Oppose Obama's National Service Scheme

Most government jobs are not "public service."

There is a lot of talk about the idealism of "public service," especially after Obama became president-select in November. There has been endless columns about how wonderful public service is, how it will make America stronger, how it is so necessary, and also, that there is some sort of untapped need for service. But what is "public service"?

First, we need to remember the answer to the question of, why do we have a government in the first place? The main reason we have a government is to protect individual rights (especially the right to life and the right to personal property). Thus, the purpose of the government is to prevent force between relationships of individuals within a civil society. That is why we have the police and other law-enforcement agencies. They are there to ensure that the strong members of society are not able to harm or steal from the weaker members of society. Secondly, we have a military to protect us from the threats of foreign invaders who would be quite willing to subject us to the will of another nation. Without a military, any nation with evil aims would have the opportunity to subject all Americans to the power of a foreign nation. We have a military to prevent such a threat from being realized. Thirdly, we have the civil court system to ensure that individuals can resolve disputes under objectively created laws. This ensures that the whims, or violence, of one person, or that of a group, are not the deciding factors in terms of the rights, duties, responsibilities, and claims by one person to another; rather, the deciding factor is a combination of facts applied to objectively created laws. That is the nature of government in a nutshell. Thus, to the extent that one wants to participate in a necessary governmental service, one should consider joining their local police force, the fire department, the national guard, the United States Military (which consists of five branches: the Marine Corps, Navy, Army, Coast Guard, and Air Force), an attorney (to argue the facts and the law on behalf of one's client in a civil dispute), and for attorneys, they should consider working as a state or federal judge.

Of course, the government does a lot of other things that are not necessary and are actually rather harmful to our republic, including farm subsidies, creating and managing re-education camps known as public schools (or as I call it, 'government-run schools'), bailout of financial institutions, rent/housing subsidies, the payment of tax dollars for health care services, wasteful subsidies to so-called "clean" but inefficient forms of energy, as well as staffing agencies that few people can understand--such as commissions on "aging" Americans, etc, etc.

The newest government scheme that the incoming Obama administration is proposing is this misguided notion of youths performing "public service." To the liberals, public service amounts to doing that which government officials dictate as "public service." The term that politicians have been using--"public service"--is misleadingly vague because it enables citizens to craft their own impression of "public service" that is likely benevolent, exciting, and benefiting a large number of individuals. However, these impressions would be quite wrong. "Public service" serves a variety of purposes to politicians: it conditions citizens to become mere subjects, willing to listen to the dictates of government officials, rather than acting according to their own self-interest. Secondly, rather than serving the interests of many of the individuals within a geographical boundary, it is most likely designed to ensure that a politician, or a group of politicians, will win re-election. (Politicians are always focused on the next election). Thirdly, what about the interests of the young citizen? Why should they be conditioned to think about the interests of others instead of their own interests? It is through entrepreneurship and through exercising their rational faculties towards profit-oriented enterprises such as Google that these individuals truly benefit not only themselves, but others. Thus, capitalism itself serves as a check on whether one's activities truly have "value." The fact that people are willing to voluntarily enter into a contract with them and pay for their services is the strongest indication that their labor has real value. When the government creates make-work "public service" jobs, the young citizens are not aware of whether there is any true objective value to their work since the people paying for the young citizen's services--the wealth creating tax-payer--were forced to pay for services that they may or may want.

Further, there are more than enough opportunities for someone to volunteer their time, money, and motivation to causes that they support. There are no legal constraints that stop a young citizen from donating their time or money to such causes. America is the most generous nation on the face of the planet. If a young citizen wants to volunteer, what is stopping them? Do they need a politician's call to service? Why? If one wants to volunteer, they should do so based upon their own desire and interest, and not from the call of a politician trying to enlarge their own source of power. Thus, the idea that the government should compel them them to perform certain tasks sounds anti-American in this land of liberty. For these reasons, Obama's proposed "national service" scheme ought to be vigorously opposed and defeated.

Obama to create millions of jobs for morons to change light bulbs. This is not satire!

The following is not satire. Even though it appears like satire, it really is not!

Excerpt from President-Select Obama's speech on Sunday, December 7, 2008:

"Today, I am announcing a few key parts of my plan. First, we will launch a massive effort to make public buildings more energy-efficient. Our government now pays the highest energy bill in the world. We need to change that. We need to upgrade our federal buildings by replacing old heating systems and installing efficient light bulbs. That won’t just save you, the American taxpayer, billions of dollars each year. It will put people back to work."

