About Me

Name: Ed Menendez
Email: ed@menendez.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

  • Ed
    We Won't Get...
    Jennifer

Archives

Blog Roll

Bush + Obama Debt = Slavery

You probably recall the term "Taxation without Representation" as being a motto that fueled the American Revolution. The idea is simple. Englishmen in America paid taxes which were spent by a government they did not have a direct representative in.

Bush & Obama have done the same. When a government borrows money, the politicians who spent the money do not have to answer to the people who pay that debt. Instead of being separated by distance from the people paying, these politicians are now separated by time.

When you're forced to pay and not represented, you are a slave of the state. Be sure to send thank you letters to your slave masters from the future. Or, be sure to go to one of the TEA Parties and be a part of the next revolution.

Also, change your avatar color to yellow at AvaTint.com to protest the increased government spending.


Originally posted at http://menendez.com/blog/bush-obama-debt-slavery/

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Global Warming and Gay Marriage Don't Matter

When someone on the left, as socialists are often referred to in America, talks about Global Warming, now called Global Climate Change™, it often has the same ring to it as when someone who seriously believes about supernatural dieties speaks about god. Let's compare.

Besides the believing in god thing, some may sum up the religious right as those people who think you should have no fun. If you have fun, god will smite you.

Some may sum up the religious left as those who believe that you should not focus on producing wealth and industry. If you do, you will be smote.

Of course, both generalizations are inaccurate. Unfortunately for everyone, both sides hold truths in their arguments that get missed because both groups get lost in the trees of their arguments and completely forget about the forest. On the right, the point is to be a moral person. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don't steal, don't lie, don't cheat.

The left's points include; remember to enjoy life and the simple things. There's more to life than material wealth. Remember that we share the earth with others, help them if they ask. Natural beauty is sublime and can't be recreated, at any cost, once destroyed by man.

In practice, if the religious right were to see the big picture... this would mean: Gay marriage is fine. Who others have sex with is none of your business. If people choose to plan when and if they want to have children, that's also OK. If someone believes in a different god, it's not OK to blow yourself up where they congregate. Above all, it means love your fellow man.

To the left, to see the big pictures means; it's OK to produce wealth since it can help the suffering of people. It's OK to pollute, if there's also a way to cleanup or if not polluing leads to even greater human suffering. It's not OK to tell others what they can and can't do. Because, loving your fellow man means letting them be free. If you feel you need to destroy for your cause, you should reevaluate.

But how do we make people stop behavior we don't want? That guy who cuts trees on weekends for hobby. Or the urban unwed mother with 5 kids. Don't MAKE them do anything. Show them. We convince and educate people to do the right thing. As soon as we force others to do something, we are violating the golden rule. If whatever it is we believe in is true, then it should not be difficult to move someone to your cause. We live our lives by example and destroy only when absolutely nessary to regain our liberties, not when others aren't doing what it is you want them to. This is exactly why Martin Luther King has a holiday, Mahatma Ghandi was a great man.

The greatest things in life are the simplest. It's simple for you to be great in life too.


Originally posted at http://menendez.com/blog/global-warming-socialist-religion/

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Lawyer Army 1.0

Is government better than the people?

As we've been told again and again... capitalism has failed. It's not our fault that we believed property values would go up like a man over dosing on ED drugs. It's not our fault that we lied on our mortgage forms. It's definitely not our fault that no one checked those forms. We wouldn't have lied if we knew someone was going to look at it. It no one's fault. It's the system's fault. If we had a better system, none of this would have happened!

Let's investigate this system we're going to discard.

This system that, since the last attack which partially crippled it in the 1930s, has brought increased life expectancy and increased per capita income. This partially crippled capitalist system we are moving away from is one where you need an army of lawyers to deal with the government in certain industries (auto, medical, banking, real estate, etc...) to one where you need an army of lawyers and lobbyist to do most anything. Want to start a small farm? Sorry, you'll need to fill out these forms. Want to be an angel investor in a start-up and try to sell your company to the public.. sorry, please see the lawyer army. Would you like to develop some green technology? Can't get any investment because everyone has to compete with the government backed investments in green technology. Again, please see the lawyer army.

You might notice that the industries that fail us are those that are most regulated. Of course, more regulation is not going to help. What do you think is going to happen when more and more of the economy is government regulated? Will that fail us too? These failures of the most regulated industries have been predicted.

Because we are either too dishonest or too incompetent to be trusted, we need these regulations to protect us from ourselves. But who are we going put in charge of this? Where are we going to get these honest super competent people? What if one of them turns out to be incompetent, won't the entire system go down? The current system, had a few major banks fail and a few major banks that were not in trouble at all. That's what they get for playing by the rules.

I argue that people are good and have done pretty well when left alone. We get in trouble when a small number of people gather vast amounts of power. And that's what Obamunism is all about. It's a corporatist philosophy where power is accumulated and controlled through central planning. If you thought Wall Street did poorly with the large amount of power it was able to regulate for itself through lobbyist... wait until you see what Obama does for them in Washington.

Here's a better solution. Let's let each of the 50 states figure out what the best solution is for each state. At least one state will figure out a good answer and everyone will copy it. Here's an even better solution, let each one of us figure out what the right answer is. When one of us figures it out, a lot of others are going to give it a try.

Give freedom a chance and send the lawyer army home before none of us is able to make it on our own.


