A Hypothetical Convention of States

I read an article where 19 states expressed interest in holding a convention of states, which is something in the Constitution where all the states send representatives to a massive convention and change the US Constitution, usually by adding amendments to it and bypassing Congress to do so.

I know that such a thing will probably never happen since many state officials are perfectly happy with the status quo and are looking to gain Federal office so they won’t rock that boat.  Unless it’s Epstein’s boat.

But, in the interest of dreaming, I have the following suggestions for amendments to the Constitution that may give us all some semblance of sanity back to the Federal government.  In general, I don’t believe we really need to expand the existing rights as outlined in the Constitution, just reinforce them with some more clearly outlined repercussions for violating those rights.

• The Balanced Budget Amendment.  It’s an old relic from the 1990s, but it’s something that needs to be passed.  Add a provision that requires Congress to pass a budget each year and if they do not, then the Federal government is not funded and every contractor and federal employee is out of a job.  That includes all “necessary” functions like Congressional staffers and the military.
• Create term limits for Congress.  Limit it to 12 years total for both the House and the Senate.  Therefore, a single person cannot serve in Congress for more than 12 years.
• Repeal the 17th Amendment and place the elections of Senators back into the hands of the State Legislatures.
• Change representation in the House to represent only eligible voters.  And require that there be one representative per 30,000 eligible voters.  That proportion may be a bit high, so I’d be fine with it going to in 10,000, so let’s make 30,000 the max.
• Require that all laws passed by Congress have at least a 3/5 majority in both houses and eliminate the Presidential veto.  Checks and balances was a stupid concept.
• Require that all laws passed by Congress expire in two years.  Congress can vote to renew said laws, but this makes it so that should a new party take control, it is much easier to eliminate bad laws passed by previous conventions.
• Require that all treaties ratified by the Senate expire in 6 years and must be reconsidered.  Treaties in general have been a huge loophole around the Constitution and very little has been done to stop this.  Also, this eliminates the possibility of getting caught up in entangling alliances.
• Limit Presidential authority to only what is explicitly granted to him by Congress and the Constitution.  Explicitly state that States can ignore presidential orders if they violate this standard without consequence.
• Give term limits to Federal Judges.  They can only serve a maximum of 15 years on any Federal bench.
• Limit the scope of judicial authority to only settling disputes between states and between states and the Federal government.
• Strengthen the 10th Amendment by explicitly stating that the State government can arrest, detain, and imprison any Federal official acting outside the explicit powers granted to the Federal government by the US Constitution.
• Give the States the ability to impeach and remove any elected Federal official by having a plurality of Governors call for impeachment hearings outside of Congress.  There needs to be additional methods for removing bad politicians.
• Require that the States purge their voter rolls each year and have their citizens re-register.  Right now, the Federal government prevents this because of racism.
• Limit voters to any natural-born US citizen over the age of 18.  Legalized citizens cannot vote, but any children they have who are natural-born citizens can vote.
• Require that all lending done to US citizens be completely forgiven once the debtor dies.  The lender cannot collect what is owed from the left over assets of the debtor.  Those assets belong to their children, not the lender.
• Limit all loans to US citizens to last no more than 10 years.  Once 10 years are up, the debt is forgiven and the debtor can no longer collect the debt or any interest.  Congress cannot tax the debt difference as income either.
• Interest rates for all loans are determined solely by a plurality in the House of Representatives.  They are not established by the free market lest the free market fall into a greed spiral that we see today.
• Copyrights should be owned by individual citizens, not institutions or corporations.  Once said citizen dies, the copyright falls into public domain.  Patents should be held in the same regard.  Trademarks can be owned by companies and corporations.
• Repeal the 16th Amendment and require that the Federal government acquires tax revenue from either sales tax or International tariffs.

That’s about all the autism I can muster for this article.  I very much doubt any of these ideas will enter the public consciousness, let alone be seriously considered for the US Constitution.  I am not, after all, a prominent scholar or expert in these matters.

But maybe some random person will see it and when this country falls apart because our Satanic overlords decide to go to war with the entire world, they can rebuild what’s left with these ideas in mind.

Advocates for Evil

It’s probably cliché to say this, but the Democrats are on the side of pure evil.  I know, I know, if I was really a Republican, that would mean something.  I mean, I’m it’s the opposition party, so one side is good and the other is evil, right?

I don’t care much for Republicans in general.  Yeah, I said I was going to volunteer to be a GOP poll watcher, but that’s more because I want to ensure fair elections, not because I think Republicans are on the side of angels.

The reason I say that Democrats are on the side of pure evil is because of the terrible things they advocate.  The leadership in that party has clearly positioned themselves in a manner that goes against Christianity and Western civilization.

They’re so hung up on diversity and anti-racism that they had to get rid of God.

They’re so pro-woman, that they advocate women being able to murder their own babies so they can continue behaving like sluts.

They remove the death penalty for murderers and consider criminals to be misunderstood victims of class hierarchy.  And yet never once do they make sure that their rich friends go to prison for the crimes they commit.  I fully expect Ed Buck to have his sentence commuted on compassionate grounds or some other bullshit.

They push our children to engage in acts of sodomy and degeneracy because they advocate it themselves.  They actively hate European-descended people in the USA and really hate it when a man and woman try to raise a family.  On top of that, they clearly have little regard for people who actually do productive work in this country.

And nearly everything they advocate for that seems compassionate and sensible, like universal healthcare, worker’s rights, anti-racism, or eliminating the wealth gap always ends up getting sidelined when they gain power.  Often times they literally do the opposite of those things once in power.

And to top it off, once in power, they do everything they can to ensure they keep power, including murder.  Yes, I firmly believe that top Democrat leadership has had people murdered.  I guess the Republicans might have done so, but I doubt it.  If someone had been murdered by Republicans for political purposes, I’m sure MSNBC would have mentioned something by now.

If you really think about it, nearly all the policies that are put in place by the Democrats are literally the same thing that would have been done by literal demons.

Are Republicans better?  Yes, they are.  They aren’t perfect and many on the national level are basically whores for whoever can pay them the most, but for the most part, if you look at localities and States that are run by Republicans, things tend to be more pleasant and livable.  Yes, those areas have their problems, but those problems are nowhere near the level of what you might face in, say, San Francisco where you have watch where you step.

The biggest sin with the Republican party is that they simply don’t fight back.  They seek compromise and fairness with Hell itself.  A Republican would rather make a deal with Satan himself than face the possibility of having to actually fight for something.

But while they aren’t perfect, they can be changed and pushed in a direction that serves as a force for good.  Joining a local Republican party branch is a good start.  I’d suggest to be patient and to not make too many waves until you figure out how things work.  Then you can take over.

And don’t compromise with Democrats.  Stand up to them.  Push back against them.  And when they cry and whine, then threaten and mock, remember that these people are barely people at all in the same sense that wicked men still retain the image of God, but not His spirit.

On Critical Race Theory

There’s a huge pushback across the country these days regarding public education.  Parents are starting to wise up to the fact that most school boards, especially ones that exist in “blue” counties, aren’t really interested in teaching their kids factual information or how to critically think for themselves.  Of course, that hasn’t been done since the 1960s, but the Internet age has brought all of this to light.

