I’ve been very busy writing tech data for a project I’m working on, but I simply can’t let Rep Patrick Kennedy’s remarks go unanswered. The guy has a famous last name, and recently lost his father, but that doesn’t give him a free pass. Mr. Kennedy, a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, is of the opinion that “violent rhetoric” (whatever that means) can lead to actual violence; his family has seen quite enough violence in political life.

Here’s a piece of advice Mr. Kennedy… the most dangerous thing to politicians is an informed electorate. If you don’t want all those pesky voters to vocally oppose the unconstitutional actions taken by you and your cohorts, make sure that your constituents are either too stupid to know what you’re doing, or keep total secrecy until it’s all done.

This is a nation of laws. Over the past few years, our elected representatives, like Patrick Kennedy, paid a lot of lip service to the concept of “the rule of law.” It seems to apply to everyone and every nation — except the elected representatives of this country. People get upset when they see how little their representatives respect the oath they swore prior to taking office, and the Constitution they swore to support and defend.

Rep Kennedy and other elected officials must understand that we elect them to serve us, not to enslave us. He provides yet another visible reason as to why Washington D.C. is in dire need of a thorough enema come next election day.

Until next time,
/sec

Reuters carried two paragraphs with regard to Nancy Pelosi’s take on insurance companies. Statements like “it’s almost immoral…” and “of course they’ve been immoral all along…” and my favorite quote “they are the villains.” She was not referring to auto insurance, homeowner’s insurance, renters insurance, life insurance or even dental insurance. She was taking aim at a cash cow: “health insurance.”

If Nancy Pelosi wants to discuss immorality and villainy, she need not pick a business to demonize; a glance in the mirror will reveal a true villain. She raised her right hand and her voice to acknowledge the responsibility inherent in her office. Here is the oath office sworn to by each member of Congress.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

Pelosi and others of her ilk have done nothing to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. I seriously doubt most of them ever read the Constitution. If they read it, either their comprehension of written words is low or they can simply lie very well.

I have no love for insurance companies, or lawyers or politicians. The point I am trying to make is that insurance (and other) companies conduct business under laws that elected officials at both state and federal governments enacted for various reasons. Some laws protect consumers, some enable businesses and some give special status to certain businesses.

Politicians use businesses as a whipping boy whenever they want to increase government size and control; FDR’s onslaught of utilities companies is a famous example of this strategy. Yet most businesses enjoy the bounds of prosperity brought about by the poor stewardship provided by our elected representatives.

Nancy Pelosi is not Satan. She and 99% of the rest in Washington DC are symptoms of the underlying decay in our civilization. Speaker Pelosi is merely the most visible reminder of why Congress and the White House need a good enema every few years.

Until next time,
/sec

To offset the cooler temps recorded over the past few years, the high priests of the green religion told their surrogates to use the words “man-made climate change.” That was a hard enough pill to swallow after the drivel these so-called scientists have heaped in layers of fuming vapors on us, first “the impending man-made ice age,” then “man-made global warming” and finally the death of the planet brought about by “man-made climate change.”

I just read a piece of rubbish produced by AFP and distributed by Breitbart claiming that because of global warming, fish lost 50% of their body mass. Not only are they smaller, they are less fertile, and therefore their numbers are shrinking.

According to the report, the effects of recreational and commercial fishing were not significant contributors to the reduced size and quantity of fish in the Baltic and North Seas. No, it couldn’t possibly be due to over-fishing – no, it couldn’t be that!

For every advocate of the green religion of “climate change” you can find 10 scientists who dispute the misinformation campaign waged by the greenies. If there is that much disagreement in the scientific community, why do we allow the few to shove a half-baked agenda on the rest of us.

None of the high priests of the green religion are willing to walk the walk, but they sure have big mouths when it comes to telling the rest of us how to live and what to do. I don’t know about you, but I’m tired of all the jackasses trying to tell me what to think, what to do, and how to live.

Just some food for thought until next time…

/sec

11 Score and 13 years ago, our Founding Fathers declared their independence from the tyranny of King George III and his corrupt British Empire. They proclaimed their commitment to the creation of a land of Free Men and a form of government devoted to protecting the inalienable rights of the individual; rights which are not granted by government, but endowed by our Creator.

Those rights apply to all of us, or they apply to none of us.

Today, thousands of our fellow Americans are gathered in communities across our great nation on this, the anniversary of our Independence from Great Britain, to protest an American government that is now trampling on those rights. We are speaking out against a government that, through illegal bailouts, mounting regulations, reckless spending, and the promise of a crippling tax burden, is strangling our freedom and threatening those same individual rights.

The Declaration of Independence is fairly explicit as to the proper role of government. The purpose of government is to protect our individual rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not to exercise control over every aspect of our lives for the “public good.”

The ongoing battle between statists and the rest of us, is waged over deeply held ideas about the proper role of government. Through misinformation and simple ignorance, many people today believe that unrestricted capitalism and a free market is immoral and dangerous, and that the government’s role is to actively intervene in the economy in order to achieve the “public good.” Those same people refuse to accept responsiblity for their mistakes and insist the rest of us pay for those mistakes.

If we the people don’t challenge those in power, there is no defense from an ever growing, ever more tyranical government. If we the people continue to meekly say nothing as our liberties are systematically stripped, who will protest the course set about by the power elite?

Support your local TEA Party. Don’t be afraid to voice dissent over things with which you disagree.

Until next time,
/sec

Dear General Former Secretary of State Mr. Powell;

Your recent assault on conservative members of the Republican Party reveals a naiveté that belies your education and worldly experience. Instead of attacking conservatives, perhaps you should just urge Republicans to be even more like Democrats. Perhaps your true agenda calls for doing away with the two party system and everyone just call themselves a Democrat.

Mr. Powell, I am a former member of the Republican Party. People like you, calling themselves Republican, forced me to re-think my party affiliation. Then again, many calling themselves Republican have been driven leftward over the years by the barn swallow-like neo-conservatives. They fled the Democrat Party and invaded the Republican Party during the Johnson years. The Republican Party still suffers from that invasion and takeover.

As one who refuses to simply vote for the lesser of two evils, I find little comfort in calls for the Republican Party to become more like the Democrat Party. With few exceptions, “mainstream” Republicans already resemble the other wing of the diseased bird of American politics.

Issues such as abortion and gay marriage are very important to people with deeply held religious beliefs. Democrat apparatchiks promote their Party as one that embraces diversity, yet they ridicule and stifle any dissenting opinion. Demonizing persons of faith will not change their beliefs. This bloc of voters finds no home in the Democrat Party.

Concerns over the amount of taxation and rampant income redistribution are the legitimate concerns of yet another group of voters who can never call the Democrat Party “home.” Some members of this voting bloc seek to distribute the tax burden more equally across all Americans by calling for the so-called “fair tax.” I have already stated my opinion of this foolishness, so I see no compelling reason to repeat it here.

The size and scope of the federal government is yet another reason why we cannot “all just get along.” Democrats want a government that does everything for everyone. They believe that kind of government could succeed, if only the very rich would share their wealth with those less fortunate. Republicans disagree, but haven’t the courage to fight for the true forgotten man — not to be confused with the false forgotten man espoused by FDR. This voting bloc is also without a home in the Democrat Party.

There are more reasons, equally compelling, that render a consensus of American political thought an impossibility. The Founding Fathers never intended a democracy for the United States. Democracy implies mob rule. Within the mob, there is no need for individual thought. Those who disagree with prevailing political propaganda find no sanctuary in a democracy (or the Democrat Party).

Mr. Powell, I urge you to rethink your current political philosophy. You are in a unique position to help reshape the Republican Party into a true alternative to the prevailing collectivist politics that dominate Washington. The question for the old general, is whether to lead, or to follow?

Until next time,
/sec

I don’t think there can be much doubt as to whether certain “news” outlets are nothing short of propaganda organs for the Obama administration. Articles and opinion pieces appear to be carefully crafted to cast every word and deed from the President as historic or otherwise special. The spin doesn’t stop there. Indeed, his image is polished in print.

Take for example this article from msnbc’s firstread web site. It begins with the words “It’s bad enough the administration was taking heat about whether $17 billion is a big budget cur or not. Now, it appears a bunch of Congressional Demoncrats might not even agree to those cuts.”

Those words, paint the President a fiscal conservative, warring with members of his own Party about spending priorities for the next fiscal year. Nothing could be farther from the truth!

In a budget that represents a $300 billion increase over the current fiscal year’s original budget, a $17 billion “cut” in reality means that President Obama is still increasing the budget by $283 billion. That is not the stuff of a fiscal conservative!

Further, that budget deepens our national debt by over $1,000,000,000,000 in a single year. There seems to be no end in the sheer number of Federal Reserve Notes this administration is willing to create out of thin air to reduce the value of the dollar and the purchasing power of the American consumer.

That’s not saying the previous administration was a much better steward of the public trust!

The 545 people responsible for all of America’s woes are not accountable to we the people — and they know it. Were they accountable for their actions, there would be no 90+% re-election rate. To them, we function as an ATM machine, funding their every whim. And what do we get for our loyalty? A government that is bloated well beyond the intent of the Founding Fathers. A government that is now so big, states and even cities can no longer function without infusions of federal funding, financed by wealth taken from all taxpayers and redistributed on a grand scale.

The President would have us believe that the only way to get the economy working again is to make credit more readily available to businesses and consumers. The fallacy of this philosophy is that debt is not an instrument of prosperity. Debt begets debt and ultimately results in bankruptcy. Along the way, the debtor is nothing less than an economic slave, continuing to pay both principle and interest on previously purchased goods.

There is a small glimmer of hope that Americans are now becoming aware that the road to true prosperity is not paved in loan contracts. More and more Americans have taken to the forgotten path to fiscal security: saving. It’s strange that the article appeared under the “women’s business” section. Is that because men are incapable of saving money? Were I thin skinned, I’d take offense at that. Instead, I was mildly amused for a moment at the thought of a politically correct editor wrestling over which section was more appropriate to host the article.

I keep seeing polls indicating how happy Americans are with the new President. Aside from the historic symbolism — which I do not seek to diminish in any way — are you really pleased with the direction he’s taking the country? Are you convinced that you are better off than you were a year ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago? Is your future looking brighter or gloomier becuase of his policies?

Until next time,
/sec

Career politicians are for the most part (with a few notable exceptions) a self serving, power hungry lot. They take home a lot more pay and benefits than the vast majority of their constituents. They don’t have to work for 20 or 30 years to earn a pension. Perhaps that’s part of the lure of politics.

After much thought, I’ve concluded that perhaps one way to return a little more power to the people is to reduce that lure. I think if you’re sincere in your desire to serve the public, that you should do so for the sizable sum of minimum wage, plus food and lodging (in military-style dormitories). That’s considerabily more than the $1 per year they demanded of several private sector executives.

There should be no paid retirement system for politicians. They should enjoy no better medical care than any of the rest of us.

Yeah, I know… file this under the heading “things that will never happen.” But hey, it’s a nice thought, anyway.

/sec

It was drizzling and cold when I arrived at the site of my local tea party. The gloomy weather did not subdue the message that many of my fellow attendees attempted to send to their elected representatives. A good representation of the community gathered to express their disagreement with a runaway government and its wanton spending. Here are some of my thoughts and experiences of the day and its significance

First, I would like to thank those who went through all the trouble of filing permit requests with the city. Next, thanks to everyone who took time away from work, or just time away, to remind their government of the true holders of Constitutional power.

I listened to impassioned oratory from several people far more gifted at public speaking than I am. Without a teleprompter, or even note cards, they delivered verbal arguments aimed at opening the minds of their audience. I have always been envious of those who speak extemporaneously, and do so with elegance.

There was a large contingent of supporters of the “Fair Tax” handing out literature and talking to potential supporters. Originally, I gave tepid support to the idea, but quickly recognized it as a “Kansas City Shuffle.” I think a few of them got more than a little upset with me when I said “ok… so you’re in favor of a Constitutional Convention to repeal the 16th Amendment and replacing the current income tax with the so-called Fair Tax. What is the use in replacing one form of taxation with another, without reducing the size and scope of government? How about simply repealing the 16th Amendment, replacing it with nothing, and returning the US government to the Republic it was created to be?”

They were quick to reply, “there’s no chance that will ever happen.” So I turned up the heat a little bit with this… “It has every bit the chance the Fair Tax has. The government sees the ability to reach into your paycheck and steal your wealth as an aphrodisiac. As long as you keep electing people who could care less about the U.S. Constitution, you’ll keep getting what you’ve got.”

While driving home, I heard a news report describing tea parties as more or less a rallying cry for Republicans. From my own experience, I would have to say it was more a day of unity for Libertarians and Independents.

By the way, I should warn you that if you attended any of the day’s festivities (other than paying your taxes, that is), Department of Homeland Security publication IA-0257-09, “Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment” labels you as something other than a good citizen. I highly recommend reading this latest effort at looking for a potential terrorist behind every tree.

Isn’t it just possible that we the people just want the government given to us by the founding fathers? Is it so unreasonable to want something other than financial slavery for our children and their children? Is it no longer possible to seek redress of grievances in the land of the free?

Until next time,
/sec

Everywhere I turn I read about all the outrage and anger directed at those employees of AIG who are legally entitled to bonuses. Some of the DC jackasses are demanding that anyone who receives a bonus return it. Even the President got into the fray by directing our well known tax cheat treasury secretary to “pursue every legal avenue to block these bonuses.” Then after stumbling over the words on his teleprompter, said he was “choked up with anger.”

If you worked for a company, and part of your employment contract entitled you to a bonus if specific conditions were met, would you turn it down? Would you really care that the guy down the street was envious of your bank account? If you answered yes to either of these questions, you are every bit the liar our elected “representatives” who feign anger so well are.

AIG’s bonus pool is $1.2 billion. Our lawmakers are insistent upon raising the level of class warfare to a fever pitch over these bonuses which legally must be paid. What of the rest of the money the federal government gave AIG?

AIG paid $12.9 billion to Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs also received $12 billion in federal bailout money — then promptly paid out $14 billion in bonuses to its employees. Where was the outrage over that bonus payout?

AIG paid $6.8 billion to Merrill Lynch.

AIG paid $5.2 billion to Bank of America. Bank of America received $25 billion in federal bailout money — then promptly used 75% of those taxpayer dollars to pay bonuses to Merrill Lynch employees. Where was the outrage over that bonus payout?

AIG paid out $2.3 billion to Citigroup and another $1.5 billion to Wachovia.

Then there was the transfer of taxpayer wealth to foreign banks. Societe Generale of France and Deutche Bank each received $12 billion. Britain’s Barclays bank was the payee of $8.5 billion. Switzerland’s UBS received $5 billion from AIG.

These payouts represent legal obligations, enforced by contract. Those of you who feel the anger stirred up by the political infrastructure need to stop and think it over for a minute. Is collecting a paycheck for services rendered to a company any different than receiving a bonus check? No matter the salary, I haven’t heard of anyone returning theirs to the company, complaining that they were overly compensated for their labor.

None of these bonus payments represent illegal activity. None of the recipients of these bonuses are known to be guilty of any illegal act. Yet, the House of Representatives today passed outrageous legislation intent upon a 90% tax rate on bonuses paid by any company that received more than $5 billion in federal bailout funds. It’s truly unbelievable that no one is denouncing this proposed legal theft of wealth. And make no mistake, it is indeed theft.

This government has, in the form of corporate bailouts and wasteful spending, pulled off the greatest transfer of wealth from middle and lower income taxpayers in the history of the world. The even bigger crime is that we the sheeple allowed them to get away with it.

Until next time,
/sec

I’ll admit it… I’m an old school kind of guy. I’ve always believed that a man’s word was his bond; a handshake is as good as a signature on a contract. Lately, my government has made me begin to doubt my upbringing.

Lending institutions that employ packs of predatory lawyers will pursue a poor borrower to the ends of the earth if his loan goes delinquent. they even trade in credit defaults; there’s a lot of money to be made by collection agencies who pay pennies on the dollar for delinquent loans. In turn, they pursue the debtor until at least enough money is paid to show a profit.

Now, many of those same lending institutions are hat in hand begging for bailouts from the government. Once they receive federal money (which is really taxpayers’ money), they increase the amount they charge to lend money to the same taxpayers who just bailed them out.

Case in point… I had a credit card with CitiBank for which the interest rate was 7.9% before the bailout. Almost immediately after they slopped at the federal trough, I received notice that the interest rate on my credit card was going to 15.9%. I’ve always upheld my end of the bargain, so why should I be penalized. Since I carry no balance on that credit card, I called them and politely opted out.

Next come the mortgage borrowers for their fair share of my hard earned tax dollars. Many people bought houses over the course of the last few years, knowing that they could not afford the payments. Because they couldn’t really qualify for a traditional loan, they accepted a sub-prime loan. Now that the interest rate, and their payments have reached an unmanageable sum, they can no longer make their mortgage payments. Not to worry… here comes Uncle Sam with a bevy of treats to delight even the most over-leveraged home owner in San Francisco or New York.

If you’re not able to pay your mortgage, the government doesn’t want you to lose your home. Instead of foreclosure, judges are now empowered to reduce not only the interest rate on your home loan, but they can set aside a large portion of the principle owed. It is unbelievable to me that this could take place in America.

We’ve seen a lot of foreign investment in American assets in recent years. Most of those investors trusted America to honor the terms of their contracts, because like me, they believed in the validity of a contract. Sadly, we live in times where the government has proven that contracts are basically meaningless. How long until foreign as well as domestic investors grab onto this new reality and take their investments elsewhere?

Until next time,
/sec

First, a little background data from several recent entries on my reading list…

Never waste a good crisis, Clinton says on climate. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton intimates that Europe should use Russia’s oil pipeline threats as justification for a “New Green Deal.” Imagine using a political “crisis” as an excuse to increase taxes and government spending. What an original idea! And because we are talking about Hillary Clinton, the story would not be complete without a condemnation of Russia for using energy as a political lever. I could have sworn that’s what she was urging Europeans to do.

In Lomborg v. Gore, our dear Nobel Prize winning former Vice President once again used the tried and true fascist technique of dismissing anyone who questions his man-made global warming religion. “The scientific community has gone through this chapter and verse. We have long since passed the time when we should pretend this is a ‘on the one hand’ issue. It’s not a matter or theory or conjecture, for goodness sake.” Hey Al, I hate to break it to you, but there are a lot more scientists who dismiss your theory of how to make a lot of money at other people’s expense. These programs will do nothing but increase the size and scope of governments all over the world by providing large revenue streams extorted from consumers and taxpayers. How could you oppose something that’s clearly designed to make the world a cleaner, cooler place “for the children?” If Al Gore is truly serious in his beliefs, why doesn’t he lead by example?

The recent University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee study could realign climate change theory is reason enough to doubt that climate scientists even firmly grasp the data they’ve been making proclamations over. Until we truly understand the nature of changes in the earth’s climate, we should not rush to spend billions or trillions of dollars to attack a perceived problem that we may very well not be able to fix.

