Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for December, 2012

YouWerenotThere

Think of an experience from your childhood. Something you remember clearly, something you can see, feel, maybe even smell, as if you were really there. After all you really were there at the time, weren’t you? How else could you remember it? But here is the bombshell: you weren’t there. Not a single atom that is in your body today was there when that event took place …. Matter flows from place to place and momentarily comes together to be you. Whatever you are, therefore, you are not the stuff of which you are made. If that does not make the hair stand up on the back of your neck, read it again until it does, because it is important.”  – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Prof. Dawkins has an unshakable belief in the materialistic paradigm and evolutionary biology.  Because of his great belief that matter and energy are all there was, is, or ever will be, Dawkins makes an amazing discovery, or rather, comes to an astounding conclusion.  Since your original matter and energy was not really present at the event of a children memory, yet you retain that memory, there must be a mechanism for the transference of this memory.  Because he rejects the obvious implication of dualism, he asserts that matter, flowing from place to place, has some unknown hidden trait that carries with it memories of events that it passed through.  Of course if this were true, I should be able to remember not only my own personal memories but I should have memories of all events my matter has passed through from the beginning of its existence.

For simplicity sake, monism as used here means that reality is composed of a single strata or substance, that is matter (or matter and energy) and is akin to materialistic atheism.  Dualism, such as was common to the belief of the ancient Greeks or Hebrews, states that reality is composed of both mind and matter and that these two things are distinct.  So when I say Dawkins in a monist I mean he believes in a single layer of reality.  This means that Dawkins has to explain how matter can acquire the attributes of the incorporeal, i.e., of mind.

Dawkins attempts to do this with the concept of the MEME he proposed in “The Selfish Gene”. Never mind that there is not one iota of evidence for it except for the use of large words used in a way to make them sound scientific. Never mind that He uses the canned Neo-Darwinian mechanism to explain how memes operate.

Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition and inheritance, each of which influence a meme’s reproductive success. Memes spread through the behaviors that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate less prolifically may become extinct, while others may survive, spread and (for better or for worse) mutate. –  Wikipedia

To keep things squarely in a materialist framework and avoid the more obvious conclusion of theistic dualism, Dawkins has to invent quasi-evolution constructs like memes.  There is no basis for this in the evidential world in which Dawkins claims to live.  He simply does not know how to explain memory, fashion, or social habits that are found in all cultures.  He certainly knows of no explanation for why a hunk of matter, like yourself, should find art, music or architecture of any interest at all.  After all, dirt is not musical.  It is not moral, it has no memory, contains no blue print or plan.  Matter does not choose a set of symbols and organize them to create the syntax and grammar needed by a sender and a receiver to communicate intentions.  Matter is not in and of itself information baring, nor does it impose upon that information syntax and grammar.  

We use matter in many ways, to pave streets or forge into tools or light up houses and keep warm.  What we don’t do is assume it can make moral choices or have unsatisfied desires.  My granite counter-top does not pine away wishing it were back in the old mountain it was dug from, at least, not to my knowledge.  Such a belief would be considered idiotic.  The average, normal, rational person, driven by the evidence all around him treats matter as distinct from mind.  The normal assumption of anybody free of materialist atheism that arises out of evolutionary pollution is to treat the world as dualistic rather than monistic.

Memes and replication really explain nothing at all, least of which is now matter acquires the attributes of mind.  Of course, to Dawkins, mind is brain.  But mind is not brain.  Brain is matter.  As an analogy we could use a television.  Now I realize no analogy is perfect but they can be instructive.

happy-days-8

Say a person is siting at home watching “Happy Days”.  The cable or satellite or TV antenna is picking up the signal and passing it through the matrix of circuits that is the television.  Then, something goes wrong.  Prehaps the sound goes out, or all the reds drop out of the picture, or focus is lost.  What happened?  The signal is still there, with all the information is has always contained.  The other TV in the bedroom is still seeing the picture fine.  So, a repairman is called.  He replaces a part.  Then another, then another.  Finally the show can be viewed properly again.  But the television has new parts that were not in the original configuration.  Shouldn’t that make a difference?  Not at all because those parts that were needed to see the show properly are completely independent of the signal carrying the show itself.