I’m not entirely sure what Critical Race Theory is, but I’m pretty sure it’s been taught in public schools for a long time now, it just was never given a coherent name.  When I was in school, I was taught that white people were bad and blacks were oppressed too.  Hell, we read so many “realistic” fiction books related to the problems that the South faced with regards to Jim Crow and the fallout of the Civil War.  Most of our history lessons focused on ending Jim Crow and the Civil Rights movements.  Not much was done with the other parts of our nation’s rich history.  It was like our nation started in 1955 with the Brown v. Board of Education ruling and that everything before that was just a formality.

There’s a reason I’ve said that Social Justice Warriors are just the nerds in public school who paid too much attention to the teacher.

The only difference back then from now is that the anti-White message was much more subtle where as Critical Race Theory appears to be much more overt.  Also, because most parents spent the last year or so watching their kids do virtual schooling, they were able to get a better idea of what kind of garbage their learning.  And that only emboldened many parents to homeschool their kids, probably because parents weren’t happy with what was or wasn’t being taught to their own children.

But homeschooling isn’t going to save you from Critical Race Theory.  Trust me, the government mandated oppression of the native population here in America will not be limited to public school grounds.  They will enforce it in homeschooling curriculum and they will make your kids take tests to verify that they know how much of a sinner they are by virtue of their skin color.

And if that doesn’t work, then they will outright ban homeschooling entirely.  These demons want your kids to hate their identity and to hate Jesus.

It is heartening to see the great awakening happening in real time though.  Many parents and normies, in general, have had their eyes opened to the rampant corruption in our government and in our elected officials from the local level to the upper echelons of power.  Critical Race Theory is just one of many examples of corruption.  But if it gets the commies out of power, I’ll take it.  Maybe the other corruptions can be dealt with after that.

If you homeschool, I’d recommend that you run for your local school board.  You’re overqualified for the position and you owe it to your community to ensure that all children are given a proper education.

If you don’t homeschool, I’m not going to condemn you for it.  Honestly, while it seems things are bad at public schools, they really are not as bad as you might think.  It could be a lot better, but it isn’t as bad as people realize.  And really, I imagine it has reached its bottom and can only get better from here.

Go Cite Yourself

One of the more frustrating techniques that various people employ on the Internet is to demand citations after you make an argument.

The primary reason is because such people, usually trolls or paid agitators, have zero interest in the actual citation.  In fact, most of the time if you provide a citation, they will ignore it or quickly discredit it by nitpicking some obscure fact from the source.

The other reason I find it grating is that these assholes could easily pull up a search engine, like Google, and search for the citation themselves.  I’m not writing a goddamn graduate thesis online, I’m just making an argument.

And here’s the thing: if I’m wrong, you cite where I’m wrong.  I’m not arrogant or myopic in my assertions and I am willing to abandon them in the face of contrary evidence.  For example, I once believed that the self-esteem movement was created by left-wing communists but it turns out to be have been the brainchild of Nathanial Brandon, an Objectivist philosopher.

A tiny reason has to do with ego.  I usually know what I’m talking about when I make assertions, like when I mentioned that Wal-Mart lobbies for food stamps, which someone tried to debunk on Facebook but ended up actually searching for my assertion and found me to be correct.  So I get annoyed when people demand my proof because the facts I cite contradict their precious snowflaked worldview.

So when people demand I make a citation, I usually treat them like a troll because I don’t have the patience to deal with idiots like that.

Use a search engine to verify it.  If I’m wrong, you cite the source.

The Lament of Man

We go out and build and hunt and produce value to bosses who don’t appreciate our work.  We conquer the elements in order to pave the roads, weld the pipes, and grow the food.

We are expendable.  Only the strongest amongst us survive the times of war in order to breed and pass on our genes to the future generation.  In times of peace, we are selected based on baffling attraction standards for reproduction.

We are lied to.  We never know if the children you bear are truly our own.  We risk our financial well-being to settle down and spend our lives with you.  We find ourselves antagonized in popular culture and in family courts.  In divorce, our financial well-being is largely dependent on you.

Many of us don’t know your touch.  We insufficiently manly enough to do so, as there are only a fraction of us who are sexually desirable.  We take it with pride and hold up our chins as we eventually accept you when you finally decide to settle down before your beauty is completely gone.

Sex is work for us when we get it.  When we do not, we turn to pornography to fill our base needs and are spurned as perverts for the alternative.  But we’re monsters if we pursue you.

At work we are constantly on eggshells in fear of unfounded accusations.  We find ourselves bombarded with useless trivia and gossip, all the while desiring only to build and create.

We are suspicious when we are out and about, especially around children.  We are judged to be the most vile of monsters before we are even given a day in court.

And still we suffer in silence.  We pay the bills, earn the money, and impose proper discipline on the children.  But we are called oppressors because we are stingy with the money, don’t buy the right things, and are too hard on the children.

We live a life without appreciation.  We sacrifice health and financial independence for your comfort and when we ask for a little bit of pleasure in return, we are often rejected.

To top all of that off, we are told to worship you and that any failings you have are the direct result of us, not you and that it is our sin, our inattentiveness, and our apathy which causes you to fall.

I refuse to accept this.  I refuse to go through life as a sycophant who regards you as my “better half”.  And I refuse to take the blame for sins I don’t commit.

Valve Takes Measures Against SJWs and Other Trolls

This week, Valve’s chief product, Steam, had a client update to its software, specifically changing how user reviews are viewed and filtered for a video game.  Basically, they’ve set it to filter out all reviews from users who do not have a Steam key.

This means that while the user who reviews the game may have the game, Steam can’t verify this as the user didn’t buy the game through Steam.

Many indie devs have expressed concern over this as many of them develop and sell their game before getting it released to Steam.

However, I see this is as a step in the right direction.  In many cases, user reviews of games can make or break it as players often times have limited funds and a large set of positive reviews may cause a player to buy a game he nominally interested in.

So having legitimate user reviews means potentially more revenue for developers who create good games.

Conversely, we have seen the rise of the armchair (basement-dwelling) communist in recent years.  What these people do is find any avenue to marginalize and isolate anyone who openly defies them or produces content which is counter to their narrative.

This has been happening at Amazon for a long time now.  I’ve seen many posts from Vox Day where he gives out Amazon reviews from such yahoos who clearly have not read his or his clients’ books.  Amazon has yet to remedy this issue, although I am under the impression that they will ban the user from making reviews if a false review allegation is proven true.  Vox himself also has zero problem with doxing and sicking his legion of followers on said user.

Most non-creative types who produce no entertainment content usually don’t care about this kind of thing.  But what you have to understand is that negative fake reviews are basically like stealing money from the creator’s income.

What Valve has done here is allow users who haven’t bought the game through Steam to review the game, but basically refused to show it by default as they may potentially be trolls or SJWs with a Marxist mission.

In other words, if gamers want to negatively review a video game, even for political reasons, they’re going to have to buy it first.

While it doesn’t eliminate the problem of trolls or SJWs entirely, it at least adds a layer of protection which wasn’t there before.

On the Failed Strategy of the Right

For decades now, conservatives and libertarians have tried to proved to the dumb masses that they aren’t racist, sexist, etc.  This has been a futile effort largely because Leftists control the narrative in mainstream culture.

But still many people on the Right try to prove the opposite of the accusations waged against them by the communists on the Left.  Because for some reason, racism or sexism has become a greater crime than murder, arson, theft, or rape.

