Elizabeth Warren's 11 Commandments Of Progressivism

Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Moses Of Massachusetts, recently spent some quality time with Jehovah atop Mt. Sinai, and came down from the mountaintop with "The 11 Commandments Of Progressivism". 

Please stop your revelry, quit worshipping the Golden Calf, and join me in critiquing Ms. Warren's commandments....

First, let's straighten out some terminology.  The American Left routinely violates the English language by using words to mean whatever the hell they want them to mean.  For instance, I'm a Liberal.  It's a great old word, coming from the same root as liberty, liberate, libertarian, and liberation. 

The American Left seemed to start off as "The Progressive Movement", then morphed into "Liberals", and then after defiling that fine old word, refashioned themselves as "Progressives". 

Here's Michael Barone, explaining some of the transition:

Liberals just aren't very liberal these days. The word "liberal" comes from the Latin word meaning freedom, and in the 19th century, liberals in this country and abroad stood for free speech, free exercise of religion, free markets, free trade -- for minimal state interference in people's lives.
In the 20th-century, New Dealers revised this definition by arguing that people had a right not only to free speech and freedom of religion but also, as Franklin Roosevelt said in his 1941 Four Freedoms speech, freedom from fear and from want.
Freedom from want meant, for Roosevelt, government provision of jobs, housing, health care and food. And so government would have to be much larger, more expensive and more intrusive than ever before.
That's what liberalism has come to mean in America (in Europe it still has the old meaning), and much of the Obama Democrats' agenda are logical outgrowths -- Obamacare, the vast expansion of food stamps, attempted assistance to underwater homeowners.

I support marijuana legalization, I support gay marriage, and I support lots and lots and lots of birth control.  That makes me a Liberal, in the old-school sense of the word. 

I do not believe that someone should be forced to hire stoners, forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, or forced to pay for someone else's morning-after birth control pills.  In the old-school sense of the word, that makes me a.... Liberal. 

So I'm glad that Senator Warren, the Moses Of Massachusetts, has decided to change her label to "Progressive".  Progressive means "someone who wants to take your stuff". 

Let's look at Fauxcahontas's stone tablets:

 The 11 Commandments Of Progressivism !!
   Share This Story Share This Story  
- "We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it."

Wall Street already has more rules than the freakin' Koran.  The Securities And Exchange Commission has a budget of 1.32 billion dollars.  Stock purchasing and trading is already one of the most regulated activities on Earth. 
On top of that, Elizabeth Warren's Democrat tribe held the Presidency, the House of Representatives, and the Senate in the time period immediately after the recent Wall Street fiascos.  Nobody on Wall Street went to jail. 
Elizabeth Warren wants more power and control and money for government.  It really is that simple. 

- "We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth."

I believe in science.  I believe that I have a responsibility to protect this Earth.  (What's up with her saying "this Earth"?  Do we have undiscovered responsibilities to protect other Earths?  And will this require additional funding?)
I do not believe that protecting this (or any other) Earth obligates me to give money to Barack and Elizabeth and The Goracle. 
I will believe that my activity influences the weather when those three jet-setters start acting like their activity influences the weather.  Canadian Geese spend less time in the air than those three con-artists.   

- "We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality."

Good Lord in heaven....  If we were to discover that some internet service provider was rigging searches, we could drop them like a hot potato.  Leave it to the customer.  End of story.
 
For instance, the Progressives who run Google have de-emphasized their Blogger/BlogSpot service (the one that hosts this blog) in the Google search algorithm. 
I believe that there is a 5 to 1 ratio of Libertarian/Conservative bloggers to Liberal/Progressive bloggers. 
It is far more effective for Google to stifle blog search results than it is for them to contribute $$$ to Progressive candidates. 
I can't prove any of this.  I don't want Washington, or Senator Elizabeth Warren, or Rand Paul to spend a dime trying to prove this.  It's a dumbass conspiracy theory of mine. 
It's Google's company, and they can run it however they choose.  Google gives me this blog site for free, and I can start paying for Wordpress or something else if I choose to do so.  Until then, I shouldn't do any bitching about my delusions of Google violating net neutrality.
 
- "We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage."

And this will guarantee that more low-skilled workers won't work at all, and will live in poverty. 
If I become king and arbitrarily set the minimum selling price on all cars at $50,000.00, you're going to by a Mercedes every single time.  That used, beat-up 1975 Volkswagen Beetle will go unpurchased at $50,000.00
The minimum wage was first put in place in the U.S. to keep (black) poor workers from taking (white) middle-class jobs.  It has always worked precisely as intended. 

- "We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them."