The same is true of the soul or mind or spirit.  The brain may not always work right but it is mere interface for the mind.  Memory, desire, values, decisions, free-will, analysis, sorrow, guilt, wonder, amazement, fear, hope, love, hate, purpose, appreciation, gratitude, composition of literature or of music, devotion, ideas, beliefs, and rationality are not found in matter but in mind.

To believe that the love of architecture is merely a signature of some combination of matter and energy is to believe that the effect can be greater than the cause.  No rational person believes that.  It is akin to saying that books create authors or that I can pour one gallon of water into an empty five gallon bucket expecting it to overflow.  It is like believing that 2 + 2 will always be greater then 4.  It is a position of extreme irrationality in the presence of the evidence of all reality.  What Dawkins and all materialists do is attribute properties to matter that matter does not have and that there is zero evidence for.  According to the materialistic atheism of Dawkins, matter desires and remembers those desires and thinks about them using the laws of mind like identity and non-contradiction and excluded middle.  Matter has never been observed to possess any of these properties.  Matter has never been observed to possess ideas or logic or deductive reasoning.  These things are far beyond the pour capabilities of matter.  Matter has never been demonstrated to possess these things and no  evidence exists for such conclusions. Such a simple thing as a category fallacy sends very bright people into this maze of stupidity.

Yet, Dawkins, Dennett and a great parade of Oxford dons and Cambridge apostles array these beliefs as rational.  They tell us with sophisticated language and complex theorems that matter can create mind.   It is easier to believe that books create authors.  They want us to believe that they are the rationalists among us while the foundation of their beliefs are nitwittery.

Is it any wonder Dennett and Provine claim free-will is an illusion?  How could they not if they believe that all mental interactions are just collisions of electric forces governed by physical law.  But how does matter come to have the capacity of illusion?  How is the matter in our bodies self-aware enough to be even concerned about such an illusion?  How is illusion a construct of matter rather than mind?  In Dawkins’ world it must be so because mind really doesn’t exist, just matter flowing here and there with unknown magically memes recording everything.   After which it becomes me or you for a short time.  For that short time we are drones living an illusion and we then think deep thoughts and have unlimited desires and make billions of choices only to disappear again and flow somewhere else.  An this is called science?

While being a drone, devoid of free-will may make one a prefect candidate for the state collective, many people, common people, reject Dawkins’ atheistic materialism and evolutionary biology not because of ignorance or evil, but because its foundation forces upon them a belief in the absurd.   Dawkins’ monist worldview is not rational but irrational to the point of silliness, it is certain men professing to be wise when they are fools, it is a belief that the effect is always greater than the cause, it is saying that if you want to be considered a brilliant thinker by the elite pundits of the world you have to begin from a base of irrationality.

Why is it that those who believe in a reality of matter and energy only use non-material means such as ideas and language and argument to convince us we should dispense with our common sense and follow their light into darkness?

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Part 1: FYI – because of my affliction with Polymyalgia Rheumatica I may be slower than usual in approving or replying to comments.

Ignorant of what he criticizes

Ignorant of what he criticizes

“Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God’s approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That’s not morality, that’s just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base though.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

In the quote above, Richard Dawkins demonstrates his vast ignorance of even the basics of Christianity and to a larger extent, the Judeo-Christian heritage or worldview.  Prof. Dawkins is always quick to criticize Christianity but is too arrogant to realize he knows little about it.

Christianity does not position mankind in a “be good and go to heaven” or else “be punished and go to hell” scenario.  That is more like an Egyptian idea where the deeds of men are weighted on the scale to see if good deeds outweigh the bad.  Or perhaps Dawkins mixed up the practice of Catholicism with what the biblical text actually teaches.  Dawkins has mixed something up.  But then Dawkins mixes up many things.

Christianity states that the world is condemned already, not that mankind must strive to be good enough to get to heaven.  It states that  mankind is like a convicted man before a judge who has already been found guilty and is awaiting the execution of the sentence.  Now this only applies to those past the age of accountability, not children.  It applies to those who have violated their conscience, and thus have a sense of guilt or shame.  It applies to those who have lied or stolen or have been dishonest or unfaithful in thought or deed or have lusted and coveted the property of others.  It applied to those who knew the difference between right and wrong and have chosen to do wrong anyway.

Dawkins does have something correct in the statement above.  God does know every thought and sees every deed.  But this has more to do with mankind’s accountability to God.  It does not work effectively as a suck-up tool.

The New Testament, i.e., Christianity, is not about being good enough to get to heaven.  If he had read the New Testament thoughtfully he would have known this.  It is obvious that he has not.  He may insist he has “read” it but to miss such direct truths means he either already had a conclusion in mind or he merely glazed over its content.  He is simply too ignorant to be taken seriously as a critic.

Christianity is essentially an offer of pardon.  It is like the above mentioned criminal who is ALREADY found guilty and is awaiting execution of sentence.  He is hoping that there might be found some grounds for mercy.  Christianity is a pardon from the just sentence measured against the crimes committed by the guilty.  But there are conditions.

These conditions are basically the same that can be found in a parole hearing.  A parole board wants to hear three things…

  1. The criminal must admit his guilt, i.e., that he did the crime.
  2. The criminal must demonstrate true regret for doing the crime.  He must realize the harm he has inflicted upon others.
  3. The criminal must promise not to do it again.  He cannot be released back into society to rob or rape or embezzle or deceive.  His threat to society must be mitigated.

These three things are akin to the concept of repentance in both the Old and New Testament.  Dawkins misses this completely as do nearly all Biblical critics.  They again demonstrate that they have no understanding of the thing they criticize.

But why should God pardon whether a man repents or not?  He doesn’t have to.  There is nothing compelling Him to do so.  There is a lot compelling Him NOT to pardon however.  If criminals are just pardoned, crime is encouraged.  This is so obvious to anyone who has not had their common sense destroyed by “higher” learning.  God cannot merely suspend all sentences without the criminal being changed and set upon a new direction or course for his life.  God must also demonstrate that crime will be punished lest crime is encouraged.  How is this to be done?

Christianity is merely the revelation of God’s solution to this problem.  He himself, in the persona of the Son of God (the terrible JESUS so hated by the detractors of Christianity) to take the criminal’s place and be punished for the crimes committed by the guilty.  So if someone does in fact “repent” and accept the execution of Jesus for his own crimes, he can be pardoned.  God still demonstrates that crime will be punished and yet can offer pardon to those who want it.  This is called a gift or unmerited favor or grace in the New testament.  It is freely given by God for the pardon of men.  But it is very costly to men because it costs them their pride.

Thus, the problem most people have is that they are too arrogant to believe that they are criminals or that their conduct isn’t really that bad or that they aren’t really hurting anyone.  They cloak themselves in self-righteousness as did the Pharisees of whom Jesus said If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains.”   Most of mankind can never get past this point.  They are too proud and full of themselves to realize that while they claim to see they do not see and are really quite blind.

So Dawkins is wrong as usual.  He misses the major point of the New Testament and does a “reductio ad absurdum” by reducing all religions to the same thing, i.e., some form of moral suck-up apple-polishing scheme.  But all religions are not the same except to the ignorant, the bigoted or the undiscerning intolerant.  What ever is at the center of Dawkins’ malice towards “religion” it is not science or logic or analytics.

Dawkins next proceeds to use his false religious “reduction” construct as a “straw-man” to bash it.  Could a more ignorant critic of the Judeo-Christian ethic be found?  Perhaps Dennett or Hitchens might run close seconds.  He is, however, the perfect representative to sit in “Darwin’s Chair”.  How can a man go to Oxford and come out with such a poor education?

Read Full Post »

Place holder Comment

Faces used to mask the real issue

The tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown Connecticut by an individual with mental difficulties amped up on pharmaceutical poisons has brought forth numerous perspectives.

First, the really stupid politically motivated ones.

Michael Moore, the pseudo-documentary making leftist hatchet man from the Hollywood-Malibu crowd. Michael claims that people who want guns are, well, racist. Of course they are, Michael. Everybody who disagrees with the “progressive” left is a racist. Progressives do not understand that people can argue from principle. They only regurgitate the DNC talking points, which if you don’t agree, you are intolerant, bigoted, racist, homophobic , xenophobic, warmongering, Christian, tea party, God fearing gun toting imbeciles.

Two percent of the people think; three percent of the people think they think; and ninety-five percent of the people would rather die than think.”   George Bernard Shaw

Michael, like most leftists, appear to be in that 3% who think they think.  After all, that’s what his educators told him.  Is it possible to find an individual more ignorant of the 2nd amendment? Perhaps he “thinks” it has to do with hunting? LOL.

10 minutes before first responders show.

10 minutes before first responders show.

Then there is the “What would Adam Lanza have done if he couldn’t have gotten a gun?” Well, maybe this: In China, 22 kids were stabbed. After all, the first responders took 10 minutes to get there.  He sure could have killed more. Obviously an underachiever when it comes to creating a crisis the administration can use.

jpeg4-620x391

The idiot with a gun always shows himself when he turns one in, so ignorant of the history of tyranny are they. But hey, public education is very effective when it comes to destroying common sense.

Then there are people turning in their guns because in a nation of idiots, people think that once you have no way to defend yourself, you will be self.

Never mind that these mass murders happen in “gun safe zones” or “gun free zones”? And how come they are carried out by people loaded up on pharmaceuticals?  Where is the outrage about what these drugs do to already unstable people?  As Jim Goad notes…

It’s also mildly amusing/disturbing how closely all the nerdy, medicated, spree-killing geeks resemble the progressive pundits who are caterwauling for unilateral disarmament of the citizenry. They look nothing like the fat and hairy—yet unmistakably male—Georgia hill jacks who milled around the gun show in Gainesville. And although I’m supposed to fear those “angry white males,” I felt far less hostility emanating from the convention floor than I do whenever I’m around leftist girly-boys. Gunville, USA

If guns kill people, pens misspell words, cars make people drive drunk, and silverware made Rosie O’Donnell fat …as the saying goes.

Writing for Taki’s Magazine at Takimag.com, Jim continues with a list of the connection between mass murders and pharmaceuticals.

  • An autopsy concluded that Columbine killer Eric Harris had the SSRI antidepressant Fluvoxamine in his bloodstream at the time of his death.
  • Jeff Weise, who killed nine people and himself at a Minnesota high school in 2005, was taking increasingly high doses of Prozac at the time of his spree.
  • Robert Hawkins, who killed eight people and himself at an Omaha mall in 2007, reportedly had been on antidepressants at the time of his shooting. He allegedly had taken antidepressants since he was six years old.
  • Seung-Hui Cho, who killed 32 and wounded 23 at Virginia Tech in 2007, had been prescribed Prozac and had previously taken Paxil for a year, but he apparently had ceased taking his medication at the time of the shooting.
  • Andrew Engeldinger killed five people and himself after being fired from his job in 2012 (just half a quarter mile away from where TDV editor Gary Gibson was writing at his house in Minneapolis). A police search of Engeldinger’s house revealed he’d been prescribed the antidepressants Mirtazapine and Trazodone, as well as the insomnia medication Temazepam.
  • Eduardo Sencion, who killed four people and himself with an assault rifle at a Utah IHOP in 2011, was a paranoid schizophrenic whose medications were changed during the summer prior to his attack.
  • Robert Kenneth Stewart, who murdered eight people at a North Carolina nursing home in 2009, submitted to a blood test that revealed he had Lexapro, Ambien, Benadryl, and Xanax in his system at the time of his spree.
  • Steven Kazmierczak, who killed five people and himself on Valentine’s Day in 2008, had allegedly been prescribed Xanax, Ambien, and Prozac, although according to his girlfriend he had stopped taking Prozac prior to the massacre.
  • James Eagan Holmes, who shot up a Colorado movie theater in July, reportedly took 100 MG of Vicodin before the shooting. He had also allegedly seen three school psychiatrists prior to his attack. Although his psychiatric records are privileged information, in his mug shot he appears to be medicated up to the eyeballs.
  • And Adam Lanza, slayer of over two dozen people on Friday, appears to have had a classic pair of Medication Eyes himself. He was also reportedly “troubled” and possibly “autistic.” A neighbor of Lanza’s claims he was taking medication.

So where is the outrage and ban on ASSAULT DRUGS?  Is Joe Biden going to look into banning assault drugs for ADD kids?  There isn’t going to be one because not everyone on these drugs commits suicide or harms others, as blog commenter Steve Allen states…

I own anti-totalitarian defense rifles and I haven’t murdered anyone or shot up any schools. There are a hundred million or so gun owners who haven’t done so either. So, just because someone has a “nasty black scary rifle” doesn’t make them a school shooter. Just like everyone on prozac doesn’t commit suicide, or everyone on Ambien doesn’t sleepwalk.

Then one can probably find some sort of nihilism or sociopathy or moral-less value system at the root of things also.

In the original series “Startrek” there was a character called “Balok”.  An Intimidating looking alien who turns out to be nothing more than a puppet.  The real “balok” was a little tiny alien who was so cherub like he couldn’t intimidate a kitten.  So to be taken seriously he hid behind a more menacing persona until he could figure out what the real intentions were of the entities he came into contact with.

But in this day and age, Adam Lanza, the crazed gunman and lone shooter (perhaps) provides a mask of a different sort.  It is a mask that is used to induce fear into the constitutionally and historically ignorant fawning “open minded” progressives via media propaganda so that free men might be enticed to give up their firearms so they can be enslaved by those who worship government as savior.

Read Full Post »

Government is the problem masquerading as the solution.

We exchanged a mediocre fascist regime for a more efficient fascist-communist hybrid

In ever increasing numbers, people today, and especially the young adults freshly minted from government schooling and our elite common-sense destroying colleges, view truth as relative. What this means is that there is really no baseline, no standard of measurement, beyond the subjective such as opinion, desire, personal perspective or the force used by the state.

Enforcing and law or indulgence in desire

Enforcing and law or indulgence in desire

This is like a policemen who only pulls over attractive women for speeding. Say the speed limit is 35 mph but the woman was going 55 mph. But instead of appealing to the speed limit as an external measure of the infraction, the policemen pulled the woman over for some other reason that was completely arbitrary and had nothing to do with the speed limit. Maybe the policemen has a hard time meeting women and the woman happened to be a fine looking specimen in his eyes.

His desire to meet women can not be used in any objective sense to measure a speeding infraction by any court. Subjective desires do not provide a measurable standard in this sense.  Were the policeman to act in this manner, it would be considered unjust and illogical, not to mention that this policeman may have real mental problems and possibly be a danger to the woman. Once the intention of the policeman become known to the woman, that she is not being stopped for speeding but because the officer has a problem with his loins, what will go through her mind? Fear? Feelings of being threatened? Rape? Yes, these and perhaps many more.

Concepts like justice and logic and safety, although subjectively perceived, are tied to external reality. And despite Hume’s best efforts to obfuscate the common man’s ability to clearly and accurately connect mental abstractions with the world around them, we all do just that, all the time.

I have cheese

Truth is never relative in the same way and at the same time. It is always concrete. If I say “I have cheese in my refrigerator”, then I either do or I don’t at the time that statement was made. The only way to tell if I am lying or telling the truth is to open the refrigerator and see if I indeed have cheese in it. If my statement corresponds to reality, it is true. If not, it is false. It may be my opinion that I have cheese in my fridge, and I may be mistaken. But the statement is never-the-less false, although it may not be a lie if there was no intention to deceive.  So while morality (whether a thing is a lie or merely incorrect) adds another layer of subjectivity to any incident by including motive and purpose to the accurate determination of truth, it still must have some correspondence to reality, even if that reality is logic or mathematics rather than corporeal.

"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."  F. A. Hayek,

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” F. A. Hayek

Even in economics (true economics, not Keynesian-ism)  the subjective desires of consumers to purchase this or that, no matter how whimsical, needs to be subject to measurement in some way.  This measurement cannot be found in Keynes or Samuelson’s mathematical macro economic models for sure.  Yet, the free market still provides businesses with all the feedback they need to invest, allocate resources, stock inventory and to measure success.  This feedback mechanism is called profit.  It is the pricing mechanism that works unless distortions are introduced by non-market forces seeking intervention and control, e. g., Governments, Banks, and their corporate lackies who are currently very busy destroying the economy in the ridiculous and arrogant belief that they can manage something they don’t even understand.