That brings me back to the subject of this post. In the AP article, 8 Dems oppose quick debate on global warming bill, it appears at first blush that there may indeed be a little common sense coming sense coming from the Senate. Further reading of the piece leads one to question whether there is actually a reason to celebrate this brief respite from the continual stupidity that spews forth from the nation’s capital. Then again, their opposition to including the President’s “cap and trade” bill in the annual budget debate may be the only salvation from legislation that will adversely effect every facit of the U.S. economy.

While professing to be supporters of a free market, our elected officials heap odious regulations on business with the only intent of increasing revenue streams for government. They sell this to their constituents as soaking corporations and the rich and spreading the money back down to the people in the form of new government programs. Those of us who pay taxes know who really foots the bill for all this unconstitutional spending by the federal government. Businesses pay taxes by increasing the price of goods they sell to consumers. There is no escaping this reality. Remember that, every time you hear a politician talk about making businesses pay for this or that “freebie” they intend to provide to you.

Until next time,
/sec

A friend forwarded a Michael Ramirez cartoon that I thought was very funny, in a sad kind of way. The cartoon features a man standing at a window in the unemployment office. The clerk inquires, “You worked for the government?” The man replies, “I was in charge of fiscal responsibility.”

Although funny on the surface, it sadly portrays our national debt as something that just recently appeared since the advent of the Democrat Party’s trifecta in November. I am sure that even the most loyal Republican would admit that the GOP does not have an exemplary record when it comes to living within their means. History shows that good old bipartisanship led the way to fiscal irresponsibility of a catastrophic nature.

The sad truth is that fiscal responsibility was only present in the capital for a brief period in 1835. That is when one of my personal heroes, President Andrew Jackson, paid off the national debt and threw out the central bank. I think the last time an economic event of that magnitude occurred was when Jesus drove the moneychangers out of the temple.

Some people would have you believe that the only times we have ever experienced a recession is when Republicans cut taxes, and that the economy only increases as the wealthy are taxed at a higher rate. Apparently, there are some who truly believe that we can tax and spend our way to prosperity. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Our government’s lack of a viable monetary policy drives bubbles and busts. It is not tax cuts that cause our national debt to grow. Our government’s continuous over spending causes the national debt to grow. Can a heroin addict ever get straight by injecting ever more heroin?

Take a look at all the cities and states that require a federal bailout. Those state and local governments now risk the loss of police, fire and sanitation services. Yet, rather than cutting spending or increasing tax rates, they ask the federal government to increase the tax liability of every taxpayer across the country to cover their fiscal irresponsibility.

Where does the federal government go when they can no longer borrow money to maintain the current rate of gluttonous spending? You can only “tax the rich” so long as there are “rich” to tax. Once we have completely leveled the economic playing field, what do we do? The only option then will be a massive tax increase on all workers, regardless of wages.

Last year, we the people paid over $450,000,000,000.00 in interest payments on our national debt. The amount we pay this year will skyrocket to at least $600,000,000,000.00 and still our elected “representatives” keep spending; spending in a manner reminiscent of Nero fiddling while all of Rome burns.

Let me try to put this in a more easily understood context. When a parent dies with unpaid debts, the children are not responsible for those debts unless they foolishly agree to pay them. With our national debt, as parents pass away, the children inherit the debt and it must be paid. Is that really the legacy you envisioned for your children, economic slavery?

If we do somehow manage to recover from the current economic malaise, it will not be because we increased the national debt by more than $2,000,000,000.00 this year. It will not be because we socialized health care. It will not be because we spent $325,000,000.00 to educate people on how to stop the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. Economic recovery will not come from any of wasteful pet projects funded by what little remains of the wealth of the people.

The only true recovery is in our hands, we, the people. The time for a new revolution is upon us. Unlike some other voices in the wilderness, the revolution I speak of is accomplished at the polling places. We must take our country back and re-establish our constitutional republic, not by force, but by reason.

Until next time,
/sec

I spend a great deal of my spare time reading. Be it news, commentary, books, magazines, hardly a day goes by that I don’t invest at least three hours in this, my favorite past time. There are times when I feel that I just need to veg out for a bit. But something calls me to pick up my glasses and read just a little while longer.

For those who may wonder, my reading interests are as follows:

• History
• Economics
• Politics

Lately, I’ve read a considerable number of articles that cause me to believe that many of my fellow citizens do not know the meaning of liberty and freedom. They appear to be only too willing surrender their remaining liberties for the sake of security. Worse still, they appear to be willing to embrace socialism, sold to them as “hope” and “change.”

Over the past few years, hasn’t it been Democrats raising fears of the rising Police State? There are a lot of people still complaining about the previous administration’s abuses of civil liberties and trampling of the Constitution. John Dean, after reading about the Bush memos released by the Obama administration said Bush almost became an ‘unconstitutional dictator.’ Mr. Dean is well known for his role in the Watergate escapades. If not for his self preservation instincts (aka his role as a snitch), we might never have learned of the true depths of criminal acts surrounding that dark chapter in the history of the US presidency.

But has anything really changed with the ascent of the prophet of change? Have any of the odious portions of the “Patriot Act” or its successor been removed? Has the government given up on its pursuit of our personal information; where we go, what we do, how we spend our money, our associations? Sadly, they have increased their efforts at control of the population.

With a very liberal Democrat sitting in the Oval Office, the Department of Homeland Security is actively pursuing a next generation REAL ID, a national identification card, in the form of a radio frequency identifier equipped driver’s licence. There’s no reason to concern yourself however, you have your government’s assurance that they’ll do the right thing with your personal information. Afterall, the federal government only has your best interests at heart, right?

Ordering medical records to be stored and made available on-line leads to yet more abuses of privacy. Of course that was all a part of the administrations plan to socialize medical care. Taking lessons from other experiments in socialism, one can logically deduce a rationing of health care is coming at a point in the not too distant future.

Where are the rugged individuals formerly known as Americans; those who believed in individualism and liberty? I see a few calls for a new tea party, largely based on the insane spending programs coming out of Washington.  There is a lot more than an ever-increasing tax burden to be concerned about. Our freedom and liberties are being taken from us, a piece at a time.

I suppose as long as people can still watch their soap operas, game shows,  sports and let’s not forget the corporately owned “news” on TV, there won’t be too much chance of a real tea party.

When I start hearing people opening their windows and screaming at the top of their lungs “I’m mad as hell, and I’m not going to take it any more,” I’ll know the tipping point has been reached.

Until next time,
/sec

Matthew Rothschild, writing in The Progressive thinks nationalizing the banks is a good idea. I’ve seen and heard many wrongheaded ideas of late, but this one leads down an irreversible path toward Socialism.

The only accurate statements in Mr. Rothschild commentary is that the banks “don’t deserve to be bailed out” and “if our government really believed in free enterprise, these banks would be out of business right now.” Any rational person is hard pressed to disagree with him there.

Like many others, Rothschild lays the blame for the current economic malaise at the feet of the banks, charging them with making “unwise home loans” and “speculating in unregulated credit-default swaps tied to those loans.” While it is true that financial institutions did make unwise loans, the federal government’s coercion made those loans possible.

The coercion I referred to is in the form of government regulations that forced banks to loosen lending criteria. As with most government interventions, certain loopholes were included in those regulations. After all, our elected “representatives” are the best that money can buy.

Buying those banks and forcing them to comply with further restrictions – and new loopholes – is not the answer. We have no means to prevent corruption in our government as it currently exists. That problem increases as the size and scope of government increases.

Rothschild is concerned that even though the government is pumping billions of dollars into those banks, we have no voice in how the banks are run. We the people pay over $1.5 trillion each year in personal income taxes. How much of a voice do we actually have in the running of our government? Does anyone truly believe that nationalizing the banks will give any more power or oversight to the people?

For that matter, does anyone truly believe that government can run a for-profit business better than private enterprise? What a great success story our government is: $11+ trillion national debt, and over $65 trillion in total obligations. Sadly, those numbers apparently are not enough to open the eyes of the majority of my countrymen. The very people we’ve entrusted to represent our interests to the federal government, have instead sold us and generations yet unborn into economic slavery… and still, we ask for more. 

Those banks in danger of collapse aren’t holding a fire sale to dump the toxicity from their balance sheets. They know their knight in shining armor, the American taxpayer, can always be depended upon to bail them out, or as suggested by Mr. Rothschild, buy them out.

I’m not willing to sacrifice freedom for a little bit of security. Let the banks fail; let their assets be sold at true market value, as defined by the price a buyer is willing to pay.

Until next time,
/sec

On behalf of my children and their children, I would like to thank each and every member of Congress who did not support the Obama borrow and spend bill known as H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. For reasons of your own, you displayed responsibility and common sense — two traits sorely lacking in your peers.

Here is a challenge for all those supporting this borrow and spend foolishness: name one community, state, country, or empire that ever successfully borrowed and spent its way out of debt and into prosperity. For that matter, name one person who accomplished this feat.

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported this week: Obama stimulus package harmful over long haul. I did not need the CBO to tell me that. We are already more than $10 trillion in debt with upwards of $45 trillion in unfunded obligations coming due over the course of the next 65 years. If government borrowing and spending were going to kindle the flames of prosperity, we should be heavily invested in fire extinguishers.

With all the facts and figures at hand, our lawmakers appear more than eager to condemn current and future generations of Americans to fiscal slavery. We might be able to stave off the coming meltdown until after Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried are gone, but within a few years, the price of their total lack of leadership and responsibility will be only too painfully obvious.

The truly sad part of this is that for all the talk of putting Americans back to work, all this borrowing and spending will not create long-term viable jobs. Empty promises of hope and change do not put food on the table or a roof over the heads of a family. “Yes we can” increase the size and scope of government. “Yes we can” raise your taxes.

We really do have the best government money can buy.

Until next time,
/sec

Everywhere I turn, I either hear talk or read articles about how much H.R. 1, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is needed now to prevent our current economic situation from becoming a real depression. I urge you, dear reader to just skim the text of the legislation and draw your own conclusions as to what this spending package will really accomplish.

I could write about all the things that irritate enrage me about this legislation, but it’s far more informative for you to read it for yourself. Then, and only then, will you realize what our government is doing to future generations of Americans.

No doubt you’ve heard the talking heads on television tell you how much good, borrowing and spending this more than $800 billion dollars will do for the economy. If that were really true, we should have the best economy in the history of the world right now and there would be no recession or talk of depression. After all, we’ve borrowed and sent over $10 trillion. How much more do we have to borrow to be prosperous again?

On the off chance that a politician might read my words, I have a request. Please give me a responsible government. Make it a government that is capable of accepting the limitations put upon it by our founding fathers. Add to it, representatives of the people, rather than representatives of corporate interests that bankroll and by extension, own political candidates. Please stop spending more money than you have. Please stop promising free things to people in exchange for their votes; free is never really free… somebody always has to pay. I for one, am more than a little tired of paying for your promises.

Until next time,
/sec

Many people who start watching this video (produced by HARPO), will be tempted to stop it, because it’s a bunch of wealthy celebrities pledging to redistribute your money and force you to bow to the collective good. Some of you may think that’s not such a bad idea. Fascists will love it, because it brings forth more good sound bytes that are inarguable – how can you be so cold as to not care, etc. The other arm of the brown shirt, red shirt team, Socialists, will love it because it’s markets wealth redistribution.

However, pay attention to the last 30 seconds of the video, where Demi Moore pledges to be a servant of the president. She’s (supposedly) free and I really don’t care whether she spends her time at home, or in a French maid outfit in the White House. The point is that government was intended to serve the people, not the other way around. Is this a slip of the tongue, or a precursor of things to come? We don’t need another Hitler Youth program…

Until next time,
/sec

Here’s one instance the federal government’s response to all parties making the request should be limited to one-line:

Go (insert your favorite expletive here) yourselves!

Until next time,
/sec

I just read Obama warns of dire consequences without stimulus and couldn’t stop thinking of the speech given by President Bush, warning of the complete devastation of the economy in the abscence of the $700 billion bailout. That bill passed, and Secretary of the Treasury Paulson set about to spend our tax dollars buying up all those troubled assets.

About half way through his spending spree, old Hank decided we didn’t need to spend all the money quite yet. The promised devastation has not materialized. The vast majority of Americans still have a job, a place to call home, transportation and food on the table. There may be a belt-tightening underway as some of us learn what our elected representatives have either forgotten, or never knew: how to live within our means.

So President-elect Obama is warning of dire consequences if we don’t spend yet more money to stimulate the economy. I don’t think any person facing bankruptcy has ever spent his way to prospeerity. Indeed, the only people who will prosper from this wave of irresponsible bailouts — for which there is no Constitutional authority — are the banksters.

What are those dire consequences to which he refers? Businesses will go bankrupt, unemployment will rise, we’ll experience deflation and a reduction in the size, scope and power of government. Breaking them down into two pairs, one can easily see that the so-called dire consequences are temporary in nature and produce two distinct benefits.

Nobody — business owners or employees – enjoy seeing business failures. However, when a business can no longer generate revenue to pay for its staff, facilities, utilities and products, it is in fact bankrupt. No amount of papering over the obvious will change simple reality. The assets held by the business are sold at market value (that is always less than the seller would like) to another business or businesses who have the resources to purchase those assets. Those buyers generally purchase those assets to either start or expand their own business, thus creating possible employment opportunities.

The last two will only bother those who depend upon ever-increasing prices and those who hunger for power.

Deflation holds the potential of affordable housing. That statement will anger many people who simply paid too much for a durable good. They’ll find themselves paying much more than the propety is actually worth. Not good for them, but great for everyone who currentlly rents, but would love to own. Prices of consumables will drop, making things we use every day more affordable. Other durable goods, from appliances to vehicles will also become more affordable.

Those in power seek to increase their control over the governed. We are undeniably the most regulated populace in the history of the world. There are laws prohibiting us from cutting oranges in California motels, hotels and inns. Fines and incarceration await those in Virginia who choose to engage in sexual relations with the lights on. I could go on for a seeming eternity listing all the stupid laws that some well intentioned legislative body bestowed upon the governed. The point is that government, at all levels, has usurped power from the true holders of power (that would be you and me – the people) and are loath to give any of it up. Gone are the checks and balances we learned about in government schools. Those governmental entities are in serious need of a diet!

Now, about those loans we take out to finance this obscene abuse of taxpayer dollars. They all come with interest due. One day, in the not too distant future, our children and grandchildren will wake up and realize that they’ve been sold into bondage. There’s a legacy to be proud of – NOT!

Until next time,
/sec

Yesterday, I read a post in the Seattle Times titled Steel industry hopes for big stimulus shot. It seems that everywhere you look, another “major industry” is headed toward bankruptcy — and another union is unbending in its lack of desire to work with the industry that for years provided jobs for its members and fat bank accounts for the union (a business) and its employees.

So the question for the day is this… is there a solvent industry left in this country? One that does not have to borrow money every month to make payroll? One that is competitive both at home and in the world markets?

If you are a Defense contractor, the answer is “yes.” Think about that for a while. Then ask yourself why they have money and everyone else is broke. When you have an answer for that question, ask yourself this one… where will these companies go to ensure continued profitablity when the U.S. government can no longer afford to fund the Department of Defense and, by extension, its contractors?

Before you start flaming me for that last question, remember the briefing from the previous GAO chief (David Walker) who told us unequivocally that unless we make some hard choices right now, in a few short years, we will run out of money to do little more than fund Social Security, Medicare and service the interest on our national debt. He said that in 2005, and we have only exacerbated our financial malaise since them. In the interim, our national debt has grown by more than $4 trillion.

So where will those weapons manufacturers go to ensure the continuation of the revenue streams to which they’ve grown accustomed? Who will purchase those weapons? More importantly, at whom will they be aimed?

Think about that over breakfast tomorrow.

Until next time,
/sec

The inspriation for this post comes from reading a piece in the Financial Times, titled (lamely enough) Paulson rues shortage of firepower as battle raged .

There are some who will take offense at the subject line. However, “asleep at the wheel” does not approach accuracy when describing good old Hank’s job performance. Others will feel that I’m stating the obvious and ask why I don’t advocate the formation of a possee and lynch mob chartered with bringing old Hank to justice. Please spare me your wrath and indulge my blathering for a few moments.

First, I’d like to define the words disingenuous and bufoon for those on both sides of the spectrum addressed above. I’ll use definitions found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

Disingenuous: “lacking in candor; giving a false appearance of simple frankness; calculating.”

Bufoon: “a ludicrous figure; clown; a gross and usually ill-educated or stupid person.”

Mr. Paulson’s interview with FT.com begins with a statment that he feared a meltdown of the world’s financial system no less than three times in the last six months. The first of which was when he “realized” that Fannie and Freddie, with their $5.4 trillion in global liabilities were in “serous trouble.”

Where was our illustrious Treasury Secretary during House and Senate testimony about the financial instability and imminent danger that Fannie and Freddie represented to the U.S. economy? The congressional hearings have been ongoing since 2004 and Rep Ron Paul (R-Texas) sounded the warning bell as far back as 2001.

It’s hard to believe that a man as well educated and well connected as Mr. Paulson could not understand the monumental risks to the wealth of this nation represented by cheap credit and irresponsible lending practices. As Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs he must have dealt with the concept of risk, yet the word only found meaning in three events over the past six months.

As Chairman of the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets (aka: the Plunge Protection Team or “PPT”), he was charged with providing legal recommendations for legislative and private sector solutions for “enhancing the integrity, efficiency orderliness and competitiveness of U.S. financial markets and maintaing investor confidence.” Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the Telegraph reported Mr. Paulson reactivated this team in Oct of 2006

An entry in Wikipedia states that some allege that the PPT illegally manipulates U.S. stock markets by using government funds to buy stocks, or stock futures to prevent a market crash. When you read the second paragraph details of former Federal reserve Board member Robert Heller, it’s easy to see why some accuse the PPT of conspiracy to manipulate markets.

There are those, Mr. Paulson included, calling for more regulation and oversite of the markets. They are loath to admit that our current economic crisis it due to regulation and government meddling in what is falsely called a free market.

I’m sorry, but I do not agree with more power and authority for the Treasury Secretary and Federal Reserve Chairman. That is a concept akin to giving a vat of whiskey to an alcoholic or a 5 gallon gas can and a couple of flares to an arsonist. Investing those characters with more power will not avert future finanancial crises.

Our centrally managed economy has produced nothing but bubbles, recessions and depressions. It is time to return to sound monetary policy. Return to the Congress the responsibility to “coin money, regulate the value thereof” as defined by Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. End the Federal Reserve, now!

Now, getting back to the subject of this missive… I think the description fits good old Hank — and for that matter, good old Ben — like a glove.

Until next time,
/sec

Unbelievable! That’s the only (polite) word I can use to describe the anger reading this story aroused in me. Each of these governors and their respective state legislatures are more than capable of either raising taxes or cutting services in their own state. Why then, do they find it necessary to grovel before the federal trough?

These “representatives of the people” (and I’m damned sure using that term loosely!) are demanding that people from some other state pay for their inability to perform the jobs they were hired by their own constituents to do.