Elizabeth, you ignorant slut. 
McDonald's, Whataburger, Wendy's and Burger King hire the people that Harvard, M.I.T., Bell Helicopter, Google, Microsoft, Yale, and NASA refuse to hire.  Elizabeth, you have refused to hire those fast-food workers. 
Don't take to the picket line.  Stop marching.  Stop bitching and moaning about the low wages offered by others.  Hire those people.  It's easy to make money off of low-skilled labor, right?
And in your spare time, look up the black teen unemployment rate.  Do you really want to price even more of those kids out of a job?  Or are you just trying to get traction from an issue that polls well with Low Information Voters Progressives?    

- "We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt."

Then for the love of God, please end government's near-monopoly on higher education. 
Fire Thomas J. Perez, the Luddite son of a bitch who is now the Secretary Of Labor.  (You know, the guy who, when working for the Justice Department, prevented universities from using the Kindle, because Kindles discriminate against blind people.) 
End lifetime employment guarantees for under-worked academics.
Investigate the possibility that government loans just might be the reason universities can jack up their prices to ridiculous levels.   
Give people a freakin' choice.  There is no reason why a course in Western Civilization should cost more than it did in 1950 (adjusted for inflation). 
We're dealing with cartels, not classrooms.

- "We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions."

Too late.  Social Security and Medicare are both bankrupt.  Gone.  They've spent it all. 

- "We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work."

I can't believe I'm having to say this in 2014 either.....

Think of all the people who came into your workplace with the exact same background, education and training. 
Then eliminate everyone all those who don't perform your same job in your department. 
Then eliminate those who are better workers than you and those who are worse workers than you. 
In Elizabeth Warren's world, the remaining people are those who should be paid the same as you. 
Could you think of anybody? 
No?  There's no one else with your identical training, education, certifications, pedigrees, work ethic, punctuality, attitude, result, profit margins, congeniality, and downright awesomeness? 

That's why the "equal pay for equal work" theme is nothing but a feast for lawyers. 

- "We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America."

This is a meaning less statement.  Dell Computer means Dell Computer.  Tape dispenser means tape dispenser.  Stapler means stapler, and phone means phone (to name just a few of the things on my desk.) 
I don't know how this Word Pasta made it into the commandments.  

- "We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform."

I agree. 
But "reform" is another one of those words that the American Left has desecrated. 
Thanks to "Healthcare Reform" and "Campaign Finance Reform", the word "Reform" now means to take something and f**k it up beyond all recognition. 
How 'bout we change that commandment to "We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and therefore we favor Open Borders." 

- "And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!"

Corporations are comprised of groups of people.  They're sure as hell taxed like they're people.  And, to a lesser extent, they can be sued like people. 
Women have a right to their own bodies, because they are people. 
People do have a right to their bodies. 
It follows that people have a right to the goods and services produced by their bodies and minds.   
Therefore, no individual or corporation should be in charge of providing healthcare, child support, income tax withholding, Social Security contributions, Medicare, Medicaid, or 40 acres and a mule to anyone. 
Putting companies in between people and government (for tax withholding, etc.) is a structure that began as one of FDR's many wartime mistakes, and it should end now. 

And the main tenet of conservatives' philosophy, according to Warren? "I got mine. The rest of you are on your own."

And Elizabeth Warren's philosophy is "You got yours.  And I want it." 
Go here to read about Warren's support for the Corporate Welfare Bank. 

God Almighty, I'm glad I got this out of my system. 

BTW, the Libertarian movement only has two real commandments - "Don't hit people and don't take their stuff." 

 

Dear Elizabeth....

Dear Elizabeth.....

You seem concerned about an economic issue, and now that you're a senator, this is scary for all of us.

You got elected by standing up for the little guy.  Your idea of accomplishing this, as I understand it, is to throw a check and some food pellets in the little guy's mailbox every month, and also by interfering in the workplace to raise the little guy's pay to a level that is higher than his productivity. (This encourages more automation, outsourcing, unemployment, etc., but that horse has already been beaten to death elsewhere.)