The trouble with this strategy is that it utterly fails.  It is a defensive strategy that legitimizes the Left’s narrative and thus legitimizes their claims.  When you are under ideological attack, you don’t defend yourself by conceding your opponent’s claims and then go and try to defend yourself against them.  Once a rhetorical accusation has been thrown against you, you cannot simply reason people into thinking that the accusation is false.

Once such allegations are thrown your way, you need to not defend against them.  You need to change the narrative and make your opponent eat their own words.  Think of what Donald Trump did with Megyn Kelly.  This smug woman was trying to paint him as misogynist with her shrewd comments about his insulting remarks toward certain females.  Trump turned the tables on her.  He didn’t even try to prove to her that he wasn’t sexist, just attacked her for bringing it up.

That is the model that needs to be followed when dealing with any Leftist or moderate who is attacking you.  Don’t acknowledge their accusation and instead highlight how stupid they are as a person.

The fact is this: the Left doesn’t actually care if you aren’t racist, sexist, or homophobic and can prove it.  You could be gay, a person of color other than white, have a different race child you adopted, or be a woman yourself.  It doesn’t matter because the nature of the accusations have nothing to do with why they are attacking you.

They are attacking you because you are the enemy to them.  They have drawn an ideological battle line and those insults are mainly there as weapons.  They are amoral words used to target you and paint you as the bad guy for the uninitiated.

And it has worked for them for a long time now.

You have nothing to prove to a Leftist or anyone else regarding your thoughts.  You have to only prove that they are wicked yahoos who seek to tear down civilization rather than let it be run by their opponents.  Yes, these bastards would jump for joy and dance as Western civilization, quite possibly the greatest human civilization the world has seen thus far, burns to the ground.

Do not let them run the narrative.  As soon as they start making ridiculous accusations, simply point out that their claims are those of a raving lunatic and that you’re here to talk about issues, not engage in pointless name-calling.

There are many still who don’t get it.  And the cuckservative title that has been bestowed upon them is fitting as they would rather lose, all the while whining about how they aren’t racist, sexist, etc., then actually put in the effort to win.

Oklahoma Moves Toward Freedom in Marriage

Recently, the Oklahoma state House passed a law that would effectively eliminate marriage licenses in the entire state.  If the law passes the state Senate and is signed by the governor, then the state of Oklahoma will be the first state to effectively make marriage a private contractual matter and not one that concerns the government.

Already there are a lot of critics against the bill.  It eliminates “gay marriage” or it prevents atheists from getting married.  The truth is, nobody is losing their ability to get married in that state.  What effectively happens is that you can still get married, just that it has to be a religious figure of some kind.  Since atheists and agnostics don’t have a religion, they’d have to settle for someone willing to marry them off.

But I suspect that major opposition to this bill will come from Christian conservatives.  This is because despite the bill effectively eliminating the gay marriage debate, it also removes a major cause from the Christian Right’s own movement.

Christian conservatives are often primarily focused on social issues rather than fiscal issues.  They tend to vote for politicians who support their moral worldview through legislation.  This is why abortion is still a major issue despite many attempts though legislation at both the state and Federal level to eliminate it.  Christian movements need their causes to cling to.

I welcome this kind of legislation and I hope that it spreads to other states.  It is insulting to me that you have to swear an oath to your own state before you swear an oath to God concerning you status as a married person.  I know that isn’t much of a big deal to most Christians, but it is to me.

Social conservatives tend to believe that morality comes from the government you live under.  In theory, this is simply not the case, especially when the people who run the government are the people you directly select via voting.

Instead, government enforces justice, which are moral infractions, but not morality itself.  It is supposed to concern itself with resolving disputes and protecting its citizens from foreign invasion.  Instead, many people have a huge stake in pushing government to enforce their will on others.  This includes people who are supposedly in favor of limited government.  Except for social issues.  Or military spending.  Or food regulation.  Or clown cars.

It is very strange for Oklahoma to have passed this bill though with a 67 person majority.  This is a libertarian approach to marriage, not a conservative one.  But I am happy with them and I hope my state will do this in the future.

Divorce Plan

Nobody really ever wants to get divorced.  Well, statistically speaking, most husbands don’t want to get divorced as anywhere from 60% to 90% of all divorces are initiated by wives.  But it can happen to just about any man, regardless of whether or not you have a stable marriage.

The only real solution is to have plan of some kind.  Some procedure you can implement in case of a divorce.  And it has to be one that is well-thought out.  Here are some of my suggestions:

• If your wife ever threatens divorce, call her bluff.  If she begins to execute divorce proceedings, then you were headed in that direction anyway.  Women will often times focus their primary emotion into some kind of weird mission.  If it happens to be hatred for her husband, then it will lead to divorce.  You cannot stop her.  Don’t try.
• Fight for your children.  Just because she has given up on your marriage and you have given up on it as well doesn’t mean you get to let her stomp all over you with your children.  If you have them, fight for full custody.  A divorce is basically a contract renegotiation.   Don’t be afraid to aim for the moon on this.  Concede nothing to her until she provides a favorable deal for you.  Remember, the goal her is not to deprive her of children who are just as much hers as they are yours, but to ensure that she doesn’t use them against you.
• Don’t be afraid to call her out in court and meetings.  If you have documented any misbehavior, from child neglect to adultery, use it against her.  She would do the same to you in a heartbeat.  You are not married anymore.  This is the concept of leverage.
• Do your best to not have any child support or alimony payments.  Use any form or rhetoric or blackmail you can against her to stop this.  We live in a modern (or post-modern or post-post-modern) age where women are supposed to be strong and independent.  What kind of strong and independent woman demands alimony and child support?  One who is incapable of taking care of herself and her children.
• Do not hook up with her at all during the proceedings.  Sometimes women will use their sexuality to gain an advantage.  There is a reason that prostitution is the world’s oldest profession.  Women trade their sex for goods and services with men.  The prostitute just happens to be more honest about it.
• Once separation has begun, document every interaction you have with your spouse.  Even small talk.
• If she makes any claims of abuse, demand documented proof.  Hold the judge’s feet to the fire if they believe her.  Have your lawyer find a new venue if necessary.  Fire your lawyer if he or she is unable to work around this.
• If you have a prenup, make sure she sticks to it.  Women these days are always looking for ways around it by claiming things like signing it under duress and other nonsense.  Like they lack any sense of self-awareness or moral agency.
• Finally, meet up with men who have been divorced online.  They will probably have loads of advice and things to avoid or do when getting divorced.

I don’t plan on getting divorced.  But that’s me.  My wife could suddenly change her mind and there is not a damn thing I can do about it.  I will not grovel at her feet to stay with me.  I’m better than her and if I get divorced from her, I will come out on top with a better life.

So don’t be afraid of it.  Make a plan and stick to it.  Because disaster preparedness is always a necessary thing.

Marriage, the Church, and the Pride of Women

With the rise of no fault divorce in this country, there has been a huge shift in how the Christian church has handled troubled marriages.  Because of no fault divorce laws, the divorce rate skyrocketed as a result, with many women initiating the divorce proceedings against their husbands.

In light of this simple fact, the Church (that is, the general collection of denominations that make up Christianity) shifted focus away from telling people that they must stay married and instead focused on how to keep married couples together.  This in conjunction with the rise of feminism created a new standard of marriage within the Church.

Unfortunately, this new standard, dubbed by many as Marriage 2.0, took away the husband's headship in favor of promoting the idea that a husband’s primary job is to keep his wife happy.  While the strategy didn’t specifically call for an end to the headship of husbands, as outlined in the Bible since before the Fall, it was the logical result of pushing for appeasing the wives.