Like so many Washington potentates, state, county and city politicians promise everything necessary to win election and establish their own little power base. As they deliver on some of their promises of free goodies for their constituents, they know the bill won’t come due until after they leave office. Many of them even tell us that they voted in favor of this or that program “for the children.” In so doing, they make the sheeple feel good about screwing over their posterity, without ever realizing what’s actually being done.

Politicians have perfected a little trick called the Kansas City Shuffle described by Bruce Willis in the movie Lucky Number Slevin.

It’s easier to pass off tough issues to the next guy. This time the payment has come due sooner than expected and the politicians panicked. They’ve gone to Washington to beg for bailout dollars. What does Washington care about the constitutionality of these massive transfers of wealth from poor and middle class families when they can always claim that they had to do it “for the children.”

I’d like to think that most of us see this for what it really is. Unfortunately, the sheeple continue to elect the same liars and thieves to political office. And thus government (all levels) sponsored Ponzi schemes continue to deluge the unsuspecting citizenry of what was once a free country.

Until next time,
/sec

They claim to care only about saving the planet from the ravages of unrestrained humanity. They tell us how we should live our lives. They themselves are somehow exempt from compliance with any of the rules they want to force on the rest of us.

They bullied the U.S. Congress into passing legislation, which the President signed into law, that prohibits manufacture of incandescnet light bulbs, in favor of compact flourescent bulbs. They knew, but did not tell Congress, that the CFL bulbs represented a huge health and environmental risk. Some of us wrote to our elected representatives about the dangers of mercury contamination inherent in breakage of CFL products. Those warnings fell on deaf ears; their votes already paid for by the lobbyists and the corporations they represent.

Those “well intentioned” purveyors of green religion (or if you prefer, Kool Aid) would like to a introduce European-style cap and trade program here in the U.S. They continue to push for laws requiring stricter vehicle emissions standards. They know that every one of their schemes is aimed at increasing the size and scope of government, controlling behavior of the masses and increasing thier wealth while simultaneously draining the wealth of the poor and middle classes.

If they were truly concerned with saving the planet, they would preach the benefits of geo-thermal energy for homes and buildings. Why don’t they offer incentives to the inventor of a power/fuel system that can power a car that can travel over 500 miles at 70 miles per hour without replenishing the non-fossil fuel of your choice?

Instead of doing anything that will reduce our dependency on foreign oil, coal and nuclear energy, they continue to lobby Congress, pushing for legislation that benefits only a few at the expense of the many.

Congress, in passing laws at the behest of the prophets of the green religion, only accomplishes the task of rendering American companies unable to compete in not only domestic, but in world markets. They can not legislate corporations into a state of competitiveness. They can not force poor and middle class families to pay ever higher prices for goods and services and not expect their standard of living to deteriorate.

When you hear these prophets of environmental doom comparing those who disagree with their stated agenda with holocaust deniers, just follow the money trail. It’s not that hard to connect the dots and discover the true agenda of the so-called environmentalists.

Until next time,
/sec

Michigan’s governor, Jennifer Granholm said it was “un-American” for Senators to vote against approval of a bailout for Detroit’s “Big 3.”

I’ve been stewing on this for the past couple of weeks. Perhaps I just couldn’t believe that the Governor of Michigan is that clueless as to the proper role of government, or that she is stead-fast in the belief that two wrongs somehow make a right.

In essence, her vision can be ascertained by examination of three statements attributed to her in the article linked above.

“It is unacceptable for this un-American, frankly, behavior of these U.S. senators to cause this country to go from a recession into a depression.”

“It is such an unbelievable stab at workers across the country.”

“You give this big bailout to these financial institutions – don’t even ask a single question, they can do what they want – and then you lay the blame for the auto industry, which is a victim of this financial meltdown, on the backs of the people who are working on the line.”

Let’s examine her comments one at a time.

First and foremost, it is not the role of the U.S. government to provide an economic bailout to any person or business. There is no Constitutional authority for doing so. Bankruptcy is a very American thing to do for businesses that fail. A U.S. government bailout is, by definition, un-American.

Second, I too am an American worker, Ms. Granholm, and I resent very deeply your premise that it is somehow ok to take money from me, in the form of taxes, to bailout businesses homed in your state. Remember, Jennie, the federal government has nothing except that which it takes by force from its citizens.

Finally, she is partially right, in that the U.S. government did indeed bailout financial institutions. I’m tempted to comment on the effectiveness of that wise investment of taxpayer money — but it was neither wise, nor an investment — and it was done without legal authority. However, justifying more redistribution of wealth from taxpayers from every state in the country to bailout Detroit would not somehow make things right. Comparing the illegal actions taken by the U.S. government on behalf of the financial elite with the plight of auto workers is a call for another wrong… and we all know that two wrongs do not make a right.

Until next time,
/sec

I know I should be buying gold coins with my “spare” Federal Reserve Notes, but I just couldn’t resist the siiren call of this little computer. Here are some observations after 2 days of use…

The model I bought came with 40 GB of SSD storage and 1 GB of RAM. It came equipped with a version of Linux that I just didn’t really care for. I will say that it booted up quickly and I had no problem connecting to my in-home wireless network (WPA2 encryption).

Most of the reviews of this netbook all complain about the right shift key. I’ll admit that it’s a bit of a challenge getting use to it, but it’s something I can live with.

The operating system however is something I wasn’t willing to compromise on. Armed with my trusty bootable USB thumb drive, Ubuntu 8.10 invaded the Eee PC. Immediately after installing, I downloaded and installed the Eee PC kernel. The best reason is that Ubuntu didn’t know how too deal with the Eee PC’s wireless network adapter. The Eee PC kernel solved that problem for me. By the time I was finished tweaking, my netbook looked and felt like my Toshiba notebook.

Battery life is one of the reasons I wanted this little computer. Occasionaly I travel cross-country by air. While I enjoy listening to music or a good audio book on my SanSa e280 media player, I enjoy a good movie from time to time. My Toshiba notebook can almost play a two hour DVD before the battery dies. I won’t have the same problem with the Eee PC netbook! I played four 90-minute movies on a single charge yesterday.

The disk storage is actually two SSD disks, one 6 GB, the other 32 GB. If this computer, with this disk configuration included a Microsoft OS, the 6 GB disk would be a serious constraint. However, Linux is less resource hungry than Microsoft Windows.

During install, I made sure that /home went on the 32 GB disk. Fully configured with all the same software I use on the Toshiba notebook takes about 60% of the disk allocated for the root file system.

If you’re looking for a small, portable computer with long battery life, this is the computer for you. There are others on the market, most of which come with Windows XP Home Edition installed. The difference is price (Linux and all the software I’m using is free) and comfort. I find it easy to move between Linux and Microsoft Windows. Point, click — the user interface is pretty much the same. As they used to say, your mileage may vary.

Until next time,
/sec

I’ve been paying attention to elections since the 1964 Presidential election. In that election and every election since, Democrats have been registering the dead to vote. They’ve registered convicted felons who have no voting privileges. They’ve convinced people to register – and vote – numerous times. All the while accusing those ruthless Republicans of denying the will of the people by trying to suppress the vote.

The large number of technological advances over the past 48 years should have ensured the validity of the voting process. Yet, here we are in 2008 and the problem is larger than ever.

In an election decided by just a few votes, those engaged in voter fraud are guilty of actually denying the will of the people. They steal elections to provide power to a candidate or a political party. And we the sheeple allow this to happen.

Over that 48 year period, I’ve read and heard of many complaints, but not a single arrest, trial, conviction.

Is it because we know that no matter which faction of the Republicrats wins the elections, we know that the only change we can count on is more government bureaucracy, more programs, more spending, larger public debt and an ever-increasing tax burden? Without dumping the current political duopoly, there is no hope of real change.

However, we can ensure that a person votes only once in an election. Perhaps we should handle voting here the same way we handled voting in Iraq. When a person votes, the right thumb is dyed a nice shade of purple. This simple method ensures a single vote for each voter. And those who attempt to vote more than once should be treated to inmate status at a local jail.

This doesn’t solve the problem of validating registrations, but it does ensure that each person votes only once in each election. Just some food for thought…

/sec

The walking, talking, vaccuous sphincter of a Venezuelan dictator thinks that the U.S. is in need of a new constitution. Evidently some in the mainstream media actually listen to that jester in presidential attire.

Here’s some breaking news for you Mr. Chavez… there is nothing wrong with the current U.S. Constitution. The problem with the U.S. government is that it does not follow our Constitution.

We need neither a new Constition, nor suggestions from ranting idiots like Hugo Chavez. What is sorely needed are lawmakers who take seriously their responsibilities under the Constitution.

Electing reprentatives concerned with the welfare of the country and her people is the responsibility of an informed electorate. Yet we continuously elect only those who desire dabbling in social engineering with the hope of advancing their own political careers. Mainstream media tells us who to vote for and attempts to discredit any deemed outside the established norms. That same media gives voice to fools like Hugo Chavez.

/sec

I write about things as I see them. My goal is to stimulate thought by offering an open discussion of things that matter to me. What matters to me today is the selling out of my children, their children and their children by our own government. Those elected to represent us, have instead sold us into financial slavery for generations to come. Before you dismiss these comments as drivel, consider the following:

• The government financed buy-out of Bear Stearns by JPMorgan Chase
• The government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
• The current financial woes of Lehman Brothers

“But wait,” you say. “Didn’t The Fed help Bear Stearns, and didn’t JP Morgan Chase inject financial support into Bear, saving many jobs and precluding a major financial meltdown?”

No! However, Wall Street bankers, your government and the Federal Reserve appreciate your continued trust and confidence.

For the sake of accuracy, let’s review some of the events that led to Bear’s demise and subsequent “resurrection.”

• June 14^th 2007, a full two months prior to the realization of the subprime mortgage meltdown, Bear Stearns reported a 10 percent decline in quarterly earnings
• Four days later, Merrill Lynch reportedly seized collateral from a Bear Stearns hedge fund heavily invested in subprime loans (loans made to people who would not ordinarily qualify for a home loan)
• Four days later, on June 22^nd, Bear committed $3.2 billion in secured loans for the bailout of its High-Grade Structured Credit Fund
• A month later, on July 17^th, one of Bear’s troubled funds featured worthless assets and another contained assets which lost 91 percent of their value over the previous 3 months
• Fifteen days later, the two troubled funds file for bankruptcy protection and quickly freezes the assets of a third fund
• On the 52^nd anniversary of the Enola Gay’s dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima, Bear reassures clients, telling them that the company is financially sound
• The 20^th of September Bear announces a 68 percent drop in quarterly income and that the company’s accounts lost $42 billion in value over the previous three months
•  By the end of November, Bear’s workforce saw employee layoffs of 6 percent
• Five days before Christmas, Bear writes down $1.9 billion in losses. Bear’s CEO, Cayne, magnanimously foregoes his 2007 bonus.
• March 10^th rumors of a cashflow problem began to bubble to the surface, prompting a denial from the company
• Two days later, Bear’s Schwartz, appearing on CNBC tells investors that Bear has adequate liquidity
• March 14^th, just two days after reassurances by Schwartz, the Federal Reserve and JPMorgan Chase & Co offer “emergency funding” to stem the run on Bear’s stock and assets. The Federal Reserve loaned money to JPMorgan Chase, which it then re
• Two days later, on March 16^th, JPMorgan acquired Bear Stearns for $2 per share. Bear’s assets, valued at $55 billion, sold for a mere $236 million

Bear’s demise, precipitated by rumors of insolvency, resulted in a risk born by the American taxpayer, not JPMorgan Chase. The Private New York Fed lent $25 billion to Bear Stearns and $30 billion to JPMorgan to cover the purchase of Bear. Collateral for the buyout consists of assets, valued by Bear Stearns at $55 billion in Bear’s assets. In other words a loan equal to 100% of the appraised value of Bear’s assets. JPMorgan assumes only limited liability in this deal.

If the survival of Bear Stearns was crucial to the survival of the U.S. economy, why didn’t the Fed simply lend the $55 billion directly to Bear Stearns? Imagine the result in a turn-around in Bear’s stock value; all short sellers and put buyers encountering massive losses instead of gains. So, instead of the illegal insider short sellers taking the losses, Bear’s employees and stockholders suffered the losses. This deal smells so bad that even a former top Fed official felt it necessary to speak out. And people wonder how conspiracy theories start…

Next on the agenda is the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We’ve all heard how the government takeover of the nation’s two top mortgage guarantors ensures the availabililty of home loans for Americans. This, on the heels of July’s “homeowner rescue” that came with the passing of HR 3221 just two months ago. Today, Fannie and Freddie own $5.2 trillion in total debt via purchasing or guarantying about half of the nation’s home mortgages.

I’ve been reading of the problems with government intervention in the home mortgage market for years. If only Congress had acted on legislation introduced on Sep 10, 2003 by Rep Ron Paul (R-TX). He proposed elimination of the government subsidies for Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae), the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac). This address before the House was probably one of the first times I started asking “why doesn’t this man run for President?”

How did these two government sponsored enterprises become so central to the financial malaise that is seemingly spreading to almost every sector of our economy? At this point, a definition of subprime lending is in order. Wikipedia defines subprime as “…loans that do not meet Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac guidelines.” In other words, home loans made to people who do not qualify for a regular home loan.

Widespread mortgage discrimination led to easing of mortgage lending requirements. In his July 8, 2002 remarks on the faith-based welfare initiative in Milwaukee WI, President Bush echoed this concern. Here is a portion of that speech:

“We’ve got a homeownership gap in America: 75 percent of Anglos or white people own their homes; less than 50 percent of minority own their homes. That’s a gap that needs to change. And so my goal–my goal is that by 2010, we have 5.5 million additional minority homeowners.

There are ways the Government, obviously, can help. One is to help people with their downpayment. People think about owning their home, and they say, “I can’t afford the downpayment. Forget ownership. I’ll just continue to rent.” And so we’re going to have Federal monies available to help people afford the downpayment so they can make the first big step into homeownership.

Secondly, we will work with the Tax Code to provide tax credits so that affordable new homes can be built, for example, in this neighborhood, so that people–low-income and moderate-income people will be able to have a new supply of homes from which they can choose and purchase if they want to own a home.

Thirdly, the private sector must do more, starting with freeing up capital. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac must, as part of their vision and mission, encourage minority ownership by helping more capital to be available. We’re talking about over $400 billion available over the next 10 years for people to be able to purchase their own home.”

These policy statements opened the door to legislation and rules that created the subprime crisis. You can also read an article from Taki’s Magazine for Steve Sailer’s take on the cause of the housing crisis.

Management at Fannie and Freddie is a tale of cronyism and corruption. Here’s a smattering of the cast of characters provided by NPR from July 15, 2008:

James A. Johnson, former chairman and CEO: Aide to Vice President Walter Mondale; recently led Sen. Barack Obama’s vice-presidential search team
Jamie Gorelick, former vice chairwoman: Deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton; former Defense Department general counsel; member of 9/11 Commission
Franklin D. Raines, former chairman and CEO: Budget director under Clinton
Thomas E. Donilon, former executive vice president: Former assistant secretary of state under Clinton; senior adviser to Michael Dukakis’ presidential campaign; national campaign coordinator for Walter Mondale’s presidential campaign; congressional liaison for President Jimmy Carter.
Robert B. Zoellick, former executive vice president: Former deputy secretary of state and U.S. Trade Representative under President George W. Bush; currently president of the World Bank
Louis J. Freeh, board member: Director of the FBI under Clinton; federal judge
Stephen Friedman, former board member: Assistant to Bush for economic policy
Michele Davis, former senior vice president: Deputy assistant to Bush; currently assistant secretary of the Treasury.
Wayne Berman, outside lobbyist: Assistant Secretary of Commerce under President George H.W. Bush; senior adviser in Bush-Cheney presidential transition; currently a fundraiser for Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign.
Steve Ricchetti, outside lobbyist: Deputy chief-of-staff to Clinton
Kirsten Chadwick, outside lobbyist: Special assistant to President George W. Bush for legislative affairs; currently a fundraiser for McCain’s campaign.

Richard F. Syron, chairman and CEO: Deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury Ralph F. Boyd Jr., executive vice president: Assistant attorney general for civil rights
Dennis DeConcini, former board member: U.S. senator from Arizona
Robert R. Glauber, board member: Undersecretary of the Treasury under President George H.W. Bush
David J. Gribbin III, former board member: Aide to Vice President Dick Cheney; assistant secretary of defense under President George H.W. Bush
Harold Ickes, former board member: Adviser to President Clinton and Sen. Hillary Clinton; member of the Democratic National Committee.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, former board member: Senior adviser to President Clinton; former chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
Susan Hirschmann, outside lobbyist: Chief-of-staff to former House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas
Michael J. Bates, outside lobbyist: Campaign official for President Reagan, presidential candidate Bob Dole, President Bush.
Martin Paone, outside lobbyist: Secretary of the Senate
J. Patrick Cave, outside lobbyist: Acting Assistant Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury
Susan Molinari, outside lobbyist: U.S. Congresswoman from New York

The Fannie and Freddie story get strange when you consider the political contributions made to members of Congress that may decide on legislation relevant to Fannie and Freddie. Here’s an interesting post detailing contributions to current members of Congress.

Finally, it’s time to discuss Lehman Brothers and the potential impact on the American taxpayer. Much has been written of late regarding the financial woes of Lehman Brothers. Contrary to press releases and assurances, chips began to show in Lehman’s financial foundation in June of this year.

When it appeared as though Leman hedge funds appeared poised to lose $500 million to $700 million, the Financial Times, ended its report with this paragraph:

“Dick Fuld, the chief executive, has said the Federal Reserve’s decision to lend directly to investment banks this year should take questions about Lehman’s liquidity “off the table”. The Fed lending facility for investment banks is scheduled to expire in September but bankers expect it will be extended if markets remain challenging.”

(Note: I find it interesting, to say the least, that with a decision to lend directly to investment banks, the Fed felt it necessary to lend to JPMorgan instead of lending directly to Bear.)

We haven’t quite reached the end of September and the Financial Times reports that US Treasury Secretary Paulson wants to halt (for how long?) public bail-outs of private corporations.

The Lehman “rescue” looks stalled as players, such as Barclays seem concerned because the US government hadn’t provided a financial safety net for a takeover. In other words, they’d have to risk their own capital in the acquisition. It’s always much safer when you know that the U.S. taxpayer insures any debt arising from the acquisition. It would be nice to know with certainty that Hank Paulson’s abrupt decision to halt public bailouts is due to concern for the good of the country, rather than from loyalty to his former employer (Goldman Sachs).

If Paulson’s newfound care for the good of the country holds, the Lehman debacle is one blight on the economy for which the taxpayer won’t pick up the tab.

This missive stems from elements of an economic tsunami that some say is the fault of falling house prices in America. That’s nothing short of liberal propaganda. The real cause is the foundation of the subprime crisis; making home loans to unqualified buyers. Those loans, made possible by relaxed lending standards to stem complaints of mortgage discrimination and the Federal Reserve’s easy money policies of the late 1990s and early 2000s drove the price of housing up. In some cases, homes doubled in price in less than three years.