Now....look at this, from The Austrian Economists site:

% Households with:	Poor 1984	Poor  1994	Poor 2003	Poor  2005	All 1971	All 2005
Washing machine	58.2	71.7	67.0	68.7	71.3	84.0
Clothes dryer	35.6	50.2	58.5	61.2	44.5	81.2
Dishwasher	13.6	19.6	33.9	36.7	18.8	64.0
Refrigerator	95.8	97.9	98.2	98.5	83.3	99.3
Freezer	29.2	28.6	25.4	25.1	32.2	36.6
Stove	95.2	97.7	97.1	97.0	87.0	98.8
Microwave	12.5	60.0	88.7	91.2	1.0	96.4
Color TV	70.3	92.5	96.8	97.4	43.3	98.9
VCR	3.4	59.7	75.4	83.6	0.0	92.2
Personal computer	2.9	7.4	36.0	42.4	0.0	67.1
Telephone	71.0	76.7	87.3	79.8	93.0	90.6
Air conditioner	42.5	49.6	77.7	78.8	31.8	85.7
Cellular Telephone			34.7	48.3	0.0	71.3
One or more cars	64.1	71.8	72.8 (2001)		79.5

These increases in productivity seem to have helped "the poor".  What the hell have you risked for the poor, Elizabeth?  Anything?  Ever poured your own money into R&D for something that might not work?

But wait, that's not all!!!
Efficiency and productivity increases help the little guys more than the help the big guys!!!  Mostly because there are more of them !!

I hope this has helped.  And don't feel bad.  As long as Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are alive, you won't be the biggest idiot in Congress.
But Christ Almighty, you are so close.

What Obama Could Do

Long-time readers of these pages and my Facebook rants often assume that I have a deep and abiding hatred of Barack Obama. 
It ain't so. 
Obama promised to "spread the wealth around", and he's done his best to fulfill that promise, even though it has been disastrous for the economy overall.  The Porkulus bill was insane, but it hasn't cost any more than our recent wars against people who didn't attack us. 
I can quibble over Obama's broken promises to shut down Gitmo, his failure to bring home all the troops, and his general squishiness on gay marriage (until recently).

Compared to the Republicans, though, Obama has been a George Washington of honesty.  How the GOP can call itself "small government" after one Reagan and two Bushes remains a mystery.  In 2010, for the offices where we didn't have a Libertarian candidate on the ballot, I voted Democrat.  I'm sick, sick, sick of Republicans giving "small government" a bad name, especially the Republicans who are affiliated with the Religious Right. 

So let me know what you think of these suggestions for next week's Democrat Convention at Bank Of America Arena.  These are listed only as a public service. 

1) Ron Paul supporters are pissed.  I mean they are royally pissed.  They've been kicked out, shown the door and dumped on. 
Ron Paul is anti-war, pro-gay/lesbian marriage, anti-drug war, and anti-Federal Reserve.  It wouldn't hurt Obama to come out swinging against any more overseas adventures, and he could pledge to bring Hillary back to the house.  He could promise to legalize weed.  He could personally invite Ron Paul to speak at the Democrat convention !!  Who knows what would happen??
It would be difficult for Obama to speak out against Bernanke's counterfeiting operation at the Fed, but he could let Biden do it, since nobody takes Biden seriously anyway. 
All of this would be total B.S., but how many pledges and promises made at conventions and State Of The Union events are anything else? 

2) Trot out Bill Clinton as much as possible.  Clinton (and Gingrich) turned in a few years of balanced budgets.  He semi-reformed welfare.  He introduced NAFTA.  Yeah, he made a few failed stabs at an early version of ObamneyCare, but that was just to keep Hillary out of his hair so he could mess around with interns. 
Al Gore banished Clinton during his presidential run.  But the man has now been reformed and rehabilitated.  We did well while Bill was in office.  Obama should simply pretend that Clinton is the candidate. 

3) Keep Elizabeth ! Warren !! out of the convention hall.  Disinvite the woman from her current prime-time slot.  Obama was channeling Warren when he uttered his disastrous "You Didn't Build That" line.  That stuff probably plays well wherever Warren teaches, but it doesn't resonate with the folks who are having to pay ridiculous taxes to pay government contractors too much money for substandard services.  Have her call in with diarrhea. 

4) IMHO, Joe Biden is now officially stark, raving mad.  Paul Ryan is a bailout loving and TARP loving and stimulus loving Republican who has repeatedly voted for disaster while campaigning for sanity.  All that having been said, nobody cares about those votes except Libertarians. 
Despite his inconsistencies, Paul Ryan is also going to rip Joe Biden's head off. 
It's going to be brutal.  There is no point in it, no reason to broadcast this massacre during prime time when some of our children might still be awake. 
Biden couldn't even put away Sarah Palin. 
The Democrats don't want Biden going up against Ryan.  It's gonna be ugly, ugly, ugly. 

For a while, there was a "Draft Hillary" movement floating around, but she's even more polarizing than Biden. 

What to do, what to do.....

How about this:  Barack Obama should have Biden appear on Day One of the convention, and have him make his standard, goofy speech.  Then Biden should claim that he's been diagnosed with Alzheimer's.  Express regret that he can't continue to carry on the fight against the other side.  The press won't demand a medical diagnosis from anyone; Hell, they print every word that Obama/Biden say without skepticism.  

