing An Idiot

2009 Report Card

A B+?  Talk about grade inflation and an ego that knows no bounds!!!  This guy is quickly becoming as bad as that peanut farming hillbilly from Plains, Georgia.  Can you get worse than F-?

Which Is It Janet...Did The System Work Or Not...Make Up Your Mind

Do all feminazis look like a man in a bad dress?

A Decision I Can Live With Happily

Ford Motor Company Kept Workers Who Praised 9/11 Employed for 3 Years

Posted By Debbie On December 28, 2009 @ 2:09 pm In Blog Posts

By Debbie Schlussel
Last week, Ford Motor Company finally won a suit by a former employee, Arab Muslim Saleem Shariff, who cheered the 9/11 attacks and high-fived fellow Arab Muslim employees on the day of the attacks.  Three others–Khalid Ali Alward, Abdul Mohamed, and Saleh Mohamed Omar–also Arab Muslims, participated and did the same thing:  they cheered and high-fived the 9/11 attacks.  And they all sued when they were not hired for permanent employment, but only Shariff appealed after losing at the trial court level.  The Michigan Court of Appeals, in an unpublished decision (which I obtained and you can read here), decided in Ford’s favor.

This case is yet another refutation of the mainstream media claim that Muslims in America didn’t cheer the 9/11 attacks and were upset like every other group of Americans.  That simply wasn’t the case.  And Saleem Shariff and his three buddies weren’t the only Muslim U.S. residents (AINOs–Americans in Name Only; pronounced:  “Ay-Nuhss”) who celebrated the mass murder of thousands of Americans.
I’m glad Ford won, but only kinda glass-four-fifths-empty glad.  You see, I’m perplexed as to why a major American automotive manufacturer with a name brand to protect, would keep in its employ four employees who cheered the wholesale murder of nearly 3,000 Americans.  Ford didn’t fire Shariff or the others until 2004, three years after he cheered and high-fived the attacks. Why not?  There is simply no excuse for it.  And it’s basically saying, well, yes, we’re a company based in America, but we’ll tolerate employees who cheer the mass murder of Americans, because we have no backbone and worship at the altar of political correctness and uber-tolerance.
Part of the problem is the union–the UAW, which also didn’t have a problem with these schmucks praising the attacks on America, and pressured Ford to keep them on.  But, certainly, this behavior would have constituted just cause for firing, even under the UAW collective bargaining agreement.  I believe Ford simply didn’t care enough to fire them immediately and stick to its guns.
Here’s a sampling of why I’m so ticked off by this and why I see the ghost of Hitler fan Henry Ford in the behavior of officials at the company he founded.

Plaintiff was a temporary employee at defendant’s [Ford's] engine plant on September 11, 2001, and was perceived, along with a coworker also of Arabic descent, as exhibiting signs of celebration when the World Trade Center was attacked [DS:  he high-fived and cheered; that ain't perceived--it's quite blatant].  Dave Allen, one of defendant’s labor relations employees, and the plant’s union agreed that plaintiff would be allowed to finish his temporary employment, and thereafter would be considered for further employment with defendant only at other locations. . . .
Plaintiff asserts in his brief that his conduct was misinterpreted “because he is Arab.”  This constitutes speculation whether laughing and exchanging high-fives after learning of the deadly terrorist attack would have been deemed acceptable if he had belong to another ethnicity. . . . Moreover, we find it illogical to suggest that the determination whether such conduct is appropriate is determined by the ethnicity of the person engaginf in the conduct, rather than the conduct itself along with the circumstances under with it occurs.

Three cheers for Michigan Court of Appeals Judges Pat M. Donofrio, David H. Sawyer, and Donald S. Owens, all of whom had the good sense in their opinion that Ford Motor Company lacked in continuing to employ these scumbags for three years after they praised attacks on America and mass murder of nearly 3,000 Americans.

Major Ballou's ENTIRE Letter...Thanks To Val From NW Wisconsin

The words and deeds of noble men are awe inspiring and humbles me to no end.

Major Sullivan Ballou's Last Letter to His Wife

A week before the Civil War Battle of Bull Run Sullivan Ballou, a Major in the Second Rhode Island Volunteers, wrote home to his wife in Smithfield.

July 14, 1861

Sara Ballou

Washington, D.C.

Dear Sara,
The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days, perhaps tomorrow.  Less I shall not be able to write you again, I feel compelled to write a few lines that may fall under your eye when I am no more.
Our movement may be one of a few days duration and full of pleasure -- and it may be one of severe conflict and death to me.  Not my will, but thine 0 God, be done. If it is necessary that I should fall on the battlefield for my country, I am ready.  I have no misgivings about or lack of confidence in the cause in which I am engaged, and my courage does not halt or falter.  I know how American civilization now leans upon the triumph of the government and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the revolution.  I am willing, perfectly willing, to lay down all my joys in this life to help maintain this government and to pay that debt.
But, my dear wife, when I know that with my own joys I lay down nearly all of yours, and replace them in this life with cares and sorrows -- when, after having eaten for long years the bitter fruit of orphanage myself, I must offer it as their only sustenance to my dear little children -- is it weak or dishonorable, while the banner of my purpose floats calmly and proudly in the breeze, that my unbounded love for you, my darling wife and children, should struggle in fierce, though useless, contest with my love of country?
I cannot describe to you my feelings on this calm summer night, when two thousand men are sleeping around me, many of them enjoying the last, perhaps, before that of death -- and I, suspicious that Death is creeping behind me with his fatal dart, am communing with God, my country, and thee.
I have sought most closely and diligently, and often in my breast, for a wrong motive in thus hazarding the happiness of those I loved and I could not find one. A pure love of my country and of the principles have often advocated before the people and "the name of honor that I love more than I fear death" have called upon me, and I have obeyed.
Sara, my love for you is depthless.  It seems to bind me with mighty cables that nothing but omnipotence can break. Yet my love of country comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly with all those chains to the battlefield.  The memory of all the blissful moments I have enjoyed with you come crowding over me.  I feel most deeply grateful to God and you that I have enjoyed them for so long.  How hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes our hopes and future years when, God willing, we might still have lived and loved together and seen our boys grown up to honorable manhood around us.  I have, I know, but few and small claims upon Divine Providence, but something whispers to me -- perhaps it is the wafted prayer of my little Edgar -- that I shall return to my loved ones unharmed.  If I do not, my dear Sarah, never forget how much I love you, and when my last breath escapes me on the battlefield, it will whisper your name.
Forgive my many faults and the many pains I have caused you.  How thoughtless, how foolish I have sometimes been.  How gladly would I wash out with my tears every little spot upon your happiness, and struggle with all the misfortune of this world, to shield you and my children from harm.  But I cannot.  I must watch you from the spirit land and hover near you, while you buffet the storms with your precious little freight, and wait with sad patience till we meet to part no more.  But, oh Sara, if the dead can come back to this earth and fly unseen around those they love, I shall always be with you on the brightest day and the darkest night.  Always.  Always.  When the soft breeze fans your cheek, it shall be my breath.  When the cool air caresses your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by.  Sara, do not morn me dead.  Think I am gone and wait for me.  We shall meet again.
As for my little boys, they will grow as I have done, and never know a father's love and care.  Little Willie is too young to remember me long, and my blue-eyed Edgar will keep my frolics with him among the dimmest memories of his childhood.  Sarah, I have unlimited confidence in your maternal care and your development of their characters.  Tell my two mothers his and hers I call God's blessing upon them.  O Sarah, I wait for you there! Come to me, and lead thither my children.
Your loving husband,
Sullivan Ballou
A week after writing this letter, Major Ballou was killed at the first Battle of Bull Run.