Across the country, pastors and priests taught how husbands were worthless without their wives.  That men were the primary cause of strife in marriage and that men need to come to God and humble themselves before their wives.

Granted, men do tend to be more prone to aggression and violence as is in our nature.  And while women can be just as violent, they are physically weaker than men and thus refrain from it most of the time.  However, studies have shown that women are just as likely to engage in domestic physical abuse as men are and are even more likely to strike their own children.

So the Church took a more feminist approach to fixing the divorce problem.  Instead of condemning women for divorcing their husbands for any reason besides adultery, as the Bible clearly indicates is the only legitimate reason for divorce, it instead focused on the husbands not providing the support their wives need.

This was also coupled with more and more women needlessly entering the workforce.  When a married woman works in a career, she will wonder if she really needs her husband and will seriously consider leaving her husband.  This is because the sense of independence she feels can often outweigh the need for companionship.  Add to that the frustrations of dealing with domestic affairs at home and you have a serious and potentially volatile situation.

Currently, the divorce rate has not dropped in the several decades since men were first told they were the problem in the marriage by the Church.  Instead we receive a lot of spin and even more ridiculous advice like “vacuuming is foreplay” or other such nonsense which has no bearing on the central issue at hand.

The Apostle Paul welcomed women into the growing Church back in his time.  But he specifically forbid them from taking up positions of leadership.  While modern interpretations often declare that this is because of his traditional Jewish background and that our society has evolved beyond the need for such advice, I am not so sure myself.

Women are fickle in the sense that they are often times ruled by their own emotions.  This is not a weakness on its own, especially when used in the proper context.  But when applied to positions of leadership, you get into situations where common sense and rational thinking are overtaken by hysteria and compassion.  Compassion doesn’t get the house built or the food from the ground.  It requires the ability to ignore or suppress emotions in favor of pragmatic action, something that men are much better at doing than women on the whole.

Paul wrote that women should not be permitted to teach men in the Church.  At least he stated that he does not allow it.  He also stated that wives (and husbands) should not deny each other sexually.  That last part becomes vitally important in the context of marriage.

Biblical marriage is essentially the agreement to share romantic love with a person of the opposite sex for life.  It is a way to channel the romantic passions of individuals into another person without damning yourself to hedonism.

These days, we see Christian wives denying their husbands sexually and it is considered to be a normal, healthy thing in a marriage.  I even had one pastor tell his congregation about a woman who couldn’t stand having sex with her husband or, presumably, anyone else again and that this was all right.  What he failed to realize is that it was unbiblical, considering Paul’s own words I have paraphrased previously.

Marriage without sex is not marriage, baring any physical barriers that occurred after the vows were completed (paralysis, impotence, etc.).  If a person denies his or her spouse’s sexual advances, you are breaking the martial covenant.  You are breaking your oath that you swore before God on you wedding day.

A woman who denies her husband sexually is also openly rebelling against her husband and against God.  Wives are to submit to their husbands.  That is the agreement they entered into when they exchanged rings at the altar.  For a wife to deny her husband sexually is probably the ultimate act of asserting her headship over him and a grave sin.

The Church, by and large, has remained silent on this issue, instead encouraging men to keep their wives happy, citing Paul’s command to love your wives, while refusing to address the other half of the problem.  I don’t blame them for doing so as these days women make up the majority of congregates and to declare this to them would be seen as an attack on Team Women.  And thus their money would dry up.

But by remaining silent, by not convicting women to “woman up” and submit to their husbands, even if their husbands are a sore stain on humanity, they have effectively shut out men and, worse, maintain the atmosphere where divorces occur.

Laying the blame of divorce entirely on women is unfair of course, but that is not the point of this post.  The point is to highlight the Church’s response to the high divorce rate as being inadequate and unbiblical.

So what should the focus be instead?  The answer is quite simple: tell the good Christians to not even consider divorce as an option in resolving their marital problems.  Studies have shown that married couples who do not even consider divorce as an option are ultimately happier couples overall in comparison with those who do.  While correlation is not necessarily causation here, we can discern that this means that couples who think this also try and find a way to make things work.

The Church should flat out tell their congregation that divorce is adultery unless adultery has already been committed.  And that in doing so, they are sinning against their spouse and, more importantly, against God for breaking the oaths they swore at the altar as the pastor declared them to be husband and wife.  It should also encourage men to take up the leadership role in the marriage and that the wife should submit to him, no matter how ridiculous or stupid it seems to her.

For while it is the pride of men to rule over the Earth as gods, it is the pride of women to rule over men as their lords and masters.

Striking At Dave Ramsey

The Daily Beast recently published a piece about Dave Ramsey.  It was a very interesting read for me because I have taught his Financial Peace University course twice and still follow much of his advice when it comes to personal finance.

To sum up the article, a bunch of former employees to Mr. Ramsey’s company have started private Facebook groups and anonymous Twitter accounts designed to attack Ramsey and his company.   In response to this, Dave Ramsey has engaged in what is described as a “Social Media Witch Hunt” to root out these naysayers, going so far as to issue a huge bounty to his employees for names.

The article is clearly a hit piece against Mr. Ramsey, but it is not without merit.  If some of the things mentioned in the article are true then it is clear the Mr. Ramsey has gotten more and more paranoid over the years.  In one instance, he apparently pulled a loaded gun out to illustrate what he thinks of office gossip during an all hands meeting.  In other instances, he has been known to have employees pastors come into his office to mediate a disagreement said employee had with the organization.

If either of those stories are true, then Mr. Ramsey is clearly crossing a line.  In the first case, it’s just bad manners to pull a loaded gun on people except when you are facing an actual threat to your life.  In the second case, he is crossing a boundary in his employee’s lives.  The personal is not the professional for most people.  By bringing in a person’s pastor, he is crossing a line that shouldn’t be crossed.

Now, that being said, I believe that the complaints by the former employees are superfluous at best.  In most cases, this is just bad blood by people who either resigned or lost their jobs while working for Mr. Ramsey and are holding a grudge.

I’ve personally been laid off three times in the past three years.  In all cases, I’ve not held a grudge and I’ve let all that resentment that I’ve felt go.  In the end, I did not care about the companies I’ve worked for and I’ve pretty much lost contact with most of my former co-workers.  I’m not sad about any of it.

In truth, a lot of these people sound like whiners, complaining about things like putting in their resignations only to find that most people didn’t want to talk to them again, which happens in every company, to claims that the company is operated by fear.

I’ve worked for some bad companies in my day.  The first company I worked for was on the verge of declaring bankruptcy when I put my two weeks in.  This was not known to most employees at the time and I only found out after I put my two weeks in.  The second company I worked for refused to expand and grow their products and was run by incompetent developers and managers.  When I was laid off, I already had my foot in the door and was looking for a new job.  They are still in business as far as I know.

My point about those two examples is that not all companies are the same.  If you follow Dave Ramsey’s advice and have six months of personal expenses saved up, you can leave your job at any time.  If his employees really were following his advice and felt uncomfortable about working there, they should have left as soon as they could.  They should have left and not looked back.