Day Three: Obama comes out, makes his speech, and declares that ________ __________ is now his choice for Veep. 

I think these four proposals would work for him. 
He'll never do any of this. 
There's no money in it for his supporters/owners. 

So in the meantime, I hope you'll support a candidate who has pledged to give us the small government that Republicans have failed to provide, and the civil liberties that Democrats have failed to provide......

Howard Roark's Trial Speech, Barack Obama's "You Didn't Build That", and Elizabeth Warren's "Roads" speech

I finished Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead this morning.  Good book. It's the story of an architect named Howard Roark who struggles to turn his vision into reality while being opposed by parasites, second-handers, and public opinion.  He agrees to design a housing project called The Cortland Homes as a favor for a friend, and for the joy of seeing the thing built.  He has one stipulation.  No one can change his design.  
Government parasites change his design, just for the hell of it, and to prove that they did something that day.  

Roark dynamites the housing project.  

Throughout the book, I couldn't help but think of the vast armies of regulators, busybodies, nannies, Family Values Republicans, Patronage Democrats, compassion democrats and their ilk who would be lined up for miles to keep Howard Roark from getting his buildings off the ground. 

Here's the speech from Roark's trial.  I've inserted quotes from a few contemporary politicians just to draw some contrasts.  See the italics. 

“Thousands of years ago, the first man discovered how to make fire. He was probably burned at the stake he had taught his brothers to light. He was considered an evildoer who had dealt with a demon mankind dreaded. But thereafter men had fire to keep them warm, to cook their food, to light their caves. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had lifted dardness off the earth. Centuries later, the first man invented the wheel. He was probably torn on the rack he had taught his brothers to build. He was considered a transgressor who ventured into forbidden terrritory. But thereafter, men could travel past any horizon. He had left them a gift they had not conceived and he had opened the roads of the world.


“That man, the unsubmissive and first, stands in the opening chapter of every legend mankind has recorded about its beginning. Prometheus was chained to a rock and torn by vultures—because he had stolen the fire of the gods. Adam was condemned to suffer—because he had eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Whatever the legend, somewhere in the shadows of its memory mankind knew that its glory began with one and that that one paid for his courage.

“Throughout the centuries there were men who took first steps down new roads armed with nothing but their own vision. Their goals differed, but they all had this in common: that the step was first, the road new, the vision unborrowed, and the response they received—hatred. The great creators—the thinkers, the artists, the scientists, the inventors—stood alone against the men of their time. Every great new thought was opposed. Every great new invention was denounced. The first motor was considered foolish. The airplane was considered impossible. The power loom was considered vicious. Anesthesia was considered sinful. But the men of unborrowed vision went ahead. They fought, they suffered and they paid. But they won.

“No creator was prompted by a desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered and that gift destroyed the slothful routine of their lives. His truth was his only motive. His own truth, and his own work to achieve it in his own way. A symphony, a book, an engine, a philosophy, an airplane or a building—that was his goal and his life. Not those who heard, read, operated, believed, flew or inhabited the thing he had created. The creation, not its users. The creation, not the benefits others derived from it. The creation which gave form to his truth. He held his truth above all things and against all men.

There are a lot of wealthy succesful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. - Barack Obama

“His vision, his strength, his courage came from his own spirit. A man's spirit, however, is his self. That entity which is his consciousness. To think, to feel, to judge, to act are functions of the ego.

“The creators were not selfless. It is the whole secret of their power—that it was self-sufficient, self-motivated, self-generated. A first cause, a fount of energy, a life force, a Prime Mover. The creator served nothing and no one. He lived for himself.

“And only by living for himself was he able to achieve the things which are the glory of mankind. Such is the nature of achievement.

“Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes on earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no claws, no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant his food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons—a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man—the function of his reasoning mind.

“But the mind is an attribute of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain. There is no such thing as a collective thought. An agreement reached by a group of men is only a compromise or an average drawn upon many individual thoughts. It is a secondary consequence. The primary act—the process of reason—must be performed by each man alone. We can divide a meal among many men. We cannot digest it in a collective stomach. No man can use his lungs to breathe for another man. No man can use his brain to think for another. All the functions of body and spirit are private. They cannot be shared or transferred.

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 that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business -- you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet. - Barack Obama

“We inherit the products of the thought of other men. We inherit the wheel. We make a cart. The cart becomes an automobile. The automobile becomes an airplane. But all through the process what we receive from others is only the end product of their thinking. The moving force is the creative faculty which takes this product as material, uses it and originates the next step. This creative faculty cannot be given or received, shared or borrowed. It belongs to single, individual men. That which it creates is the property of the creator. Men learn from one another. But all learning is only the exchange of material. No man can give another the capacity to think. Yet that capacity is our only means of survival.