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.  John Adams – on why were are a constitutional republic

“Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.” John Adams – on why were are a constitutional republic.

If truth were really relative as so many people are taught today, how could one tell the difference between truth and propaganda?  If truth is relative, it is mere opinion or preference or desire. If truth is mere opinion, all is propaganda. So what makes your opinion better than mine? What makes it better than the fascists who run the government? Why is your opinion better than the Nazis? In fact, can someone who believes that truth is relative really say anything meaningful?

The truth is, (not just my truth, but yours too), even the most ardent progressive who denies any absolute position on anything, be it moral or not, will quickly call someone a liar, a fraud, a bigot, racist, intolerant, close minded, and any other ad hominem insult he can think with little provocation.  But these assertions have no logical meaning without truth being objective and absolute.  If truth is relative there is no measuring stick.  The very idea of truth becomes an absurdity.  You can’t handle the truth because there is no truth to handle.

If everything is relative, then there is no logic.  Logic assumes the laws of the mind.  Non-contradiction, one of the basic laws of the mind, states that a thing cannot be both true and false in the same way at the same time.  A table is not a Christmas ham nor is a Christmas ham a table.  The object we place the Christmas ham on to serve before guests is either a table or it is not.  It cannot be both a table and not a table at the same time.  While Hume may play word games to illustrate that the symbol in the mind that corresponds to table is not identical with the word “table” which is not identical with the actual object in time and space which is the actual “table”.  In the real, functioning world, these distinctions are ignored.  People still call each other liars and appeal to external and historical facts to evaluate the truth or falsity of claims made by others even if Hume says you cannot know the thing in itself.  So many people may be to stupid to see the obvious contradiction between believing that truth is relative and how they live there lives.

If everything is relative, moral truth is absurd.  There are no lies and no liars.  Atheist world views do not provide any substance for moral evaluation yet they expect their moral pronouncements of right and wrong, of truth and lies, to be taken seriously and have meaning.

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear . . .There are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end for me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning to life, and no free will for humans, either.”  Provine, W.B., Origins Research16(1), p.9, 1994.

What was startlingly clear to Provine apparently escapes the less philosophically sophisticated Dawkins and Dennett.  Indeed, Dawkins and Dennett make ethical pronouncements galore spending much time over generalizing, setting straw men, and reducing argument after argument to reductio ad absurdum in an endless effort to obtain the moral high ground as a point of persuasion.  A high ground that should not exist in there world view.  But again, God is proved by the impossibility of the opposite.

So circling back the wagons, we come again to this generation of people, who like Dawkins and Dennett, believe in contradictory absurdities.  Truth is relative, so they can no longer distinguish between what is and what is not propaganda.  Perfect.  This is just what the government and there allies in the media and the central planners at the banks and treasury want.  A nation of drones, amused by bread and circuses, so freedom can perish and free men become slaves once again.

Read Full Post »

Excellent YouTube News Channel doing exceptional interviews

Things Don’t Add Up

Read Full Post »

DumbAmerica

I recently heard a claim recently that the Obaminator has cut taxes on small businesses more than any other president in HISTORY.  Sounds too fantastic to be believed.  Sources are the New York Times and CNBC (http://www.cnbc.com/id/49261153), both cheerleaders for the least transparent regime in US History.

They forgot to mention…

  • Almost all of them were temporary and almost all of them have expired.  This means that since they were considered a tax cut (or incentive), they should now be considered a tax increase.
  • Your business has to qualify.  At the most basic level this means it has to be profitable.
  • Also, to use most of them, you must submit to more regulation.  Well, that’s exactly what the owner of every small business wants.  Reduce his role and shop keeper and increase the possibility of exposure to federal regulators.  In Nazi Germany, that’s what pretty much happened to businesses there.  Owners became shop keepers while living in fear of the regulators.

And from the small business crowd…

If CNBC had any bahlls the title of this article would be: “Obama Lies About Cutting Taxes, Complicates Tax code.”  Weenchit

Smoke and mirrors, folks. I own 2 small businesses. The items mentioned don’t help 99% of small businesses. Obama’s constant ranting to raise taxes on the $200k crowd, plus obamacare is what worries small business the most.  No2RepublicanConJob

300x300-sheepwolves

Read Full Post »