Apparently Obama's plan on creating new jobs is to hire a bunch of morons to change the light bulbs in federal buildings. This is not the path towards economic growth. These are make-work jobs. This is taking away wealth from those who create it and spending it on jobs that do not create any new wealth and have no economic value whatsoever.

Illegal alien UCLA student protests budget cuts. This is not a story from the Onion, but rather in the LA Times.

There's a funny story in the LA Times. But not for the reasons that one typically considers a story funny. The story is about UC funding cuts to education. It quotes an 18-year-old "undocumented student from Peru" (in other words, an illegal alien, one who is not authorized to be in the nation) who "asked how she was supposed to finish her studies if tuition keeps rising." She's quoted as saying, ""Tell me," she said, "how I'm supposed to do that. Please!"

Yes, I will tell you, Sofia Campos. First, as the story says, you're an undocumented student--in other words, an illegal alien. You are not supposed to be here, so I highly recommend that you leave. Go back to Peru, and then apply to come back to the US legally (although I would prefer that you remain in Peru: your habits are certainly not in keeping with the American spirit). Second, you are living in a free country: perhaps if you spent less time protesting, you would go out and find a way to earn a living. Do something. Stop complaining.

Third, why do you think it is up to other individuals within the nation to pay your tuition? They don't care about your education: but you do. You're the one who benefits, so you should pay for it. It is time to show some independence and find a way to pay for things on your own. Grow up--and stop being a whiner. Fourth, tell me, Sofia Campos, how can the taxpayers of California continue to fund more and more demands for government, to the point in which the state is nearly bankrupt trying to fulfill your requests (the state budget deficit is now $24 billion)? Where are you when taxes go up? You probably are not among those who are screaming about how costs are going up. Stop being selfish, Sofia Campos of the world, and look out for yourself, and stop demanding that another person live for your sake. No one wants to be your slave.

Struggling typewriter manufacturers to ask for a federal bailout.

Please note: The following is satire.

Congress recently passed the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to help struggling financial firms. Recent lobbyists have asked that this program be extended to state and local governments, as well as the automobile industry. And now there is another political player asking for a bailout: The Typewriter Manufacturers Association of America. Steve Oldkey, the spokesman for the Typewriter Manufacturers Association of America, recently said that "it is only fair that if Congress allocate funds to failing enterprises that it also subsidize an industry that has been failing for a longer period of time than AIG or GM."

Steve Oldkey believes that the typewriter manufacturers within the United States should receive $5 billion from taxpayers to keep the manufacturing plants churning out typewriters that no one is eager to buy. "Unlike Ford, our labor costs are rather low. The only problem is that no one is buying our products. However, with a federal bailout, we can continue to manufacture millions of beautiful typewriters that are made with the highest of quality."

Congress is having a difficult time deciding the issue. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that several of her San Francisco constituents have asked that the typewriter industry receive a federal bailout, especially the non-electric ones. "We all know that we must do our part to reduce greenhouse gases. Therefore, it only makes sense that we bailout the struggling typewriter manufacturers, especially the non-electric ones, since this will help to reduce global warming through reducing electrical usage," Speaker Pelosi said. Privately, Pelosi also added that she likes failing companies like the typewriter manufacturers precisely because it gives her "a sense of power, the feeling that I am actually in charge of an industry and contributing to their success" even though all she has done is shift money from the productive sector of the economy to the failing part.

Democrats fail at running government-run education bureacracy in LA.

Government-run LAUSD is by far one of the largest failures in government enterprises. According to the nonpartisan publication education week, the graduation rate at LAUSD is less than 44% after four years! This means that a majority of students do not graduate from LAUSD! Have you ever heard of a business that has a failure rate of more than 50%? Most businesses have a failure rate less significantly less than 1%!

As a result, I was pleased to hear that government-run LAUSD will have budget cuts possibly in the amount of $400 million. Why? Well, where does that $400 million come from? It comes from the private efforts of those within the productive and successful parts of the economy, who are forced, through the point of a gun, to turn over their earnings to the failed enterprise known as LAUSD.

It will be a good day in America when the government finally accepts defeat and withdraws from the business of indoctrinating (err-educating) America's school children. To improve education, government support for education must end so that the private sector can work.

Democrats want to steal your 401(k).