“Nothing is given to man on earth. Everything he needs has to be produced. And here man faces his basic alternative: he can survive in only one of two ways—by the independent work of his own mind or as a parasite fed by the minds of others. The creator originates. The parasite borrows. The creator faces nature alone. The parasite faces nature through an intermediary.

“The creator’s concern is the conquest of nature. The parasite’s concern is the conquest of men.

“The creator lives for his work. He needs no other men. His primary goal is within himself. The parasite lives second-hand. He needs others. Others become his prime motive.

“The basic need of the creator is independence. The reasoning mind cannot work under any form of compulsion. It cannot be curbed, sacrificed or subordinated to any consideration whatsoever. It demands total independence in function and in motive. To a creator, all relations with men are secondary.

“The basic need of the second-hander is to secure his ties with men in order to be fed. He places relations first. He declares that man exists in order to serve others. He preaches altruism.

“Altruism is the doctrine which demands that man live for others and place others above self.

"You built a factory out there? Good for you, But I want to be clear: you moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for; you hired workers the rest of us paid to educate; you were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did." - Elizabeth Warren

“No man can live for another. He cannot share his spirit just as he cannot share his body. But the second-hander has used altruism as a weapon of expoloitation and reversed the base of mankind’s moral principles. Men have been taught every precept that destroys the creator. Men have been taught dependence as a virtue.

“The man who attemps to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality—the man who lives to serve others—is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit? The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man and he degrades the conception of love. But this is the essence of altruism.

“Men have been taught that the highest virtue is not to achieve, but to give. Yet one cannot give that which has not been created. Creation comes before distribution—or there will be nothing to distribute. The need of the creator comes before the need of any possible beneficiary. Yet we are taught to admire the second-hander who dispenses gifts he has not produced above the man who made the gifts possible. We praise an act of charity. We shrug at an act of achievement.

“Men have been taught that their first concern is to relieve the sufferings of others. But suffering is a disease. Should one come upon it, one tries to give relief and assistance. To make that the highest test of virtue is to make suffering the most important part of life. Then man must wish to see others suffer—in order that he may be virtuous. Such is the nature of altruism. The creator is not concerned with disease, but with life. Yet the work of the creators has eliminated one form of disease after another, in man’s body and spirit, and brought more relief from suffering than any altruist could ever conceive.

"Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea? God bless. Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along." - Elizabeth Warren

“Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone.


“Men have been taught that the ego is the synonym of evil, and selflessness the ideal of virtue. But the creator is the egotist in the absolute sense, and the selfless man is the one who does not think, feel, judge or act. These are functions of the self.

“Here the basic reversal is most deadly. The issue has been perverted and man has been left no alternative—and no freedom. As poles of good and evil, he was offered two conceptions: egotism and altruism. Egotism was held to mean the sacrifice of others to self. Altruism—the sacrifice of self to others. This tied man irrevocably to other men and left him nothing but a choice of pain: his own pain borne for the sake of others or pain inflicted upon others for the sake of self. When it was added that man must find joy in self-immolation, the trap was closed. Man was forced to accept masochism as his ideal—under the threat that sadism was his only alternative. This was the greatest fraud ever perpetrated on mankind.

“This was the device by which dependence and suffering were perpetuated as fundamentals of life.

“The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination. The choice is independence or dependence. The code of the creator or the code of the second-hander. This is the basic issue. It rests upon the alternative of life or death. The code of the creator is built on the needs of the reasoning mind which allows man to survive. The code of the second-hander is built on the needs of a mind incapable of survival. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.

“The egotist is the absolute sense is not the man who sacrifices others. He is the man who stands above the need of using others in any manner. He does not function through them. He is not concerned with them in any primary matter. Not in his aim, not in his motive, not in his thinking, not in his desires, not in the source of his energy. He does not exist for any other man—and he asks no other man to exist for him. This is the only form of brotherhood and mutual respect possible between men.

“Degrees of ability vary, but the basic principle remains the same: the degree of a man’s independence, initiative and personal love for his work determines his talent as a worker and his worth as a man. Independence is the only gauge of human virtue and value. What a man is and makes of himself; not what he has or hasn’t done for others. There is no substitute for personal dignity. There is no standard of personal dignity except independence.

“In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner.

“No work is ever done collectively, by a majority decision. Every creative job is achieved under the guidance of a single individual thought. An architect requires a great many men to erect his building. But he does not ask them to vote on his design. They work together by free agreement and each is free in his proper function. An architect uses steel, glass, concrete, produced by others. But the materials remain just so much steel, glass and concrete until he touches them. What he does with them is his individual product and his individual property. This is the only pattern for proper co-operation among men.

