Friday's, inexperienced leaders, and the general balance of the Universe

Being educated and experienced in electronics, I have often used my understanding of Electricity and the forces of Nature in making analogies to everyday behavior/politics and general societal motion. See, Generating electricity is really just using physical force to knock electrons loose from the atoms they were bound to. Most people think it is these electrons we are putting to use, however this is not the case. It is the atom from which we have enticed the electron that is the key to electricity. This atom, and all others in the Universe, was forged in the million-degree fires of the hottest stars and supernovae explosions, with all its constituent parts in the quantity and order required to make it stable. Knock a piece off and it will take what it needs from the next atom, which leaves that atom in need and the process repeats until the Universe is able to re-balance itself. It is this desperate "need" that the atom experiences, a need which didn't exist before, that enables it, gives it the power, to steal what it needs from an adjacent atom that was previously in perfect balance. And it is these atoms in a state of "need" that we enslave and make to do all sorts of demeaning tasks before they are finally fulfilled and become at one with the Universe again, in their natural state.

This happens in nature a lot, all by itself. But the Universe always re-balances. Different densities of air rushing past each other (wind) knock electrons loose. Lightning is just the result of the Universe balancing itself out. We have discovered ways of enhancing this natural action and putting it to use. If you collect enough of these ionized atoms and store them where they are prevented from re-combining, you can later cause a controlled re-combination in your flashlight.

There is, as of yet, no negative consequences to our enslavement of these ionized atoms, because we always allow them to re-balance. It is un-natural that we force an imbalance, but it is natural for the Universe to bring about balance.

Which brings me to the point: People in need can also be enslaved and made to do all kinds of demeaning things. They can be made to do positive things, too, I suppose, but only if you believe the end justifies the means. I say that anything accomplished by means of enslavement and force can never be positive. When I look at the pyramids in Egypt, I see hundreds of thousands of people forced to work their entire lives for the self-aggrandizement of one man. It doesn't matter that they built something so awesome that it still inspires wonder some 4500 years later.
Sure, having more high school graduates (positive end) may be achieved by lowering the standards of commencement (means), but that only sends a person out into the world thinking he/she is smarter than they really are and essentially sets them up for heartbreaking failure!
Yes, more people can own homes (positive end) if you lower the requirements of obtaining a loan (a means risky to banking structure), but does that justify putting the entire WORLD at the brink of economic collapse? (For the record, the democrats said it was worth the risk and the Republicans said it was not. Look it up; Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, etc.)

True, living in a society that is free from racial discrimination (positive ends) might be realized if there were more black college grads and CEO's and even presidents (by means of affirmative action, admissions quotas, and mainstream media dereliction of duty during election '08) but again it's un-natural and risky to put the lives and fortunes of a whole nation in the palms of any but the best, brightest, most capable and tested hands.

It is natural for people to trade goods and to decide on rules in the marketplace. It is un-natural to use force to fudge those rules in order to influence trade based on some imaginary ideal.
It is natural for the best and brightest to succeed. It is un-natural to not have any "best" or "brightest" because someone might feel bad if they don't qualify. We are not all equal. Get over it.

It is natural to elect leaders based on personal experience and capability, and trustworthiness. It is un-natural to fake experience, capability and trustworthiness in order to elect a certain leader because if you do, you will feel "hopeful" and the world will be "changed." You have set him up for failure. There are consequences. You cannot vote for it to always be Friday.

There is a natural order to the Universe. We humans have always tried to understand it so that we may be at one with it. Many popular philosophies through the years have arisen, some fighting it, some flowing with it. Libertarianism seeks to accept it at face value. It seems to me that Liberalism (Socialism) refuses to accept it and will fight it to the death. Socialism is force; Libertarianism is freedom from force.

It all makes me wonder if the Liberals are telling us what their real goal is. Is it equality or do they really just want to tear the world apart because its' natural order is repugnant to them. Because that is exactly what they are doing; tearing the world apart. And when it re-balances itself, they will still have the audacity to reject the order. This means they have put themselves in a state of perpetual conflict with the Universe.

It's a good thing the Universe doesn't take it personal that we have been knocking its' atoms about, willy-nilly, for about 200 years now. Or does it?

Liberal Self-Conflict or Subterfuge?

Liberal Self-Conflict or Subterfuge?

Here’s just three examples of liberal self-conflict I referred to in my last post.

Stem-cell research and baby bottles:

Not one federally-funded study, and there has been many, has shown BPA to be harmful in the doses relevant to baby/water bottles. But still they protest. David Fenton, George Soros, and the trial lawyers (big democrat donators) are foaming at the mouth trying to get it banned and legislation passed. However...when it comes to embryonic stem-cell research, those same people will say that federally funded studies are needed because the private research that is, and had for years, been ongoing has gradually moved on to more promising stem cells not harvested from living human embryos. Do they trust federally funded research in the second case but not in the first? Or is there something more devious going on?

Here's the subterfuge: in the first case, they are protecting trial lawyers' ability to rake in multi-million dollar settlements from bottle manufacturers, and in the second case they really just want to destroy Judeo-Christian morality regarding the sanctity of human life.

The whole issue regarding stem cell research is that the government won’t (and shouldn’t) provide taxpayer dollars for research on live embryos because many, myself included, believe those are human beings by definition and we don’t, and shouldn’t, experiment on them. That doesn’t mean that research isn’t being done on them. It is. All over the place by privately funded corporations. But most researchers have moved on to other types of stem cells that don’t require destroying human life because embryonic stem cells are unstable. Dumb liberals believe that the government is discriminating and catering to the right-to-life movement and that Superman could have walked again. Smart liberals know that really it is an attempt to prepare society for organ harvesting, euthanasia, population control (forced abortions) and general SLAVERY! Smart liberals love dumb liberals.

