Archive Jan. 2011 - Dec. 2012
It's been a year since I've updated because I've focused mainly on research. Apologies to my readers, but have no fear, the site is not dead! And neither am I.
In this piece, I'd like to start by saying the most politically INcorrect thing: welfare is KILLING Africans. More specifically: the United Nations and governments around the globe which pump money, food and medicines into that continent are killing Africans.
But that's preposterous! Government subsidies help them!
Almost all African countries have become completely dependent upon welfare and handouts. Drug addicts behave almost identical. How do drug addicts change their lives? Do they become clean by relying on others to give them money, food, clothes, shelter, etc.? Absolutely not. They must hit rock bottom and more importantly WANT to better their lives. Then and only then, does an addict realize that it's up to him to solve his problems, no one else. (An old Southern saying: “You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink,” rings a bell.)
People giving charity to addicts only enable the addict to continue his destructive lifestyle. The same applies to the African addiction of welfare and charity in regards to poverty, violence and oppression. Even with increased funding over the decades, Africa in general remains impoverished and violent.
Fortunately, more and more Africans are starting to stand up and say "NO!" to the U.N. and other foreign money. They are finally realizing that the phrase, "Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day.Teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime" is true.
What Westerners fail to realize is that Marxism infests almost all of Africa. Every government and rebel army models itself after some form of socialism or communism, but then rubber-stamps the word "democracy" or "republic" within the name and propaganda. It only makes sense that these governments fail and people live in misery.
Is it quite possible that "financial aid" is really keeping Africans poor?
- Why work or build an economy when money comes without working for it?
Is it possible "medical aid" is really keeping HIV, malaria and other disease levels higher than it should be?
- Why try basic, common sense measures to safeguard against disease and infection when doctors pass out free medicines and perform free surgery?
Isn't it possible that "food donations" keep starving Africans dependent upon charity?
- Why learn agricultural and food production practices when someone else hands food out freely?
Could it be true that before Africa gains any sense of prosperity and freedom, that they must rid their minds of Marxism and practice individual responsibility?
Thankfully, some Africans are finally promulgating the fallacies of the "collective mindset" and "redistribution of wealth", two pillars of socialism and communism.
Before government aid, United Nations, foreign occupations, and widespread socialism/communism, African societies lived independently, without foreign help, for thousands of years just fine. (Some tribes in Africa still live independently today, but their numbers are decreasing.) Anyone who claims 'cutting funding and aid to the continent will destroy the people' is false. They lived without subsidies before, they can do it again. Africans need to re-learn how to live on their own, by their own, for their own. More and more dollars sent their way only prevents this corrective behavior from starting.
I understand extraordinary events caused many miseries in the past: civil wars, terrorism, genocides, famine, etc. But these cannot be blamed for the prolonged misery throughout the land, decade after decade after decade. Lets not forget that past and present hostilities and atrocities are a result of belligerent Marxist factions. During these horrific periods, I have no problem with private organizations giving aid and charity; but they too need to realize that sometimes their charity becomes an addiction and causes even more damage, just like government welfare.
My second politically INcorrect statement for today: It is my firm belief that the United Nations and African governments benefit from African calamity, therefore, they want the suffering to continue. Why? Because the problem serves as a cash cow. The U.S. sends the most money to the United Nations each year, which in turn, transfers a portion to various African governments. It's a win-win for both the U.N. and corrupt African governments. If Africans became free, independent, and wealthy (via free-market economies instead of centrally-planned economies), funding to these corrupt state-powers decrease or stop altogether because there is no longer a need for welfare (wealth redistribution).
Hollyweird, bleeding-heart liberals and progressives, along with left-wing Christians and Catholics, are killing Africans and promoting poverty. But that's not racist, because leftists can't be racist...
Perhaps...just maybe...the American welfare system keeps our own people poor and desperate too? Chained to government indefinitely...
Nah...never...that's crazy talk....
The American Dilemma:
We're at a point in time when we are damned if we do, damned if we don't. Our economy is on the brink of failure, and that is no exaggeration: economists are warning us (even liberal-progressive economists!), and the history of past countries with similar economic woes give us hindsight of what is to come.
But do our elected elite listen, or more importantly, comprehend? No. At least not the majority of our rulers.
Here's the dilemma: the few politicians acknowledging the proper methods to recovery (survival) are not enough to get the ball moving. Most politicians are worried about being re-elected, and most important of all, the legacy they leave behind.
This is why few politicians are really trying to solve our economic woes: because the real solutions with the best chance of saving us will hurt everyone in their pocketbooks, and that means political suicide for whoever supports such a plan!
The legacy left behind for these politicians will be a negative one to say the least, thanks to the liberal media and ignorant citizenry. Most likely, they will be in office for one-term, or even face recall.
No, our elected rulers will derail the subject and attempt a “solution” that only gains them future votes, but does nothing to help our flailing, dieing economy.