“The first right on earth is the right of the ego. Man’s first duty is to himself. His moral law is never to place his prime goal within the persons of others. His moral obligation is to do what he wishes, provided his wish does not depend primarily upon other men. This includes the whole sphere of his creative faculty, his thinking, his work. But it does not include the sphere of the gangster, the altruist and the dictator.

“A man thinks and works alone. A man cannot rob, exploit or rule—alone. Robbery, exploitation and ruling presuppose victims. They imply dependence. They are the province of the second-hander.

“Rulers of men are not egotists. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others. Their goal is in their subjects, in the activity of enslaving. They are as dependent as the beggar, the social worker and the bandit. The form of dependence does not matter.

“But men were taught to regard second-handers—tyrants, emperors, dictators—as exponents of egotism. By this fraud they were made to destroy the ego, themselves and others. The purpose of the fraud was to destroy the creators. Or to harness them. Which is a synonym.

“From the beginning of history, the two antagonists have stood face to face: the creator and the second-hander. When the first creator invented the wheel, the first second-hander responded. He invented altruism.

“The creator—denied, opposed, persecuted, exploited—went on, moved forward and carried all humanity along on his energy. The second-hander contributed nothing to the process except the impediments. The contest has another name: the individual against the collective.

“The ‘common good’ of a collective—a race, a class, a state—was the claim and justification of every tyranny ever established over men. Every major horror of history was committed in the name of an altruistic motive. Has any act of selfishness ever equaled the carnage perpetrated by disciples of altruism? Does the fault lie in men’s hypocrisy or in the nature of the principle? The most dreadful butchers were the most sincere. They believed in the perfect society reached through the guillotine and the firing squad. Nobody questioned their right to murder since they were murdering for an altruistic purpose. It was accepted that man must be sacrificed for other men. Actors change, but the course of the tragedy remains the same. A humanitarian who starts with declarations of love for mankind and ends with a sea of blood. It goes on and will go on so long as men believe that an action is good if it is unselfish. That permits the altruist to act and forces his victims to bear it. The leaders of collectivist movements ask nothing for themselves. But observe the results.

“The only good which men can do to one another and the only statement of their proper relationship is—Hands off!

“Now observe the results of a society built on the principle of individualism. This, our country. The noblest country in the history of men. The country of greatest achievement, greatest prosperity, greatest freedom. This country was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism. It was based on a man’s right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else’s. A private, personal, selfish motive. Look at the results. Look into your own conscience.

“It is an ancient conflict. Men have come close to the truth, but it was destroyed each time and one civilization fell after another. Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.

“Now, in our age, collectivism, the rule of the second-hander and second-rater, the ancient monster, has broken loose and is running amuck. It has brought men to a level of intellectual indecency never equaled on earth. It has reached a scale of horror without precedent. It has poisoned every mind. It has swallowed most of Europe. It is engulfing our country.

“I am an architect. I know what is to come by the principle on which it is built. We are approaching a world in which I cannot permit myself to live.

“Now you know why I dynamited Cortlandt.

“I designed Cortlandt. I gave it to you. I destroyed it.

“I destroyed it because I did not choose to let it exist. It was a double monster. In form and in implication. I had to blast both. The form was mutilated by two second-handers who assumed the right to improve upon that which they had not made and could not equal. They were permitted to do it by the general implication that the altruistic purpose of the building superseded all rights and that I had no claim to stand against it.

“I agreed to design Cortlandt for the purpose of seeing it erected as I dedigned it and for no other reason. That was the price I set for my work. I was not paid.

“I do not blame Peter Keating. He was helpless. He had a contract with his employers. It was ignored. He had a promise that the structure he offered would be built as designed. The promise was broken. The love of a man for the integrity of his work and his right to preserve it are now considered a vague intangible and an inessential. You have heard the prosecutor say that. Why was the building disfigured? For no reason. Such acts never have any reason, unless it’s the vanity of some second-handers who feel they have a right to anyone’s property, spiritual or material. Who permitted them to do it? No particular man among the dozens in authority. No one cared to permit it or to stop it. No one was responsible. No one can be held to account. Such is the nature of all collective action.

“I did not receive the payment I asked. But the owners of Cortlandt got what they needed from me. They wanted a scheme devised to build a structure as cheaply as possible. They found no one else who could do it to their satisfaction. I could and did. They took the benefit of my work and made me contribute it as a gift. But I am not an altruist. I do not contribute gifts of this nature.