And Mark From SW Wisconsin writes...

ISN'T IT REMARKABLE THAT THE PRESS CAN FIND EVERY WOMAN WITH WHOM TIGER HAS HAD AN AFFAIR IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, WITH PHOTOS, TEXT MESSAGES, RECORDED PHONE CALLS, ETC. THEY KNOW NOT ONLY THE CAUSE OF THE  FAMILY FIGHT, BUT THEY EVEN KNOW IT WAS A WEDGE FROM HIS GOLF BAG THAT SHE USED TO BREAK OUT THE WINDOWS IN THE ESCALADE.  NOT ONLY THAT, THEY KNOW WHICH WEDGE!!! THIS IS THE SAME PRESS  THAT CANNOT LOCATE OBAMA'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE ... OR FIND OUT WHAT PASSPORT HE TRAVELED TO PAKISTAN WITH...OR FIND ANY OF HIS PAPERS OR FUNDING SOURCES WHILE IN COLLEGE. TRULY REMARKABLE.


Hey Mark, I've got "news" for you, they don't want to...He is THEIR messiah.  Can't be telling the truth about da messiah.

Superb

The Passing of America

Otis A. Glazebrook IV

One of the most stirring moments of Ken Burns’ Public television classic, The Civil War, was David McCullough’s reading of a last love letter written a week before the first battle of Bull Run by Major Sullivan Ballou of the Second Rhode Island Volunteers to his wife Sarah, at home  in Smithfield.

By simply changing the word Sarah to America, five times, the letter has the quality of a forlorn epitaph, as if looking at the inverse, through a mirror. Sullivan Ballou confronts his own mortality. Major Ballou’s revised letter reminds me of qualities and characteristics of that unique American spirit where love of family and love of country are inextricably intertwined; as I am haunted by the passing of the America I grew up in and loved:

July 14,1861 
 Camp Clark, Washington DC 

Dear America: 

The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days - perhaps tomorrow. And lest I should not be able to write you again I feel impelled to write a few lines that may fall under your eye when I am no more. 

I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in the cause in which I am engaged, and my courage does not halt or falter. I know how American Civilization now leans upon the triumph of the government and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution. And I am willing - perfectly willing - to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this government, and to pay that debt. 

America, my love for you is deathless, it seems to bind me with mighty cables that nothing but omnipotence can break; and yet my love of Country [you] comes over me like a strong wind and bears me irresistibly with all those chains to the battlefield. The memories of all the blissful moments I have enjoyed with you come crowding over me, and I feel most deeply grateful to God and you, that I have enjoyed them for so long. And how hard it is for me to give them up and burn to ashes the hopes and future years, when, God willing, we might still have lived and loved together, and see our boys grown up to honorable manhood around us. 

If I do not return, my dear America, never forget how much I loved you, nor that when my last breath escapes me on the battle field, it will whisper your name... 

Forgive my many faults, and the many pains I have caused you. How thoughtless, how foolish I have sometimes been!...

But, 0 America, if the dead can come back to this earth and flit unseen around those they love, I shall always be with you, in the brightest day and in the darkest night... always, always. And when the soft breeze fans your cheek, it shall be my breath, or the cool air your throbbing temple, it shall be my spirit passing by. 

America do not mourn me dead; think I am gone and wait for me, for we shall meet again...”

Major Sullivan Ballou was killed a week later at the 1st Battle of Bull Run. (First Manassas.)

Sullivan Ballou’s letter was never mailed. Sarah would receive the letter in question. It would be found later, among Major Ballou’s effects when Rhode Island Governor William Sprague traveled to Virginia to retrieve the remains of Rhode Island’s sons who had given their “last full measure of devotion”.

When Major Ballou died, his wife, Sarah, was 24. She later moved to New Jersey to live out her life with her son. Sarah never re-married. She died at age 80 in 1917.

Sullivan and Sarah Ballou are buried next to each other at Swan Point Cemetery in Providence, RI.

 America was buried yesterday under the tyranny of socialism, we just haven’t felt it … yet.

From Jon In Wisconsin...

From Rudy In New Jersey...

All this guy has done...EVER...is write books about himself.  A lot of it just plain lies.  He did absolutely nothing as a U.S. Senator.  Where was he born?  Why hasn't he released his college transcripts?  Just what was he doing in that America hating church for twenty years?  He was elected for one reason only...the color of his skin...Affirmative Action gone horribly wrong.

I Love It When My Friends Send Me Stuff...From Val And Wayne...Thanks!!!

Principle vs. Pragmatism

The truth of the matter is that when it comes to the most fundamental questions about human society, culture, and government, the middle ground is not a sensible place to occupy. When it comes down to the fundamentals, things are either right or they are wrong; to suggest that they may be right for me and wrong for you is nonsense. Moral relativism comes into conflict with the Law of Non-Contradiction when operating at the level of fundamental values.

There are, as our forefathers recognized, certain universal and self-evident truths. Human beings, for example, have been endowed by their Creator with an unalienable right to life. It is, therefore, wrong to murder an innocent human being, regardless of whether they are in the womb or in a nursing home. The act of murder is wrong regardless of who makes the decision to carry it out (mother, doctor, family) or how it is denominated (abortion, mercy killing, euthanasia). The character of an act is not changed by the rhetoric that accompanies it or the person who performs it. Such an act cannot be both right and wrong right for you and wrong for me. It is either right or wrong period.

There are certain principles that we unwilling to budge on.

Here's just one example: We believe that this earth and everything in it bears the signature of a divine Creator, who so loved the world that he sent His only Son to die on a cross for the sins of humankind. Human beings are created in his image and because of the sacrifice made to redeem them, every individual is of infinite worth, value, and dignity. Therefore, all persons rich or poor, black or white, whole or handicapped, born or unborn?have a God given right to life. That right should be protected by law and respected by society, no matter how "unwanted" or "inconvenient" it may be to others. Government should protect innocent life from the moment of conception until natural death. No public program that uses tax dollars to fund abortion or promote euthanasia should ever be foisted on the American taxpayer.

There are other principles that guide our thinking on marriage, freedom, and the role of government in a free and open society. These principles warrant discussion and debate and critical analysis. But rest assured, we will not yield on these principles no matter how much we are vilified, cajoled, or threatened and regardless of whether leaders in the House and Senate pitch a hissy fit and the pundits rant and rave until they turn blue. And if we lose in the short term, we will continue to advance these principles in the long term. There are, after all, some hills worth dying on.

In short, there are certain issues in life that are non-negotiable, no matter how seductively the siren song of "compromise" may beckon. We understand that the way of Washington, particularly in the game of politics, is to "go along to get along." However, at some point a line must be drawn, lest you find yourself slicing and dicing away at your core beliefs until you are left with nothing to believe in. As the songwriter says, "you've got to stand for something or you'll fall for anything." Truer words were never spoken.

2010 Hymn Of The Republic

Mine eyes have seen the treachery of the Dems upon the Hill;
And daily they insist upon another treacherous bill;
The Constitution they do stomp and demonize and kill;
Their lies are marching on.

Chorus
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
In 2010 We’ll Surely Boot Ya!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Their lies are marching on!