I am not a Dave Ramsey follower.  Like I said, I follow much of his advice, but not all.  I’ve stayed out of debt, gotten rid of the existing debt, and saved up six months of personal expenses.  I am planning on investing, but I will be including gold and silver in my investment plans because unlike Mr. Ramsey, I plan on diversifying my portfolio.  Mutual Funds are good, but require a return of at least 11% in order to meet real inflation, as the real inflation rate (excluding food, fuel, and housing prices) is around 8% and you add another 3% for taxes.  Most mutual funds do not reach that rate.

I also plan on buying my first house with no mortgage or any other financing.  This is a goal that was inspired by Dave Ramsey and one that I know will take a while to accomplish.  But I am done with getting into debt games that the banks are playing.

I do suspect that many of Mr. Ramsey’s employees see him as some sort of modern day prophet in that he speaks God’s Word on finances.  I believe that Mr. Ramsey may believe it himself to a degree.  I am sure that he is thin-skinned when it comes to criticism and that his employees, especially those close to him, are willing to do anything to silence critics.

I will probably never teach another Financial Peace University again.  I hadn’t planned on doing so for a while now, but this article along with some other cases where he has targeted other people as well.

On the whole, Dave Ramsey has a right to run his company however he desires to run it.  This does not mean I won’t criticize him, but that I won’t be calling for his head.  His employees, likewise, do not have to work for him.  But I would like to end by offering a word of advice to them: Dave Ramsey’s company will end when he decides to end it or he dies.  It will not pass on to someone else because the entire company is rooted in his identity.  So just have a plan for when the day when Mr. Ramsey either decides to stop his company or unexpectedly dies.

Excusing Evil in Women

When it comes to women behaving badly, there is a huge double standard.  Often times, this double standard manifests itself when women commit crimes, especially crimes against their own children.

Today, for example, I saw a story of a woman who drove her minivan into the ocean with three kids in the backseat and a baby in her belly.  A fellow Facebook ex-friend (ex because of what I said), stated that it had to be related to hormones and that she needed mental health treatment.

I simply pointed out that she attempted to murder her children.  Another friend of hers threw out the whole hormone excuse as well.  Such arguments are bullshit in my view.  First of all, men have hormones that make them extremely aggressive and dangerous.  Testosterone is not exactly a hormone that is known for making men gentle.  Secondly, she tried to kill her kids.  It doesn’t matter what her mental state is, she deserves to go to prison for that.

Of course, in this enlightened age where the sexes, I mean genders, are equal, that means that women get away with murder by claiming temporary insanity.  It’s like our justice system is being run by a stand-up comic.

Another incident happened several years ago.  My mother knew a female back surgeon who was pulled over for DUI.  When she got out of her car, she punched the police officer.  She also had her two kids in the backseat.

She got off.  She pulled the PMS defense and the charges were dropped.

I am sorry, but no man could ever pull any of this shit and get off scot free.  And no man would ever be given any kind of sympathy if he was caught endangering his children in this manner.  No, society would throw the book of laws and then the Second Set of Books at such a man, and rightly so.

It pisses me off to no end that we coddle women and automatically assume that these women don’t know what they are doing.

Intentions do not matter.  It is actions that define the person’s intentions.  You can never know what another person’s intentions are because you cannot read their minds and all you have to go on is what they tell you.  And people lie about themselves to other people all the time.

The justice system needs to remove the idea that the motive is important, unless said motive is crucial in proving guilt.  And often times, it doesn’t matter.  What matters is what the evidence says along with what witnesses testify to.

As for society, we need to cultivate a culture that doesn’t excuse women (and men for that matter) for possible mental illnesses and instead judge them based on their actions.  We are not mental health professionals, by and large, so there is nothing we can do to determine a person’s mental state.  Hell, many sick, sociopathic people have fooled even the best mental health professionals in their day.

So can we all just stop attributing wicked, malicious actions to mental illness?  Can’t we just call evil for what it is, regardless of sex, and stop trying to rationalize the actions of the evil?

Is that too hard?

The Lost Exception

Is the United States an exceptional country?  What I mean is, this country seems to be founded on individual rights, something that most other countries seem to ignore.  In most cases, other countries operate on tribalism, where individualism is abandoned in favor of the community.

As far as I can tell, the United States was the first country to be formed in the wake of the Enlightenment.  At least that is the history I was taught.  But given what happened during the French Revolution, I suspect that the Enlightenment had little to do with what this nation’s government was founded upon.

In any case, it was clear that this nation’s founders, while largely divided on many issues, felt that tribalism was not the way to go with government.  It was a government that was meant to represent the people rather than to be a country ruled by a king or despot.

These days, however, our government seems hell-bent on letting the foreign tribes in.  Be they Mexican, African, Chinese, Korean, or where ever else, our leaders, both Republican and Democrat alike, seem to want tribes to come here.

Unfortunately, this will not end well.  A lot of these people come from countries where Statism is supreme, where the leaders are to be trusted, and where the individual is to be shunned in favor of the tribal needs.

Governments, in all of history, have thrived on tribalism.  By being the leader of several tribes, most leaders were able to leverage their influence to cause infighting in order to ignore the leader’s own failed policies and mandates.

Today, we simply have political parties that seek to blame each other for the problems but offer no solutions.  In doing so, they distract the dumb masses and trick them into failing at thinking critically.  Of course, many people do recognize the problem, but still vote because they think they can change how things are.  And while a few good men do come along every now and then, most of them are overwhelmed by the corrupt system that has been established and maintained by the people in the State.

The United States was founded as an exception to the general rule of humanity: that you need not be part of a tribe in order to live.  But that has long since been abandoned by the Statists in order to maintain power over the naïve who don’t realize that politics is just a game without winners, just losers.

On Christian Husbands

I’ve gotten into the manosphere over the past year or so.  For those of you who don’t know what it is, it is basically a series of blogs about dealing with women in a practical way.  Some of them are merely about hooking up with as many girls as you can (this is probably where it got started), but some are also about improving your own masculinity in the face of feminism.  In many cases, they highlight the problems inherent in our society due to the rise of feminism.

As a devout Christian man who was already married before I found out about a lot of these things, I find that I may have missed out on much.  Then again, I may have not, as I never was big on one-night stands or following through with a bang list, Christian faith notwithstanding.

But it has refined my own views on marriage and dating from a Christian perspective.  And while much of what I now believe is relatively unchanged, I have a clearer perspective on what is going on.

For one thing, I believe that if you are a Christian man (and 82% of Americans claim to be Christian) and you are married, then you are not permitted to divorce your wife, unless she has been caught in adultery.  Adultery has been stretched in recent years to include pornography and, in some cases, leering at another person.  And while Jesus has made it clear that your heart needs to be right with God, the physical act of adultery is what I am referring to here.

So, other than that, you are stuck with your wife.  I guess “stuck” is a harsh term as most men, Christian or not, have pretty decent relationships with their wives.  Sure it could be better, but it could be much worse.  The problem with this status is that most women will view this as stagnation or unhappiness.  Most women are raised to believe that marriage is forever rainbow-shitting ponies with gumdrop smiles.  Any discomfort or difficulty is seen by many women as trouble in the marriage.  More on that later.

In any case, a Christian husband is the head of the household.  This is not in dispute, as the Bible makes it clear what his status is.  A wife is required to submit and obey her husband, regardless of his own failings and shortcomings, provided he does not have her disobey God (those are extreme circumstances though).  A wife, however, has her own failings and will not submit unconditionally as we are to submit to God unconditionally.  Unfortunately, modern women have been brought up in an environment where the very act of submission is considered ungodly, even in the most devout churches.