I just read a story that was quite troubling. As many of you know, this current financial crisis is one that has been largely created through poor and incompetent government policies, including (but not limited to): the Federal Reserve, under Alan Greenspan, holding interest rates at a fairly low level for an extended period of time; rules that required banks to suspend normal lending practices that required the bank to lend money to borrowers who have the ability to pay, and instead replacing it with a government edict that those who could not possibly pay their mortgage back receive mortgages as well; then, there is the creation of the government enterprises--Freddie and Frannie Mae, which would buy the bad mortgages from the banks and securitize them (and thus, sell them all over the world); and, last but not least, the government also had a list of "approved" credit agencies who would then rate the credit worthiness of these bad mortgages, which meant that the supply of useful information related to these mortgages was rationed and restricted by the government.

OK. So the government created this mess, and the stock market has obviously taken a hit due to the uncertainty that this has brought. But never fear, for the government has more ideas on how to wreck your life.

Now, the government is looking at your 401(k) plan, and they are thinking about ways that they can take over and control your 401(k) plan because you are not managing it as well as the government could. Yes, everyone's 401(k) is quite low at this point in time. However, anyone who is invested in the market should realize that wild swings are a normal part of market participation. There are a great deal of benefits to waiting if you're presently invested. Those who hold their equities for the long-term can expect returns of 7-8% per year, adjusted for inflation. As everyone knows by now, the Social Security system has guaranteed far more than it can ever possibly expect to pay in the future. In other words, Social Security is going to go broke at some point in the future. However, not to fear, as the government actually wants to take over your 401(k) and convert it into a government-managed system. What would be the great benefit from such a deal? Well, according to the article I just read in the LA Times (available here), you would be guaranteed an "inflation-adjusted 3%" return. Wow! Now that is a wonderful deal, isn't it? You hand over all of your life savings to the government in exchange for an "inflation-adjusted 3% return." Sounds like socialism to me. If you hand it over to the government, though, don't expect them to hold your money. More likely than not, they would take your loot, and spend it, which is exactly what Congress has done with the Social Security surplus.

Dear young Obama voter: you're drafted. Ha! Serves you right!

Dear Young Obama voters: I know you were very excited about Obama during the election season. Turns out, Obama has plans for you, young voter. Yes! His plan is to draft you into compulsory "national service"--like taking out the trash in your local area and working with stinky homeless bums. I'm not joking at al! If you're between the ages of 18-26, Obama will draft you. You can read all about it here.

American people elect Hussein Obama to Presidency. We will provide consistant, principled opposition to this dangerous man.

Sadly, the American people voted for an unqualified and deeply flawed man with the worst associations imaginable. B. Hussein Osama Obama will be the 44th President for one-term. In the mean time, we need to provide articulate conservative arguments in opposition to the socialist agenda that he will advance. We will stand on the side of liberty, while Obama can take the side of a crushing state that will try to take as much of your income, limit the options of consumers to buy the car that they prefer, whether you should join a labor union, and even what type of job that you take on. We will oppose all of this. And liberty will win.

Obama wants to bankrupt your industry. He hates American energy companies.

In this sound clip, you can see that Obama wants to literally bankrupt a particular sector of the American economy--coal. The cavalier manner in which he states that he will impose such tough regulations that it will literally "bankrupt" an American industry shows that he truly has contempt for a large number of Americans. As we have always said here, it is literally true that Democrats hate America, and here is just more proof.

When Obama is done bankrupting coal, he is going to come after your industry and bankrupt that one as well. This man will not be done until he bankrupts every industry and forces them to become slaves to the federal government.

Obama hates the US Constitution

Americans reject socialism. Americans revere and truly love the United States Constitution, which subordinates society to the role of the individual. The United States Constitution places substantial restrictions upon the government, with the aim of freeing the individual to pursue liberty and, by virtue of this, happiness.

The Preamble to the United States Constitution states specifically what the government is to do:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The Constitution states that there are only three legitimate purposes by which the government is to act: a) to ensure domestic tranquility through having laws to protect individuals from criminals; b) to have a defense to protect individuals from foreign invaders; c) and to protect individuals from the whims of the mob by having a judicial system based upon objective laws to decide controversies between individuals. Nothing in the Constitution suggests that socialism is acceptable at all.

In fact, it was none other than socialist Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez who said that the United States Constitution is too individualistic and ought to be reformed to be more socialist. Further, US Presidential candidate Barack Obama, parroting the same words as a third-world dictator, has lamented -- literally, has been complaining that the Constitution prevents the government from doing more things to the population.

Barack Obama wants to reorder American society such that you will no longer be in charge of your own life. Rather, he wants you to take orders from the government. He wants to coerce you into using less energy, and thus, as a consequence, your lifestyle will decrease (imagine getting around in Los Angeles without a car! Obama declares that you ought to get on the bus!) He wants to impose significantly higher tax rates on the most successful individuals and companies in America, thus creating incentives for them to work less or shift their activities abroad. This is a recipe for decline in America.