First they started bailouts of the banks that never end;
And then of course the stimulus bill they did indeed defend;
Health Care now appears to be their very closest friend;
Their lies are marching on.

Chorus
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
In 2010 We’ll Surely Boot Ya!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Their lies are marching on!

“Cap and Tax” and Amnesty will one day get bills too;
No matter what we say to them, they’ll screw both me and you;
Their characters are flawed, and their honor is not true;
Their lies are marching on.

Chorus
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
In 2010 We’ll Surely Boot Ya!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Their lies are marching on!

The Dems they have forgotten “WE, THE PEOPLE”, have final say;
And plenty of us out here can defeat their arguments all day;
In 2010 election time, from D.C. we will force them away;
Their lies are marching on.

Chorus
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
In 2010 We’ll Surely Boot Ya!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Their lies are marching on!

In Philadelphia long ago America was made;
But never to be ripped apart by politicians paid;
Instead we will unite and send them home ‘cause we’re enraged;
Their lies won't be marching on.

Chorus
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
In 2010 We’ll Surely Boot Ya!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Their lies won't be marching on. Their lies won't be marching on!

Medal Of Honor Recipient Leonard Keller At Final Resting Place

LEONARD B. KELLER
Private First Class, U.S. ARMY Company A, 3rd Battalion, 60th Infantry, 9th Infantry Division

 Leonard Keller had just turned nineteen when he was drafted in the spring of 1966. He completed basic training at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, went on to advanced infantry training at Fort Polk, Louisiana, then joined the 60th Infantry in Vietnam. When he arrived that summer, he experienced culture shock. The sights, sounds, and smells made him feel that he was on a different planet.
 His unit was stationed in the Mekong Delta.
Keller’s days took on a predictable rhythm: going out “into the bush” by helicopter or boat for several days on a reconnaissance mission, then returning to base for a day of rest and relaxation, then out into the field again. But constant firefights with the enemy kept things interesting.
 On May 2, 1967, another U.S. infantry company was ambushed by the Vietcong in an area near the Ap Bac Zone, and Private First Class Keller’s unit went to the rescue. Soon after it was dropped off by helicopter, heavy fire erupted from enemy bunkers and snipers in surrounding trees. The killed and wounded from the other American company were sprawled on the ground. His own unit was also taking casualties. As he heard voices yelling, “Retreat!” Keller became angry and called out, “Let’s go get them!” to an American named Ray. The two of them charged the enemy.
 Carrying an M-60 machine gun and belts of ammunition looped over his shoulders, Keller killed a Vietcong soldier in his path. Clambering up onto a dike with Ray, he began a systematic assault on a series of enemy bunkers. First Keller laid down a base of fire,
and then his comrade lobbed grenades into an enemy position. Then it was Keller’s turn to throw the grenades while Ray provided him with covering fire. After they had taken out three more North Vietnamese positions, they continued their ferocious two-man fight against the enemy despite continuous withering fire. They were able to destroy four more North Vietnamese bunkers before their assault carried them into the tree line beyond the bunkers. There, enemy snipers who had been exacting a heavy toll on the American force climbed down from their firing positions and ran away. Eventually, the entire North Vietnamese force broke ranks and withdrew. Out of ammunition, Keller returned to his unit and helped load wounded GIs onto helicopters for evacuation.
 In the summer of 1968, Keller, now a sergeant, was back in the United States when he was informed that he was to receive the Medal of Honor. However, he left the Army that August having heard nothing more about the medal. He assumed that there had been a mistake or the brass had changed its mind. Soon thereafter he was on the West Coast when a team of Secret Service agents contacted him and told him he had to go to Washington, D.C.
 Leonard Keller was awarded the Medal of Honor at the White House on September 19, 1968. It was a moving occasion for him and for President Lyndon Johnson as well. Keller noticed that tears coursed down LBJ’s cheeks throughout the entire ceremony.

Warm and 'fuzzy facts'

By CHARLES HURT

Last Updated: 5:40 AM, December 7, 2009

Posted: 4:14 AM, December 7, 2009

COPENHAGEN -- Shakespeare's Marcellus was right. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

In this hotbed of homogeneity, where global warming is a sacred assumption for the faithful, 15,000 people will come together from 192 countries to pray for two weeks over what can be done to save the Earth from certain doom. Few places are better suited to handle the throngs of unquestioning believers who will journey from around the globe.

Dissent is not tolerated, and diversity -- in any form other than biodiversity -- is not welcome here.

But it turns out that Denmark's big claim to greenery isn't quite so impressive when you find out that they do not include one of their biggest and dirtiest industries -- shipping -- in calculating their annual carbon footprint.

That's because the last great world climate treaty, Kyoto, does not make them include their nasty shipping business in the calculation. No wonder the Danes liked that so much.

Even if President Obama gives away the farm when he arrives next week and signs some drastic pledge, it will be a treaty that must be ratified by the Senate.

His Democratic majority dwindles to basically nothing without members from coal states, heavy-industry states and other states where people generally would like to find a job.

But this crowd gathering here is far worse than just a bunch of hand-wringing Hamlets dithering in Denmark.

Some 40,000 tons of carbon will be spewed getting this crowd together and keeping them in comfort.

That is the amount of carbon dioxide produced by more than 60 of the world's smaller countries in an entire year -- combined.

churt@nypost.com

'Nuff Said

Man-Made Global Warming (AGW)...The Data Does Not Support It

• The Earth’s climate has never been static It has always changed. And nobody—not a soul—knows what an ideal climate is.
• AGW is not the only theory of climate change There are many rival theories, but you have never heard of them. One—or even none—of them might also be true and could be useful in predicting future climates.
• The accuracy of historical temperatures is questionable We do not have direct measurements for most of the Earth’s history, and have to rely on statistics—-God help us!—to impute the missing records. This process is fraught with error and uncertainty. Anyway…
• Historical temperature changes are not direct evidence of AGW Because it was cooler, or hotter, in the past is not direct evidence that AGW is true. Any historical temperature observation is consistent with all known rival climate change theories. Thus, past temperatures are, at best,indirect evidence for many different climate change theories, and not just AGW.
• Statements of what happens when it is hot outside are not evidence that AGW is true If you heard that an iceberg melted when it was exposed to hot air, you have learned what you already knew: ice melts when it is hot. Absolutely no observation of any plant, mineral, or animal is direct evidence of AGW. Thus, every horror story you have heard about small fish whose native waters got uncomfortably warm, about a species of grass that was stressed under the harsh sun, or that a small town in Argentina set a record high temperature on Tuesday, or another in Pittsburgh was especially wet one afternoon, and on and on, are not direct evidence that AGW is true. They areonly statements of what happens when it gets hot out or when it rains or fails to.
• Every statement about what might happen if AGW is true is worthless Horror stories about the evil, wretched future that awaits us once the “tipping point” has been breached are useless as evidence for AGW. They are empty of any kind of proof. “Studies” that claim future awfulness due to AGW are inappropriately and disingenuously used by scientists (and other forms of life) to hint that AGW is true. This is naughty of them. This behavior is equivalent to the Tokyo scientist who solicits his government for a Godzilla-studies grant because of the havoc the old nuclear fire breather couldcause if he were real. This grant is not evidence of Godzilla’s existence.
• The best indirect evidence for AGW is the fit of climate models to historical data AGW climate models can reproduce some of the historical data in some regions fairly well, but they cannot do so in all times or areas. And many of those rival climate change theories fit the historical data equally well. Thus, the ability to reproduce historical data to an arbitrary level of goodness is not especially strong evidence in favor of AGW.
• There does not exist direct evidence for the truth of AGW The only possible direct evidence would be if the AGW models skillfully predicted future climate data. These skillful predictions would tell us that the theory underlying the models is likely to be true. But no AGW climate models have yet skillfully predicted new data. However, some rival climate change theories have. Thus, according to the best direct evidence available, it is more likely that these rival theories are true than is AGW theory.