The problem that the modern Christian American husband faces is one of stolen leadership.  Our status as leaders of our household has been taken from us through subtle manipulations, as outright takeovers were all but impossible from women.  But they managed to takeover by using their charms and their supposed birthright as being a princess (bitch), which many men bought into.

So what is to be done?  You have an unruly wife who doesn’t respect you and you wish to reassert your leadership over the household.  Or perhaps you need some advice to help solidify it.  Or you are curious about what this misogynist author is talking about.  Whatever the case, here it is:

• Never apologize, except when you know that you were wrong.  I have seen too many men say they are sorry for shit that was not their fault or was not wrong at all.  Your wife is not your accountability partner in life.  You are the leader of the household, not her, so anytime she demands you apologize, she is defying your headship.
• As Christian husbands, we are called to love our wives.  While this does include doing loving things like bringing flowers home once in a while or whatever, there is another part of that which is often overlooked: you need to ensure that your household is disciplined in a Godly manner.  As God loves us, he also provides us with the guidance needed to properly live our lives in His Will.  By the same token, loving your wife means imposing discipline when needed.  This does not mean physical abuse (though I do advocate hitting back if struck by your wife), but it means that you ensure her spiritual well-being as well.
• Understand that your wife will never love you in the way that you love her.  This does not mean that she does not love you.  Women are wired differently and so they have a different view of love.  For a man, love is sacrificial, while for a woman, love is emotive.  This is why they put a lot more stock in sex than men when it comes gauging their relationships.  Do not expect her to love you the way that you do and instead accept what love she gives to you.
• Do not divorce your wife unless she commits adultery.  Even then, it is your call as to whether or not divorce her as she may repent of her sin.  Still, if she is caught once and does it again after repenting, then simply divorce her and be done with it.  A woman can make a mistake once.  A second time is a pattern of behavior that will only make you miserable.
• Your wife is not permitted to deny herself sexually to you.  However, if she does do this, you are not permitted to break the marriage covenant by committing adultery nor are you permitted to take it by force.  This does not mean, however, that you should suffer in silence.  Instead, you should confront her on it, tell her she is violating her Christian duty as a wife, and leave it at that.  Do not argue with her about it or bargain with her.  In fact, if done right, she will actually feel guilty for missing out on something good.
• In the rare case that your wife strikes you, then strike her back with full force.  You will probably go to jail because she doesn’t respect you anyway and will probably call the cops, who like to play white knight.  Accept it as an inevitability.  And once she knows that you will not tolerate physical violence brought against, to the point that you are willing to go to jail, she will not do it again.  Remember, a bully only preys on the weak.
• If you catch her committing adultery, get a paternity test done on your children, if you have any.  If one or more is not yours, then you should divorce her, but know that you will probably have to pay child support even if you are not the father.  It sucks, but it happens.  Hopefully those laws will change in the future as paying child support for children that are not yours is a form of legalized fraud.
• Understand that legally, you have no rights as a husband in the eyes of the American legal system.  This is due to years of feminist takeover of the government system as administrative jobs are the only thing that most women are capable of doing.  And while you may luck out, you may still end up with a judge or a clerk or a police officer with something to prove when it comes to women’s rights.  And that’s when your rights will be ignored.  So, be willing to lose everything, even your rights to your children and your paycheck, if you decide to divorce your wife.
• Do not argue with your wife, especially when she gets into an emotional frenzy (which happens to most women from time to time).  Instead, tell her to knock it off and don’t respond to any of her accusations or arguments.  If need be, leave the house and go somewhere, provided that you are sure she will not harm your children, if you have any.
• While a man’s primary vice is Lust, a woman’s is Envy.  Understand what envy is and look for it in your wife’s behaviors.  She will undoubtedly be envious of something, so make sure you bring into line when she does.  You are the moral head of your household and it is your responsibility to ensure that sin does not overtake it.  This is a difficult task, though, and it takes wisdom to discern it properly.  Especially since our society embraces envy more so than lust.
• Try and find a way to ensure that you have a one-income household.  And make sure that you are the only one who is bringing home the income.  This is because a wife will not respect you if she makes more money than you do and because she is more likely to divorce if she works as well.  Also, most women are much happier being at home, whether they admit it or not.  The fact is that most careers are not rewarded much to both men and women and while motherhood can reap benefits that far outweigh what any employment situation can provide.
• If you get divorced, for whatever reason, do not remarry unless she remarries first.  But take your time and enjoy your life without her.  Mourn the passing of your marriage for a time, but do not show unhappiness to her.  The fact is, men are more capable of making it on their own than women are, otherwise there would be no need for alimony or child support.  So embrace your new freedom and do what you want to do in life.  Nothing is holding you back now, save a few court-mandated income confiscations.

I suppose there is more, but this is advice I feel the need to share with my fellow Christian husbands who may feel like they are inadequate husbands or men in general.  I firmly believe that if Christian husbands were to take their proper roles in our society, many of the social ills we face due to feminism and other things would be marginalized.

Truett Cathy’s Unsurprising Statements and the Predictable Results

So I’ve decided to take some time and discuss what I think about the whole Chick fil-A controversy, where Truett Cathy declared (to no surprise to anyone sane) that he was against gay marriage.  Sure, I could discuss how Congress just decided to allow the government to keep spending money it doesn’t have, in the same way that a high-heeled, annoying wife spends her husband’s credit cards, or I could talk about how Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke just told everyone in the United States who is frugal and saves their money to go and fuck themselves, but why would I discuss really important issues?

Truett Cathy has never hidden his faith.  You may not agree with it and you may think that he’s a little batty when it comes to religious matters and that’s fine.  But he has never hidden it nor has he ever forced it upon anyone.  I have never heard of a employee who has complained about being bullied about being atheist while working for Chick fil-A.  I doubt Truett Cathy has any religious tests for the people he hires or makes it a company policy.  As a free marketeer, I believe he is free to do so yet in spite of this, he has not.

The mere fact that he requires all his restaurants to be off on Sunday states two things: one that he is a man of conviction and two that he is willing to provide his retail workers a better deal than they get anywhere else.  There is almost no retail restaurant or store out there that consistently closes down on a Sunday.  If anything, they remain open to get the Sunday Christian after-Church lunches (although the waiters will get Bible Tracks for tips).  Not even Family Christian Bookstore closes on Sunday and, in fact, requires their employees to work one Sunday a month.

In any case, people had to have known what his stances were on these political matters.  I mean, it was fairly obvious to me and I didn’t really care about it either way.  But apparently, if someone expresses their belief that the sexual behaviors of 1.5% of the population is immoral based on their faith in a higher power, you have somehow gone too far.  You’d think he was rounding them up and sending them into concentration camps given the rhetoric from the mainstream press, which has done what it does best in every polarizing issue: make it worse.

I don’t agree with Truett Cathy on this issue as I disagree with both social liberals and social conservatives on this issue.  I believe that the government should just stay entirely out of the marriage business (and make no mistake, it is a business), cease issuing marriage licenses and let the various religious institutions set up their own standards.  I believe that our religious (and non-religious) leaders have done a piss-poor job of standing up for their convictions in these matter and simply deferred to the authority of government, a fallible human institution.  If anything, Truett Cathy has more courage than the vast majority of our pastors in America in the fear that they will be associated with the Democrat party supporting Fred Phelps, head of the cult known as Westboro Baptist Church.