It gets worse. Obama's effort to impose a judicial dictatorship could make it literally impossible to reverse many of his poor policies.

In a video (posted below), Barack Obama lamented that the Warren Court did not create a right to redistributive economic policies. Let us make that clear. What Obama has wanted is for the courts to impose a "right" to welfare, even absent a clear law from Congress. Obama believes that some individuals' productive efforts can be taken away on a whim and transferred to non-producers. He wants to create a permanent parasitic class that will continue to ask for more and more handouts (without lifting a finger to create wealth), while the producers will be overtaxed and exhausted from excessive taxation. The end result is obvious: the brilliant minds--the ones who create the services and the goods that we so depend upon, will work less, flee to another land (perhaps Ireland or Australia or Hong Kong), while the parasitic class will whine and ask for more, but the wealth will have fled to more hospitable locations. We're on the road to serfdom. Undecided voters--you can stop the road to serfdom by voting for John McCain next Tuesday.

"Joe the Plumber" shows the immorality of the Obama socialists.

Barack Obama has taken a new low: he is attacking a citizen for daring to question one of his socialist policy proposals. Obama's campaign has rapidly gone after Joe, digging up dirt, and trying to disparage this ordinary citizen just for daring to ask why Obama wants to tax him more "just for being successful." "Joe the Plumber's" real name is Joe Wurzelbacher. By asking how it is moral to tax Wurzelbacher more if he happened to make more than $250,000, "Joe the Plumber" was wondering how government confiscation of his wealth would be helpful to him. Joe the Plumber was showing that it is not moral to take away more of one's earned property just because they happened to be more successful.

In a capitalist society, the rewards for one's labor should increase as one is far more successful.

Thus, this is precisely what encourages a person to try to raise their productivity, whether it is through education, capital infusion (such as technology), experience, or through a variety of all of these factors. What Obama proposes, however, is to lessen the incentives to work harder, save, invest, receive an education, and to start a business. Obama and the socialist Democrats hate the "Joe the Plumbers" of the world because these men and women derive happiness from pursuing their own self-interest, using their talents and their minds to engage in voluntary exchanges with others. This is the moral system we call capitalism, a system that the Obama socialist Democrats strongly oppose. They do not want people to pursue their own interest because it means that they do not derive their happiness from the whims and favors of elected thugs like Obama. Rather, what Obama wants is to tax the "Joe the Plumbers" to the point in which they are no longer wealthy, at which point they will then be subject to whatever the Obama socialists choose to hang out among the crums at their disposal. This is what is considered "moral" in the Obama view. It is moral because, under the Obama perspective, it gives him more authority over Joe's life.

And further, this socialist intention is truly to ensure that Joe the Plumber works far less than he does.

If the "Joe the Plumber's" of the world are going to pay significantly higher taxes once he makes $250,000, is there a good reason to try to establish a world class, successful, and dynamic company? Obama sees fit to destroy Joe's dream of having a company that makes more than $250,000 a year. This is not entirely unheard of in America. After all, this is the land of promising capitalistic potential. What is interesting is that it is a foreigner, French President Sarkozy, who best explained the capitalist ideal. I quote:

"America did not tell the millions of men and women who came from every country in the world and who—with their hands, their intelligence and their heart—built the greatest nation in the world: "Come, and everything will be given to you." She said: "Come, and the only limits to what you'll be able to achieve will be your own courage and your own talent." America embodies this extraordinary ability to grant each and every person a second chance.

"Here, both the humblest and most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That's what constitutes the moral value of America. America did not teach men the idea of freedom; she taught them how to practice it. And she fought for this freedom whenever she felt it to be threatened somewhere in the world. It was by watching America grow that men and women understood that freedom was possible."

The other thing that is not mentioned is how imposing significantly higher taxes has the effect of "freezing" companies where they already are. Since income and corporate taxes would go up significantly, this would serve as a natural barrier for already established, large companies who would not have to face the potential competition of a small upstart, and more efficient company. A company like Microsoft or Google may even welcome such higher taxes because it would mean that their potential competitors will be "frozen" out because the entrepreneurs who would otherwise be working hard to challenge them will instead think that spending time on a California beach is a better use of their time than paying 70% of their income in taxes. Even if such an entrepreneur wanted to try to compete in this playing field, it would take much longer to establish a large company when a significant share of his income will be confiscated by taxes.