Class Warfare

"The housing activists at ACORN and similar organizations saw lending discrimination as a form of class and racial warfare; therefore, they saw nothing wrong with using political power to fight what they saw as a systemic form of political injustice.  With crucial aid from fellow-traveling liberals such as William Proxmire and Ted Kennedy, they succeeded in pushing through Federal legislation that put the power of the state behind their activist agenda.  Some years later, of course, the fruits of this socialistic Ponzi scheme would come home to roost and the culprits would adroitly spin around and blame unregulated capitalism.  But, from a purely economic point of view, when you use the power of government to force banks to make loans for political reasons, you don't have capitalism.  You have a system of organized, state-sponsored extortion."  Peter Schweizer

I Am Hoping For More And More Of This...

As people lift up the rock he crawled under from and see the truth.

CLIMATEGATE

Our Kids Need To Learn Chinese

A Fat Lip For This? He Got Off Easy!!!!!

The news coming out about the Navy Seals being court martialled for bruising up a terrorist is very troubling.  Our soldiers are out there risking their lives to protect us and the socialist, flower children running this country (including the Officer core) are handcuffing them.  We, the people, need to be very angry about this.  Just look at these pictures of what this terrorist did to four of our countrymen!!!  A fat lip???  Bruises???  I am surprised that our Navy Seals didn't execute him on the spot.  They are more disciplined than I would have been!!!!  Write your Congressman (or woman) and complain LOUDLY!!!!  These Navy Seals should be praised for capturing this piece of crap, not put under arrest.

From The Front Line...

This post is from a friend of mine that still is in Afghanistan...fighting the good fight.  I have edited the content as I have seen fit....

Hey Buddy,

Well first and foremost how are you and the family doing?  I'm hoping all are safe and happy.

Well let us start on this list of critical faults; the most important so far that I've seen is:

 ......by far the fact that this is NOT a true XXXX being as it is bolted together and has a flat bottom covered by a belly armor system that will not hold up to the ordinance being utilized in this war against our warfighters.

......there are already serious cracks being found throughout this vehicle ( see issue awareness reports from theater), and it hasn't even seen combat as of yet.

......the roof structure has serious integrity issues and egress problems brought about by the placement of antenna brackets and that thin cover metal just above the doors that can be detrimental to opening the doors in the case of roll overs which we have seen already.

......there is no protection at all for the power plant it; is surrounded by fiberglass and plastic, which makes it susceptible to small arms fire to say the least.

......it has a frame and we as of yet haven't received any frame parts for repairing the XXXXXX's; how are they going to get these parts here to repair these when they can't get parts in theater to fix BD trucks that are already in need of the same parts????

......someone has failed to really think out the egress issues with these vehicles; if you take a hit to either side and are forced to egress a crew member from above ( gunners hatch) you'll have serious issues if it's possible at all???

......this external FSS system has to be redone, there couldn't have been alot of thought given to a system that utilizes 6mm hose to hold a nitrogen charge and has so far proven to leak at least 30% of the time in these vehicles.

......these vehicles are equiped with gunners hatches and not RWS systems....WHY??????  we have so much money in America that we can pay corporate thieves bonuses but, we still ask soldiers to risk their lives hanging outside an armored vehicle in a war zone prevelant to snipers and RPGs?????

What are we doing about the recovery issue here in theater?  Let's not be side tracked with these new vehicles and forget about the couple of thousand real XXXX's that need to be recovered throughout theater and the safety of those soldiers tasked with bringing them to FOBs and RSAs for repairs.

This is just a starting point of many that are to come...I'm sure of this and this makes me very angry.  This vehicle could not have possibly passed any blast test certifying it's safety to the war fighter...no way...if it did, I'd sure like to see it.  This vehicle is going to be just a step above the safety factor of the XXXXX, which in this war is not good.  Get me some more XXXXXXs and XXXXs and if possible XXXX/4x4s and we will keep Soldiers and Marines alive.  If they pursue this path utilizing this XXXX, they are wrong !!!!  We as a program are smarter than this.  We have a responsibility to our warfighters to give them the BEST EQUIPMENT we can...this isn't IT.

Please stress this with your superiors and vendors.  We will not settle for " this is good enough" and I for one will not let this get pushed under the carpet.  They need to listen.  I will hold them all accountable for every life lost as a result of this profit motivated business we call supporting our military.

If they won't listen, just tell them to order lots of writing paper and pens because they're going to be writing a lot of parents letters explaining how and why their sons and daughters were killed and that it could have been avoided if not for the bottom line and profits.......we as a nation have a responsibility to those whom we ask to sacrifice in these wars; let them not die for the net gain of the few and the silence of the rest.  GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!!!...and have pity for those who rise against US...because I WON'T !!!!

Respectfully,

AN AMERICAN  PATRIOT

Happy Thanksgiving!!!!

Happy Thanksgiving to all.  This is THE American tradition that is my favorite Holiday.  Christmas and Easter have become too commercialized for my tastes.  I have so many things to be thankful for and I make sure that Thanksgiving is not the only day that I am thankful.  I am thankful everyday for my family and my freedom; for the roof over my head, the clothes on my back and the abundant food on my table...everything else is icing on the cake.

I Choose Capitalism

"There is simply no other choice than this: either to abstain from interference in the free play of the market, or to delegate the entire management of production and distribution to the government. Either capitalism or socialism: there exists no middle way."

- Ludwig von Mises

Shhhh!!! I'm Putting.

Or, would that be punting????  This guy is THE worst.

A Real Commander In Chief

President Bush and Laura visit the wounded at Fort Hood...no fanfare, no media, no teleprompters.

Money for Nothing

The Future Dollar Bill

From My Friend Elizabeth...

Bumper-Stickers Seen On Military Bases…

“Except For Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, WAR has Never Solved Anything.”

“U.S. Marines – Certified Counselors to the 72 Virgins Dating Club.”

“Water-boarding is out so kill them all!”

“Interrogators can’t water-board dead guys”

“U.S. Marines – Travel Agents To Allah”

“Stop Global Whining”

“When In Doubt, Empty The Magazine”

Naval Corollary: Dead Men Don’t Testify.

“The Marine Corps – When It Absolutely, Positively Has To Be Destroyed Overnight”

“Death Smiles At Everyone – Marines Smile Back”

“Marine Sniper – You can run, but you’ll just die tired!”

“What Do I Feel When I Kill A Terrorist? A Little Recoil”

“Marines – Providing Enemies of America an Opportunity To Die For their Country Since 1775”

“Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Anyone Who Threatens It”

“Happiness Is A Belt-Fed Weapon”

“It’s God’s Job to Forgive Bin Laden – It’s Our Job To Arrange The Meeting”

“Artillery Brings Dignity to What Would Otherwise Be Just A Vulgar Brawl”

“One Shot, Twelve Kills – U.S. Naval Gun Fire Support”

“Do Draft-Dodgers Have Reunions? If So, What Do They Talk About?”