I don’t know if Truett Cathy cares about all this, although I’m sure he’s happy at the increased business that resulted.  I fairly certain he did not care about the repercussions about his statements and was simply stating who he was and what he believes.  Someone having the courage to stand on their principles, even in the face of possible negative consequences, is rare these days.  He should be admired for his conviction, even if you disagree with him, not bashed and thrashed for it.  Of course, the mainstream press would go down on a spineless politician at any time on any given day but if someone touts his principles and stands by them, he’s somehow a kook and a freak.

I’m glad I don’t have cable television service anymore.

“You Hate Cops” and Other Thrown Filth

You know, it never ceases to amaze me how stupid and irrational people can be.  Case in point, the knee-jerk reactions to my posts about the law-enforcement officers engaged in misconduct.  More often than not, when I posted articles about LEOs misbehaving, there was the inevitable poster who responded with the same, tired old phrase: “you hate cops.”

I have reacted idiotically to this accusation in the past.  I doubt the people who threw such filth in my direction ever really believed it themselves, they just did that with the intention of deflecting the real issues that are plaguing law enforcement agencies at all levels these days.  So I would try and defend myself, foolishly believing that by responding that I don’t hate cops, the commenter would have an epiphany of sorts and realize the error of his ways.

In reality, that does not happen either because the commenter is so zealous in his or her own ideology that he or she actually believes that all criticism which targets LEOs can only come from people who simply hate them or, worse still, that person knows how I really think and is merely trying to dislodge my arguments with his or her own irrational arguments.  The latter is how the elite left-wing operates with their own arguments because they know their ideas will not work, but they want the power that comes with them all the same.

I think, though, that I should list how I truly feel about LEOs so I can least clear the air for myself and the other reader of this blog:

• I believe that the police and all other law enforcement officers should be held to a higher standard than the citizens they are supposed to protect.  This means that anytime a police officer is caught behaving inappropriately, whether on duty or not, he or she should be put through the same system that we have to go through when we are arrested.  Instead, the usual response, if police misconduct is acknowledged at all, is to suspend the officer, usually with pay, pending an internal investigation.  In essence, the police have self-accountability, which is about as effective as letting the lions keep the other lions away from the zebra herds.
• I believe that most of the LEOs are good people who merely wish to enforce the laws and keep people from hurting each other.  Unfortunately, most LEOs also believe that they have to follow orders rather than follow the law, so a corrupt superior officer can easily manipulate them into doing bad things.  Often times, the default argument a LEO makes when caught is that he or she was doing their job.   Unfortunately, that defense didn’t fly when the Nazis killed the Jews, so what makes you so special?
• I know that recently, many local, state, and Federal politicians have been hiring people with sociopathic tendencies and a willingness to follow orders without question, given different statements by former cops.  In many cases, these veteran cops admit that there used to be better standards but now the trend has been to get people who are willing to murder when ordered to do so.
• I believe that much of the training police officers receive is inadequate leading them to resort to lethal tactics in situations where it was not necessary.  Often times, a police officer will resort to a Taser when it is not needed.  A Taser is, at the end of the day, a weapon and a weapon is designed inflict physical injury, which can always risk death.  I personally never find Taser scenes on movies to be funny, despite many of them happening in raunchy comedies and if you laugh at them, you’re an idiot.
• I think that the police and other law enforcement should not be patrolling the streets but instead only respond to reported crimes.  This way we have a much more favorable opinion of police officers when we pass by them on the road or see them around.  Most people get nervous when they see a police officer, usually because they fear being pulled over and ticketed for doing something that everyone else does (if everyone is a criminal, then the law is meaningless and a joke).

I could probably go on, but the bottom line here is that I do not trust police officers or any other law enforcement to be looking out for my interests in any situation, even if I am a victim of some crime.  This does not place them in a special group as I don’t trust anyone really, especially people I don’t know.  But they are the only group that regularly carry lethal weapons and enforce ridiculous laws like “moving violations”, which render most police officers useless lumps on the roadside waiting to tax citizens for doing something they do as well.  A fine is just a tax for criminal activity, after all.

If this means that I hate cops, then that’s fine.  From my perspective I do not.  I do not wish them harm nor do I wish them to be eradicated completely.  But I am not a fool and I refuse to treat any LEO like an angel as so many seem to be doing these days.

Oh, and Og, go screw yourself.

Afghanistan Denied Justice

So I am hearing today that the soldier who massacred 16 people in Afghanistan is being shipped back to our nation in order to stand trial.  I think this is probably the dumbest thing that our government could have done, even though it is probably standard protocol for the “enlightened” nations of the west.

This soldier has committed an act of murder in a foreign nation.  We have always been willing to let regular US citizens stand trial in foreign nations for crimes they commit based on the judicial processes of those nations.  Why should we treat this soldier any differently when he was clearly not acting on the orders of the United States government?

Oh right.  He was a soldier in a warzone, although technically the nation he was operating in is supposed to be our ally.

This whole incident reveals the contempt we truly have for Afghanistan and the government that we propped up.  We gave them democracy at the end of a gun and then we flaunt their own system when we choose to.  And we are supposed to be surprised and outraged when they riot in the streets over a Koran burning?

The truth of the matter is, we need to turn this man over to Afghan authorities to be tried for murder in an Afghan court system, whatever that may be.  He will probably be found guilty and executed for his crimes.

Now, I am not saying that Afghani judicial process is superior to ours nor am I saying that it will be a fair hearing in comparison to our own.  That is not the point of this.  The point of this is that this man murdered 16 Afghani people, including women and children, in cold blood.  Therefore, the people of Afghanistan are the avengers of blood and should be allowed to bring justice for their lost people.

Whatever his reasons for doing so are irrelevant.  Temporary insanity is irrelevant.  People are dead in a foreign nation and they are being denied the true justice that they deserve.  I don’t care how fair their system is nor do I care that he will probably be executed within a year of being turned over to the Afghan authorities.

The fact remains, he committed a serious crime in a foreign nation and should have to account for it.

The Class Divide: Producers

Among the three groups I am discussing, there is one that I hold no contempt for, but some sympathy.  This group is the producer class and they are a rapidly dwindling class in the United States.

The producers are people who view their own rational self-interest above the needs of others and seek to fulfill them on their own terms without committing crimes against their fellow men.  In essence, they work for what they have and they do seek to take or beg from others.  If they reach a limitation, they will either seek to overcome it, find a way around it, or simply accept it and move on.  They will not complain about it, demand compensation because of it, or blame others for it.

However, even the producers can be driven to their limits and can move to one of the other classes on occasion.  Even if we divide people into the various classes that I am describing, people can still move from one class to another.  Of the three classes, the producer class is the one that is highly volatile and a person can easily be a producer one day and a moocher the next.  It is very difficult for a moocher or a looter to become a producer, the former because he is addicted to his own victimhood or entitlement, the latter because he is addicted to his own power.

The producers need not be producing something of monetary value to be a producer.  A housewife, for example, produces no tangible monetary value but does provide a service to her husband that is nearly priceless.  And yet the housewife is a producer as long as she is a housewife voluntarily and strives to keep the home in order.