That rate of increase, applied to any other sector of the economy is known as hyperinflation. To home owners and real estate speculators, it’s called a return on investment. But is a home really an investment?

I read an interesting piece in mid 2005. Written by Eric Englund, in which he argues that houses are consumer durables, not investments. If you’re interested, you can find the article here. 

What does it all mean and exactly how does it support my earlier claim that these bailouts are selling our children and future generations into economic slavery? Put simply, we’re living in times of serious debt and the distinct possibility of default. Each and every time the Federal government “pays” for something, it does so with an IOU signed by the taxpaying citizens of this country. The current accounting of unpaid IOUs stands at approximately $9,500,000,000,000 and will increase by over $850 billion this year. If Bear Stearns goes down, we stand to lose up to $40 billion. In the event of a total default on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgages, we add another $5.5 trillion to that number.

We are now at a point in time that someone must stand up and lead this country out of the economic tar pit in which we are beginning to flail. Raising taxes or cutting taxes is not the answer. It is spending which must be brought under control, or our national debt will only continue to grow and with it the very real probability of a disastrours default.

Businesses either succeed of fail. Government cannot repeatedly intervene in markets every time a series of financial blunders is made. Those blunders are the responsibility of those individuals whom corporations pay millions of dollars each year in return for leadership and wise decisions, which result in a positive cash flow and a solid return on investment for shareholders. With each government intervention, the systemic problems, which were caused by bad business decisions, merely retreat below the surface only to reappear in more catastrophic form at a later date.

We can no longer afford to bail out billionaires. There is no place for government interventionism in a free market. That practice must be stopped now.

Until next time,
/sec

I remember a time when politicians resigned rather than bring discredit upon their office. In most cases, even the appearance of impropriety brought about a heart-felt resignation. Those days are over.

I’m not going to go into the long litany of elected “representatives” who put their own political ambition ahead of even a shred of integrity. Instead, I’ll just deal with two that are in the news of late.

First up, Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho). Sen. Craig plead guilty to disorderly conduct after allegedly soliciting gay sex in a public restroom at the Minneapolis MN airport. After news of the arrest and guilty plea hit the news, he announced his intention to resign from office. My first impression of that decision was favorable; it was the right thing to do. That’s not saying that I object to what two people do in the privacy of their bedroom. Public officials should avoid the appearance of impropriety. Pleading guilty to a criminal act falls within that spectrum of activities that bring discredit upon not only himself, but also the office he holds.

Sen. Craig then thought better of the honorable thing to do and recanted his intended resignation. He also decided to go back to court intent on overturning his guilty plea. I’m sure that Sen. Craig and other members of his Party were outraged when the ACLU filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Sen. Craig. The ACLU lawyers argue that sex behind the doors of a bathroom stall does not count as sex in public. To make matters more embarrassing for all parties, the ACLU filed their brief in the same court Sen. Craig has asked to overturn his guilty plea.

Next up, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY). In July of this year, we learned that in a time when real estate developers engage in the aggressive evictions of tenants living in rent-stabilized apartments, Rep. Rangel is the beneficiary of four of those rent-stabilized units in the same building. Three adjacent units, two 2-bedroom apartments and one 1-bedroom apartment make up his residence and the fourth unit, 6 floors below, is designated as a campaign office. He pays significantly less than market value for each of these units. Appearance of impropriety? Apparently, Rep. Rangel doesn’t think so.

To make matters worse,  Rep. Rangel, head of the House Ways and Means Committee (the group that figures out how much wealth they can coerce out of us in the form of taxes), made a “mistake” on his taxes. It seems that Rep. Rangel owns a vacation home in the Dominican Republic. In a statement, he described his failure to pay taxes on income from that property as irresponsible and went on to say that he failed to live up to the standards of his high office. Not living up to the standards of his office apparently means business as usual for Rep. Rangel.

Like Sen. Craig, Rep. Rangel doesn’t have the integrity to recognize that the appearance of impropriety damages the credibility of all elected officials and warrants the disdain of those they swore to represent.

Until next time,
/sec

You’d think that a year into the Ron Paul Revolution, the MSM would have some inkling of why people support the ideals embodied in Rep Ron Paul. However, after reading “Will young Paul, Huckabee backers stay with GOP?” I know that they still just don’t get it. The author, Kathryn Grimm thinks that Paul’s support stems from his “anti-war libertarianism.” That is an important facet, but far from the main reason people support Ron Paul.

Yo Kat! Here’s a reality check for you. People support Ron Paul because he supports and defends the Constitution of the United States of America. People support Ron Paul because he supports elimination of income taxes. People support Ron Paul because he supports a minimalist government, returning much of the rule back to the states. People support Ron Paul because he doesn’t believe that our young men and women should be put in harms way for the monetary benefit of the military-industrial complex under the guise of spreading democracy. People support Ron Paul because he believes in the Right to Life. People support Ron Paul because of his support for the right to keep and bear arms. People support Ron Paul because he believes in returning our economy to a sound foundation by getting rid of our unconstitutional central bank (aka: the Federal Reserve) and backing our currency with something other than debt. People support Ron Paul because he wants to eliminate entangling alliances and return to the days when we traded fairly with all nations.

There are many other reasons, but I somehow doubt Ms. Grimm and others of her ilk would find any of this useful. They’ve long ago made up their minds and pushed their agenda on their intended audience.

Until next time,
/sec

In the latest episode of the sordid affairs of has been politicians, Rielle Hunter has rejected the idea of a DNA test to determine paternity and requested privacy for herself and her child. That is perhaps the most reasonable statement made with regard to seemingly never-ending drama of a has-been politician who cheats on his cancer-stricken wife.

Edwards repeatedly denied an affair, but ultimately was caught leaving Rielle Hunter’s hotel room in the middle of the night. Either guilt or just the desire to get it over with compelled Edwards to admit to the affair, but not paternity of Hunter’s child.

John Edwards is a leftist and an elitist. Remember the $400 haircut and the video from the 2004 campaign that earned him the moniker “the Breck girl?” It is well that his days on the national political stage are over. But do stories about political has-been John Edwards and his lover, ex-lover, mistress or whatever name you give her, really belong in the category of “news?”

To their credit, the MSM did not cover rumors of John Edwards’ infidelity; the story broke on the pages of tabloid “The National Enquirer.”

A few months ago, John McCain did not fare as well with the MSM. When rumors of an affair with lobbyist Vicki Iseman surfaced, it was the start of a feeding frenzy that ended when both parties flatly denied the rumors. Not surprisingly, the Huffington Post got in on the action.

Long before the tales of the two Johns, there was the saga of Gary Hart. His was a political star on the rise when “news” of an affair with Donna Rice hit the airwaves. He denied the rumored relationship, and challenged reporters to follow him around; he had nothing to hide. A few days later, a pair of reporters from the Miami Herald did indeed follow him. That overnight stakeout paid off. Hart made nervous, feeble denials. His wife defended him, saying that his relationship with the young woman was innocent. Nonetheless, the feeding frenzy was underway. Soon after, the National Enquirer published photos of Hart and his mistress aboard a yacht named appropriately enough “Monkey Business.” From that point, his political star went into freefall.

What do affairs have to do with the ability to lead? Nothing. The vast majority of us are involved in relationships before we marry and many have extramarital affairs. When we are involved, there is nothing wrong and we suffer no consequences. We tend to hold others to a higher standard — especially politicians.

If the “accused” denies the relationship, “journalists” will dig even deeper. When rumor becomes truth, a mea culpa generally indicates a career change is in order. After all, how can we trust someone who lied to us? That person is no longer qualified to lead and thus run out of town on a rail.

I wonder how many men or women actually admit affairs to their significant other. If one lies, then is caught in that lie, should his or her employment be terminated due to lack of confidence on the part of the employer?

What would happen if the accused simply said, “of course it’s true?” Would our lust for the politics of personal destruction continue to drive news headlines? Or would we assume that because of the admission to an affair, he or she is still worthy of a vote?

Why do we even care whose sleeping with whom? In the grand scheme of things, almost all politicians lie. They make promises to voters to get elected, many of which they know can never be delivered. We must like being lied to because we re-elect incumbents at a rate of almost 90%.

That said, why do we allow the MSM to spoon feed affairs and rumors of affairs to us as “news.”

Until next time,
/sec

I would like to congratulate the Speaker of the House on a job well done. Unfortunately, she has done nothing to earn accolades from me — or anyone else. Avoiding debate on energy policy by turning off the lights in the House chamber may be funny to some, but it displays arrogance and exposes the disdain some of our elected “representatives” have for those of us who find it increasingly difficult to cope with the reality of life-style changes brought about by higher fuel prices. It would be nice to see at least a facade of concern by those who supposedly represent us.

Opting for words rather than action, Speaker Pelosi suggested that the President offer up a portion of the nation’s strategic reserve as a solution to high gasoline prices. The intended use of all oil stored within the strategic reserve is for continuity of operations in the event of an interruption of oil supply. While we pay more for a gallon of gas than at any time in history, Speaker Pelosi blames the President and claims to be trying to save the planet. I do not subscribe to her belief that it will be 10 years before we see any benefit from an increase in domestic oil production.

Four words of advice, Madam Speaker: drill here, drill now!

By the way, Senator Obama’s suggestion that we can achieve the same benefits as increased domestic oil production by simply ensuring proper tire pressure and regular tune-ups is preposterous. I could not believe my ears when I heard that man utter those words to an adoring crowd. I also cannot believe that anyone found those words worthy of applause.

I know that increased domestic and offshore drilling will not solve our long-term energy problems. However, it is an integral part in ending our dependence on foreign oil, and ultimately our addiction to fossil fuels. T. Boone Pickens has spent a chunk of change on commercial advertisements to tell us “we can’t drill our way out of this.” I happen to agree with him on that point.

However, I think that the old oilman is looking to secure a lot more than just a place in history. There are currently a number of subsidies in place to reward energy innovators. Would these subsidies, or the government programs behind them, be necessary if use of alternative energy sources was economically feasible?

Our government’s mandate for the use of Ethanol has led to higher food prices here at home and directly contributed to famine and starvation in third world countries. The “success” of that program is leading some in the Senate to ponder an Ethanol exit strategy.

History shows, repeatedly, a direct link between business success and risk taking by individuals and businesses. Are we now to believe that innovation and success are only possible through the blessings of ever-larger government bureaucracies? Don’t tell that to companies like Bell Bio-Energy, Inc. They have developed a natural way to convert almost anything that grows into hydrocarbon fuels.

Another promising technology is already in use powering buses in China, electricity for deepsea oilrigs and providing electricity, heating and cooling for the Reagan Presidential Library as well as the energy needs of a Russian luxury resort. If you’re interested, you can read more here.

More government intrusion will not solve our current energy woes. In times like these, government must promote innovation and business risk.

Until next time,
/sec

In the latest massive incursion on our wealth, privacy and property rights, both Houses of Congress have passed the ‘‘Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008.’’ One propaganda piece on the Wall Street bankers’ bailout begins by saying “Despite reservations, Bush ready to sign mortgage relief for 400,000 strapped homeowners.”

The House and Senate can’t pass up an opportunity to buy votes and President Bush never met a deficit spending package he didn’t like. But what do you suppose is inside this ‘‘Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008?’’

Rep Ron Paul called this legislation the “mother of all bailouts.” But it appears to be much more than just another taxpayer bailout of corrupt Wall Street bankers. Some of the more odious portions of this legislation were not reported by the MSM. Rather than reading the 682 pages of HR 3221 they distilled it down to just what you, the voting public needed to hear. Here is my review of the worst provisions of this “mother of all bailouts.”

It seems that some in Congress feel that realtors and those involved in mortgage processing whose background was not adequately investigated by the several states and whose fingerprints were not on file with the FBI are responsible for the current “housing crisis.”  What does that have to do with the fact that the Federal Reserve, with cooperation from our bought and paid for political “leaders” enabled this mess? I can’t think of any possible connection, but Sec 1505 (a) requires background investigations and fingerprinting.

A few years ago (I can’t remember exactly when) Congress authorized Fannie and Freddie a $2.5 billion fund to ensure that they would remain solvent. This week, Congress officially raised that to $25 billion (well, not really, but I’ll get to that later). They also authorized $100 million (from now till Dec 31 of this year) for the “Neighborhood Reinvestment Program.” The funds are earmarked for “foreclosure mitigation activities.”

Section 3083 proves for an increase in national debt ceiling to $10,615,000,000,000. It seems that the reported $25 billion is expected to multiply.

And under the heading “Subtitle B – Revenue Offsets” is the requirement that all “payment card” or electronic payments be reported to the IRS. What does that have to do with Fannie and Freddie being mismanaged by political appointees?

Sen. Jim DeMint proposed a ban on further lobbying or political donations by Fannie or Freddie. In his words “we can’t have the people who are supposed to watch over these organizations getting money from these organizations. At least if we’re going to ask the American taxpayer to be on the hook for billions, possibly trillions of dollars, let’s stop this.” The Democrat majority refused to allow him a vote on the proposal. It appears that corruption business as usual is the order of the day for our corrupt Congress elected representatives.

We are in dire need of a true revolution at the polls in November. The problem is that most people don’t care what the government does, until it directly affects them – and it’s too late to do anything except say “how could they do this to me.” As John Mayer sings in Waiting on the World to Change, “When you trust your television, what you get it what you’ve got. Because when they own the information, they can bend it all they want.”

Until next time,
/sec

Do your part in the name of liberty. Add your name to the lists of those demanding redress of grievances from their elected “representatives.” You may not be concerned with every issue, but there’s something for everyone in this list of petitions.
***************************************************************************************************************************
Plan to Restore Constitutional Order Begins: “No Redress, NO TAXES.”

Every Member of Congress, the President and U.S. Attorney General to be served a legal “Demand & Notice” for Redress of Constitutional Violations

June 30, 2008 may be remembered in history as the day Americans began, in earnest, the moral and solemn process of holding their (servant) Government accountable to the Constitution — under threat of withdrawal of allegiance, support and tax money.

Next Monday, approximately 1200 American citizens will begin the process of exercising the profound, but little-known, unalienable “Right of Redress.” These individuals will serve a legal “Notice and Demand” for Redress upon every Member of Congress at their local district offices.

“Most People do not know that this natural Right, first articulated 800 years ago in Section 61 Magna Carta of 1215, is also embodied and protected by the Petition clause of the First Amendment,” said Bob Schulz, Chairman of the We The People Foundation for Constitutional Education. “And the Government does not want the People to know about it.”

We The People Foundation
For Constitutional Education, Inc.
2458 Ridge Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
Telephone: 518.656.3578 Fax: 518.656.9724

info@GiveMeLiberty.org http://givemeliberty.org/revolution
http://www.wethepeoplefoundation.org/UPDATE/misc2008/Press-Release-Jun-08.htm
**************************************************************************************

There are seven petitions for the redress of grievances
1. Against illegal gun control laws
http://givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/Petition2AM-RKBA.htm
2. Against illegal immigration
http://givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/PetitionImmigration.htm
3. Against the North American Union
http://givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/PetitionBordersNAU.htm
4. Against the US Patriot Act
http://givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/PetitionUSAPat.htm
5. Against the Federal Reserve
http://givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/PetitionFed.htm
6. Against the federal income tax
http://givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/PetitionTax.htm
7. Against the application of US armed forces in hostilities in Iraq without a Congressional declaration of war
http://givemeliberty.org/FreedomDrive/Redress/PetitionWar.htm

It does not take a historian to see that America began drifting away from the principles that made her great. We did not simply wake up on September 12, 2001 and find a brave new world. The metamorphosis began over a hundred years ago. Personal income tax, the creation of the third central bank, Social Security, Welfare, Medicare and Medicaid each tore at the pillars of our society with complete disregard for our Constitution. Each program increased the size of government at all levels and began the ever-increasing transfer of wealth from individual citizens to government.

Mismanagement of these and other programs, coupled with the government’s innate ability for spending more money than it takes in, leave us to deal with the specter of a fiscal tsunami. The country, and by default, we, are $9.5 trillion in debt now. It looks as though we are on track to add another $750 billion to that debt this year.

Our government services that debt by making interest only payments. To do more would mean elected officials must deliver real “change,” rather than simply use “change” as part of a slogan in political campaigns. Instead of promising ever more goodies to a population of consumers bloated with burgeoning personal debt, the government must learn to adjust to fiscal realities and live within its revenue streams.

Not only have our elected officials continuously demonstrated a lack of responsibility and accountability, the retirement program they mandated for us, Social Security, will soon be insolvent. It is not because we did not pay into the program. Our elected officials, faced with insufficient funds, “borrowed” that money from the hard working people they represent. And it is we the people who will repay that loan through more tax increases.

Government subsidized health care (Medicare and Medicaid) was never sufficiently funded and the resultant cost to each person in this country is well documented by the GAO. The Comptroller General himself described the burgeoning cost as a $750,000 mortgage — with no house.

I can’t name a single program the government has offered to make our lives better in some way that can be called successful. Yet every election year, we hear politicians promising more “entitlements.” Where is the authorization for these so-called “entitlements?” Unlike the vast majority of people I know, I have actually read the Constitution. I cannot find any of these “entitlements” within that now unused document.

The road ahead is fraught with dangers to our freedom and liberty. The danger is not from foreign invasion, it is from within. Our elected officials have mortgaged our future for their own political aspirations.

It is time for true change, and that change must come from a well-informed electorate. We must stop electing and re-electing people who deliver more of the same.

Ron Paul’s campaign gave me a glimmer of hope for the future. He was the only candidate representing true change. Although he is no longer a candidate for the presidency, his Campaign for Liberty lives on.

If we are to survive as a sovereign nation, we must see real change. That real change must come very soon.

Until next time,
/sec

If you’re as tired as I am of seeing the speculative bubble in crude oil prices eating more and more of your paycheck, sign the Drill Here, drill now, pay less petition. This simple petition seeks to convince our elected “representatives” that it is in the best interests of We the People to tap into the vast resources available in our own country.

/sec

Congressional Democrats, working with giant insurance corporations are working on legislation that takes wealth from every taxpaying citizen to satisfy the needs of corporate America while appearing to help the common man. Congress is well versed in diverting the wealth of the nation into corporate coffers; they’ve been practicing corporatism for many years. This time, they seek to transfer money to insurers while making those living in areas prone to natural disasters feel like it’s all about them.

Proponents of this scheme claim that the average Florida homeowner will see savings of approximately $500 in annual insurance premiums. Floridians are not the only homeowners spared spiraling “re-insurance” costs. Residents of every coastal state – even those that have never experienced a hurricane – benefit from the forced generosity of their landlocked neighbors.

That’s great news if you live in Florida, or you’re an insurance corporation worried about continual monetary injections into the corporate bank account. Where does that leave the rest of us?