“It is said that I have destroyed the home of the destitute. It is forgotten that but for me the destitute could not have had this particular home. Those who were concerned with the poor had to come to me, who have never been concerned, in order to help the poor. It is believed that the poverty of the future tenants gave them the right to my work. That their need constituted a claim on my life. That it was my duty to contribute anything demanded of me. This is the second-hander’s credo now swallowing the world.

“I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need.

“I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others.

“It had to be said. The world is perishing from an orgy of self-sacrificing.

“I wished to come here and say that the integrity of a man’s creative work is of greater importance than any charitable endeavor. Those of you who do not understand this are the men who’re destroying the world.

“I wished to come here and state my terms. I do not care to exist on any others.

“I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. To my country, I wish to give the ten years which I will spend in jail if my country exists no longer. I will spend them in memory and in gratitude for what my country has been. It will be my act of loyalty, my refusal to live or work in what has taken its place.

“My act of loyalty to every creator who ever lived and was made to suffer by the force responsible for the Cortlandt I dynamited. To every tortured hour of loneliness, denial, frustration, abuse he was made to spend—and to the battles he won. To every creator whose name is known—and to every creator who lived, struggled and perished unrecognized before he could achieve. To every creator who was destroyed in body or in spirit. To Henry Cameron. To Steven Mallory. To a man who doesn’t want to be named, but who is sitting in this courtroom and knows that I am speaking of him.”

"You didn't build that" - Barack Obama 

Elizabeth !! Warren !!!!! broke the color barrier at Harvard

Elizabeth !! Warren !!!!

You can hit the label at the bottom of this post to read more about the excitement, the bed-wetting ecstasy, the thrill, and the Why-Are-We-Allowed-To-Live-On-Her-Planet fawning and slobbering that surrounds Elizabeth !! Warren !!!!!

She's now running for the U.S. Senate, by God.  How long til the offers come in from Penthouse and Hustler? 

Seriously.  We're not worthy !!!!!!! 

Go here to read about a Fordham Law Review piece where Elizabeth !! Warren !!!! was described as Harvard Law's "first woman of color" !!!!!!!!

But open it in a new window, so you can have this Tim McGraw greatness playing in the background.  Crank it up for Elizabeth !!  Warren !!!!!!!!!!

Elizabeth ! Warren !! is back !!!!!!!!!!

Back in 2010, a writer named Brent Budowsky almost put himself in the hospital from just thinking about the nomination of Elizabeth ! Warren !! to a Consumer Protection boondoggle of some sort. 

Most of the rational world had a great time with his piece, an editorial in which Budowsky imagined peace in Israel, justice in this life, the lion laying down with the lamb, the Democrats rallying behind Obama, and other unlikely scenarios - all from the nomination of Elizabeth ! Warren !! to a bureaucracy. 

Elizabeth ! Warren !! is back, and she's running for the Senate.  Here's something she had to say a few days ago at a political rally:

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody. You built a factory out there — good for you!


But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did. Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea — God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.

But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

Ok, let's look a little closer.....

Tax units in the lowest quintile (20%) pay 0.4 percent (of the total tax burden), while those in the second, third (or middle), and fourth quintiles pay 2.3 percent, 7.7 percent, and 17.6 percent respectively.


The top quintile pays 71.9 percent. The top 10 percent pays 55.9 percent while the top 0.1 percent pays 12.3 percent.

What it boils down to is that some very rich people have a lot of money, and Elizabeth ! Warren !! wants more of it.
Here's the pic that's currently making the rounds on Facebook, which I think sums up the situation nicely:

But wait !!!    It keeps getting better.  I found this parody here. 
Enjoy. 

More on Elizabeth ! Warren !!

Obama is considering a recess appointment of Elizabeth ! Warren !!

Now that the Saints have won a Super Bowl, could this possibly be next ?
Think of it....Elizabeth !  Warren !!

Elizabeth ! Warren ! ! !

Brent Budowsky of The Hill can barely contain himself, and for good reason.  You see, there is a chance that Barack Obama will nominate....Elizabeth! Warren !!  to something or another. 

Within hours and possibly minutes I expect the president will name Elizabeth Warren to lead the new consumer protection agency, and if he does, the Democratic base will erupt and turn out to vote in far greater numbers than any current poll suggests.

Good God in heaven, how can you people even think of sleeping during a moment like this ????  Elizabeth ! Warren ! !

I could be wrong; Obama might give up at the last minute, which would be the last betrayal of the Democratic base and very possibly the death knell of the Democratic House of Representatives. But if he names Warren, the pundits be will amazed, astonished and flabbergasted by the lift this would give to the Democratic base and by the voter turnout that would follow.