A producer need not be some corporate head.  A producer can easily be a worker who is employed by another producer.  Again, it all has to do with the attitude.  A producer’s attitude toward his employment is that the job he has is not his job, but his employer’s job.  He tends to view that job as a contract between him and his employer where he does a task over a specified amount of time in exchange for some monetary benefit.

Remember, these class divides have nothing to do with economic status, but with attitudes toward other people.  A producer will not demand anything from anyone else, unless such a thing is due to him because of an agreement of some kind or a crime perpetrated against him.

The producers, however, tend to have a fatal flaw that often times brings about their own complacence and, sometimes, ultimate downfall.  They tend to buy into the rhetoric of the moochers and the looters and this often causes them to behave in a manner that is detrimental to their own well-being.  They will feel sorry for the moochers, because they do have sob stories to tell, and as such will be accepting of their fate of having to pay for them.  Often times, this is facilitated by the looters, as will be described in a later post.

The moment that the producers overlook their own rational self-interest in favor of others, they begin the process of unraveling the benefits of their work and attitudes.  This begins a great unraveling of society and the more parasitic elements begin to take control.  However, unlike most good parasites who understand that the host needs to live, these have little regard for others and somehow lack the sense to see the damage they are doing.

In the United States, the productive class has been marginalized, its voice is not heard largely because the producers are out producing.  Politicians will only listen to those who vote and the moocher class also happens to be the largest group of voters in this country.  As such, the State ceases to look out for the interests of the producers and instead looks out for the needs of the producers.  And this is when the third class comes into play.

Personal Finance for Politicians

With the fiscal crap hitting the fan in a few states of the Union, I’d thought it’d be a good time to go over something here that I find near and dear: personal finance for politicians.  Originally, I thought I’d use the word dummies, but even dummies will stop spending money after a short while.

Take Wisconsin, for example.  Seriously, take the stupid cheeseheads.  I’m still mad that they beat the Steelers.  OK, now that I’ve got that out of my system (wasn’t hard considering I’m not a huge football fan), I want to highlight how the state has to run a balanced budget.  This is a large part of their budgetary process.  If only the Founding Fathers had the foresight to codify this concept into the United States Constitution…

In any case, Wisconsin is one of the several states that requires a balanced budget.  But let’s examine what exactly that means in real people terms.  If you sit down to do a budget, which I hope you do every month, do you find yourself running a deficit each month?  If you did, are you taking steps to ensure that this deficit is taken care of quickly by cutting spending or by getting an extra job?

The truth is, most American households do not run a deficit in their budget on a regular basis.  At least, that’s my speculation.  I know that we do have an overall negative savings rate, but at the same time, I doubt many of us our spending more than we make on a consistent basis.  I know I am not.

You see, personal finance is not all that complicated.  You make money and you plan on where every dollar you earn goes.  If you find that there is something you can’t pay for, then you put it off and pay for it when you can.  You make the necessities a priority, which are food, clothing, shelter, transportation, and utilities.  And if you need more money for one item and your income hasn’t risen, then you simply shift money from one area to another.

There is good reason for this.   By balancing a budget, you ensure that any shortfalls can be met without too much discomfort or wallet busting efforts.  I recently had to replace my entire computer (I may blog about that harrowing experience later) and because I budget properly, I still had a surplus at the end of the month.  And I am by no means anywhere close to being rich myself.  But replacing the computer, which runs a few hundred dollars, wasn’t something that broke my financial situation because I plan things out ahead of time.

Now think of a rich kid.  I’m not talking about a person who works 12-14 hours a day, 6-7 days a week and makes more than I’ll probably ever make in my lifetime.  I’m talking about some rich kid who inherited a ton of wealth and does nothing but parties all the time.  There are a few of those kind of people out there, rare as they are.  I admit that I do envy them a bit, but at the same time I find it is amazing how they are able to spend their parents’ wealth like there’s no tomorrow.

It has been said that politicians spend like drunken sailors but I argue that politicians spend like spoiled rich brats because at least drunken sailors have their own money to spend.  Now across this country, moderately fiscally responsible people have been elected and they are looking to cut spending and reign in the shopping sprees that their predecessors have racked up.  This is not a criticism of any party because both parties spent the money they took from us like the prodigal sons they were.

So now, most state and local governments have to roll up their sleeves and either cut spending or raise taxes.  Unfortunately, raising taxes is only a short-term solution as the people who will most likely be taxed,  the working rich, have the means to leave.  So the only option is to cut spending.  Anything else is entirely implausible and will only serve to ruin things for everyone, rather than a few people.

This is why I am disgusted with the government unions who are demanding to keep money the government doesn’t have.  There’s no more money.  The economy is contracting and isn’t recovering in the areas that count (I’ll give you a hint: it’s isn’t government spending that counts).  So when your employers, the mayors and governors, say that they can’t pay you, they aren’t being greedy.  They are exhibiting common sense and trying to bring some sanity back to the government’s spending habits.  And you know, it may not hurt to have to spend your own money for your own retirement and medical insurance like the rest of us plebes.

The Elderly’s War on the Young

When I got married, my wife had a substantial student loan.  Obviously that didn’t deter me from getting married to her, but it was a little disheartening.  When my wife was 11 years old, she told her parents that she wanted to go this college.  Despite this, her parents didn’t save up enough money to get my wife through college without incurring a large amount of debt.

On the flip side, her parents did go to Disney World 23 times before my wife turned 21.  So what should have probably been college savings got dumped down the drain of theme parks (Disney wasn’t the only place), gifts, and other unnecessary indulgences.  Now, I’m not against taking your children to any theme park that many times, when you can afford it.  Instead, my parents-in-law lived for the moment rather than for the future.

What’s the point of this story?  I believe this story reflects a microcosm of the problem the United States faces with Social Security and Medicare.  I firmly believe that the elderly are, by and large, too selfish or uncaring to truly see how they have destroyed the future of their children and grandchildren.  There are several elderly who have plenty of assets to cover their medical and living expenses and yet they continue to suck out of those big entitlement programs at the detriment of my generation.

All these programs for the elderly are nothing more than giant Ponzi schemes that put Bernie Madoff to shame.  I know this is the towing the conservative line but they are completely right on this issue.  Next to military spending, which conservatives are wrong on, these programs constitute the biggest part of the Federal budget.  This is why cutting earmarks, which is something I support, would end up being nothing more than an hiccup in the over all budget.  And the Republican leaders will not tolerate any spending cuts for the military and these major entitlement programs.

In reality, the only way that these generation-destroying programs will ever be reformed is if a large majority of people enrolled drop their enrollment and refuse any more government handouts.  I know that there are a lot of people who claim to depend on it, but in all honesty I think most people on Social Security and Medicare could easily get by without it.

As long as the Baby Boom generation insists on getting these government benefits, national bankruptcy is around the corner.  And since no prominent group of elderly folks has spoken out against it and expresses a desire to sacrifice for the greater good.  Frankly, I find the silence frustrating.  Every politician and special interest group seems to be focused on other issues.

In effect, the elderly have declared war on the young by continuing to contribute to this travesty of a program.  What is it about 65 years old that requires you to retire and suck on the government’s poisoned nipple for the rest of your life?  Why do you insist on having the government take money from me and give it to you?

You folks are nothing more than parasites on society and don’t be surprised when we leave the death panel provision in place.  We are sick and tired of this war you have declare on us and we do not wish to be slaves to you just by the virtue that you survived to a certain age.  Get off your butts and go back to work you worthless tapeworms and prove that you actually care about your children.