If Hurricanes Katrina and Rita provided any lessons, they are all but forgotten. Large numbers of people unable to pay insurance premiums resided in areas considered at risk of flood and hurricane damage. Following the storms, the government provided housing, food, clothing, medical care and transportation to those who were not insured. At some point, the government decided to rebuild their homes on the same property. The costs of rebuilding were once again born by the American taxpayer.

The Constitution provides no authority to the U.S. government for any such activity. Even if We the People wanted to use hundreds of billions of tax dollars to help our neighbors in Louisiana and Mississippi, that help would not include re-building homes in the same location, knowing that in the event of another catastrophic storm, We the People must pick up the tab for yet another reconstruction effort. If those residents were unable to purchase insurance before the storms hit, is it possible that insurance coverage is now miraculously within their grasp?

I enjoy the area along the coast just as well as the next guy. I also know that I couldn’t risk losing everything I own to live there. If you can’t afford insurance coverage for property along the coast, you have no business living there. It is morally and ethically wrong for any citizen to expect that others pay for his stupid mistakes.

It is also morally and ethically wrong for our elected “representatives” to plot methods for the transfer of wealth from taxpayers to corporate coffers. All too often, corporations are directly involved in shaping government policy in a manner that solely benefits business, yet appears to help the common man. This “nationalizing” segments of an industry is also called state corporatism and is unconstitutional and must be stopped.

Our nation is teetering on the verge of bankruptcy. Until lawmakers understand simple economics and take corrective action, we continue sliding down the slope toward fiscal suicide. All the while, our dollar is collapsing due to mismanagement of monetary policy and money supply by the Federal Reserve. We cannot grow our way out of this economic downturn. Our elected “representatives” cannot tax us into prosperity.

Tell your elected “representatives” that it is not in the best interest of our nation to subsidize disaster insurance with tax dollars.

Until next time,
/sec

With so much evidence to the contrary, the zealots of man-made climate change are still crying, “the sky is falling.” They just don’t seem to understand that the big ball of burning fire in the sky (aka: Sol, the morning star, the sun, etc) – and the Earth’s orbit around it – has a lot more to do with climate change than human beings will ever have.

Al Gore is profiting from his very public campaign to save the planet from the evils of human carbon abuse. The Royal United Services Institute warns us that global warming may lead to war. Prince Charles claims that we have only 18 months to avert a climate disaster and save the planet. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg compares the threat of global warming to terrorism.

And now, in Britain, the “influential” Environmental Audit Committee is now demanding that every adult be forced to carry and use a “carbon ration card” when buying auto fuel, airline tickets and household energy.” The article goes on to say “Under the scheme,” (a very appropriate choice of words!) “everyone would be given an annual carbon allowance to use when buying oil, gas, electricity and flights.” If that limit is exceeded, individuals would be able to purchase unused rations from other individuals. It’s unbelievable that after years of working to shutdown black markets, the UK government is now advocating a comeback — under the banner of saving the planet.

Adoption of this “scheme” simply means the cost of living for the average British citizen will rise… another tax in the name of environmentalism. The net effect is that the poor will continue to get poorer. As the cost of living goes up, poorer citizens will be all too eager to sell their “carbon rations” to wealthier individuals and families. This “scheme” ensures that the wealthy can continue with no real interruption in lifestyle.

Any elected official proposing such sham legislation should be voted out of office – if not run out of town on a rail!

The sad part of this whole story is that the United States seems to be following in the green footsteps of Europe. At the moment, the eco-socialists appear to have the upper hand; too many people have drunk of the goblet of green Kool-Aid. And once a government – any government – sinks their teeth into more tax revenue, it’s never returned to the people; government continues to grow, at the expense of its citizenry.

When you see government at any level doing something “for your own good,” simply follow the money trail and find out who really benefits from the politicians’ generosity with your hard-earned money. It is after all, all about control…

Until next time,
/sec

Sometimes I wonder in which parallel universe our elected “representatives” live. Take for instance a new bill passed by the House on May 20, allowing the Justice Department to “sue OPEC members for limiting oil supplies and working together to set crude prices.” It almost appears as though Congress really cares about the plight of the average American dealing with the spiraling price of gasoline.

The reality is that OPEC oil producers are not American companies, and do not sell their product within the United States. Although this legislation may make you feel better, it will do nothing but further alienate oil producers from US oil consumers. Were I an OPEC member nation, my displeasure over this bill would probably manifest itself in the following ways:

• Withdraw all of my assets from American banks
• Sell off all interest in US corporations
• Sell off all US real estate holdings
• Dump my US Dollar holdings
• Refuse to sell my product to any American company
• Refuse to accept US Dollars in exchange for my product

What can you do? Write to your elected “representatives.” Let them know that it’s time to produce oil in this country again. Tell them that it’s time to allow the building of a few new oil refineries. And finally demand an end to the roadblocks the hamstring the building of new nuclear power plants.

Until next time,
/sec

A couple of days ago, I read a piece by Alessandra Stanley titled “Clinton fades away on television.” I could comment on the mainstream media’s failure to cover those it does not favor, but I’ve already beat that dead horse over the coverage (not) afforded to Ron Paul.

No, in this short missive, I simply want to comment on a quote from “The View.” Whoopi Goldberg asked her co-hosts to describe Hillary Clinton’s “historic battle for the Democratic nomination.” Joy, you replied “a man took it away from a woman. Then they yelled at her for complaining about it.”

In those few words Joy, you’ve demonstrated that you are either a fool, or delusional. How can anyone ever take you seriously when you profess a belief that the Democrat Party nomination – and by extension, the Presidency – was Hillary Clinton’s birthright? Campaigns are won or lost; not pre-ordained. 

Please understand that I think Hillary should see her campaign through to the convention. As of the time of this writing, it appears that Barak Obama has the momentum, but the contest is not over. However, if Hillary doesn’t win, it won’t be because a man stole something from her. Remember Joy, you have to possess a thing in order for it to be taken from you.

Until next time,
/sec

I’m sure you’ve heard more than enought of the rhetoric coming from those who would be the next President of the United States. I’m sure you have very probably already decided which one of them you dislike a little less than the other. I’m of the opinion that the two major parties are almost indistinguishable. So, if you vote for a candidate from one or the other, you are indeed merely selecting the lesser of two evils. But does it have to come down to which of the lesser of two evils you vote for?

If you accept as fact the two major political parties are merely two wings of the same diseased bird, it’s time to look for a new political home. But your search for the Promised Land must wait until you’ve answered the question “what is the function of the federal government?”

Yes, I know… the subject line reads, “What do you want from government?” I’ll get to that in a couple of minutes.

More than 200 years ago, a group of men with far more wisdom than I possess, agreed on certain principles that paraphrased, form the Preamble to the Constitution. Truly, those few words eloquently define in very broad terms the founding fathers’ intent in writing the Constitution.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”

The Constitution defines in much more granular terms the intended role of government. One has but to read the Constitution to understand how far we’ve allowed our elected representatives to stray from the checks and balances imposed by the Constitution. Without our tacit approval, they could not have usurped power from the States and from we the people.

To get the flavor of what the founding fathers’ envisioned for our government, let’s examine a few of the more important Articles of the Constitution.

Article I deals with the Legislative Branch of the government. The powers of Congress are enumerated in Section 8. It is important to note that among the powers of Congress are: borrowing money on the credit of the United States, regulating Commerce, coining money and regulating the value thereof, to declare War and grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Section 9 defines the limits on Congress; among them, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” Section 10 details those powers prohibited to the States.

Article II defines the Executive Branch of the government. Section 1 prescribes the Oath or Affirmation: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (Do you remember any President actually living up to that Oath?) This Article also deals with removal from Office.

Article III details the powers of the Judicial Branch of the government. It is important to note that the Constitution does not grant any court the power to re-write law. The intended purpose of the courts was the interpretation and practical application of laws.

We need go no further in our examination of the Constitution to understand the limited government envisioned by the founders of our country. It should be obvious that we’ve strayed far from the intended path. So how do we reclaim the government created for us by the founding fathers?

We stop electing career politicians who promise to solve our problems for us.

When we’re asked the question “what do you want from government?”, the answer should be “only that which was defined by the Constitution.” But so often, we listen to rhetoric that promises things we hold near and dear.

Two generations ago, we were promised a retirement system – Social Security. The problem with that system is that those who benefited first paid nothing into the program. Their children and grandchildren paid for their “government pension.” Another problem with this system is that unlike a private retirement plan, your family can’t inherit your pension in the event of your death; it dies with you.

A generation ago, we were promised a welfare system that effectively rewarded people who simply chose not to work. I realize that it also helped many of those who genuinely needed help. Further, our elected officials promised free health care for the elderly. The result is over $40 trillion of unfunded mandates known as Medicare and Medicaid.

How does the government pay for all this? Remember, the government has nothing, so they can give nothing – unless of course they take from us (remember “We the people”) the fruits of our labor. And unless that same government learns how to drastically cut spending and trim some of those benefits, that group of working Americans  (“We the people”) will wind up with an 85% income tax rate on top of the sales taxes and usage fees we’ll pay.

So what do you want from government? Do you want them to solve your problems, or stay out of your business? Will you vote for the lesser of two evils? Or will you seek a different direction?

Until next time,
/sec

Ever since my trip to Curasao, NA, I’ve waged an internal conflict over this blog. At one point, I’d firmly decided to shut it down and move on. That lasted about 30 seconds. Funny how the mouse over the “confirm” button gives one pause. My decision is rather obvious.

Readers come and readers go. If I want my small voice in the wilderness heard, it is clear that I must post regularly. The content of each post must contain something worthy of your time. A little entertainment might also be a nice touch. Speaking of entertainment, I’m going to share the story of “where web pages come from.” I don’t know whom to credit for this analogy of “where babies come from,” but I enjoyed it enough to share it with you.

Topics ahead are politics (of course) climate change, real estate, economics and general stupidity that feel it necessary to rant about

Until tomorrow,
/sec

Yes, at long last, I’m finally taking a well deserved breather on the beach. And what a beach! Screw Hawaii! I’m in Curacao, Netherlands Antilles. What a beautiful place. The people are friendly, the climate averages between 70 and 90 degrees year round. The days are wonderful and the nights are hot! Any way, I’ll be out for another week or so

The Democrat Party heads to yet another brokered convention. Like 1968, a means other than primary victories will decide the Party’s nominee. But what happens if an all out war ensues over which of the two candidates should win the brass ring and go forth to do battle against Sen. McCain in November? What happens if the deadlock continues more than a few hours? What happens if there is so much bad blood between opposing factions within the Party that it becomes apparent the two sides can’t overcome their differences and unite behind one of the two?

In a once smoked filled back room, a standard bearer is anointed. A true champion of liberal causes who has long called for “real change” emerges. Eschewing a political life, this knight in waiting is well known, not only within the Democrat Party, but a household name across the country. Indeed, the celebrity status of this personification of all things left wing is recognized in almost every corner of the world.

Answering the call of his Party, Al Gore takes center stage and once again goes off to battle yet another evil not really conservative Republican nominee.

The odds are that this will never happen. Then again, you never know…

/sec

For the past few years I’ve read articles about the unsustainable growth of the U.S. economy. At the time the first of these articles caught my attention, many “experts” were quick to dismiss any thought that the U.S. economy might be anything other than the most robust, stable economy in the history of the world. The dollar was, after all, the de facto world’s currency; used to transact all manner of goods and services. We were continually assured that our economy could always grow its way out of any bubble. As long as the world used dollars to buy and sell, nothing could stop the continuous growth of the U.S. economy.

Fast forward to today. The dollar is no longer the currency of choice in some markets; oil, for example. The average American’s standard of living is, for the first time in over 100 years, less than that of the average resident of England. It takes $1.50 to equal one euro. The Canadian dollar has for the first time in 30 years achieved parity with the U.S. dollar.

The government has told us that inflation (the normally gradual debasement of our currency) was roughly 3.5% last year. That seems to be the running theme for the past few years. I don’t know what consumer prices they sample to come up with that number. Nobody likes to think their government intentionally distorts the truth, but here are just three of many glaring inconsistencies in their statistics:

• In the 3 year period from 2003 – 2006, homes “appreciated” in value by over 100%.
• In the 3 year period from 2003 – 2006, gasoline increased from under $2.00 per gallon to well over $3.00 per gallon.
• In the past 12 months, gold purchased in U.S. dollars has doubled in cost.

People, some with multiple jobs, are struggling to maintain a decent standard of living. Many resort to using credit to remain afloat from month to month. Yet it is the misuse of credit that has caused the majority of the economic peril we now face.

To illustrate my point, it might be expected that I immediately jump to sub-prime mortgage lending. However, it’s more important to start with the single largest borrower in recorded history: the U.S. government.

Many of my previous missives have contained references to the burgeoning debt accumulated by our federal government. The debt is primarily due to lawmakers promising to do things (think prescription drugs, Medicare, Medicaid and the current “stimulus package”) without concern for the Constitutional authority to do so, or the manner in which the promises will be funded. Congress has for years obligated dollars, far in excess of those available in the Treasury, to pay for goodies to show their constituents that they are being cared for by their governmental benefactors. The fact that those goodies are paid for by every American taxpayer is of little consequence as long as we get our share of “free” government handouts.

There’s another side to government spending that can’t be overlooked. That is the direct support of the nearly all-powerful military industrial complex. In his farewell address to the nation, on January 17th, 1960, President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned us against the rise in power of the military industrial complex. His warning has gone unheeded. Defense suppliers hire many employees in almost every congressional district. Defense spending is good for the economy, we’re told. Yet, we are now faced with the very real prospect of contrived conflicts with the sole purpose of ensuring the coffers of our military equipment suppliers are overflowing; again at taxpayer expense.

It begins when a senior decision maker in the Pentagon is approached by a former comrade at arms, now employed by a defense contractor. The Pentagon official is shown how a new system or an upgrade to an existing system could be beneficial. Beneficial not only to the nation’s defense, but to the retirement plans of the Pentagon official. That aspect is never directly addressed; to do so would violate ethics laws. And thus the march toward the procurement process is begun. One such procurement effort is detailed here and here.

The U.S. government’s example of fiscal irresponsibility is also mirrored in many state legislatures around the country. From there, it finds its way to counties and finally to cities. Each of these governmental entities offers a wide variety of social programs, incentives to attract business and general wasteful spending. One of the cities in my local area has a population of fewer than 200,000 people and a debt of $500 million. Nice work!

By now everyone is well aware of the problems caused by the sub-prime mortgage malaise. The effects on business are easily calculated. Since late 2006, the number of mortgage lenders in the U.S. that are now defunct stands at 232. The huge write downs by a multitude of mortgage lenders and the foreign bailout of Citibank tell of the depth of the impact on the financial sector.

The cost in human terms is not quite as easy to assess. Some people I’ve talked with are fine with the thought of hapless consumers caught in the web of easy credit getting their just deserts. Perhaps a fair assessment, but were it not for the greed of mortgage lenders, spurred by the “relaxed” credit offered by the Federal Reserve, those human beings would never have qualified for a sub-prime loan and therefore not now be subjected to foreclosure and eviction.

The average household has consumer debt of between $10 thousand and $50 thousand. There are those who earn less than $40 thousand per year and struggle to live from payday to payday — but they can’t live without a 50” flat panel HDTV. Instead of saving up the money for their purchase, they make installment payments over a 3 year period. Imagine, a form of indenture for the purpose of watching sports in high definition. And why not?

Our government speaks out of both sides of the mouth on wealth building. They tell us to save, but then tax the interest on the savings as income. The government has removed all incentive to save. Little wonder we’re a nation of debtors.

The fiscal irresponsibility exhibited at the personal, community, state and federal levels is unparalleled in human history. In a very real sense, we the people are financial slaves, doing no more than servicing debt. Those who own that debt own us, and our government, as well.

The question is do we wait until we can no longer service the debt to take action, or do we take action now to limit the destructive effects that will surely come with the all-but-certain financial meltdown?

I wish I had all the answers. The simple fact is that I do not. I know with certainty that I will no longer accumulate debt. I will do my best to help candidates at all levels of government who will uphold the Constitution and foreswear fiscal irresponsibility.

Until next time
/sec

Ever since Matt Drudge broke the story of Britain’s Prince Harry on the front lines in the War on Terror in Afghanistan, the press has been in high gear to get every detail into print. I have to admit that I’ve read a good bit of those details. I just finished reading The Sun’s “Hero Harry’s Home” and I noticed something very unusual. The article struck my fancy because for all the Royals chasing done by the press, The Sun didn’t quite seem to know which Prince arrived from the war front.

The first photo is appropriately captioned “Touch down… Harry emerges from plane.” They got that one right.

The second photo is labeled “Wills and comrades cross tarmac.” Apparently staff members at The Sun are in need of remedial proof reading or “Know your royals” training.

While we celebrate Prince Harry’s safe homecoming, let’s not forget that thousands of his comrades at arms (including allies) are still in harm’s way. Pray that they will be fortunate enough to go home safely, too.

/sec

Lately, you can’t go a whole day without at least hearing an on-air discussion or reading an article about the state of healthcare in the United States. Some pundits favor a strict fee for service model. Others pontificate over a government partnership with private industry or a wholly government managed healthcare system.

I’m no expert on the healthcare industry in this country, and I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I’ll share some of my thoughts with you. Maybe after reading this you’ll have a reason to give this problem some of the consideration it deserves.

The thought of government management of the healthcare industry is enough to make even the staunchest proponent of the nanny state recoil in abject horror! If you disagree with that statement, let me remind you of how well the government has managed the Social Security program. And then there are the two programs that will ultimately bankrupt the country… Medicare and Medicaid. Government management is not an optimal solution.

An idea that seems to gather more traction is a partnership of government and private industry. Although this may sound good to some, one has but to remember another infamous marriage of government and private companies; the Federal Reserve. People blame greedy banks for the state of the economy without giving thought to the fact that many of those same banks are part of the banking cartel that makes up the Federal Reserve. A partnership of government and private industry is not in the best interest of the American people.

Pay as you go services are least popular among the working class. Many have come to believe that healthcare is a right that should be provided to them by the government. But, let me remind you that the government has nothing to give, other than what it takes from others. Still think it should be “free?” Go knock on your neighbor’s door and tell him that you’re in need of transportation and that he must pay for it. What’s that? You don’t think he’ll go for that idea? Then why do you think for even an instant he will agree to pay for your next visit to the doctor? It’s your body, not his. It is your responsibility to take care of it, not someone else’s.

There are no easy answers, yet something must be done. Whatever that something evolves into must begin with Medicare and Medicaid. If those twin programs of fiscal doom aren’t addressed very soon, discussion of any other healthcare is moot.

/sec

Why is it less offensive to say “Hillary Diane Clinton” or “John Sidney McCain” than it is to say “Barak Hussein Obama?” And why does John Sidney McCain feel it necessary to apologize for someone not related to his campaign saying the name Barak Hussein Obama?

Is there something magical about that middle name? Does it tell you more about the man than his record as a public official? Will his middle name be the sole detractor that will wrest an election victory from the Senator from Illinois?

I don’t agree with Sen. Obama’s political philosophy. I won’t be voting for him in November. Nor will I vote for Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I simply can’t hold my nose long enough to vote for any of them! For me, the general election comes down to a 3^rd party candidate or a write-in vote.