“My Kid Fought In Iraq So Your Kid Can Party In College”

“Machine Gunners – Accuracy By Volume”

“A Dead Enemy Is A Peaceful Enemy – Blessed Be The Peacemakers”

“If You Can Read This, Thank A Teacher. If You Can Read It In English, Thank A Veteran”

“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But the Marines don't have that problem.” ...Ronald Reagan

How Entropy challenges Evolution Theory

Few scientists have considered or pondered the full implications of the law of entropy upon the theory of evolution. And, as we shall see, entropy does occur in open systems such as our Earth.

The theory of evolution teaches that matter tends to evolve towards greater and greater complexity and order. We are so accustomed to seeing evolution of technology all about us (new cars, boats, ships, inventions, etc.) that we assume that nature must work the same way also. Of course, we forget that all those new gadgets and technology had a human designer behind them. Nature, however, doesn't work the same way.

The spontaneous (the unaided or undirected) tendency of matter is always towards greater disorder -- not towards greater order and complexity as evolution would teach. This tendency towards disorder that exists in all matter can be temporarily overcome only if there exists some energy converting and directing mechanism to direct, develop, and maintain order.

It doesn't matter whether a system is open (with unlimited energy) or closed (with limited energy), entropy occurs in both systems. In fact, scientists discovered entropy here on our very Earth, which is an open system in relation to the sun. The difference between an open system and closed system is not entropy but, rather, the availability of useful energy.

Is not energy from the Sun more than sufficient to drive the evolution of life on Earth? The problem, again, is that it is not enough just to have a sufficient supply of useful energy for evolution to occur. There must also exist an energy converting and directing mechanism.
When a seed becomes a tree, for example, it does not violate entropy because there is already a pre-existing biological energy converting mechanism and code in the seed which directs the order, growth and development of the tree. In other words, the development of greater order from seed to tree is not chemically a spontaneous event. It is not something that is happening by chance. The question is how did biological order develop in the first place when there was no already existing energy-converting and directing mechanism.

Even the scientific followers of Prigogine, the father of Chaos theory, have admitted that only a very minimal level of order will ever be possible as a result of spontaneous or chance processes.

For example, a few amino acids have been produced spontaneously, but there is already a natural tendency for molecules to form into amino acids if given the right conditions. There is, however, no natural tendency for amino acids to come together spontaneously into a sequence to form into proteins. They have to be directed to do so by the genetic code in the cells of our bodies. Even the simplest cell is made up of billions of protein molecules. An average protein molecule may comprise of several hundred sequentially arranged amino acids. Many are comprised of thousands of sequential units. If they are not in the precise sequence the protein will not function!
The sequence of molecules in DNA (the genetic code) determines the sequence of molecules in proteins. Furthermore, without DNA there cannot be RNA, but without RNA there cannot be DNA. And without eiether DNA and RNA there cannot be proteins, and without proteins there cannot be either DNA or RNA. They're all mutually dependent upon each other for existence!
If the cell had evolved it would have had to be all at once. A partially evolved cell cannot wait millions of years to become complete because it would be highly unstable and quickly disintegrate in the open environment.
The great British scientist Sir Frederick Hoyle has said that the mathematical probability of the sequence of molecules in the simplest cell occurring by chance is 10 to the 40,000th power or roughly equivalent to a tornado going through a junk yard and assembling a 747 Jumbo Jet. It is not rational to put faith in such odds for the origin of life.

Considering the enormous complexity of life, it is much more logical to believe that the genetic and biological similarities between all species is due to a common Designer rather than common biological ancestry. It is only logical that the great Designer would design similar functions for similar purposes and different functions for different purposes in all of the various forms of life.

Contrary to popular belief, scientists have never created life in the laboratory. What scientists have done is genetically alter or engineer already existing forms of life, and by doing this scientists have been able to produce new forms of life. However, they did not produce these new life forms from non-living matter. Even if scientists ever do produce life from non-living matter it won't be by chance so it still wouldn't help support any argument for evolution.

What if we should find evidence of life on Mars? Wouldn't that prove evolution? No. It wouldn't be proof that such life had evolved from non-living matter by chance natural processes. And even if we did find evidence of life on Mars it would have most likely have come from our very own planet - Earth! In the Earth's past there was powerful volcanic activity which could have easily spewed dirt containing microbes into outer space which eventually could have reached Mars. A Newsweek article of September 21, 1998, p.12 mentions exactly this possibility.

Ultimately, however, scientists concede that the law of entropy (the process of progessive energy decay and disorder) will conquer the entire universe and the universe, if left to itself, will end in total chaos (the opposite direction of evolution!). In fact, the law of entropy contradicts the Big Bang theory which teaches that the universe spontaneously went from disorder to order.

The mighty law of entropy in science simply teaches that the net direction of the universe is always downward towards greater and greater disorder and chaos -- not towards greater and greater order or complexity.

Furthermore, because of the law of entropy the universe does not have the ability to have sustained itself from all eternity since all the useful energy in the universe will some day become irreversibly and totally useless. The universe, therefore, cannot be eternal and requires a beginning. Since energy cannot come into existence from nothing by any natural process, the beginning of the universe must have required a Supernatural origin!

Science cannot prove we're here by creation, but neither can science prove we're here by chance or macro-evolution. No one has observed either. They are both accepted on faith. The issue is which faith, Darwinian macro-evolutionary theory or creation, has better scientific support.

Whatever evolution occurs in Nature is limited to within biological kinds (such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) but, unless Nature can perform genetic engineering, evolution will never be possible across biological kinds, especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones (i.e. from fish to human).

What we believe about our origins does influence our philosophy and value of life as well as our view of ourselves and others. This is no small issue!

Just because the laws of science can explain how life and the universe operate and work doesn't mean there is no Maker. Would it be rational to believe that there's no designer behind airplanes because the laws of science can explain how airplanes operate and work?

Natural laws are adequate to explain how the order in life, the universe, and even a microwave oven operates, but mere undirected natural laws can never fully explain the origin of such order.

It is important to understand that belief in neither evolution or creation is necessary to the actual study of science itself. One can understand the human body and become a first class surgeon regardless of whether he or she believes the human body is the result of the chance forces of nature or of a Supreme Designer.

Sincerely, Babu G. Ranganathan (B.A. Bible/Biology)

Obamacare: Buy now, pay later

Note: I was pointed to this by a friend. It states clearly the shell game that is being perpetrated on all of us.

By Robert J. Samuelson (Washington Post)
Monday, November 16, 2009

There is an air of absurdity to what is mistakenly called "health-care reform." Everyone knows that the United States faces massive governmental budget deficits as far as calculators can project, driven heavily by an aging population and uncontrolled health costs. As we recover slowly from a devastating recession, it's widely agreed that, though deficits should not be cut abruptly (lest the economy resume its slump), a prudent society would embark on long-term policies to control health costs, reduce government spending and curb massive future deficits. The administration estimates these at $9 trillion from 2010 to 2019. The president and all his top economic advisers proclaim the same cautionary message.

So what do they do? Just the opposite. Their far-reaching overhaul of the health-care system -- which Congress is halfway toward enacting -- would almost certainly make matters worse. It would create new, open-ended medical entitlements that threaten higher deficits and would do little to suppress surging health costs. The disconnect between what President Obama says and what he's doing is so glaring that most people could not abide it. The president, his advisers and allies have no trouble. But reconciling blatantly contradictory objectives requires them to engage in willful self-deception, public dishonesty, or both.

