John’s Blog

   For as long as I can remember I have heard people say “Don’t discuss politics or religion”.That makes sense because both are subjective issues and people usually adhere to religion as a ‘faith-based system of salvation’. Faith is the sticking point.

People do not change unless given a reason and since the principles of a religion do not change significantly people continue to believe in their deities. Theists, of just about any religion, use the argument “it could not have been otherwise”.

People usually stay with the religion of their parents until an event in their lives causes them to question why they are of a particular faith. People do not simply change from one religion to another. They must first drop their original beliefs because of disagreement with their church leaders, a change in church policy or they dislike someone in the congregation so much that they are uncomfortable being there.

Politics, on the other hand is also subjective but the results of politicians are generally visible. The process may not be transparent but the results of the politicians actions are.

I have tried to avoid these two topics in my articles when I started writing them a year and a half ago but I wish to remind people of what happens when you ‘owe’ something to someone.

If someone loans you money they expect it to be repaid.

I believe people borrow money for two primary reasons.

The usual reason is that they need to borrow because they have mismanaged their affairs and are in debt.

The second is that they want the money to invest in a new home, car or business.

In the former case it is expected that the borrower will modify his or her habits so that they can avoid actions which caused their original financial problem.

The individual who loaned the money expects that assurance and so monitors  the debtor’s behavior, and if necessary, attempts to control it.

In politics no one is elected who is an unknown therefore to advertise a candidate’s attributes requires money. We have seen recently that even elected positions that are of minor significance require ever increasing amounts of money.

This money comes from campaign contributions so the politician who receives it owes something to the contributor. The larger the contribution, the greater the debt.

Whoever loans you money essentially controls you. If it’s an individual or bank they need to know that the course that you are pursuing will guarantee that they will get their money back.

If you expect a handout from the government then you owe the government and they receive their payment through taxes. If you owe the government, it can tell you how you must live your life and how much of your money that they will take to make that happen.

We are caught up in a huge game.
The people at the top make–and keep– the most money in a Socialistic system.
That seems to be the game plan, a Socialistic ‘One World’ system of currency and governmental control by a few people. Perhaps it will be those few who have the greatest influence on the United Nations organization.

Every time the Democrats get elected, they push us a little closer toward Socialism.
When the Conservatives get back in, it’s like a ‘ratchet’–it never goes back. They never undo what the Liberals have done.

This is not to excuse all Republicans either. They want to get as many votes as possible so they must satisfy the desires of the masses with hand-outs which also is a step toward Socialism.

In short, no matter who gets elected in this country, Democrat or Republican, you can expect Socialism in the end. It is only a matter of who gets us there the fastest.

The government will decide what the individual is entitled to and control that through taxes and the redistribution of wealth.

That is, except for the privileged few at the top.

AUBURN            1904-1937

CORD                  1929-1937

CROSLEY           1939-1952

DUESENBERG   1913-1926

ESSEX                  1919-1932

HUDSON             1910-1957

KAISER               1945-1956

NASH                   1916-1957

PACKARD           1899-1958

STUDEBAKER   1902-1966

When these fine American cars could no longer compete in the market, they simply went out of business.

Where was their  Uncle Sam when they needed him? No one bailed them out

When the horse and buggy could no longer compete with the automobile, the buggy manufacturers closed their doors also.

The United States did not collapse.

If a company is unable to produce any product competitively then it should fail.

Subsidizing failure seems to be a trend in the US today but it creates the expectation of continuity in enterprises that make incompetent decisions.

During this period of religious significance to both Christians and Jews, a mental  ‘almost overload’ has “….come upon me”–while I was raking last fall’s leaves.

Not being a theologian the following is the best that I could do.

Christians celebrate Easter as the rebirth of the Savior—someone who would cleanse them of sin and perpetuate their survival in Heaven.

Pagans celebrated this period as the resurrection of crops and fruit trees–those things necessary for their survival.

The Jews celebrate it for another reason—that they were ‘passed over’ and so survived to today.

It appears to me that ‘survival’ is a major component of this holiday season.

People want to hope for better times. They need a belief that things will get better as the pagans knew would happen in the spring. Or is it simply that people have faith that things will get better?

Faith is blind acceptance of a possible outcome. There is no available data to back up faith.

This seems very appropriate for what is happening today.

The Jews had faith that a Messiah would come and make things better. When Jesus came into the picture He didn’t help them in their struggle with the Romans so he was rejected as not being the Messiah that they expected.

Today we are experiencing a similar situation. Times are tough; fear is rampant.

Obama has been compared by many to be a ‘Messianic figure’.

The fact that he was elected President might have been as a result of this perception by a large number of people. In his campaign he said that he had a plan that would solve all the problems facing our country and perhaps the world, by extension.

I wonder if Obama and Congress will “deliver us from evil” or must we wait another four years for some, as of yet, unknown Messiah?

Saw on TV yesterday that dealers who sell  some small motorcycles and ATV’s were ordered to not sell them and if they do they will be heavily fined.

It seems that some lead has been found in the paint on the fenders.

My answer: ” Anyone who goes around licking motorcycle fenders deserves to remove themselves from the ‘gene pool’.”

How far is too far?

A reader sent me an e-mail today that made me think about greed as the source of discontent in our society.

There is a connection between conservatism and greed but it is not an absolute “A=B”.

One can be ‘conservative’ (as I am) and not be greedy (as I am not).
Greed stems from conservatism but is not necessarily the end product. Too much conservatism is greed.

In other words, I want to be self-sufficient and in so doing I must accumulate enough of the  ‘implements’ to do so. In primitive times this meant arrowheads, wood,  skins and dried meat.

Today it is money. I feel money is a vehicle (a bartering medium) that will allow me to trade for those things that lead to my survival.
It has never been my goal to accumulate more than I feel is necessary to meet the goal of survival in a modern world– a world of taxes and shelter and fuel (energy) and transportation and food and some left over for pleasure.
Without some pleasure life becomes merely existence.

Those who accumulate simply with that as a goal are indeed greedy and that breeds resentment in those who are truly deficient.
This leads to extreme ‘liberalism’  using the vehicle of guilt to take from the truly greedy….and give to perhaps the less greedy.

How much is ’sufficient’? Who evaluates how much pleasure one is entitled to?
How much money do the apparently  deficient allocate to pleasure that gives them the appearance of insufficient means of survival?

My grandfather’s favorite expression was, “Moderation in all things.”

In short be conservative (self-sufficient) but not greedy.