I want my fellow Americans to do their homework. Get past the rhetoric, the Democrat or Republican Party labels and look at each candidate’s position on the pressing issues of our time. Make a choice based not on the candidate’s middle name, but on your substantive agreement with the candidate’s positions.

Don’t go to the poll to vote against a candidate. If you can’t vote for someone, try looking at a 3^rd party or cast your vote for a write-in candidate.

/sec

While perusing my regular news feeds last night, I came across an article written by Les Blumenthal about criticism over Barak Obama’s sponsorship of S. 2433, the “Global Poverty Act of 2007.”  Mr. Blumenthal is quick to give readers the impression that any controversy over this bill is pure fabrication by conservative bloggers and Rush Limbaugh. But is this just another “vast right-wing conspiracy” aimed at someone other than a politician with the last name “Clinton?”

The nature of the controversy is the cost to the American taxpayer in a United Nations effort targeting the poorest of the poor.

Quoting Section 2, Item 3, “The United Nations Millennium Development Goals include the goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, that live on less than $1 per day, cutting in half the proportion of people suffering from hunger and unable to access safe drinking water and sanitation, reducing child mortality by two-thirds, ensuring basic education for all children, and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDS and malaria, while sustaining the environment upon which human life depends.”

The author includes statements by the author of the House bill (H. R. 1302), Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash. Rep. Smith is quick to point out that the bill includes no provision for funding. He’s quite right. So what’s the controversy?

Let’s take a look at Section 4(b). The bill calls upon the President to develop a comprehensive strategy which “shall include, but not be limited to, specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables to achieve the objectives…” So far, Rep. Smith’s statement rings true.

Here’s Section 4(c)(1): “Continued investment in existing United States initiatives related to international poverty reduction, such as the United States Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Act of 2003, the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003, the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative, and trade preference programs for developing countries, such as the African Growth and Opportunity Act.”

Although Rep. Smith’s statement is technically true — the bill does not require any public funding — it requires the President to develop a means of achieving the goals clearly defined in this legislation. Once this strategy is developed, I guarantee it will not simply be used as lining for the bottom of a birdcage. Make no mistake; it will be used to cobble legislation that will require massive public “investment” which will result in higher taxes.

We’ve already provided billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars in the form of foreign aid. Even with that sizeable “investment” of American taxpayers’ good will, world poverty still exists. Giving our tax dollars to the United Nations will do nothing more than set the stage for further reductions in the sovereignty of the United States and our ability to develop and conduct independent foreign policy.

And by the way, we’ve been waging a war on poverty in this country for longer than I can remember. You can measure our success in that area by the number of homeless and the number of people on some form of public relief. We should take care of our own people first, and it should be by private donations.

Finally, I’d like to point out that although helping those in need is the moral thing to do, there is no provision in our Constitution for taking wealth from American citizens for purposes of redistributing it to those deemed less fortunate. Mr. Smith, Mr. Obama and others who feel so inclined may donate whatever portion of their personal wealth toward global poverty reduction. They can do so with my blessing.

/sec

Hypocrisy is one commodity in abundant supply these days. After burning several hundred Christian churches and driving out most of the non-ethnic Albanian Kosovars, The Kosovo Parliament endorsed the independence of Kosovo. Serbia and Russia immediately denounced the move saying that it could well lead to outbreak of a new conflict. The US and some of the EU states immediately recognized the newly independent Kosovo.

There seems to be more than a hint of a double standard in the United States support for Kosovo. The US has continuously sought Russia’s help in dealing with concerns over Iran’s nuclear intentions. At the same time, the US has been steadily working on a ballistic missile defense system which Russia considers a threat. Support for Kosovo’s independence may be the last straw in US – Russia relations.

All that aside, I wonder how the US government would feel if Alaska were to declare its independence and Canada and Russia sent troops to ensure the newly independent Alaska’s security? What if the southwestern states were overrun by Mexicans seeking to annex the states as part of northern Mexico? No, strike that, that’s really happening, today.

Kosovo’s independence is a matter between Kosovo, Serbia, and like it or not, Albania. Meddling in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation is a recipe for more “unintended consequences.”

/sec

Over that past several months Mayor Michael Bloomberg has stepped up the rhetoric on several fronts. In the interest of brevity, I’m going to focus on just two.

In November 2007, Mayor Bloomberg called for a national tax on carbon emissions. His argument: a national carbon tax “will slow global warming, promote economic growth and stimulate technological innovation” — at the expense of the American consumer. Have you ever wondered how government officials always seem to come up with the hypothesis that imposing taxes leads to economic growth? The only part of the economy that has ever grown by increasing taxes is government.

We’ve been face-to-face with the energy non-crisis for over 30 years. Was it truly a crisis, wouldn’t our elected representatives have given serious efforts to pursuing alternative energy sources? Would automobile manufacturers still produce 8 mpg behemoths of suburbia if there was genuine concern for energy conservation? Would we not have more nuclear plants providing electrical power?

The vast majority of Americans are not able to easily absorb additional losses in personal wealth. Increasing the tax burden on the American populace is nothing short of criminal. Rather than cut frivolous spending, our representatives instead seek more of our wealth. When will they learn that it’s past time for them to get the government’s economic house in order?

This week, Bloomberg criticized the government over the current economic malaise. The Mayor asserts that “the nation has a balance sheet that’s starting to look more like a third-world country.” He criticized the government’s “economic stimulus package,” saying he did not think it would do much to help our economy. Bloomberg went on to say “nobody wants to sit there and say, ‘Well there’s no easy solution. They want to send out a check to everybody to stimulate the economy. I suppose it won’t hurt the economy but it’s in many senses like giving a drink to an alcoholic.” I couldn’t agree more with that assessment.

Mayor Bloomberg’s personal web site denotes many of his achievements, his philanthropies and presents the opportunity to learn of some of his legislative goals. One of my favorites on his web site is the Citywide Performance Reporting initiative to bring transparency of city government to all citizens. Sunlight on the workings of government at all levels is long overdue.

His negatives are that he is a billionaire, he is not conservative enough, he is not republican enough, he is not liberal enough, and he’s not a democrat. Blah, blah, blah…

Non-candidate Michael Bloomberg sounds more and more like a candidate with each passing day. His periodic criticisms of government add fuel to the expectation that he’ll soon announce his candidacy. I expect that he’s gauging public opinion of each trial balloon he’s floated to determine whether he has a chance at winning the Presidential election in November.

Whether he is or is not a candidate, he stirs public debate. Public debate encourages participation. Participation ensures that your voice is heard. Voting is but one method of participation. It’s the result of participation in dialog. Be part of the dialog; shaping the debate gives more meaning to your vote.

/sec

I’ve listened to talk radio more in the past three months than in the last three years. Think of the entertainment value: talk show hosts writhing in agony. Just the thought of that probably increased their market share!

The common theme among the hosts is their dislike and distrust of John McCain. “He’s no conservative,” they proclaimed – and still do. However, in the aftermath of Super Tuesday and the apparent inevitability of John McCain as the nominee, a change in attitude is beginning to show.

After saying that a McCain or Huckabee nomination would destroy the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh made the tongue-in-cheek claim that he was John McCain’s secret weapon. It was his criticism of McCain that drove independents and moderates to the polls, he said. Ok, whatever.

Sean Hannity complained that McCain was not a conservative and that Huckabee was stealing votes from the real conservative – Romney. He even went as far as telling his listeners that he was voting for Mitt Romney. That attempt at swaying public opinion worked just as well as the “he’s not a conservative” argument.

The theme emanating from talk radio callers is that although they don’t like and don’t trust McCain, they will grudgingly vote for him to prevent the Democrat nominee from gaining the Oval Office. Amazing! If you don’t trust the man, why in God’s name would you vote for him? The lesser of two evils is still evil!

I’m not buying any of that “he doesn’t smell quite as bad as the Democrat” snake oil. I could never support John McCain. There’s the McCain-Feingold assault on the 1^st Amendment; the McCain-Kennedy (attempted) shamnesty; his infamous “maybe a hundred” reply in New Hampshire; his support for socialist “green” legislation that will result in increased taxes and a loss of sovereignty; and his (almost) forgotten theme song “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran.” For a look at the only TV advertisement his opponent needs to use, check this out.

If you’re getting more than a little tired of mediocrity, perhaps it’s time to look  to a 3^rd Party candidate. May I suggest either the Libertarian or Constitution Parties? You may find a candidate you don’t have to hold your nose to vote for.

 /sec

While reading news and commentary in the wild today, I came across an AP article posted on the MSNBC web site, titled “To boost economy, Americans want out of Iraq” with the subtitle:
“Stimulus checks welcome, but AP poll reveals desire to cut war spending.” I have to admit I’d like to see our forces out of Iraq, but for different reasons. Not that I don’t think we need serious budget cuts to preclude economic disaster.

Simply withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan would save the US approximately $190 billion per year. That sum will not provide a long-term solution for our critically damaged economy. Even with $190 billion cut from this year’s budget, our national debt will be increased by approximately $620 billion. Added to the $9+ trillion dollar national debt and you begin to understand that we the people may soon find ourselves in bread lines.

The flaw with spending cuts in one program, in this case, defense, is that our elected representatives tend to view any money “saved” as available to fund their pet projects. I’m sure that you’ve heard the old adage “robbing Peter to pay Paul.”

To make any budget cuts even the least bit effective in reviving our economy and the flagging dollar, those cuts must be permanent — not merely shifted from one spending project to another. Lawmakers must understand that their lack of fiscal discipline is directly responsible for our $9+ trillion national debt. If not for that debt, the personal income tax burden could be lifted off the backs of the American working class. And by the way, the “Fair Tax” only shifts money from one revenue stream to another without producing any real reduction in the size of government.

The article also presented that 56 percent of those surveyed blame mortgage lenders for our economic woes. 44 percent of those surveyed blamed the President. Some blamed Congress, Wall Street, consumers themselves and last but not least, the Federal Reserve. If that doesn’t convince you that the majority of Americans do not understand simple economics, I’ll explain.

Mortgage lenders are not to blame for the economic debacle unfolding before our eyes. Those mortgage lenders did what the American legal system not only allowed, but encouraged them to do. I disagree with the criteria used to determine loan worthiness, but they broke no laws.

While the President can surely veto legislation, his impact on the economy is in reality limited to use of the bully pulpit. This President has demonstrated again and again that he does not object to spending tax payer dollars. It’s difficult to effectively use the bully pulpit when you don’t lead by example.

Congress is where laws and regulations originate. It is here where most feel-good legislation starts without regard to unintended consequences. The Federal Reserve System originated here with a single Bill.

That brings me to the Federal Reserve. According to the survey, 55 percent of Americans polled expressed “a great deal or some confidence in the Fed to turn things around.” Without the help of the Federal Reserve, mortgage lenders and credit lenders would not have been able to advance consumers the credit necessary to buy homes and goods. The Fed did so by cranking up the printing press. The problem with a fiat monetary system is that with nothing to back the currency, its value is diluted with each new note printed.

Last but certainly not least, the American consumer. The average American is driven to keep up with Jones’. The plug-in-drug provides not only visual images to drive the desire to purchase, it also advertises a list of those willing to advance the credit necessary to allow one to live out any dream.

Since our government doesn’t understand economic theory, it believes that the way to salvage our flagging economy is to provide an economic stimulus package with the intent that the recipients of said stimulus package will head out to the mall to spend the government’s generous offerings. The package is currently estimated at $168 billion dollars. Those dollars will be borrowed, leaving the taxpayer to pay back the sum – with interest. Our government hard at work for us!

What do I suggest? Cash the check and go pay off a bill or two. It may not seem satisfying at the time, but it’ll mean extra money in your pocket in the coming months.

Until next time,
/sec

John McCain is the physical embodiment of many of the reasons I parted company with the Republican Party more than 4 years ago. His disregard for the Constitution ranks high on my list of reasons why I could never vote for John McCain. People who think that the Constitution is “nothing but a Goddamned piece of paper” are not fit to visit the Oval Office, let alone reside in the White House.

As Heather in Wisconsin so eloquently stated: “the Republican Party was founded on the conservative political philosophy derived from the principle that individuals are endowed not by the government, but by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights…” For those unfamiliar with conservative political philosophy, here is a foundation for understanding, taken from the Virginia Republican creed:

That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice
 

That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society
 

That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government
 

That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing constitutional limitations 
 

That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense
 

That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers, is essential to the moral fiber of the Nation

Does John McCain espouse any of these Republican core beliefs? Let’s take a look at how the Senator stands up when compared to the Virginia Republican creed.

He has undermined the principles of the free enterprise system by voting for an amendment that would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement price controls on prescription drugs under Medicare. He has fought the Republican Party to create the Patient’s Bill of Rights, which allowed the government to impose a set of burdensome mandates on insurance coverage. Further, he has worked against the principles of the Republican Party, promoting greatly expanding federal regulatory authority in order to combat global warming in ways that would greatly burden the American economy, contrary to free market forces.

His support for a 282% tax increase on cigarettes would have increased the size of the federal bureaucracy by mandating FDA control over nicotine. An innovator in the ways of spending other peoples’ money (aka our tax dollars), Senator McCain voted to appropriate taxpayer dollars to harvest stem cells from human embryos. 

His actions on behalf of Keating establish that equal rights, justice and opportunity are zealously supported for those who fill the Senator’s campaign coffers. I think it may have been this escapade that McCain first established himself as one who would reach across the aisle to work with Democrats. After all, he was the only Republican in the “Keating 5.” I don’t think we need that type of bipartisan activity!

As a long-time member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Senator McCain’s globalist views on the use of military force to maintain dollar hegemony makes a mockery of the Republican core belief that peace is best preserved through a strong national defense. The Senator likes the idea of American troops garrisoned in foreign countries. Not only has Senator McCain said that he’s in favor of keeping troops stationed in Iraq for 100 years, he’s told us “I’m sorry to tell you, there’s going to be other wars. We will never surrender, but there will be other wars.” How many countries will we invade under a McCain Presidency?

Part and parcel of faith in God recognizes the sanctity of all life, born and unborn. Senator McCain has refused to take immediate and direct action to protect the life of the unborn. He opposes the repeal of Roe v. Wade. And, as previously stated, Senator McCain voted to appropriate taxpayer dollars to harvest stem cells from human embryos. Further, Senator McCain was a professed Episcopalian. Over the course of the last year, he’s become John (McCain) the Baptist because it was an expedient way to patronize southern voters. Is there no depth to which this man will not slide?

Until next time,
/sec

The Hill speculates that Romney will withdraw from the race, possibly after meeting with his congressional supporters today. Some would argue that he should bow out now for the sake of party unity. I couldn’t disagree more. There is no party unity at this point, and I seriously doubt John McCain could ever bring that unity.

The vast majority of conservatives stayed home from the polls this primary season. The low number of Republican voters is indicative of conservative dissatisfaction with the choices presented to them on the ballot. While one might understand a lack of enthusiasm, conservative apathy will lead to disastrous results for the Republican Party.

His message of the day is one of a reincarnated Ronald Reagan. His years in the Senate belie that facade. He mulled John Kerry’s offer of a vice Presidency. He was very close to abandoning the GOP in 2001. Does that sound like Ronald Reagan? John McCain is a Republican in name only (RINO).

The mainstream media currently exhibits a love fest for Sen. McCain. All coverage paints the picture of a decorated war hero. I’ve seen unflattering stories detailing alleged misdeeds. Those rumors, if true, should have surfaced many years ago. They have no place in the here and now. I have no problem with giving the man respect for his military service and his years as a prisoner of war.

I do wonder why the corporate propagandists mainstream media seem to have forgotten all about the only Republican senator once known as a member of the “Keating 5.” When caught in an impropriety, four Democrats and One Republican contested the Senate Ethics Committee’s authority to discipline them for their actions on behalf of Charles Keating. Keating was the owner of a failing Savings and Loan – and a large political contributor to each of the five Senators.

John McCain is one of many politicians who have forgotten that public servants must at all times remain above reproach. The appearance of impropriety leads to a general distrust of all elected representatives.

A McCain nomination would spur the press to dredge up all of McCain’s negatives that seem to have been conveniently forgotten – negatives remembered all too well by conservatives.

The prospect of a brokered convention is the one thing that can change the role of “Designated Loser” for the Republican candidate this November. For that reason, I urge Mitt Romney to fight on.

/sec

Collectivist thought surrounding elections is that once a candidate is thought to emerge the frontrunner, everyone should line up in support of that candidate. What happens when the newly crowned frontrunner is fundamentally flawed? Whether you want to admit it or not, that’s how we wound up with George W. Bush. He emerged the frontrunner after the 2000 South Carolina primary (sound familiar?). The rest of that story is now history. Why then, are Republicans so eager to commit the same mistake again?

At a time when most people say they want change, the Republican Party is on the verge of anointing an heir apparent to the Bush legacy. Do they really want 4 more years of mediocrity? Or is it possible that people just want to reach an end of the primary campaign, no matter the result?

One of my coworkers was concerned because the New Hampshire primary election did not produce a clear frontrunner. Now, here we are a month later, heading into Super-Duper Tuesday, and the guy who assumes he’ll get the nomination is already overflowing with endorsements and is boasting that he can win in November.

It seems that a lot of people believe that this fellow deserves their votes simply because he is said to relish “poking a finger in the eye of conservatives.” And why shouldn’t they think that? The mainstream media has been telling them that is the case for quite some time now. But does that qualify him to claim conservative credentials and to pick up the mantle of a re-incarnated Ronald Reagan? I don’t think so.

Again today, the mainstream media is telling us that since the Senator from Arizona has emerged as the party’s frontrunner, conservatives are giving him another look. Perhaps some will be tempted to hold their noses and vote for him. Sometimes people are tempted to surrender their ideals because they perceive a tidal flow in a different direction. But you do get what you pay for. In this case, it’s tainted meat.

Sen. McCain did not support the Bush tax cuts, because he said the tax cuts benefited wealthy Americans. Well, it is true that an across the board tax cut does mean that people who pay taxes will benefit more than those who do not pay taxes. That doesn’t mean they’re getting something for nothing. It simply means that Uncle Sam doesn’t steal quite as much of their wealth. Now, the Senator claims that he’s always said the reason he didn’t support tax relief was that it wasn’t accompanied by spending cuts. How Reagan like. Is it that he can’t remember, or simply can’t tell the truth?

The Senator said he wasn’t well versed in economics, but when asked about the comment, 12 minutes later, claimed that he was misquoted. Yes, live video coverage has a tendency to misquote politicians. However, the Senator has a demonstrated lack of understanding of economics.

With regard to the invasion of Iraq, the Senator demonstrated typical neocon hubris by proclaiming that the combat operations would be easy and result in an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time. But last month, appearing on CNN, he claimed that “the American people were led to believe that this would be some kind of day at the beach, which many of us fully understood from the beginning would be a very, very difficult undertaking.” Considering that he was one of the people leading the American people to believe in the day at the beach scenario, once can only wonder what he’ll dream of for any “pre-emptive wars” he would initiate, if given the opportunity.

