The Harvard Professor Lied!

Scott Brown's competitor, the Harvard professor, has just achieved a clip of powerful demagoguery, but she lied. Her lie was her reference to the factory owner
using roads "that the rest of us paid for" and using schools to educate his students
"that the rest of us paid for." She is plainly saying that he didn't pay for any roads or schools. So where did he come from? Mars? If the factory owner bought gasoline in America, he has paid for roads too, just like the rest of us. If he has owned a home in America, he has paid property taxes. Property taxes are principally used for paying for educaton. So he has paid for schools just like the rest of us. Even renters pay for schools through their rent. She cleverly created an undifferentiated "us" versus the factory owner, but it wasn't true. She lied.
The answer to getting America out of the mess that it is in is to increase the national productivity. This cannot be done when President "Born Alive" Obama is killing the economy by taking money through taxes and inflation out of the private, productive sector and putting it into the public, non-productive, parasitic sector.
So grow up, Professor, and stop being so willfully ignorant. You're out in the real world now. Peter Nickerson, born in Worcester, Massuchesetts, now at 352-359-0850
in Florida.

Forgetting Freedom

I have been piqued to know what caused, according to Friedrich Hayek, Europe and America to give up freedom and individualism which, along with commerce, gave many people an almost indescribably different life. Unfortunately, Hayek writes in "The Road to Serfdom" that he will not discuss that in detail but alludes to a new phenomenon of looking at people through the lens of scientific advances and the desire on the part of many to do away with man's evils as quickly as possible. I suspect this led to collectivism to be codified into socialism with the utopian idea of organizing man's life to the same degree that a factory is organized. Not only a factory but a Prussian factory at that. Surely, we have seen the Born-Alive Obama administration showing the same Socialist hubris. For example, Michaelle Born-Alive Obama lecturing us peasants on the right diet while she eats the very foods she warns us peasants against. I notice with pleasure the collectivists' hysteria to find anything, just anything, to hold against Rick Perry. Today it is recognition that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme in that there is no money being invested. Instead, it is going to paying for government, government's favorite programs, and for the Social Security recipients
who were currently getting payments. There was no money put in the "lockbox" for
the tsunami of future payments. This was what Bernie Maddoff did except that his
investors' money went to his wife and himself as well as to pay some "dividends" to try to make his business look legitimate as well as to attract more investors. Bernie Maddoff went to jail, but our politicians do not. That needs to be changed.
I believe it is Brazil that has passed a law stipulating that when a bank fails
because of making loans that don't get paid back, the board of directors goes to jail. Would that law had applied to the boards of directors at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac! Do you think they would have dared to make the absurd loans that they did make? They were deliberately making liar-loans in which nothing the mortgage applicant wrote down had to be verified. They deserve jail.
Now the media socialist-activists are crying because Rick Perry has called Social
Security a "sham." Which is exactly what it is. Two days ago, Rush Limbaugh spent an entire segment reading the names and titles of people who have been warning since 1960s that Social Security was a Ponzi scheme. He couldn't find MIA (missing in action when the Nation was discussing Obamacare) Romney calling Social Security a Ponzi scheme, but Rush did quote from MIA Romney's last book where he called Social Security "dangerous." Then in last night's debate, MIA Romney had the hypocrisy and pettiness to say that Rick Perry's reference to Social Security as a Ponzi scheme was "dangerous." Maybe everything is dangerous to MIA Romney. I'm surprised he didn't hide inside his lectern last night. Where'd he hide when we were discussing Born-Alive Obamacare?
Rick Perry continues to look like not only a man but the man. Keep it up!

What Is A Conservative?

The leftists hijacked the term "Liberal" from the Classical Liberals. This resulted in many people including Republicans calling themselves Conservatives. Sarah Palin has said that we should not let the left get away with any lie. So I am fighting one of their first lies: calling themselves Liberals. I am a True Liberal; they are False Liberals, just as false as everything else about them. I say that many people who define themselves as Conservatives are not, and a better name is True Liberal. See if this describes you: "But true liberalism is still distinct from Conservatism, and there is danger in the two being confused. Conservatism, though a necessary element of any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic, and power-adoring tendencies (think Michael Savage - my parenthesis) it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities, it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
from "The Road to Serfdom" pages 45-46 by Friedrich Hayek, 2007

What Is A True Liberal?

Listen to Friedrich Hayek : "I am still puzzled why those in the United States who truly believe in liberty should not only have allowed the left to appropriate this almost indispensable term but should have even assisted by beginning to use it themselves as a term of opprobium. This seems particularly regrettable because of the consequent tendency of many true liberals to descrive themselves as conservatives." page 45 "The Road To Serfdom" 2007
Hayek is saying that the classical liberals allowed the leftists to take the word "liberal" and apply it to themselves. I have been angry for some time that conservative Republicans parrot the false liberals not matter how untrue the term may be that the leftists are using. For instance, conservatives use the phrase "redistribution of wealth" as if they believed what the term says. It is a false term because it implies that wealth was first distributed and then distributed again by government. Wealth, lefties and conservatives, is first earned and then the government can distribute it. If you hold a job or a business, you earn your money. It is not distributed to you. At some point or points the state, local, and federal governments seize part of your money and gift it to themselves and others. The proper term is "seizing and gifting wealth" not "redistribution of wealth."
Perhaps the reason conservatives refuse to pick up on this and complacently echo whatever term the false liberals use is found in a word Hayek uses to describe conservatism: "anti-intellectual." I say it is time we took back from the leftists our designation of "liberal" by callilng ourselves "true liberals." I would urge you to call the leftists "false liberals" as they are the antithesis of classical liberalism.
peternickerson12@yahoo.com