Thus, let it be known, from Florida to Alaska, from Hawaii to Maine, that the real intention of the Obama socialists is to destroy the entrepreneurial class--the "Joe the Plumber's"--by taking away their hopes and dreams, demoralizing them, subjecting these citizens to government confiscation of their earned rewards, and providing unearned benefits on those who have not created any wealth. As Sen. McCain so eloquently stated, "Senator Obama claims that wants to give a tax break to the middle class, but not only did he vote for higher taxes on the middle class in the Senate, his plan gives away your tax dollars to those who don't pay taxes." That's the plan--take away from those who create the wealth and give it away to those who have created nothing. Soon the country will run like Cuba since the talented will produce nothing while the parasitic class will still be asking for more unearned benefits, which will not arise because the productive class will have given up on giving more and more of their wealth.

It's time for the federal government to "sacrifice."

During last night's debate, moderator Tom Brokaw asked John McCain and Barack Obama how they would encourage "sacrifice" on the part of the American people. I like John McCain's answer, in which he said that the time has come in which government programs should be shrunk and, in some cases, completely abolished.

I also think that the other following policies should be enacted in order to encourage sacrifice on the part of the federal government.

• All federal salaries, except for employees of the federal judiciary, members of the military, the FBI, the Department of Justice, and any other department related to protecting individual rights, will receive a 25% across-the-board wage cut, and their salaries will be frozen for a period of 10 years.
• Impose a special windfall profits tax on government employees. After all, government employees are protected for life. Their pay is higher than many civilian positions. They ought to pay for this privilage of remaining on the job.
• Fire half the federal workforce. Most federal employees are completely useless. It's time we fire most of them.
• Prohibit any fun at federal workforces in order to encourage more federal employees to retire. Eliminate all internet access at federal workplaces.
• Cut the federal budget from $3.1 trillion to $1.2 trillion.

Now that's the type of sacrifice I would support.

Sarah Palin has won the debate against Joe Biden.

I am watching the debate between Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Joe Biden. What is clear from this debate is that Sarah Palin is clearly cleaning up the house. She is arguing based upon the facts and offering a very articulate conservative political philosophy. Biden looks defensive and confused, and he has resorted to bring up tired-old liberal philosophies that are intended to scare people. Sarah Palin looks confident, assertive, in command of the facts, whereas Biden looks and sounds like a tired liberal hack.

Application of Animal Farm to the Obama Democrats

2008 is the ideal time to apply the principles that we have learned from Animal Farm and apply them to November's 2008 Presidential election. Just as Napolean, the pig, instigated a rebellion against the owner of the farm (Jones) by talking about how great things will be once the animals ruled the farm, today we are told by the Obama Democrats that once Bush and the Republicans are thrown off the farm (Washington), that all will be well, that things will look wonderful, and that none of us will ever be hungry again. In Animal Farm, though, the animals were far worse off after Mr. Jones was kicked off the farm. Like Obama, Napolean also did not have any experience in running a farm, but this did not stop him from stating that he would be more competent and able to handle the farm. Further, once Napolean took charge of the farm, the interests of the other animals started to decline more and more. He started to remove any sense of democratic principles by eliminating the need for public comment and strongly took action against any potential dissent. This is exactly where the Obama Democrats want to take our country--first, by stating that they (and he alone) can manage the country -- even though there is no experience to suggest that he ought to, and secondly, by eliminating any form of dissent by destroying talk radio and also by heavily regulating and taxing the internet in order to suppress the one free and open medium that is available to counter their message. The lesson of Animal Farm is clear: those who claim to provide us with utopia on earth often will create hell instead through dictatorship, centralization of authority, and a desire to obtain power for power's sake. If we learn the lessons of Animal Farm, our nation will be far better off.

President Bush deserves credit for keeping us safe.

America must never forget September 11, 2001. This was not the beginning of a war against radical Islam, but rather, a long continuation of a war by radical Islamists against the West. As much as Bill Clinton claims that the 1990s were a time period of "peace," in reality, it was a time of war, but one in which we were continously hit and failed to respond. This only further emboldened our enemies.

The response to September 11--against Afghanistan, the sanctuary for Osama bin Ladin, and against Iraq (which has been the cause célèbre for the terrorists), has proven to be a remarkable success. "Success," of course, is defined by an absence of terrorism on U.S. soil. Since September 11, there has not been another major terrorist attack on U.S. soil. This is not due to a conversion of radical Islamists. They still hate us. And they still would do us harm. But the fact that they have been unable to, despite their intentions, suggests that whatever counter measures that President Bush has implemented have served the objective well. President Bush deserves kudos on this seventh anniversary of the radical Islamic war against the West, and specifically, the United States of America.