What the U.S. needs is a complete overhaul in the purist, simplest sense; not just in the way Congress spends and budgets, but in the way government acts in relation to the economy.
The best way to reduce debt is to simply cut spending, across the board, in relation to the revenue coming in, without singling out winners and losers. We must not target only the rich, or only the middle-class, or only the poor: we must all suffer for a period of time if we are to survive. We are in this together!
Congress, the President, and even our Courts, must understand that this path we have paved for decades and decades was the result of big-government, too much bureaucracy, heavy economic regulations, the welfare state, the military-industrial complex, greed and corruption, etc. All of these resulted in our current problem.
But what do we do? The most common practice is to use a “solution” which has already been tried before, but failed.
I guess governmental/bureaucratic logic is: who cares if it's been used countless times and failed, use it again!
We have tried pumping money into our economy via “bailouts” for decades now, that only increased our inflation. We tried to artificially lower interest rates and lower the qualifying standards for loans numerous times, that caused various “bubbles” and a private & public debt that may never be paid off. We tried increasing taxes throughout the past 80 years to pay off government debt, that only caused government to receive less tax revenue because people spent less in the economy.
We tried more welfare, subsidies, and grants to the rich and poor alike, but only saw a rise in laziness (dependence upon handouts), corruption, greed, graft, and the theft of taxpayer's money. We gave the education bureaucracies and schools more money to increase students' grades and graduation rates, but we saw no change in the trend. We gave more funding, equipment, and manpower to the Border Patrol and I.C.E., however the waves of illegal immigrants roll on without a break. We tried to regulate the economy so as to prevent corruption and greed, but these regulations only stifled the honest business, while the dishonest continued on their merry way by breaking the law, using loopholes, bribes, and the “good 'ole boy” system. The failures are endless...
If we use the failed solutions of the past as an attempt to solve our current problems, we can only expect more flops and duds. How about some REAL change for once?
Why not reduce everyone's government benefits, subsidies, welfare, and overall governmental dependence: from medicare to medicaid; social security must be reformed (S.S. money should be used for only S.S. recipients, Congress and President should not be able to spend a dime for anything else with that money!); welfare reduction (from food stamps to section 8 housing to unemployment to corporate handouts); military spending must be cut too for now (specifically advanced and experimental research, only the essential should be funded until we get on our feet); government grants, subsidies, and loans need to be reduced and more restricted to only qualified individuals and organizations (this includes college government grants & loans, private grants and loans will remain unaffected); lower taxes so people have more money in their pockets to spend more, create more businesses, hire and promote more employees, this in turn means more revenue for the government due to an increased flow of tax monies; allow interest rates to raise and lower on their own (get the Federal Reserve and federal banking regulations out of the picture for good!), this prevents people from getting a loan during bad times when they cannot afford to pay it back (even when inept regulations would otherwise permit it).
We simply cannot continue on this path by choosing one or two areas to cut, by choosing a losing side and winning side. We must take a broad, sweeping approach to this, because the problem is itself broad and sweeping.
There are certainly more common-sense resolutions that I've left out, but last but not least: reduce government wages and benefits (this includes elected officials, appointed, and government workers), and slowly abolish many of the tax-dollar-wasting bureaucracies over time; starting at the federal level and moving to the state, then onto the county and city (i.e. Federal Department of Energy, Education, Homeland Security, Health & Human Services, Environmental Protection Agency, etc. etc.). The average wage for these individuals tops well above the national average of private sector employees. Plus, most public officials receive pensions and retirement packages (something most of us peasants will never have). They must suffer, equally, right along with us.
Everyone reading this will be impacted in some way (including me). It's human nature to reject any proposal that causes self-inflicted pain, but this route is better than our government targeting only a minority of our population for something we are all responsible for. (Let's not forget that the minority will be selected for political expediency, not because they are the only ones to blame or because it's a real solution!)
The point to keep in mind is that these things must be done, not out of anger or class-warfare, but because everyone is in this together; rich and poor, old and young, all colors under the sun; and everyone must take this blow if our country is to survive. It will be tough for everyone, but to solve this mess, it requires everyone to give some.
I feel sorry for any person holding office that actually performs and supports these necessary tasks. They will be met with scorn from their (traitorous) peers in office, the liberal media will shame them for something that must be done, and unfortunately, most of the American public will believe the lies and remain in ignorance. Good luck to these brave martyrs and sacrificial lambs. Nonetheless, you have our support.
This video explains the difference between national debt and the national deficit. This is particularly important when politicians speak of these issues as they are not synonymous. We need to understand these two separate terms.
In the video above, Senator Rand Paul expresses the hypocrisy of the Department of Energy (and government in general). This illogical thinking (i.e. the progressive ideology) runs rampant not just in our present government, but in past administrations and bureaucracies too, from both Republican and Democrat leaderships.