WATTAGE

JJ Watt

We play a game. Yes, to many of us it is much more than a game,

but at the end of the day it is just that, a game. It is not life or death.

We are not going off... to war, we are not putting our lives on the line,

we are not protecting our country's freedom. But we are in the

headlines, we become household names and we are often the role

models that children look up to. I am not saying that it is right, but

it is what it is. Therefore, when we get the opportunity, it is only

right that we honor the true heroes of this county, the men &

women who truly deserve the credit, the headlines and the recognition.

That is why it is such an honor to carry this flag onto the field,

to wear the camouflage gear, to visit with military members and take

trips like the USO tour. Not because it looks cool (although I can't

deny that it does), but because of what it represents. The hard work,

the blood, the sweat, the tears, the lives lost, the families that have

sacrificed, the men & women who lay absolutely everything on the

line for this country and for our freedom. That is why days like

yesterday are so special. That is why we try to use our platform as

athletes to honor and show our appreciation for the military. We play

a game, we don't deserve the worship that we often receive. You

do. So thank you, to every man and woman out there who has

previously or is currently serving in our military. Also thank you

to their families, who have sacrificed so much as well. You all are

the true heroes. You are the ones who deserve the fanfare. Thank you.

========================================================

As many of you may know, the Knights of Columbus submitted to congress that the words "Under God" should be added to the USA's pledge of allegiance.

Both Houses of Congress passed the law, and it was signed by President Eisenhower in 1954. The information below was based on a poll taken recently by NBC on what percentage of those surveyed, advocated keeping the words in our pledge, verses the percent who want it removed.

1892

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

1892 to 1923

"I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

1923 to 1924

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States and to the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

1924 to 1954

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America , and to the republic for which it stands; one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."

1954 to Present

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America , and to the republic for which it stands, one nationunder God , indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Shock to NBC

Do you believe that the word God should stay in Pledge of Allegiance? There was a recent poll on this question. It received the highest Number of responses that there had ever been received for one of like polls, and the Percentages were these: 86% to keep God in the Pledge of Allegiance and 14% against. That is a pretty 'commanding' public response. of Allegiance. Why should our Nation cater to 14%?

Orwellian 

The Left likes to rewrite history. Feel free to share....

~ Nidal Hasan – Ft Hood Shooter: Reg­istered Democrat and Muslim.
~ Aaron Alexis, Navy Yard shooter – black liberal/Obama voter
~ Seung-Hui Cho – Virginia Tech shooter: Wrote hate mail to President Bush and to his staff, registered Democrat.
~ James Holmes – the “Dark Knight”/Colorado shooter: Registered Democrat, staff worker on the Obama campaign, #Occu­py guy,progressive liberal, hated Christians.
~ Amy Bishop, the rabid leftist, killed her colleagues in Alabama, Obama supporter.
~ Andrew J. Stack, flew plane into IRS building in Texas – Leftist Democrat
~ James J. Lee who was the “green activist”/ leftist took hostages at Discovery Channel – progressive liberal Democrat.
~ Jared Loughner, the Tucson shooter – Leftist, Marxist.
~ Ohio bomb plot derps were occupy Wall St leftists.
~ Harris and Klebold, the Columbine Shooters – families registered Democrats and progressive Leftists.
~ Bill Ayers, Weather Underground bomber – Leftist Democrat.
~Lee Harvey Oswald, Socialist, Communist and Democrat – killed Kennedy…
~ Leon Czolgosz, Leftist/anarchist – killed W. McKinley, 25th president – a Republican.
~ Charles Guiteau, psychopath, felt he was “owed” something, killed Garfield, 20th president – a Republican

~ The 1920 Wall Street bombing - leftist/anarchists

Doug Casey on Charities

(Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator)

This interview was first published on November 4, 2009

Editor’s Note: As the holiday season approaches, you may be planning to make a donation to charity. Before you do, read Casey Research founder Doug Casey’s take on why giving away wealth is usually a bad idea…

Louis James: Doug, our readers are hoping to live well for the rest of their lives. 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 when they’ll no longer be needing them?

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 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 in our conversation on technology, 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 Ted Turner, in which he asked him to explain why he gave a billion dollars to the UN. Turner looked pole-axed for a minute, then got up and walked out of the interview.

Doug: [Laughs] That’s a polar 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 that it’s better (and cheaper) to put a fence at the top of a cliff than to put an ambulance at the bottom. 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.

---

Doug Casey is a multimillionaire speculator and the founder of Casey Research. He literally wrote the book on profiting during economic turmoil. Doug’s book, Crisis Investing, spent multiple weeks as number one on the New York Times bestsellers list and was the best-selling financial book of 1980. Doug has been a regular guest on national television, including spots on CNN, Merv Griffin, Charlie Rose, Regis Philbin, Phil Donahue, and NBC News.