Originally posted at http://menendez.com/blog/lawyer-army-1-0/

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

You're Too Little to Not Fail

Recently, you may have heard the term "Too Big to Fail" (TBF). TBF is simply a euphemism for well connected. The company or industry being spoken about is too well connected and has too many lobbyists. Notice how the financial sector and auto industry both get bailouts, but the realtors and the builders get nothing. The reason for this is that realtors and the construction industry don't have enough lobbyists making laws for them in congress. Too bad for them. Even worse for the rest of us since we've committed our kids to paying off a few trillion dollars in debt. AIG is too big to fail but your kid is little enough to saddle with hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

Isn't it interesting how the government is willing to recapitalize the banks to the tune of "whatever it takes" but they won't give money to the person being foreclosed? This would solve the same problem from the other side and cause less pain to the little guy. Alas, there is no little-guy lobby. The person getting foreclosed on is an afterthought. Of course, if they just gave money to whoever owned a home, some people would say this is unfair. And they would be correct. When you do it that way it's obvious that what we're doing is wrong. But, package it under the guise that we must "do something" and season in a little fear until the aroma of panic is in the air... and now we've got freshly baked socialism pie.

I am now on the record saying that "Too Big To Fail" is offensively stupid. Every single person who said it and weren't mocking it are "Too Stupid For Government Work".

Let's make a little mental list of everything that some people consider TBF. AIG, Citibank, the U.S. Federal Government, but not individual states! If any of those are actually TBF I suggest to you that they are actually TBE... "Too Big to Exist". We should not allow anything to be that big. We should write our rules so that we never again allow any entity be so large so as to destroy "everything" if it fails. Whenever we determine something is TBE we should figure out how to break it apart.

What can we do now? I would suggest a tax protest but I'm not sure if it's legal to suggest that. In the meantime, we just have to wait for the unintended consequences of these bailouts to set in.


Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Class Warfare is Immoral

There are some who are quite confused as to why people would vote against their own "best interests". It seems to me to be quite condescending to know what is in the "best interest" of an entire class of people. Looking past that however, I will try to explain, why such "confused" people think this way.

Violating the golden rule is universally wrong. By forcing, at gun-point, some people to pay a large portion of their income to an organization; we'll call it the Government and not The Mob for now; while requiring others to pay absolutely none is just wrong. Just because you see someone walking down the street with the latest shoes you have been looking at for weeks, doesn't allow you and your friends to steal those shoes. Just because you're stealing those shoes through the proxy that is the U.S. Government doesn't make it any better.

And then, there are those who think past the next move in chess and realize that soaking the materially rich, will only end up hurting those have-nots, the most. As if you need more than the moral justification, here's the practical consideration which is exactly the opposite of the naive view expressed by those that think that stealing from individuals and enlarging government is in a particular class' "best-interest". This is going to come as a shocker... but, get ready for this. The government does not create any jobs. If they take $100 from you to give it to someone else, the $70 the other person receives does not net any positive jobs. You might even say the bureaucratic waste and paper shuffling actually lost wealth. The government does not create any wealth. It does not own the means of producing anything. And in countries where the government does own the means to produce wealth it allocates resources so poorly that you always end-up with shortages. Good job big government.

Additionally, by having the government take the role of what family and friends are for, you weaken the family and strengthen the role in your life of the largest corporation of all... the U.S. Government. The message is that it's not up to you to improve yourself, it's up to the government to do it for you. If you're not better off today, it's someone else's responsibility.

I don't earn 250k, but I know I will pay for Obamunism. Eventually when those over 250k in income can't pay enough taxes to sustain the new spending policies, I will have to pay. And my job will be lower paying because after soaking the rich, there just aren't that many employers for me to shop around my skills. I'm not arguing so much for trickle-down economics as I am arguing against trickle-up poverty.

I understand why some feel the need to fight "the system". I'm one of them!! But "the system" is any large organization. The largest of them all is the U.S. Government. Whatever organization you think is "too big to fail", that organization should be put on the action-list of systems that need to be fought.

In conclusion, it's condescending to say that I need so much government help. And it's immoral to force other to pay for that help. It's also going to be counter-productive to your stated cause of helping those that need help. And ultimately, I don't want your government help.

Originally Posted At:
http://menendez.com/blog/why-class-warfare-is-immoral/
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

We Won't Get Fooled Again

You might be OK with socialism. But know what you're buying and what you're selling to get it. I believe I'm in the company of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington by saying that whenever we depart from personal liberty and try to do good using force, the immorality at the core of using such force ultimately corrupts all those good intentions. Bottom line, socialism is morally wrong and breaks the Golden Rule. And Obama, as well meaning and intelligent as he is, by trying to protect the American Dream will destroy the founding father's dream for America.

My mother, purveyor of all things wise, including myself, recently said, "No one will fool me about what is communism. Obama speaks just as well in both message and delivery as Fidel (Castro) ever did. (Obama) promises cheap fuel, health care for all and elimination of poverty; it's the same speech I heard over 40 years ago. It makes me cry."

It makes her cry because she actually lost her freedom and came to this country to get it back. She knows what she would be losing. Americans don't know that loss... yet.

My view is that Obama is a socialist, not quite a communist. But as Khrushchev himself once said, you cannot expect Americans to jump from capitalism to communism. You need small doses of socialism first. Or heavy doses as prescribed by Obama.

Sorry, Senator Obama, but don't spread any of that immoral wealth towards me. My idealism and personal want to help others is not so naive. My freedom is not for sale. Is yours?

Originally Posted At: http://menendez.com/blog/we_wont_get_fooled_again/

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »