US COVID-19 Deaths Surpass Influenza...Or Has It?

So, COVID-19 deaths have exceeded those of what we have been seeing for seasonal influenza...just as the "experts" told us they would.  But, have they really?

It has been admitted that, as Dr. Deborah Birx said in a recent press conference, "...in this country, we've taken a very liberal approach to mortality."  She went on to say,  "There are other countries that if you had a pre-existing condition and let's say the virus caused you to go to the ICU and then have a heart or kidney problem. Some countries are recording that as a heart issue or a kidney issue and not a COVID-19 death."  She then concludes that, "The intent is right now if someone dies with COVID-19, we're counting that as a COVID-19 death."

Notice the difference.  If you died with COVID-19, they are counting it as you died from COVID-19.  And, I will remind you, that even with the "very liberal" accounting of COVID-19 deaths, it is still far lower than pneumonia deaths (42,560 in the first 12 weeks of 2020 alone).

But there is also more to this story.  Dr. Birx talks about the virus "causing" you to go to the ICU, but there are reports coming out, like this one on Fox News from Dr. Scott Jensen, that, unlike at other times, doctors are being encouraged to count deaths of nearly any kind as a COVID-19 death if they have been confirmed to have have the virus.  Dr. Jensen said, "If I have a patient died a month ago, had fever, a cough, and died after three days and had maybe been an elderly, fragile individual, and there happened to be an influenza epidemic around our community, I wouldn't put influenza on the death certificate, and I've never been encouraged to do so.  I would put, probably, respiratory arrest would be the top line and the underlying cause disease would be pneumonia, and in the contributing factors I might well put emphysema or congestive heart failure.  But, I would never put influenza down as the underlying cause of death, and yet, that's what we're being asked to do here."

Much has also been made of the bad time that Italy has had with the virus.  In fact the US and other countries have been using numbers from Italy to model the possible spread and lethality of the epidemic.

But, is Italy the proper case to base a model on.  It has been widely discussed that Italy's demographics skew significantly toward the older population, which are the most vulnerable to COVID-19.  As reported in The Telegraph:

According to Prof Walter Ricciardi, scientific adviser to Italy’s minister of health, the country’s mortality rate is far higher due to demographics - the nation has the second oldest population worldwide - and the manner in which hospitals record deaths. 

“The age of our patients in hospitals is substantially older - the median is 67, while in China it was 46,” Prof Ricciardi says. “So essentially the age distribution of our patients is squeezed to an older age and this is substantial in increasing the lethality.” 

But, beyond the demographic issues with Italy, we now learn that Italy too used a very liberal accounting for COVID-19 deaths.  From The Telegraph again:

“The way in which we code deaths in our country is very generous in the sense that all the people who die in hospitals with the coronavirus are deemed to be dying of the coronavirus.

“On re-evaluation by the National Institute of Health, only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus, while 88 per cent of patients who have died have at least one pre-morbidity - many had two or three,” he says. 

Read it again!  "only 12 per cent of death certificates have shown a direct causality from coronavirus."  12 percent...TWELVE...the number of deaths times 0.12.  Okay, that's significant!

So, what would the chart look like if the US over-reporting was in the same range as Italy?  And remember what Dr. Birx said above, "very liberal."  It would look something like this:

This is much more in-line with what some experts on epidemics were predicting.

The point I will make is that if we are to take such drastic steps...steps that are causing massive unemployment like we have never seen...we have to be more sure of the numbers.  The devastation to the economy in the long-term could likely be much worse than the short-term affects of the coronavirus pandemic.

I am not going offer conjecture on all the reasons for over-estimating the numbers so massively.  I also admit that some number of the cases where COVID-19 was not the cause of death, it may have been a contributing factor.  The point I will make is that if we are to take such drastic steps...steps that are causing massive unemployment like we have never seen...we have to be more sure of the numbers.  The devastation to the economy in the long-term could likely be much worse than the short-term affects of the coronavirus pandemic.

These are the kinds of results you get when you allow "government experts," of any kind, to make extremely consequential decisions for the whole country.  Remember that their initial models that caused the panic to begin with...the ones that launched the police-state lock-downs...were that 2 million Americans could die.  They have continued to back down those predictions, but their prescription has remained the same, and has gotten worse as more and more jurisdictions have inflicted stricter "social distancing" mandates on their citizens.

Fauci, Birix and the other CDC experts are all working from mathematical modeling that, as Fauci admits "are only as good as the assumptions you put into the model."  But, while he claims to not pay too close attention to the models, these were the numbers that have been reported that caused panic and were, at least in the early days, used to justify the lock-downs.

But these experts are only expert in one, narrow area.  They are not economists...they don't have any real concern for economic realities.  Their concern has always been expressed about "overwhelming the healthcare system."  In addition, the experts in charge...the ones who have the current levers of power...are allowed to ignore other, contradicting expert opinions, like Stanford University epidemiologist John Ioannidis and others.  Some say that "flattening the curve" only prolongs the problem, and therefore the economic affects, by delaying the acquisition of "herd immunity" in the population.  But, they only allow voices that agree with their assessments, even as they are shown to be wrong.

A sample epidemic curve, with and without social distancing. 

Image credit: Johannes Kalliauer/ CC BY-SA 4.0)

 Notice in the diagram above, "flattening the curve" may help the health care system, but it drags the over-all problem out over a much longer time horizon.  This will, therefore cause longer-term negative effects to the economy.  The longer a business is kept from pursuing revenue, the less likely it will be able to survive...the higher the number of long-term unemployed and financial damage.  But, as you can see from the diagram, the total number of deaths is likely to be nearly the same.

While we know that the defense of the "flattening the curve" approach is to guard against overwhelming the healthcare system, have we really critically questioned the assumptions.  Yes, some areas are being hit hard, New York City, in particular, but nothing like what was predicted.  Remember, Governor Anthony Cuomo's exasperated question "What am I going to do with four hundred ventilators when I need thirty thousands?"  Well, it hasn't turned out that they have needed anywhere near that number.  But even if it had been worse than it is, we have the vast majority of the rest of the country with excess healthcare sitting idle with employees being furloughed..  Surely we could have made this work in the short term to get through this faster.

When asked about when we can expect to open the country back up, Dr. Fauci said. "I think reopening it is not going to be like a light switch that you switch on or off.  Because, if you look at throughout the country, it's a large country and the outbreaks are really quite different, depending on where you are."  This seems to make some sense, but the question I have is why did we have to switch the country off all at one time?   As Fauci continued, "New York, New Jersey area is very different from now what we've seen in Washington State and in California, in which there was the threat of a real big spike, but it really didn't occur and is at that low level."

In fact, it is true that areas in the country are very different.  The following chart shows the number of deaths (reportedly) caused by COVID-19 per State as of April 10th.

 So, from this chart, we have to ask, why do we have nearly the entire country on lock-down?  The answer is simple...FEAR.  Fear started and perpetuated by the so-called experts, based on faulty mathematical modeling.  Fear of the disease...but also fear that politicians of all stripes might be held responsible for not doing enough.  Fear that was not tempered in any way by the opinion of other "experts" in the same or other areas.  I've laid out what I think some of the other causes have been in a previous post.

The arguments we keep seeing are based on a false dichotomy.  There are not only two choices: Total shut-down...OR...we're all going to die!  There are many, many choices in between.  As we get through this current scare and come out the other side, I hope, and believe that the economy will rebound.  There is no-doubt pent up demand that is being held back by the lock-down.  But, how many of your favorite businesses will survive it?  How many people will be out of jobs?  The longer this goes, the worse those effects will be.  Let's start reversing this lock-down anywhere we can...NOW.

We cannot retain our liberty if we uncritically accept anything that comes from so-called government experts.

Consider the Humble Pencil

In 1958, Leonard E. Read published an article titled,
I, Pencil: My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read.  This short story very succinctly describes what Read calls the "miracle of ...millions of tiny know-hows" that go into producing something as simple as a pencil. It has become a classic amongst proponents of free markets.  The actual article can be read here.

What is this miraculous process?  There is the harvesting of the cedar wood used to make the body of the pencil and all of the tools, transportation, housing and food for workers, etc. that are required for this seemingly simple task.  The graphite that is mined in Ceylon (present day Sri Lanka), mixed with clay from Mississippi, acid, tallow and other ingredients to make the "lead" of the pencil, with all of the background tools processes, and requirements. Not to mention the rubber for the eraser, the metal for the ferrule, and the lacquer to paint the wood.

All-in-all, millions of people, all with their own skills and knowledge, their know-hows, are involved in the production of something as mundane as a pencil.  

"I, Pencil, simple though I appear to be, merit your wonder and awe, a claim I shall attempt to prove. In fact, if you can understand me—no, that's too much to ask of anyone—if you can become aware of the miraculousness which I symbolize, you can help save the freedom mankind is so unhappily losing. I have a profound lesson to teach. And I can teach this lesson better than can an automobile or an airplane or a mechanical dishwasher because—well, because I am seemingly so simple."

How can a pencil represent such an important concept as to be important to our very liberty?  It is in understanding the concept that the process of making something so simple takes so many millions of voluntary interactions between people spread across the world.  That all of these processes could never be planned, let alone controlled by one person, group or even government...and this one of the simplest of items.  How then can the central planners of government think they can control whole industries?  Economies?  The climate?  They cannot.

"Once government has had a monopoly of a creative activity such, for instance, as the delivery of the mails, most individuals will believe that the mails could not be efficiently delivered by men acting freely. And here is the reason: Each one acknowledges that he himself doesn't know how to do all the things incident to mail delivery. He also recognizes that no other individual could do it. These assumptions are correct. No individual possesses enough know-how to perform a nation's mail delivery any more than any individual possesses enough know-how to make a pencil. Now, in the absence of faith in free people—in the unawareness that millions of tiny know-hows would naturally and miraculously form and cooperate to satisfy this necessity—the individual cannot help but reach the erroneous conclusion that mail can be delivered only by governmental 'master-minding.'"

But, since 1958, it has been more than proven that the government is grossly inept at delivering the mail.  Companies like FedEx, UPS and others have proven that private firms can bring innovation and efficiencies to the process and allows them to turn a tidy profit.  The US Postal Service would have been defunct years ago if it weren't subsidized by taxpayers.  And this is just one of thousands of areas where government is completely inept.  Yet we continue to believe that they know best.  We continue to allow them to control us.  And this, more than anything else, threatens our liberty.

The video below is a great six minute coverage of all of the concepts from the article...with great graphics in living color.  Enjoy.

The More Things Change...

It's as true today as it was then...people don't know history...they are clueless about how the economy works...and don't know or care about the consequences of the way they vote.  People STILL believe that the Great Depression was a failure of the Free Market.  Why?  Because those really at fault, government, told them so.  But Friedman tells a different story:

"So the Great Depression was not produced by a failure of business.  On the contrary, it was produced by a failure of government...and a failure of government in an area in which responsibility had been assigned to government since the founding of this country...We have learned from that failure.  The Federal Reserve will not fail in the same way again.  This time it will fail in a different way.  This time it has been failing, not by producing a Great Depression, but by producing an inflation.  Because just as you will hear the story that it was business that was responsible for the depression, so you will today  hear the story that it is labor and management that are responsible for inflation.  It is the same kind of a myth."

The inflation he is speaking of here is in the 1970s when interest rates were in the double-digits and much of the American manufacturing base, such as steel, collapsed.  President Gerald Ford ran on a W.I.N. platform, which stood for Whip Inflation Now.  It was a time of what was being called "hyper-inflation," and it was devastating to our economy.

Today, we are on the verge of another devastation to our economy.  The Federal Reserve is printing more and more money.  This causes the value of the dollar to drop, and therefore, prices to raise...this is inflation.  But who is to blame.  Once again, Friedman tells it like it is:

"Inflation is made in one place, and one place only...Washington D.C.  And in Washington D.C., the chief source...immediate source of inflation...is a Greek temple on Constitution Avenue, which houses the Federal Reserve Board.  An accomplice, and a major accomplice of course, sits in the halls of Congress in Washington.  They are a major accomplice because you tell 'em to be.  The American people have been telling Congress for many years, 'Spend more money on us, please.'  But they've been telling us, 'Don't raise our taxes.'  Congress has been listening.  It's been spending more money on you, but, on the other hand, its been very unwilling to raise taxes.  As a result, its imposed inflation as a tax. That's one tax you don't have to vote for...but you have to pay."

I fear, though, that things are building to be even worse.  With the debt as high as it is, many in government today seem to have no problem both causing inflation and increasing taxes.

Watch the whole video.  It's an interesting history lesson, one that is very relevant for today.

How Do We Balance The Budget?

Regardless of who wins the upcoming Presidential election, there are hard decisions to be made to avoid a financial disaster in our country.  Federal spending is out of control with no apparent end in site. At the time of this posting the Federal debt exceeds $16 Trillion.  That's:

$16,000,000,000,000

In past posts I have put this kind of debt in perspective (and that was in 2011 when the debt was only $14 Trillion)...I have shown that it is not a revenue problem, but a spending problem.  Raising taxes can't fix it, because you could tax corporations and everyone who is considered rich at 100% and still not have enough money to feed the government's spending habit.

Though everyone knows that we have an unsustainable debt problem...that our deficits continue to grow, government continues to expand programs...and therefore spending.  Not only that, but the government has been actively advertising and recruiting to get more people on the roles of programs like food stamps.  Today the Washington Times reported that "Overall, welfare spending as measured by obligations has grown from $563 billion in fiscal 2008 to $746 billion in fiscal 2011, or a jump of 32 percent."  While welfare programs were cut during the Clinton administration, the Obama administration has been redoubling their efforts to increase this spending.

We are headed in the wrong direction.   I agree with then candidate Obama when he said of the much smaller debt under Bush, "That's irresponsible.  It's unpatriotic." We must first stop the bleeding, and then begin to return to fiscal responsibility and prudence.  This can only happen through a return to the principles of limited and decentralized government.  Come on folks, let's get patriotic again.

Professor Antony Davies has another great video on the issue:

The Truth Behind "You Didn't Build That"

When Obama made his now infamous "You didn't build that," speech, we got a deeper insight into the true beliefs and motivations of this president.  As Daren Jonescu points out in his article in the American Thinker, Obama is espousing a central tenet of communist doctrine, namely, there is no private ownership of property.

It was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon who first proposed the idea that "property is theft" in his book What Is Property.  An excerpt from this book gives the basis of the doctrine:

"If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder!, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required . . . Why, then, to this other question: What is property? may I not likewise answer, It is robbery!, without the certainty of being misunderstood; the second proposition being no other than a transformation of the first?"

As you can see here, Proudhon called property ownership robbery and drew a direct equivalency between private property ownership and slavery and murder.  It was this same book that led Karl Marx to call for the abolishment of all private property.  

Another of the fathers of communist thought, Jean-Jacques Rousseau made a similar assertion when he said, "The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

 This has been a standard mantra for collectivists and central planners throughout the years...and Obama carries the banner forward.  As Jonescu points out, "The 'fundamental transformation' Obama seeks to impose on America has many practical manifestations, but all his sundry means relate to one basic end. This is the permanent 'transformation' of a nation grounded in the principle of individual self-ownership (the philosophical foundation of property rights) into a nation grounded in the principle that everything you have is merely on loan to you from the great gods of collectivism -- 'society,' 'history,' and 'government.' "  As much as they try to deny it, Obama is a communist/socialist/ collectivist/central planner.  These are all just labels for the same basic worldview with roots in the political philosophy of writers like Proudhon and Rousseau.

This philosophy is in direct opposition to the foundational principles of our country.  The United States was based, in no small part, on the idea of personal property rights.  One of the key philosophers who influenced the American founders was John Locke.  As Jonescu points out, Locke had a completely different view of property.  Lock stated that  "Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men [in the state of nature], yet every man has a 'property' in his own 'person.' This nobody has any right to but himself."  Additionally, Locke said, "The 'labour' of his body and the 'work' of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that Nature hath provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with it, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, it hath by this labour something annexed to it that excludes the common right of other men."  In other words, Your body is your own...all that your labor has earned belongs to you...and not to anyone else.

But, Obama and his fellow communists believe, that all property is held in common, and, therefore, it is only natural that someone who has more should have to give up what he has to those who have less. This is his point when he says. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."  He is just repeating what he has learned through his life being influenced by communist thought.  We know that he sought out Marxist professors in college...that he has been mentored by Marxists like Frank Marshall Davis and Bill Ayers.  He believes in redistribution of wealth, and that allowing people to keep their own money is equivalent to government spending, as if all money belongs to government to begin with.  So..."You didn't build that," shouldn't surprise us.  In his mind, nothing can be done outside the collective and without a central government...and that, my friends, is communism, pure and simple.

Jonescu summarizes:

"The reason why one has no right to the fruit of another man's labor is not to be casually glossed, and it cannot be overemphasized: the other man's labor is itself his property, derived from his most fundamental property, namely himself.  (This explains why state-controlled medicine is the ultimate policy prize of leftists; it directly attacks the heart of property rights, the right to the use and preservation of your own person.)"

"This brings us back to modern progressivism, and its chief mouthpiece, Barack Obama.  By denying the inviolable right of the 'successful' to the legitimately acquired result of their intellectual and physical efforts, Obama and his cohorts are denying the successful man's ownership of himself."

Today, Obama only calls for the fruits of those he deems as "rich."  This is the essence of class warfare.  But, if "the rich" can have their property so casually confiscated, what will keep them for coming for yours and mine?  Communist philosophy has never in the history of the world lead to societies with more freedom and prosperity.  It has only lead to totalitarianism by a group of elite central rulers at the expense of the masses. 

Obama and his cohorts represent a clear and present danger to our liberties.  They stand against the founding principles of this great country and on the shoulders of their Marxist mentors.  They must be defeated, both politically and in the hearts and minds of the people.  

Obama must be voted out of office in November!

Obama Tax Hikes Will Cost Jobs

A study recently released by Earnst & Young, LLP says that if the Bush-era tax cuts for wage earners over $250,000 are allowed to expire, the country will lose 710,000 jobs while the economy declines by $200 billion.  The report's author, Robert Carroll wrote, “The higher tax rates will have significant adverse economic effects in the long run: lowering output, employment, investment, the capital stock and real after-tax wages when the resulting revenue is used to finance additional government spending.”

Of course, the Democrats are rushing to dismiss the report's assumptions, methodology, and conclusions because it does not fit their tax-and-spend doctrine.   White House spokeswoman, Amy Brundage posted analysis from Jason Furman of the National Economic Council which says that the report “fallaciously assumes that the tax cuts are used to finance additional spending, ignoring the benefits of what the president actually proposed, which was to use the revenue as part of a balanced plan to reduce the deficit and stabilize the debt.”  Even if all of the revenues raised by this tax hike went to helping reduce the deficit, it is only estimated to raise enough to fund the deficit for about eight days...not eight days of government spending, mind you, just the deficit spending.

Furman claims that Obama's plan "includes $2.50 of spending cuts for every $1.00 of revenue."  What in the history of Obama, or the Democrats...or the Republicans, for that matter...would lead anyone to believe that they won't continue to increase spending?  This president has presided over the largest accumulation of national debt in the history of the country, by far.  Debt has increased by more than $5 TRILLION in less than four years.  This claim is eerily familiar to when the Democratically controlled Congress promised President George H. W. Bush three dollars in spending cuts for every one dollar of tax hikes. Bush famously capitulated, breaking his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge.  What he got was not spending cuts, but...you know what's coming, don't you...that's right, increased spending. 

Frum says that the study "leaves out the President’s proposed new tax cuts for business hiring and investment."  This is proposed, of course, and not actual, enacted tax cuts. Obama's cuts will, supposedly provide a "10 percent tax credit for business hiring and wage increases and allowing immediate write-offs of new investment through the end of 2012."  So, with these cuts, Obama is trying once again to micromanage the economy.  Businesses do not hire because they get tax credits for doing so; they hire when demand for their products and/or services is high enough to justify adding head count.  In prolonged downturns of the economy, businesses are even more hesitant to hire, due to the uncertainties of the market.  Instead, they make due with the employees they have working more and more overtime before hiring.  This is why hiring is always a lagging indicator for economic recovery.

In a May article on the NPR web site, columnist Fred Barnes said there are problems with, what he calls
"Obama's phantom tax breaks." Here's what he said:

"There are three big problems here. The first is that his 17 tax cuts have had little if any impact on small businesses or the economy. Basically, they failed. Second, his new cuts are much like the earlier ones. They're temporary, narrow, and not what small business owners are asking for, which are fewer regulations and a permanent cut in the personal income tax rate or at least no hike in that rate. Third, they have no chance of being enacted in 2012."

Frum continues by saying that even the Earnst & Young report acknowledges "that the short-run impact of extending the high-income tax cuts will be proportionately less than the impact of the middle-income cuts, noting that a 'disproportionate share of the tax change is likely to be channeled through savings for taxpayers facing the top tax rates as compared to other taxpayers.'  As I have been prone to saying a lot lately, SO WHAT?  This is just basically saying that raising taxes on the middle-income earners is also a bad idea.  It does not negate the claims that there will be job loss and economic downturn.

The main reason for the job loss seems to be that a large number of small businesses file at an individual rate rather than a corporate rate.  Obama claims that he will be giving "tax cuts for 97 percent of all small-business owners in America." and his proposal "isn’t about taxing job creators, this is about helping job creators.”  But, the businesses under $250,000 a year are not job creators.  These are mostly small, one or two person shops...consultants and freelancers.  The Heritage Foundation calculated that "the average American with $250,000 or more in income can expect an average $24,888 tax increase next year under Obama’s proposed policies."  Looking at Treasury Department data they determined that "1.2 million small businesses both had employees and earned more than $200,000 in 2007. So the President is putting about 1.2 million jobs—perhaps even more—at risk with this tax hike." 

Obama is a big-government socialist.  He claims that, in his words, "It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs leads to people spending less money, which leads to even more layoffs."  He believes that not raising taxes on Americans is spending by the government.  And so far, all of his policies that are supposedly aimed at fixing the economy through big-government solutions have been complete failures.  So please excuse me if I might tend to accept the conclusions of the Earnst & Young report over anything this failed president or his minions might offer as evidence supporting their plans.   Expecting more of the same to work this time is the very definition of insanity.

Government Exploitation

In light of the ridiculous statements Obama has been making about the nature of success in this country, which I covered in my previous post, I thought I would share this video by Matt Zwonlinski, PhD on the subject of whether capitalism exploits workers.  He gives a very well reasoned and succinct coverage of the topic.

Dr. Zwonlinski concludes that while capitalists want to exploit workers, they can't very well in a free market society because of the competition for good labor.  Interaction between business and labor is voluntary and mutually agreed on.  Government, however, has the coercive power to exploit the ordinary citizens.  It is, in fact Government that poses the most danger of exploitation...and, therefore, danger to our liberty.

“The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison; Federalist No. 47.

Success? That's No Big Deal.

"If you got a business, you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen." ~ Barack Obama

This kind of thing has me heart sick for our country.  Not because Obama said it; I expect this kind of idiocy to come from Obama and his operatives.  What deeply saddens me is that he can say it and not be booed off the stage...that so many average Americans seem to be buying into this collectivist, anti-American drivel.  Not so long ago we were not afraid to condemn this kind of socialist rhetoric as dangerous to our very way of life...to our liberty.  Now, it resides in the White House.

Obama says, "If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help.  There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system we have that allowed you to thrive."  While this is all true, Obama wants us to draw the conclusion that since, as John Donne famously penned, "No man is an island, entire of itself," we should not have a problem giving more of our money, time, and freedom to the collectivist, central government.  In the mind of Obama and that of  his ilk, the government is the font of all opportunity, all provision, all wealth, and all power...but only when they are in charge of it.

Success, regardless of what Obama thinks or says, does not happen because of the goodness of government.  Taxes, fees, regulations, and bureaucratic red tape place ever-larger road blocks in the path of small business.  This makes the already difficult task of business success almost impossible.  No, success happens in spite of government, not because of it.  