Do we really want our troops in Iraq for 100 years, as suggested by Senator McCain? Can we continue to project force in 130 countries? One of the fundamental questions that must be asked is the role of the U.S. military. Will we continue to be the policeman of the world, building an empire based solely on military prowess? If that is indeed to be our destiny, how will it be funded?

Working with the lush from Massachusetts, Senator McCain tried to unleash amnesty for illegal immigrants “undocumented workers.” He now claims that he was unhappy with the bill that he helped author! The dirty little secret of the “shamnesty bill” is that businesses were the sole beneficiaries. Importing workers who willingly accept less money without benefits clearly does not benefit the American workforce. In fact, the many social services provided free to illegal immigrants encourages a constant flow of “undocumented workers” into the United States. And those social services, such as free medical care, free schools and welfare are paid for by U.S. taxpayers, thanks to people like Senator McCain.

The other downside of the illegal immigration issue is that we are losing our national sovereignty. The current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue does not care about that, and neither does Senator McCain. Hell, he doesn’t even have the integrity to tell the American people that he not only knows about the soon-to-be North American Union, he embraces it. And yet collectivists seem now, as lemmings, eager to join together to support John McCain.

Senator McCain seems to have difficulty remembering his positions from day to day. Here’s a video, aptly titled “John McCain vs. John McCain.” This is particularly telling video record of the real John McCain.

Here’s how a few of the more famous names in conservative media have weighed in.

Rush Limbaugh says that a McCain nomination will destroy the Republican Party.

Ann Coulter says that if the general election is between Senators McCain and Clinton, she’ll actively campaign, and vote for the Senator from New York, because Hillary is more of a conservative than McCain.

Sean Hannity says that McCain is not a conservative, but he could never vote for a Democrat.

So where does that leave us?

I don’t think that a RINO (Republican In Name Only) like John McCain can win a general election against a real liberal. He’s too much like them. Why choose a cheap copy when you can have an original?

First and foremost, don’t fall into the trap of doing a thing just because everyone else appears to be doing it. Collectivism is never a good thing, and even worse when mixed with politics.

My best advice is the same that I’ve given all along. Look beyond the rhetoric, the sound bites and look at the real issues confronting us today. Examine each candidate’s position and verify those words with their voting records. Make an informed decision, and then cast your ballot.

 /sec

Has anyone else wondered why we have a Department of Homeland Security? I always thought the Department of Defense was responsible for defending the country and keeping our Republic (note, I did NOT say Democracy!) safe. So why then do we have a Department of Homeland Security?

I read a piece on the MSNBC web site this morning that just rekindled that Homeland Security vs. DoD debate within me. The article, titled “Report: Military not ready for WMD strike.” Now, I’m not a professional analyst of all things defense related, but I have some questions regarding the premise that the military isn’t ready to defend the country.

The U.S. military is made up of almost all elements of our society. (Yes, I said almost. You figure it out.) They swear an oath (shorthand version here) to defend the Constitution and the country, against all enemies – foreign and domestic. They fulfill that oath on a daily basis, much to the chagrin of those who malign and mistreat them. Our men and women in uniform are among the very best of us.

But my question is this: if we have a Department of Homeland Security that makes us safe at home, why do people print stories detailing the ways our military is not ready to defend against WMD attacks on American soil? I have an answer to my own question, but it’s not politically correct.

Maybe if we didn’t have troops stationed in 130 countries around the world – the vast majority of whom are not engaged in any combat operations – we wouldn’t need a Department of Homeland Security. Maybe then, the Department of Defense could get back in the business of defending our Republic.

Just a thought…
/sec

To date, my counsel has been that each person eligible to vote looks beyond the rhetoric and examine the real issues confronting us. Once you have a grasp of the issues, study each candidate’s position and examine each candidate’s record. However, some of my friends and colleagues asked me why I support Ron Paul. I thought it was time I laid out a few of my reasons for all to see. Please note that I do not agree with Dr. Paul on everything… there is no personality worship involved. Whether you agree with my reasons or not, is strictly up to you.

From my perspective, the single greatest issue of our time is irresponsible government spending. Our national debt currently stands at $9.5 trillion. The federal government’s spending habits add roughly another $800 billion per year to the debt, excluding interest charges. The total liabilities and unfunded commitments of the US government between 2000 and 2005 have gone from $20.4 trillion to $46.4 trillion, and that number is growing with each passing year. Unfunded commitments are measured as the promises the government has made versus the amount of revenue collected from payroll taxes and premiums from Medicare. In case you are having trouble understanding the numbers, a trillion is 1 with twelve zeroes behind it. Written out, it looks like 1,000,000,000,000. In very real terms, the unfunded liabilities equate to $156,000 for every man, woman and child currently in the United States. The share per full-time worker is $375,000. If you have any doubt about these numbers, I urge you to check them out for yourself. As I’ve said before, the greatest threat to our country is not from a lunatic in a cave in Afghanistan. Here are Dr. Paul’s policies on Social Security and health care.

Next on my list of issues, in order of importance comes freedom and liberty. Ron Paul is an outspoken defender of the Constitution, and the freedom and liberty it guarantees for each American. Due to the length of the list, I’m only going to post three of the most significant restrictions on our freedom and liberty. The two remaining items on the list below are proposals to assist our elected representatives in making informed decisions, prior to voting (what a concept!).

·         Much has been written about Public Law: 107-56, aka: the Patriot Act. Regardless of what our legislators say, that law restricts some freedoms and liberties and reduces the amount of privacy Americans can reasonably expect.

·         Public Law: 109–13, aka: The Real ID Act is another of my major concerns. Rep Paul is the only candidate who opposes the Real ID Act. Here’s his explanation: “The Real ID Act imposes tremendous costs on state governments, yet any state that opts out will automatically make nonpersons out of its citizens. The citizens of that state will be unable to have any dealings with the federal government because their ID will not be accepted. They will not be able to fly or to take a train. In essence, in the eyes of the federal government, they will cease to exist. However, the most objectionable feature of the Real ID Act is that it turns state driver’s licenses into de facto national ID cards, thus facilitating the massive invasion of an American’s privacy, facilitating the growth of the surveillance state, and turning America into the type of country where citizens must always have their ‘papers in order.’”

·         My next legislative concern is H.R. 1955/S.1959, aka: The Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007. The House Bill passed under what is called the “Suspension of the Rules”, which is a provision the House uses to pass bills very quickly and these are usually bills deemed uncontroversial and do not need more debate. House members were given less than 2 hours to review and vote on this 22 page document (my rep says it was 30 minutes). Although this Bill was passed by the House on a vote of 404 to 6, no action to date has been taken in the Senate. I recommend that everyone read the text of this proposed law. If you don’t feel like reading the text, here’s a video describing why it is bad legislation. It’s not too late to stop this Bill from becoming law. Please contact your Senator and voice your objection today.

·         H.R. 1359 is a proposal that would, if enacted, require Congress to specify the source of authority under the United States Constitution for the enactment of laws. This Bill was introduced to the House on March 6^th, 2007. It’s time to bring this proposed legislation to a vote!

·         There is a proposed Bill that would, if passed, force both houses of Congress to read each word of each Bill, and any/all amendments, in open session not less than seven days prior to a vote. Don’t you agree that it’s time our elected representatives knew what they were voting on?

I support a strong defense. That does not mean that I think stationing troops in another country for the next 100 years is a good idea. Indeed, there are some cases where the presence of our troops has been counter-productive. Our defense must be strong enough to deter any potential enemy. In 1965, Defense spending accounted for 43% of the total federal budget. In 2005, Defense spending accounted for only 20%. Within the next 40 years, there will be no money left to support either the Departments of Defense or Homeland Security. Dr. Paul’s position on defense and foreign policy can be found here.

The undeclared war in Iraq is a contentious issue, no matter who does the talking. Congress, for all its bellicose rhetoric, essentially abrogated its responsibility as defined by the Constitution by giving the President carte blanche to do as he saw fit with Iraq. So, there seems to be two courses of action: stay the course or withdraw.  Can we or should we immediately withdraw our troops from Iraq? The answer to the first question is yes, we can.  The answer to the second question is a bit harder. I disagree with Rep Paul on this issue. We owe the Iraqi people a bit more time to own up to the responsibility of governing their country. Their inability to govern effectively is understandable at this point.  I also don’t agree with Gov Huckabee, Gov Romney, Sen. McCain and Mayor Giuliani I certainly don’t agree with Sen. Clinton’s flip-flops on the matter of Iraq. Sen. Obama also misses the mark when he says we should have invaded Pakistan rather than Iraq. If we leave troops in Iraq, it should be for a prescribed period of time, with a clearly defined objective, including an exit strategy, but excluding combat operations. My hope is that the next time (yes, there will be a next time) Congress fulfills their Constitutional duty and votes on a Declaration of War.

I support meaningful tax reform, including elimination of personal income taxes. I’m not a tax protester. I pay my taxes and file both state and federal tax returns every year. That said, I find it immoral for the government to tax the trading of my skill set to my employer in exchange for a modest monetary reward. My labor amounts to an even exchange, or barter, and should be exempted from taxation. All monies earned should belong to the employee. Given the fact that we have a huge national debt and monumental unfunded liabilities, my desire to eliminate personal income taxes may never be possible. Taxation on our savings encourages consumption rather than savings. Dr. Paul’s policies on taxation can be found here.

These are some of the more important issues as I see them. I think Rep Ron Paul is the best candidate to tackle each of these issues. He is honest and has a voting record that proves he doesn’t just talk the talk. However, he can’t do it all by himself. What is needed is an informed electorate that will demand more from public servants. Do your part: think before you vote.

Let freedom ring!
/sec

It should come as no surprise to anyone whose head has not been buried in the sand lately that the number of home foreclosures continues to climb. The San Francisco Chronicle ran a piece yesterday detailing the devastation of the California housing market. In the Oct – Nov timeframe, lenders repossessed 31,676 homes — a 421.2% increase over the same period last year.

That doesn’t bode well for those homeowners who have played by the book and made their payments on time. They’ve see the average value of homes in California drop from $484,000 to $402,000 over the course of the year.

Of course the price of a home was driven up due to loose lending standards and low interest rates, driven by the greed of financial institutions. Coupled with that, real estate agents want ever-increasing commissions. States and counties want ever-increasing tax revenues. Home buyers see a home first as an investment, and then it becomes nothing more than an ATM machine. They use the perceived increase in the value of their homes to borrow more and more money from banks and mortgage companies. Many lose their homes because they didn’t wake up until it was too late.

Sound monetary policy would have kept homes within an affordable price range, as it had during the first 2/3 of the last century. Unfortunately, we live in a world where “honest money” was hijacked by greedy bankers. That hijacking was made possible by the elected “representatives” of we the people.

There are far more serious issues today than which candidate has better hair, or the gender, race, or religion of the next President. Do the research. Learn each candidate’s position on the substantive issues facing our nation. Examine each candidate’s record to see if the words match the deeds. It’s time to stop electing people who do not represent us and the best interests of our cities, counties, states and our nation.

Let freedom ring!
/sec

The 1^st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees freedom of speech. It doesn’t specify you’re free to speak your mind only if your thoughts are in harmony with everyone else on the planet. There are no hidden phrases in the 1^st Amendment that stipulate that a person speaking or writing must not offend me.

Take the case of Dana Jacobson, an ESPN anchor, and her drunken profane rant at a celebrity roast in Atlantic City. Reportedly, she disparaged not only Notre Dame, but Jesus Christ as well. After receiving complaints about her drunken antics, she issued a statement in which she called her choice of words “foolish and insensitive.”

Bill Donohue of the Catholic League found her statement unsatisfactory and said her drunken tirade amounted to hate speech and lamented ESPN’s lack of action. He then went on to compare her language to that of Mel Gibson’s tirade on Jews.

Ok, let me just say that I agree with Dana’s statement. Her choice of words was indeed foolish and insensitive. But her words did not threaten anyone… they did not convey the intent to commit violence. Still, she’s proven that she’s an idiot, and every time I see her on TV from now on, I’ll think “there’s that stupid lush” and probably mute the volume.

People say stupid things. People under the influence of substances say outrageously stupid things. Describing Ms. Jacobson’s words as “hate speech” and attempting to have her fired will not change her mind. It may make her think a second or two before saying similar words in public, but it will not change the way she truly feels. That change must come from within her.

In this country, the 1^st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech does not also convey a right to be taken seriously. This is not Pakistan. We don’t stone people to death for insulting a religious figure

Hey Dana Jacobson… you’re an idiot!

Life goes on…

/sec

This isn’t the first time – and won’t be the last – that I’ve misread the tea leaves.

The late start and a lackluster performance on the campaign trail made me think that Fred Thompson was playing his part for a John McCain nomination. By taking conservative votes away from Mike Huckabee, Thompson was definitely helping John McCain. While debating, Thompson had no problem attacking other candidates, but pulled punches when they could have been construed as heading McCain’s way.

I was reasonably sure that Fred Thompson would stay in the race through Super Tuesday, and then throw his support to McCain, but he pulled out of the race today. The timing may have something to do with the Huckabee campaign’s financial difficulties.

It remains to be seen whether Thompson will ask his supporters to give their votes to John McCain. Maybe the tea leaves just missed the date…

/sec

A large part of the problem with our economy stems from unbridled spending by our elected officials. The Congress and the President have continually demonstrated a complete lack of fiscal responsibility and economic leadership. And now they want to spend another $150+ billion to provide a stimulus package for our ailing economy. Isn’t that kind of like offering a binge drinker another drink after a week of partying?

The only economic stimulus we need is a sound monetary policy, an asset-backed currency that isn’t relentlessly inflated, resulting in a measured loss of individual wealth, and immediate and permanent tax relief.

/sec

The part of the speech that really caught my attention began with “I have a dream.” I was 9 years old when Dr. King delivered that speech via our small black & white television set. As I listened to Dr. King’s words, I remember thinking it odd that he felt it necessary to talk about a dream of a future where blacks and whites and others coexisted harmoniously as equals. After all, in school, just a few days before, we discussed the Declaration of Independence, the Preamble of which states “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The tenderness of my years had not exposed me to the “real world” where people were judged on the color of their skin rather than by the content of their character. My naïveté was largely due to my Dad’s telling me that a man’s skin color didn’t tell you anything about a man, a concept he still holds true. My purpose is not to speak of my age, or my upbringing.

My purpose is to speak of where we are today, as a people and what lies ahead. Yes, things are much improved since Dr. King delivered those famous words while standing on the steps of the Lincoln memorial. But we still don’t live in an America where all people coexist as Dr. King envisioned. Sadly, there is still much more to do.

The task ahead won’t be accomplished with federal programs and legislation. It won’t be delivered by court rulings. We have yet to fully embrace the concepts of freedom and individual and civil liberties that each of us inherits directly from our Creator. Understanding the concepts of freedom and liberty is vital to breaking free of collectivist thought and deed. The required effort must come from within each individual. Treating others as we would like to be treated is not just a Christian principle… it is a moral principle.

As we celebrate the holiday honoring Dr. Marin Luther King Jr., let’s remember that although we may not have the same skin color or the same ethnic or religious background, we are similar in many ways. We all have hopes and dreams of a better world for our children and grandchildren. Take a few moments to reflect on the life of this great man and the truths he held dear to his heart. He did not die in vain. His name is remembered. His life is still celebrated. His voice is still heard. His message is still calling us to make his dream come true.

“Let freedom ring!”
/sec

There’s a distinct possibility that I may be seen as ranting on this subject, but I’m of the opinion that it’s the real major issue of our time. We are being deluged by campaign promises. Our national debt exceeds $9.5 trillion dollars. The national debt has grown without pause, my entire life. There is only one reason that number continues to climb by the second: our elected representatives will not take their responsibilities as good steward with any degree of seriousness.

The major issue of this generation, and future generations is the end of financial slavery. The end of our bondage will not come about if we continue to elect fools who promise more free (you pick a topic). Even if we were to “tax the rich” until all of the wealthiest citizens fled the country or were living in abject poverty, this country could not meet the financial obligations promised by current and past politicians.

Last Thursday, Reuters ran an article proclaiming that Moody’s Investment Service warned that unless something is immediately done about our health and social security entitlements, the government bond rating of the United States of America would be reduced below triple-A for the first time since 1917.

On Monday, Pat Buchanan posted an article titled “Subprime Nation.” He rightly points out that, with the exception of Rep Ron Paul, the Republican Party seeks to expand the use of the US military to maintain our many world-wide commitments. Even more frightening, the Democrat party continues to promise ever more entitlements that we already can’t afford.

In my opinion, both parties need to stop finding ways to spend our children’s inheritance into oblivion and start paying attention to the very real possibility that we could very well be facing an economic meltdown that may well make the depression of 1929 look like a walk in the park.

Before heading to the polls, pay attention to the real issues of our time. Get to know each candidate’s position. Check each candidate’s voting record. Make an informed decision. Put your faith in God, not in the empty promises of pandering politicians.

Let freedom ring!
/sec

One caucus and three primaries down and as my keyboard is clicking, another primary is winding down. To date, has any candidate proven to us a full understanding of the issues confronting America today? Has any candidate revealed a developed strategy for dealing with those issues? By now, you know that I support Ron Paul, but I’d like to take a few moments to address some of the burning issues of the day, as I see them.

Many people feel that health care is the single greatest problem we face. I have to agree that health care is a growing problem for many of my fellow citizens. Many of us are old enough to remember when health care was provided by the family doctor, not a corporate structure intent on ever-increasing profits. Most people tend to forget that it was our government, during the Nixon Presidency which forced HMOs upon us. Turning the last vestiges of our health care system over to government bureaucracy is not the right answer. David Walker, head of the General Accounting Office has warned us of the coming economic disaster with the current “entitlement system.”  The only way to pay for our current system is we either dramatically increase tax revenue, or we make serious cuts in federal programs. Adding universal health care to the current system is a recipe for the complete collapse of our economy.

Some people live in near constant fear of another terrorist attack on our soil. They are content to watch our individual rights and liberties taken from us, one piece at a time, in the interest of security. Be very careful what you ask for. My favorite quote for this is attributed to at least four people. It goes like this: “He who gives up liberty in exchange for security is deserving of neither.” And remember, it’s not just about the effect on current, but also future generations.

Lower income families living from paycheck to paycheck are seeing a decline in their ability to maintain a basic standard of living. With every inflation of the currency, those living on a fixed income see their nest egg visibly shrinking. It may be true that businesses love it when the Federal Reserve (a non-Federal agency) reduces the interest rate and floods new money into the financial system, but the effects on the value of monies already in circulation hurts the common man. The inflation of our currency must stop. And why does the federal government tax tips earned by service industry employees? They tax workers on what the government estimates earnings to be – whether or not that amount is actually made. Anywhere outside the government, that would be called theft.