Think of it, folks !   Roust yourselves from your slumbers ! ! !  Elizabeth ! Warren !!,  the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School -- where she teaches contract law, bankruptcy, and commercial law -- and has devoted much of the past three decades to studying the economics of middle class families ! ! !  I don't mean to cuss because my mama and my Aunt Gwen both read this website sometimes, but HOLY SHIT ! !   There is a chance that Obama is going to nominate Elizabeth !  Warren !!

If Obama names Warren, consumers would have the strongest possible friend fighting for them all day, every day, at a time of major consumer rip-offs and disastrous consumer confidence that would be lifted with the Warren selection.

Think of it....you're shopping for something, something like Dill Pickles.  You reach for a jar, but then you think "Am I about to get ripped off?  Am I confident enough, as a consumer, to buy these Pickles?  Do I have someone in my corner if this all goes terribly, horribly wrong?" 
You almost put the jar back on the shelf.  But then you remember that Barack Obama has nominated, yea, verily, he has appointed Elizabeth ! Warren !! to the new consumer protection agency.  And she is there for you, Thanks Be To God. 
What do you do next?  I mean, what do you do after you decide to vote, then revitalize the Democrat party, give hope to millions and preserve the Obama presidency?  What do you do next?  Do you even have to f***ing ask???
Why, you buy the damn pickles ! ! !
Elizabeth !  Warren ! !

If Obama names Warren, veterans and military families who have endured rip-offs and abuses would have the strongest possible friend with Elizabeth Warren.

Elizabeth !  Warren ! !  She's not just For The Children ® , she would also be For The Troops ® ! !

If Obama names Warren, small business would have the strongest possible ally as she champions fair treatment by small business that has been a piñata being abused by large financial institutions.

That sentence is so screwed up, especially considering that it's from a major website.  I think Brent meant to say "of small business", and the phrase "that has been" is meant to describe the treatment, and not the businesses. 
But who am I to pick grammatical nits at a time like this, at a time when our President, when our President, Mr. Barack H. Obama, when President Obama nominated Hillary R. Clinton as Secretary of State, well, he was just warming up and clearing his throat.
Hillary was nothing. 
Elizabeth !  Warren  ! !  She might be willing to serve !  WE ARE NOT WORTHY ! ! 
And there are people on this earth who still claim that there is no God. 

If Obama names Warren, the momentum in the campaign would shift powerfully and immediately, with a rejuvenated Democratic base excited and fighting trim, ready to roll, ready to fight, ready to erupt with support that the selection of Warren would inspire.









I apologize for that gap in the blog.  I just discovered that I had wet myself thinking of the possibilities, just dreaming of the Democratic base, rolling out of their Volvos and Priuses, ready to roll, ready to erupt and fight for Elizabeth !  Warren !!

Warren should be nominated through a recess appointment, not a nomination that would bring a unified Republican filibuster in the tired Kabuki dance that the American people, and the progressive base, have suffered from for far too long.

Absolutely F'ing-A Right you are, buddy !  Elizabeth deserves better than a Kabuki dance.  A coronation is in order.  Did people "vote" for Martin Luther King ?  Heck no.  How about Napoleon?  I don't think so.  Did directors make Richard Burton or Laurence Olivier "read" for roles in movies?  Hell no.  The roles were declared to be filled as soon as Burton or Olivier said they were willing to fill them. 
Elizabeth Warren is the author of The Two-Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke (Basic, 2003) (ISBN 0-465-09082-6).  Why would we even think of putting this to a vote? 
Elizabeth !  Warren !!

The Democratic base is dispirited and tired, but the Warren nomination would rally them beyond the imagination of the most cynical pundits and politicians.

Absolutely !  Just think of how they rallied for....
Barack !  Obama !!

This campaign is in the ninth inning, the bases are loaded, and if the president hits the ball out of the park and names Elizabeth Warren....

I hate to point this out, but we've all seen our President in his Mom jeans on a baseball field.  The president does NOT come up to the plate when it's in the ninth inning and the bases are loaded.  Not when your pinch hitter is....
Elizabeth !  Warren !!

 ....it will be the single most powerful inflection point in many months, to the Democrats' advantage, and change the campaign of 2010 to a rousing fight to the finish that could well save the Democratic House of Representatives.

That's all that Brent Budowsky had to say.  For those who can handle the sheer erotic overload, you can click here to see pictures of Elizabeth !  Warren !!   Some are casual, some are formal, and some actually show her on the job, teaching at Harvard !  God, I love the internet ! ! ! 
I'll leave you with this picture that I found at the link above.  Barack Obama, sleep lightly.  She might be coming for you. 

Elizabeth !  Warren !!