Successful entrepreneurs are not necessarily the smartest, or hardest working in our society.  But they are the ones who have used the intelligence they have, worked very, very hard, taken the risks, overcome the failures, and continued to strive toward their goals. They must have the right product or service, in the right location at the right time.  They risk their own money, sweat, and family lives to get the business started, and then more than 50% go out of business in the first five years.  Many successful entrepreneurs have failed multiple times in the process of learning how to succeed.  These are costs that the average American is not willing to pay.


Obama does not have a clue as to what it truly takes to succeed in business, and he continues to show his ignorance through his policies that have given us an economy that continues to falter with dismal unemployment numbers.  How dare he lecture us on what it takes to succeed!  It is not the teacher who gives the business owner money and stands by them through the long nights of paper work and planning.  It is not the road worker or the fireman who share their anguish about how they will make the next payroll.  It is not the government bureaucrat or politician who gives them the motivation and drive to keep going, even when it seems impossible to win.  No, these business people are out there to fail or succeed all on their own.   


And what about this "unbelievable American system we have" that allows them to thrive?  How can they get their supplies or ship their goods without the roads provided by the government?  What about electricity, communications, water, sewage infrastructure?  The small businessman didn't build those, but he uses them all for his success.  This is true...SO WHAT?!  All of those things are the natural outcome of people interacting together in a society.  Everyone is doing what they can to make a living by providing products or services to his fellow man.  The carpenter frames the storefront.  The electrical worker brings power to the building. The construction worker builds the roads to bring customers to the store.  All of these people ply their trades for their own self-interest.  The store owner owes them nothing.  They have been paid in full.  This has nothing to do with government.  We do not need government's permission to do it and we do not need their interference to make it happen.  See my earlier post, Why Feed The Pig, for more on the subject of government's involvement in infrastructure.


Without people interacting in this way there is no wealth creation, and, therefore, no money for government.  Business came first...people came first.  Government is a creature of the people.  Nothing -- NOTHING --of value originates with government.  In this country, The People institute government to serve them, not to rule them.  That is the principle of republicanism.


It has not been very long ago when the majority of people in this country celebrated success.  How then, can so many people now buy into its denigration, as if it is only a matter of luck and the largess of a benevolent government?  This attitude has not come about overnight.  It is the result of years and years of continuous programming.  Over the last decades we have been fed on a  diet of  class warfare that has told us that the rich have only succeeded on the backs of the poor.  We have been lead to believe that the economy is a zero-sum game where the more the rich make, the less there is for me and you.  We have had the self esteem movement inflicted on us, which tells us that everyone is special, whether you are a doctor or a welfare bum.  Multiculturalism has also told us that all cultures are equal, whether they have brought us wealth, art, and science, or they stone their women for talking to a man, or kill each other in clashes between warlords...one's as good as the other.  All lies!


All of these things have been designed to convince us that no one is special.  We all "deserve" a trophy.  It's "only fair" that those who have more should "share" it with those who have less...after all, they were just lucky and were helped along by all the rest of us.  It is all a scheme to bring down the very idea of American exceptionalism.  If Americans believe that their system of liberty, capitalism, and "small r" republicanism is nothing special, no better than any other country's system, then "fundamentally changing America" will be much easier. And now, after more than a hundred years of Progressive (socialism in sheep's clothing) teachings and propaganda, the average American has just accepted much of socialism as facts of life.  They have been dumbed-down as citizens in that they don't know or care about how their country operates...or is supposed to operate.  They just believe that government involvement is necessary for any real success.  They can't imagine how roads or infrastructure could possibly be built without an all powerful central government.

After Obama has made moves to take control of banks, auto companies and the healthcare industry, we hear that businesses are just a product of the collective.  Why then shouldn't they be controlled by the central nexus in Washington D.C.?  It only makes sense, right?  This is the central message of socialism.  Too many are either too busy worrying about the next winner of America's Got Talent, or have just become so jaded by the whole process that they have chosen to ignore it and Hope for some good Change.

If there's any hope to save liberty in this country, we must rouse ourselves from this stupor.  We must pay attention.  We must understand the foundations of our freedom and how it is being threatened.  And then, we must act to correct the damage.  In 1790, John Curran rightly said that, "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.”  Are we lazy?  Are we common?  Or are we Americans?  Then, let's stand, as Americans, vigilant against threats to our liberty.