The campaign to pass Obama's health-care plan has assumed a false, though understandable, cloak of moral superiority. It's understandable because almost everyone thinks that people in need of essential medical care should get it; ideally, everyone would have health insurance. The pursuit of these worthy goals can easily be projected as a high-minded exercise for the public good.

It's false for two reasons. First, the country has other goals -- including preventing financial crises and minimizing the crushing effects of high deficits or taxes on the economy and younger Americans -- that "health-care reform" would jeopardize. And second, the benefits of "reform" are exaggerated. Sure, many Americans would feel less fearful about losing insurance; but there are cheaper ways to limit insecurity. Meanwhile, improvements in health for today's uninsured would be modest. They already receive substantial medical care. Insurance would help some individuals enormously, but studies find that, on average, gains are moderate. Despite using more health services, people don't automatically become healthier.

The pretense of moral superiority further erodes before all the expedient deceptions used to sell Obama's health-care agenda. The president says that he won't sign legislation that adds to the deficit. One way to accomplish this is to put costs outside the legislation. So: Doctors have long complained that their Medicare reimbursements are too low; the fix for replacing the present formula would cost $210 billion over a decade, estimates the Congressional Budget Office. That cost was originally in the "health reform" legislation. Now, it's been moved to another bill but, because there's no means to pay for it (higher taxes or spending cuts), deficits would increase.

Another way to disguise the costs is to count savings that, though they exist on paper, will probably never be realized in practice. So: The House bill is credited with reductions in Medicare reimbursements for hospitals and other providers of $228 billion over a decade. But Congress has often prescribed reimbursement cuts that, under pressure from squeezed providers, it has later rescinded. Claims of "fiscal responsibility" for the health-care proposals reflect "assumptions that are totally unrealistic based on past history," says David Walker, former U.S. comptroller general and now head of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

Equally misleading, Obama's top economic advisers assert that the present proposals would slow the growth of overall national health spending. Outside studies disagree. Three studies (two by the consulting firm the Lewin Group for the Peterson Foundation and one by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, a federal agency) conclude that various congressional plans would increase national health spending compared with the effect of no legislation. The studies variously estimate that the extra spending, over the next decade, would be $750 billion, $525 billion and $114 billion. The reasoning: Greater use of the health-care system by the newly insured would overwhelm cost-saving measures (bundled payments, comparative effectiveness research, tort reform), which are either weak or experimental.

Though these estimates could prove wrong, they are more plausible than the administration's self-serving claims. Its health-care plan is not "comprehensive," as Obama and the New York Times (in its news columns) assert, because it slights cost control. Obama chose to emphasize the politically appealing path of expanding benefits rather than first attending to the harder and more urgent task of controlling spending. If new spending commitments worsen some future budget or financial crisis, Obama's proposal certainly won't qualify as "reform," as the president and The Post (also in its news columns) call it. It's more like malpractice: a self-inflicted wound.

Said Very Well

"Socialism is not in the least what it pretends to be.  It is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization has created.  It does not build; it destroys.  For destruction is the essence of it.  It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created."  Ludwig von Mises

"Much of what government does is based on the premise that people can't do things for themselves.  So government must do it for them.  More often than not, the result is ham-handed, bumbling, one-size fits all approach that leaves the intended benificiaries worse off.  Of course, this resulting failure is never blamed on the political approach - on the contrary, failure is taken to mean that the government solution was not extravagant enough"  John Stossel

"With the abolition of the market in Russia, shortages of food, clothing and all kinds of consumer goods became endemic.  As peasants fled the collective villages, major cities were soon in the grip of an acute housing crisis, with families jammed for decades in tiny single rooms in communal apartments....It was a world of privation, overcrowding, endless queues, and broken families, in which the regimes' promises of future socialist abundance rang hollow...Government bureaucracy often turned everyday life into a nightmare."  Sheila Fitzpatrick

IOTUS Care...

Wake Up America!!!!!!!

Remember This Chart? Classic Liberal Lies!!!

Political Correctness Will Get Us (U.S.) Killed

Call a spade a spade...

"A Muslim fanatic with an Internet site praising Islamic suicide bombers as defenders of their comrades is a Major in the U.S. Army with access to military intelligence and lethal weaponry. And it’s not as though the army didn’t know that he was a Muslim fanatic and supporter of the Islamic jihad against the West. He was under investigation for six months because of his anti-American, jihadist rantings. He did not want to be deployed. He wanted to be discharged.
But despite his identification with America’s enemies, the army kept him in its officer corps. How in God’s name was this possible? But it was. And so, after calling America the “aggressor” in Afghanistan and Iraq this Muslim jihadist traitor army officer picks up his semi-automatic weapons and heads for the center at Ft. Hood where soldiers are being deployed to fight the jihadists in Afghanistan to conduct his massacre. Yet this morning the Fox News Channel chiron says “Investigators search for a motive in the Ft. Hood killings.” Is everybody out of their mind?"

From NewsRealBlog

IOTUS' Respect For The Military

Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992)

F.A. Hayek was awarded the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1974, an award not polticized in the manner of the Peace Prize. As America slides into socialism, his works become more relevant. Consider these words in light of the House of Representatives vote on nationalizing healthcare.

"In many fields persuasive arguments based on considerations of efficiency and economy can be advanced in favor of the state's taking sole charge of a particular service; but when the state does so, the result is usually not only that those advantages soon prove illusory but that the character of the services becomes entirely different from that which they would have had if they had been provided by competing agencies. If, instead of administering limited resources put under its control for a specific service, government uses its coercive powers to insure that men are given what some expert thinks they need; if people thus can no longer exercise any choice in some of the most important matters of their lives, such as health, employment, housing, and provision for old age, but must accept the decisions made for them by appointed authority on the basis of its evaluation of their need; if certain services become the exclusive domain of the state, and whole professions - be it medicine, education, or insurance - come to exist only as unitary bureaucratic hierarchies, it will no longer be competitive experimentation but solely the decisions of authority that will determine what men shall get...


It is sheer illusion to think that when certain needs of the citizens have become the exclusive concern of a single bureaucratic machine, democratic control of that machine can then effectively guard the liberty of the citizen. So far as the preservation of personal liberty is concerned, the division of labor between a legislature which merely says that this or that should be done and an administrative apparatus which is given exclusive power to carry out these instructions is the most dangerous arrangement possible." The Constitution Of Liberty, 1960, p. 261

Terrorism At Home

The IOTUS Recovery

The jobless rate is now officially 10.2%. This is the highest since 1983! That there is "hope and change". What do IOTUS and his gang do?...Blame it on Bush. When do these libs take ownership? The shamulus bill is working really well, I see. The Vice IOTUS then comes out and says that they are going to speed up the stimulus spending. The democrats (donkeys) are just plain stupid. The state run media then comes out and tries to spin this disaster favorably for IOTUS. According to them, it is really "good" news. Unemployment is at record highs ant the media says that the recession is over!!! I don't think the numbers include the people that have stopped looking for jobs. Casey research has the real unemployment rate at close to 17.5%. This is no different than communist controlled media in Russia and China...don't say anything bad about the commies in power.

A Physician Takes Note By Linda Halderman, M.D.

I learned a lot about the cost of health care when I had a hybrid general surgery practice in California's rural San Joaquin Valley. When serving in the rural health center in my community, my colleagues and I offered free or discounted care for a large number of patients. Many were covered by Medi-Cal or one of dozens of state programs paid for by the taxpayers of California.

The following items were commonly seen on patients or carried by their dependent children, who were also covered by subsidized programs:
- Cell phones and Blackberry PDAs, including just-released models with a price tag of $400, plus an ongoing monthly service fee of $65-$150
- Ipods and portable DVD players
- Game Boys and handheld electronic games
- Artificial fingernails requiring maintenance every two weeks at a cost of $40-$60 per salon visit
- Elaborate braided hair weaves, $300 per session plus frequent maintenance
- Custom-designed body art, including tattoos covering entire torso, neck and arms, as well as body jewelry piercing every skin surface imaginable-and a few unimaginable ones

Custom tattoo work, particularly the "portrait-type" and "half-sleeve" art popular in this area, runs from $100-$300 per hour and can require up to 20 hours of work, depending on the complexity of the design.

From the office I shared with another doctor at the clinic, I had a clear view of the patient parking lot. It was not unusual for me to see clinic patients drive away in late-model SUVs or cars customized in the style popular in my area. I was given an education about the after-market accessories I saw daily, including "mag" wheels, chrome trim, spinning hubcaps and fancy custom paint jobs. Gasoline prices were particularly high in central california at that time.

From James Cook Market Update-Investment Rarities Inc. Late October 2009

Doug Casey of Casey Research on Charities

(Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator)

L: Doug, our readers are hoping to live well for the rest of their lives. That’s what The Casey Report and all our other publications are about, really. If they are successful, they’ll have some money left over at the end. Some have wondered, given your low opinion of trying to use the state to improve the human condition, if there’s a private charity you think might be a good place to direct funds they no longer need.

Doug: No.

L: That’s it? No?

Doug: Most charities aren’t worth the cost of the gunpowder it would take to blow them to hell.

L: And the permitting for the demolition – fuhgeddaboudit. But can you explain why?

Doug: Sure. Charities are largely counterproductive. Their main beneficiaries are not the intended recipients, but the givers. They get some tax benefits, but mainly they get the holy high of do-goodism. Frankly, the idea of charity itself is corrupting to both parties in the transaction.

For instance, take Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. Both are geniuses at their businesses. But they’re the type of geniuses I consider to be idiot savants. If they really wanted to improve the state of the world, they should continue doing what they do best, which is accumulating wealth. Or, actually, creating it – as opposed to dissipating it by giving it away. Giving money away breaks up a capital pool that could have been used productively by those who build it for making new wealth (which increases the amount of wealth that exists in the world).

Worse, giving money away usually delivers it into the hands of people who don’t deserve it. That sends the wrong moral message. People should have, or get, things because they deserve them. And you deserve things because you earn them. In other words, wealth should be a consequence of doing things that improve the state of the world. Endowing groups, or individuals, because they happen to have had some bad luck, or are perpetual losers, is actually immoral.

When money is given away, it’s almost as bad as government welfare. It makes it unnecessary for the recipient to produce, and that tends to cement him to his current station in life. The very act of making an urgent situation non-urgent takes away the incentive, the urgency, to improve.

Morally speaking, charity is not a virtue, it’s a vice.

L: The giver gets to feel good at the expense of the people whose independent drive they undermine. But what about the programs that are specifically designed to teach an individual to fish, rather than to just hand out fish – those that teach job skills, for example – do you see them the same way?

Doug: I’m not saying that programs like that can have no positive effect. There are people who genuinely want to improve themselves, but, for whatever reason, just can’t manage it on their own. But charity is not the best way to approach the issue.

Look, the basic point I’m making is that the best way to reduce the amount of poverty in the world is to create more wealth – as much as possible, as quickly as possible.

The essence of a charity transaction is to transfer wealth from those who have shown they can create it to those who have not shown they can. I mean, if a man doesn’t know how to “fish,” which isn’t exactly rocket science, after all, you have to wonder why – something we discussed in our chat about education. Money is best left in the hands of the most competent and productive people, and the best way to tell who’s the most competent and productive is generally to look at who’s created the most wealth.

L: And the more wealth there is in the world, the better off everyone is – even those who end up working for the creators.

Doug: Right. And those employees are creating and earning on their own wealth as well. It sure has a lot more dignity than being a welfare bum. Besides, if they are competent and creative, there’s no reason for them not to rise to the top.

L: And as we discussed last week, you need large pools of capital to develop new technologies, and new technologies tend, on average, to improve the lot of the little guy proportionally more than the guy at the top of the social pyramid.

Doug: Yes. Charity exists, mostly, to make the donor feel good. It assuages guilt people accrue over a lifetime, for real or imaginary reasons.

L: I remember that interview John Stossel did with Donald Trump, in which he asked him to explain why he gave a billion dollars to the UN. Trump looked poleaxed for a minute, then got up and walked out of the interview.

Doug: [Laughs] That’s a polar extreme opposite to charity. That was giving money to an organization that is itself destructive. Counterproductive in the extreme. The UN, which is just a corrupt club for governments, should be abolished, not subsidized. And here’s this fool actually feeding the beast.

It’s a perfect example of what most so-called charitable giving is about. It’s an excuse for people to display their fine philanthropist plumage. It’s a never-ending contest of one-upmanship, to see who can be the king of the hill of fools for a day, by giving the most. In most cases, it’s not about what the money is going to, it’s about being a big shot among peers and getting invited to all the most fashionable parties. They get to socialize with celebrities and others who, in our corrupt society, buy fame by giving away money – which in many cases was either easily earned or unearned.

In most cases, philanthropy doesn’t arise from a love for one’s fellow man, but from a need to assuage guilt, a need to show off, and a lack of imagination.

L: So, your basic argument is like the old saying about it being common sense that it’s better (and cheaper) to put a fence at the top of a cliff, rather than to put an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. That is, rather than putting band-aids on the poverty-stricken, it’s better not to have any poverty-stricken. Therefore, it’s better to allow wealth to continue accumulating and creating more wealth. And that means that any effort to take wealth away from the wealthy – the productive – and give it to the non-productive, is… counterproductive.

Doug: That’s basically the argument. Yes. And it’s true for both practical and ethical reasons.

L: Okay. So, what happens when you run into literally starving orphan babies in Haiti, the way you did? Even if you allow wealth to accumulate, and society becomes 50 or 100 times wealthier, and that decreases poverty by 50 or 100 times – or maybe 1,000 times. There will still be some cases of people who, through genuinely no fault of their own, truly need a helping hand – and the consequences would be dire if they don’t get it. What would you advocate in those situations?

Doug: Well, in the first place, though I’m not a Christian, let me quote Jesus of Nazareth. He said, “The poor, you will always have with you.” He had a different context in mind, but he was quite correct. That’s because in most cases, poverty is not a function of bad luck.

It can be, sometimes, of course. Perhaps if you’re born in a country with a brutal and repressive regime, or if you’re born with mental handicaps – there are all kinds of things that can happen. But generally, with a few such exceptions, poverty is simply a sign of bad habits. In a relatively free country, it’s a sign of an inability or unwillingness to save, which is to say, to produce more than you consume. It’s a sign of a lack of self-discipline. Sloth that afflicts those not willing to learn skills they can sell to other people. It can be a sign of having no self-respect, as among those who spend all their money on drugs and alcohol, which are debilitating, rather than strengthening.