Darwinism:

Darwin theorized that those species whose actions/instincts/mutations gave them advantage naturally thrived and those species whose actions/instincts/mutations were disadvantageous became extinct. Thus we, and all other extant species, are the survivors. I don't have a problem with that. But I am the one who included ACTIONS and INSTINCTS along with mutations above. And I say that actions, meaning acquired/learned behavior, becoming instinct in later generations, is a much more important factor in survival than radical genetic mutation (macro-evolution) which hasn't even been proven to have happened. Yes, the sea otter couldn't have learned to use rocks to smash open oysters without first evolving opposable thumbs, but did the otter evolve opposable thumbs? Again...not proven.

So this brings us to the hypocrisy: Humans that have evolved actions/instincts/mutations that are disadvantageous to their survival should be allowed to become extinct. I include homosexuals, drug abusers, promiscuous sex abusers, murderers, and people that think the planet is over-populated. All these groups have or should have made decisions that make them less able to pro-create and therefore survive, some by their own self-exclusion/destruction and others by violating the laws of society. Allowing their extinction isn't mean or callous, it's their choice. So who is it that fights against it? Liberals...every time. They want homosexuals to have kids, adopt, marry so they can have a legitimate legacy, etc. They want to give drug users clean needles and therefore prolong their self-destruction. They repeatedly stand in the way of societal cleansing of people with un-natural sexual desires (rapists, pedophiles, zoophiles, etc.), murderers, traitors, etc. Liberals want poor people to have fewer kids but still vote for liberals, so they give them welfare, free abortions and ban DDT so more of their children will die (The U.N. says malaria kills one child every 30 seconds) but at least vultures will thrive! (link) If you think the world is over-populated, then don’t have kids! There are people that don’t think so; let them be. Only narrow-minded city folk (who voted for Obama by wide margins) think the world is overpopulated.

This doesn't mean I don't want these humans that have chosen unhealthy lifestyles to be cared for. I do. There are people that want to care for them. The free market will provide. Charitable organizations will provide. Oh, wait; Obama’s taking away their livelihood, too. There are also people that don't want to be cared for. But don't pretend that your choices haven't reduced your ability to survive. This is what Judeo-Christian morality has given the human race: a things-to-do list to increase your survivability. And what is the result? After some 3500 years of implementation, the greatest society on the face of the earth...ever! An entire nation of free people. Free to pursue their own happiness, by their own definition. Free to sink or swim. Free to succeed or fail, languish or thrive, dally or hustle. Perish or survive.

Home ownership:

Anyone in the business of loaning money will tell you that someone who isn’t able to obtain gainful employment AND save money is a risky prospect. Anyone involved in risky prospects better be ready to lose it all. Who the HELL wants to live wondering if he’s going to lose it all tomorrow? This is why banks require sizable down-payments; so they know that you are able to save and that you are “in it” with the bank and that your life is on the line too. It makes the bank feel better about loaning you money and might get you a better interest rate. The current credit system is a way of discerning who is and is not able to save and make payments.

Owning a home is the single best thing one can do to ensure financial well-being and future happiness for one’s family. So, increasing the percentage of home-ownership would be a good thing, right? Wrong! This is putting the cart before the horse. What needs to happen is to encourage SAVING. Hard work and saving your money. These are laws of human behavior that are as obvious to an uneducated man today as they were 4000 years ago! But again, liberals want to re-write basic human behavior by forcing banks to loan money to risky borrowers by telling lenders that the government will bail them out if the loans are defaulted on. How does this make a person more able to make house payments? And what happens when they default by the millions when there’s a hiccup in the economic health of the country? We all suffer. All of us.

Another case of liberals being mad about the fact that Wednesday comes after Tuesday. We don’t write the Laws of Human Behavior; we just discover them. Liberals want to change them. Not their own behavior, just that of others. They are in conflict with basic human nature.

Ways to encourage saving:

· Get rid of the Capital gains tax. Any time you make more than just what you need to survive (wages) the government taxes it at a higher rate. What was it that you were going to save if not the money you earned above and beyond that which you needed to survive?

· Cut income taxes or, even better, switch to a national sales tax. Stop taking so much of our discretionary money and we will at least have the option to save. With a national sales tax, the less you consume, the more discretionary dollars you will have and maybe you’ll save some or pay down your mortgage (which is a form of saving in itself).

Ways to discourage saving:

· Inflating the money supply artificially (by deficit spending, which is the same as just printing more money) discourages saving by making the money you save worth less than it was when you earned it. This has been going on for thousands of years, however never at the rate it is now with Obama at the helm. John Maynard Keynes was WRONG and his economic theories were just a devious means of enslaving an entire nation to debt! Look it up.

· Raise Capital gains taxes. No-brainer.

· Give hope for the future. If the future looks awesome, who wouldn’t want to be there? When the government continues to pursue economic policies that are clearly poisonous to the educated and give rise to uncertainty among the un-educated, why would anyone suffer now by saving when the future promises even more suffering? The policies I speak of are social security (ponzi scheme that must implode under its own weight), skyrocketing national debt, and erosion of basic human rights; free speech, self defense (2^nd amendment), right to life, rights of parents, property rights, etc.

So next election remember who encourages saving and who discourages it.

Also, it is said that a neurotic believes that 2+2=5. A psychotic knows that 2+2=4, but he's mad about it. Anyone living in conflict with basic human nature is either psychotic or trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Neither should be elected to any kind of office.

More examples of liberal self-conflict to come. Happy Easter! And remember, today is the day that God led by example to teach us that we should sacrifice and save; not for this world, but the next.