In the vast majority of cases, those who suffer from poverty are not victims of anything other than their own bad habits.

L: Wow. Tough words.

Doug: It’s even worse than that. Think about it. Let’s say we’re looking at some place where there’s been a drought, or some other serious natural disaster, and then organizations like the UN ship in thousands of tons of food. What happens when that food hits the local market?

L: Does it even get there? Doesn’t the local dictator usually take it and sell it in some other country where people can pay for it, and then stash the cash in a Swiss bank account?

Doug: Well, that’s the first thing that happens, of course. But even when it gets through to them, such aid rarely helps the people it’s supposed to help. In fact, it usually hurts them, because, as I was saying, when all that free food hits the local market, it drives the price of food down so low, the local farmers can’t produce profitably.

What happens when you drive the local farmers out of business? They stop planting, there’s no crop the next year, and the shortage of food becomes even worse. The very acts of these charities trying to help people in famine-stricken areas prolong the famines.

Now, I’m not saying that if you know someone who needs a helping hand, and you feel good about helping – which is different from feeling guilty about not helping – that you shouldn’t do it. It can be a good-karma thing to do – and I do believe in karma, incidentally.

But when these things are institutionalized, they create distortions in the marketplace.

L: People may think it strange to hear you talking about markets in famine-stricken places or regions devastated by earthquakes, etc. But markets are everywhere. They are not physical places in New York and London, but are aspects of human psychology. They are patterns of human behavior created by people when they enter into voluntary transactions – as distinct from government action, which is always based on coercion. In today’s world, famine can still be caused by storms, drought, and other natural events. But it’s more often caused, and always aggravated, by distortions in the market: taxes, wars, idiotic regulation, runaway inflation, and the like.

Doug: And when a big charity intrudes on one of these weakened, distorted markets, it usually adds even more distortions, prolonging the problem.

Consider these charitable organizations going around the world treating diseases. The reason these countries have these terrible diseases that kill so many people is because they are economically undeveloped. Keeping people alive via extraordinary measures in such a place only results in more people competing for the same scarce resources. The answer to the problem is not to send in teams of doctors, so that you’ll have even more destitute people producing no wealth, but to free the local market so the people can become wealthy. The disease will go away as a consequence – this is the only permanent cure. What they are doing is the exact opposite of what they should be doing; they are making things worse.

L: Sounds pretty cold, Doug, to say, “Don’t send doctors—”

Doug: Well, don’t forget that a lot of people have supported the likes of Mugabe and deserve the economic ruin they are getting – and the diseases that are going to follow. Send doctors in if it makes you feel good, but it’s putting band-aids on smallpox. Don’t imagine that you’re actually helping solve the problem. People who do this kind of thing, I believe, do it because of feelings of guilt and shame they carry around inside. I understand them, but I don’t agree with them.

It does sound cold-blooded, and I’m sorry. I like kids and dogs and the same things most people like. But I’m not talking about whatever I or others might imagine is nice. I’m talking about the only real way to solve such a problem.

It’s disgusting to see the hot-shot yuppies self-righteously driving around the African bush in their new Land Rovers, pretending they’re eliminating poverty. That’s where most of the money goes, in fact. High living and “administration.”

L: You didn’t let me finish. I was saying that it sounds cold-blooded, but who’s really more cold-blooded: the one who knowingly spends precious resources on measures, knowing they won’t be effective and will lead to greater sorrow, or the one who has the courage to make the hard decision and reach for the real, long-term solution?

Doug: Yes. That’s the way I see it.

L: It occurs to me, reacting to the distinction you made earlier between individual charity and institutional charity, that perhaps it’s like religion. Whether we agree with their beliefs or not, it’s clear that many people derive value from those beliefs. But when religions become organizations and dogma sets in, they can get really destructive.

Doug: Well, as an individual, if I come across a person who I have reason to believe is worthy of my charity, and my trust, I might act individually. But yes, when things get organized, they get bureaucratized. It’s just the natural course of things; it seems almost universal that as organizations get older and more structured, they become counterproductive to their intended purposes.

Charity is especially prone to this problem because of the phony ethical notions that now seem to pervade Western society. It’s gotten worse over the last 100 years. People have come to believe that an instrument of coercion, the state, has to take care of them. Perversely, when the state engages in charity – which isn’t charity, because tax-supported giving is not voluntary – it discourages true charity. People who have money taken from them by the taxman have less of it to give to those they might know who genuinely need help.

L: The Tragedy of American Compassion. Marvin Olasky.

Doug: Great book. I think the Chinese are much more intelligent than Westerners in this regard. The only charity you find in most oriental societies is organized by beneficial societies that seem less pervious to squandering. Peer pressure and moral approbation keep them in line, unlike governments, which exist primarily to serve themselves. And taxes tend to be a lot lower in the Orient, so people have more money to give, if that’s their inclination.

In fact, one of the horrible aspects of this issue, in the United States, is that large amounts of money are stolen from estates in the form of death taxes. The idea seems to be that the government will deploy wealth more wisely than the children of its creators. But this is ridiculous. It’s part of the whole ethical morass that charity and taxation are tied up in, in the U.S.

Suppose you have a Chinese and an American, of equal intelligence, work ethic, education, skills, etc. – and an equal amount of starting capital. The American who starts with a dollar might end up with a million. But the Chinese guy in the same circumstances will end up with 50 million. All because of the difference in taxes and regulations.

But it’s worse than that, because whatever amount of money the American is going to leave to his kids, half of it is going to disappear down the tax rat hole, while 100% of the money the Oriental guy leaves will go exactly where he wants it to go.

That has major implications for wealth accumulation of the sort that, as you mentioned, The Casey Report is designed to help people achieve. It’s another reason for the diversification of political risk we keep reminding people is so important.

But sadly, even if an American ends up with $100 million, odds are he won’t leave the bulk of it intact as an effective capital pool, to be expanded upon by his chosen heir. He’ll give it to some charity that will be run for the benefit of its board of directors. They get to be big shots with other people’s money – corrupting both themselves and the intended recipients.

L: So, the bottom line is that if you had a magic wand and could abolish all charitable institutions with a wave of it, you’d do it. And you would not replace them with anything. You’d use the wand to reduce taxes and regulations everywhere, to allow for more wealth creation. And for those few desperate cases clinging to the bottom rungs of the social ladder, you think individual conscience would suffice.

Doug: Exactly. To me, charity should be strictly an individual, one-to-one thing. That’s the only way you can know that it can really help, and even then it doesn’t always work. Once you have to hire somebody to run a charitable organization and have secretaries and assistant vice-presidents in charge of light-bulb changing, it’s just another bureaucracy headed for disaster, dissipating wealth as it goes, and doing more harm than good even among the intended recipients of the charity.

L: I don’t see a lot of immediate investment implications here, but there’s certainly a lot of food for thought for those intent on wealth accumulation.

Doug: Let’s just say that your moral obligation to the rest of humanity – insofar as you have such an obligation – is to keep your capital intact. First, that means to deny it to the state, which will very likely use it in a destructive way. Second, direct it to those who will use it to produce more – not to unproductive consumers. Third, take some personal responsibility, and do it yourself – don’t devolve it upon some unknown board of worthies who will have their own ideas about what to do with your money.

L: Got it. Thanks.

Doug: You’re welcome. Till next week.