Our military, stretched to its limits with personnel in some 130 countries around the world, is engaged in daily combat operations in two countries. And there is a concerted effort underway to develop the rationale for neutralizing the threat posed by Iran. I realize that there are valid circumstances where military force is necessary and appropriate. However, if for other than defensive purposes, a formal Declaration of War is needed to ensure that we the people are prepared to win at all costs and disengage our troops at the earliest convenience. If we win, every member of Congress can take a bow. If we lose, every member of Congress can accept responsibility. Why do we have a Congress intent on transferring ever more power to the Executive Branch? The Presidency was never designed to reign over an empire.

Some worry that our foreign policy is financially unsustainable and morally bankrupt. On the one hand, we use money and an arms trade to prop up despotic governments while on the other, we provide weaponry and logistical support to “freedom fighters.” We have not yet learned the lessons of unintended consequences. I pray that we learn this lesson before it’s too late.

Still others worry that the market is about to collapse. Who can say what stock market will do. I’m more concerned with that $9.5 trillion debt and its impact on my children and grandchildren! It’s money and the financial mechanisms we have to fear, far more than a maniac in a cave in Afghanistan.

Add to the list above a general distrust of elected officials and their promises, and you may get the idea that the problems we face are overwhelming and there is no way to change our impending doom.

But I’m an optimist! I still live in the greatest country in the world. Yet even optimists have concerns.  However short, there is yet time to save our country for our Posterity. We are faced with some hard choices to solve the many problems that are facing us today. Those we choose to represent us in government are either part of the problem, or part of the solution. Examine each candidate with due diligence. Once you know each candidate’s positions, head to the polls and make your choice.

Until next time,
/sec

It’s starting again. I’m seeing “news” stories claiming that Sen. Barak Obama is a closet Muslim. This, to me, is the epitome of “going negative.”

First and foremost: Sen. Obama says he is a committed Christian — and I believe him. However, I wouldn’t care if he was a practicing Muslim. This country was founded by people escaping religious persecution wanting a homeland in which they could practice religion as they saw fit. We’ve had elected officials and citizens of different religions. Religious freedom is still protected by the Constitution. So why is religion an “issue” now?

We the people believe that faith is a matter between each individual and God. So why is it that some of us appear upset over a story about a candidate who might possibly have attended a mosque a few times with his “Muslim stepfather?”

And another thing… why is it that all of the other candidates had “childhood” friends, but Barak Obama had “boyhood” friends?  Not that there is anything wrong with the word “boyhood,” it just sounds a little suspect when the only recipient of the description is a person of color.

While I’m on the topic of religion, Mitt Romney’s religion is mocked (“Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are brothers”) by another candidate and not much attention is raised over that very personal attack. I’ve also heard complaints about Rudy Giuliani’s practice of his chosen religion (or seeming lack of). What does any of this have to do with our political process?

This is America, not Iran or Pakistan. We don’t have religious litmus tests for prospective elected officials. Read the Constitution and try to understand the principles which guided our founding fathers at the birth of this great nation. Cast your ballot based on the candidate’s merit, not political party, religion or what you heard a reporter say. It’s up to each one of us to ensure that we elect officials that will actually represent us.

Let Freedom ring!
/sec

While I was out and about the ether, I happened upon this blog post. It seems that the Daily Kos is urging Michigan Democrats to vote for Romney, a Republican. The author of Blogs 4 Conservatives poses that Republicans should abandon Romney to offset the Democrat party’s attempt at keeping Mitt in the race as a “spoiler.”

It seems that only Hillary Clinton is on the Michigan Democrat ballot. That’s probably enough reason to urge people to vote for a member of the other party

I’m going to have to put my $.02 in the circle on this one.

The blogger feels that Mitt Romney is not a viable candidate and is therefore  undeserving of Republican voter support. I maintain that the primary election process is to contrast differences in candidates within a party. There is ample time to campaign against the other party between the conventions and the general election.

The mainstream media started telling us who was a viable candidate long before the first person announced the intention to run. Rush Limbaugh has gone on the record as saying that Mike Huckabee and John McCain are not conservatives. Sean Hannity once again proved his ignorance by labeling Ron Paul as a Democrat!

If, as the author of Blogs 4 Conservatives says, Romney should be abandoned and Rudy Giuliani is sinking in Florida, that leaves Huckabee and McCain as the only viable (i.e.: not eliminated by “conservative” talk radio propaganda) Republican candidates. If true, I wonder if Rush Limbaugh will once again retain the role of official water carrier in the upcoming general election.

To date, there has been one caucus and one primary election. I strongly disagree with anyone who claims that we need to eliminate candidates at this point. The primary process allows us the time to take a closer look at each of the people who would be President of the United States. Each candidate is deserving of a long hard look before the rest of us head to the polls.

Let freedom ring!
/sec

What is it about politics that makes people think a discussion about a candidate’s record is “going negative?” Take for example actor-Senator-actor Fred and the Reverend-Governor Mike. Neither candidate is substantially different than the other on topics such as the role of the military, foreign policy, social issues or taxation. Fred talks about Mike’s record and he’s accused of “going negative.” Mike fires back – and throws in a barb about Fred’s intestinal tract needing a little help, in the form of Metamucil. The mainstream media frame Fred’s commentary on Mike as negative. The same media characterizes Mike’s criticism of Fred as good natured humor. Neither is what I’d consider “going negative.”

The former First Lady turned Senator and her current enemies, Senators Barak Obama and John Edwards are every bit as eager to use descriptive language when talking about each other. The candidates’ positions are not that different, with one noted exception. Hillary and John originally supported the unconstitutional transfer of power to the Executive Branch, and then later claimed they only voted the way they did because they were lied to. Barak opposed that aggressive military action, but would have instead used that power to invade Pakistan rather than Iraq.

My point is that candidates draw contrasts between themselves and their opponents by comparing records and positions. That is not in and of itself “going negative.” Pointing out the flaws in another’s position is healthy dialog. Many years ago, I was taught that it was appropriate to attack an argument (the idea or position), not the person. I haven’t heard any candidates discussing the marital fidelity, rumored sexual preference, criminal activity and such. That’s what I call “going negative.”

The purpose of primary elections is to draw distinctions between candidates of the same party, not the other party. The relative strength or weakness of a candidate’s record and position on significant issues will ultimately manifest itself in the form of votes. It is important that the best candidate in each party is the one selected.

Once you see that there are differences, I strongly encourage you to do the type of homework I’ve repeatedly described in missives past. Listen to the rhetoric, closely examine the pro and con of each issue – and each candidate’s position, then research each candidate’s record. We’re all busy in this work-a-day world and there really isn’t a lot of time to listen to talking heads telling you their interpretation of what somebody else said. So, power down the “plug-in-drug” and do your homework. Make an informed decision before going to your polling place.

Let freedom ring!

/sec

I’ve been thinking of what to write about this since Christmas day, when the AP ran a story about a community that wants to allow its senior citizens to work to pay taxes.

I can’t describe the anger I felt as I read this story!

There is something fundamentally wrong with a state and community taxing its citizens to the extent that it is no longer possible to pass the family home from generation to generation. When governments at all levels have collected an amount in taxes that exceeds the original selling price of a home, it’s time to say enough is enough.

But to whom do we the people turn for relief from an oppressive government?  George Washington is long dead. Thomas Paine would roll over in his grave at hearing of the losses of liberty and high rates of taxation the citizens of this great country suffer at the hands of our own elected government.

The story begins by describing the plight of Audrey Davison. Living alone, needing a walker to get around and drawing a Social Security pension of $620 per month, she was forced to take out a reverse mortgage to make ends meet. She’s resided in the same 4–bedroom home for the past 43 years. This years’ tax take by the state of New York and the city of Greenburgh amounts to $12,000.00.

The city’s proposed plan would pay seniors $7 an hour and give them the opportunity to work off up to $2000.00 per year in taxes. There are a few problems with this proposal.

The earned wages would have to be tax-free and directly credited to the properly tax bill. That would require state legislature approval. Hmm… I wonder how Uncle Sam would feel about someone receiving an un-taxed trade of their services rendered to an inferior governmental agency.

Another sticking point is that city, county and state agencies would have to convince unions that the seniors’ work program represents no threat to union members’ job security.

A fellow by the name of Scott Parkin is the spokesman for the National Council on Aging. In his opinion, this work to pay taxes program is alright as long as it’s not menial labor. Ha!

It’s time to elect people who take the responsibility of representing their fellow citizens seriously. Study the issues, study each candidate’s position and compare the rhetoric with the record. The time has come to take back our government.

Let freedom ring!

/sec

I just finished reading a story titled CIA official wants immunity to testify. The man at the center of the story is Jose Rodriguez. This fine servant of the public trust (NOT!) has an exceptionally large set of cojones. There is an ongoing criminal investigation into the destruction of CIA “interrogation” tapes. Mr. Rodriguez is the person who ordered the destruction of the tapes, and here he is demanding immunity before agreeing to testify before Congress!

By now, Congress knows that when they grant immunity from prosecution, in exchange for testimony, we the people get far less justice than we pay for. Generally speaking, Congress holds this type of hearings for self-aggrandizement.

Congress should leave the investigation – and all testimony – to the special prosecutor and the courts.

/sec

A CBS News report from Joy Lin revealed that Rev Mike evidently spent a little time listening, as well as talking, at the earlier Republican debates – before Dr. Paul was excluded. He has learned to recite a few sound bites of Ron Paul’s fluent articulation of monetary policy and economics. Unfortunately, Rev Mike hasn’t learned the underlying principles behind the words he can now recite from memory.

Read the story and then watch this short video and you’ll see what I mean.

/sec

Have you noticed that the buzz word of this presidential campaign season is “change?” Not only are candidates promising change, their records are being changed before our very eyes!

Not all change is either welcome or needed. Take for instance socialized medical care.

On the surface, socialized medical care sounds like the compassionate thing to do. We all sympathize with the guy who fell and broke his hip and can’t afford the needed surgery. Many of us know or have heard of someone affected by breast cancer and the expensive treatments needed to prevent recurrence.

Will socialized medical care actually help these people? Perhaps the first wave of patients seeking medical care under the system will be helped. However, once the cost becomes more than the government can withstand, healthcare will no longer be free.

How can that be you ask? Simple mathematics will tell you that our current national debt stands at roughly $9.5 trillion. Last year Uncle Sam extracted $1.6 trillion of Americans’ personal wealth in the form of personal income taxes. That sum of money was used to service the interest payments on the national debt. Where will the money for “free” health care come from?

In 1971, Alvin Lee and his band Ten Years After released a song titled “I’d Love to Change the World.” The first verse of that song contains the words…

“Tax the rich; feed the poor, till there are no rich no more.
I’d love to change the world – but I don’t know what to do,
so I’ll leave it up to you.”

The problem with that socialist drivel is that once there are no rich, we all starve to death. Change for the sake of change is not necessarily a good thing.

Only one candidate promises the kind of change we need: restore our government to a Constitutional size, eliminate entangling alliances, end unconstitutional offensive military adventurism, defend our national sovereignty and restore our economy through sound economic policy.

Let freedom ring!

I’ve had several conversations of late about the concepts of freedom and liberty. I listened to people tell me what each word meant to them. All were good, but none came close to the words attributed to Benjamin Franklin…

“Freedom is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner. Liberty is a well armed sheep contesting the vote.”

Some of the legislation coming out of Washington makes it clear that the wolves of Congress are indeed voting over what’s for dinner. With menu items like the Patriot Act, the Real ID act and the currently debated S.1959 bill it’s evident that our lawmakers have an appetite for our freedom and our individual privacy. As our liberties are being stripped away a piece at a time, so too is our wealth. After all, it takes money to implement these laws.

Before you go to the polls to make your voice heard, take the time to study the record of each candidate. Poor choices at the polls can result in immeasurable damage to our freedom and our liberties. Make certain that the choices you make enhance both freedom and individual liberty.

Let freedom ring!

Until next time,
/sec

Time for New Hampshire primary voters to fish or cut bait. Will they choose to win back their civil liberties? Will they choose to protect their personal information? Will their votes demand that unconstitutional wars be ended and the troops brought home to strengthen our own borders? Will their votes mean they want an end to the military occupation of 130 countries around the world? Will they reject the Federal Government’s demand for a national identification card? Will their votes mean the beginning of the end of the unconstitutional cradle to the grave entitlement mentality so predominant in today’s society?  Will they demand a reduction or elimination of an odious tax burden on their personal wealth? Will they tell the political establishment that they don’t want a North American Union?

Or will they show the rest of the nation that more of the same is good enough for the residents of a once proud state whose motto “Live Free or Die” now rings hollow?

We’ll all know the answers in just a little over 48 hours from the time of this post.

Until next time,
/sec

The headline reads “Ron Paul shocker: No more ‘anchor babies.’” The story then describes the anger of his Libertarian supporters over a 30 second TV spot. Justin Raimondo called Paul’s ad “disgraceful.” I find it hard to believe that people who have supported Ron Paul are unfamiliar with his previously stated opinions.

There is absolutely nothing shocking about this campaign ad. It is in harmony with statements Rep Paul made during an interview with CNN’s Lou Dobbs. The question was posed about H1b visas, which are supposed to be used to bring bright, young, highly skilled workers into the country, that are being granted to low skilled workers. Here’s a summary of Rep Paul’s comments during that interview:

“That I would not have as much concern about… I think it needs monitoring… but my biggest concern are the illegals.  I’m concerned about all the enticements we give to the illegals… automatic citizenship by being born here… just be here for a while and you get to the front of the line… free medical care… free education. No wonder they bring their families. So I would get rid of all the benefits to the illegals…”

The interview dates back to early May, 2007. Why then are my fellow Libertarians “shocked” and appalled at this New Hampshire TV spot? Did they wake up yesterday and finally decide to pay attention? Does a single hot button issue cause a sleeper to awaken?

By law, US citizenship is granted to babies born to parents under the jurisdiction of the United States. I have a daughter who was born in the Republic of Korea. Because I was under the jurisdiction of the United States, even though I was physically located outside the United States, my daughter was afforded US citizenship. Because her mother is a Korean national, and she was born in Korea, our daughter is eligible for Korean citizenship should she so desire.

I would argue that parents who enter this country illegally are not under the jurisdiction of the United States. Only legal immigrants meet that qualifier. Giving someone a free ticket to the front of the line is unfair to all the people who try to come to this country legally.

An immigrant visa is very difficult to obtain. A dear friend of mine is a Korean national. He is a highly skilled Information Technology worker. I met him while working at a US military base in the Republic of Korea. After working for the US government for 15 years, he was entitled to preferential immigration status. His request was denied. He waited another year, gathered new recommendation letters from US citizens, resubmitted his immigration request and moved to San Antonio Texas this year.

If we make it that difficult for a skilled worker we’ve given preferential immigration status to, why then do we make it so easy for illegal immigrants, many of whom are low skilled, to attain legal status and grant them a fast track to citizenship?

Given our current policies and open borders, I’m frankly surprised that millions of people from Africa, Asia and the Middle East don’t flock to our southern border and scurry across at night, knowing that if they can just make a living and hide for a couple of years, they can have the immigration status they would otherwise have been denied.

One final note… if we continue on the fast track to the North American Union, all this talk of illegal immigration, anchor babies, etc will be pointless. Open borders and abandonment of sovereignty are not in the best interest of this country.

Until next time,
/sec

The results are in and I have to admit that I’m every bit as underwhelmed as I was 4 years ago. Some people place their trust in the outcome of the Iowa caucuses and determine right then which candidate they’ll support on primary election day in their states.

What’s wrong with that, you ask?

Well nothing really. Except free thinking individuals should know which candidate to support based on past performance, not rhetoric or standings in another state’s primary. As I’ve said before, it’s vitally important to know your candidate’s record.

Take for instance Gov Huckabee’s record as governor of Arkansas. Much has been said over the course of the past few days about what some pundits call flaws in candidate Huckabee. I have to be careful here… I don’t want to be the recipient of a Chuck Norris round-house kick! None the less, Rush Limbaugh is right… Huckabee is not a conservative. He has engaged in identity politics and thinks that because he aligns himself as an evangelical Christian, he’s automatically deserving of votes by Christian conservatives.

Let’s not forget John McCain’s support of amnesty for illegal aliens, support for tax increases and a larger government. McCain’s record, available for viewing here, is the starting point for anyone considering giving a vote to this man. His continued support for an illegally undertaken war speaks volumes as to his capacity to defend and protect the Constitution.

Much can be said about the moral fiber of Rudy Giuliani. His record shows that he is left-of-center politically on social and spending issues. Sean Hannity praises his managerial abilities, but in the Oval Office, leadership is the most important skill. He is not well informed as to the reasons why our enemies hate us.

Gov Romney is quite frankly a liberal in conservative clothing. Anyone watching his debate with Sen Ted Kennedy on Oct 25^th 1994 can draw no other conclusion. Voters saw no difference between the two of them, and re-elected Kennedy. Brent Bozell used these words to describe Mitt’s debate performance: “[Romney] demonstrated very clearly in the debate last night that has more in common with liberal Democrats than he does with Conservatives…” Need I say more?

Fred Thompson is a good man, but his voting record marks him only slightly more conservative than McCain. You certainly don’t have to take my word for it, see for yourself. If there’s not much difference between them, only pride and the quest for power keeps both men on the stump.

Ron Paul is clearly the only true conservative of the bunch running. He has been consistently written off by the mainstream media and by the neo-conned right wing pundits of the air waves. If you take the time to read his positions on key issues, his voting record or even this brief profile, you’ll easily see that this man is the only true conservative running for the office of President of the United States of America. He’s been repeatedly named the “Taxpayer’s Best Friend” in Congress. What he says is what he believes and his voting record proves it. If you don’t want to read about Ron Paul, but wouldn’t mind watching a video, click here.

What do the Iowa caucuses really mean? That Iowans want continued budget deficits and an ever-increasing national debt? That Iowans want ever larger amounts of their personal wealth being confiscated by the Federal Government for use in paying the interest on an ever larger national debt? That Iowans don’t really care about restoration of the Constitution, nor their rights under it? That Iowans don’t understand how close we are to a North American Union and the surrender of sovereignty that will bring? Iowans weren’t properly informed of issues or candidates positions on issues?

In the grand scheme of things, the Iowa caucuses don’t mean much. Primaries are not about who can do well against whom in November. They are about issues that are important to the inhabitants of a given state. Keep that in perspective as you head to the polls in your state’s primary election.

Until next time,
/sec

I gave up listening to talk radio a number of years ago. However, since today is the day of the Iowa caucuses and I am still on vacation until Monday, I tuned in to see what the moguls of the airwaves had to say.

First up was the Rush Limbaugh show. I found his attacks on Gov Huckabee and Sen McCain of particular interest. He went down his list of why neither Huckabee nor McCain are conservatives. No similar statements were made about either Rudy Giuliani or Gov Romney – neither of whom can even claim to be conservatives.

Newt Gingrich understood conservatism and demonstrated that knowledge through development of the Contract with America. Embracing the Contract with America swept Republicans into the first Republican-controlled Congress in over 40 years. It was the failure to deliver on many of the promises contained within the Contract with America that ultimately led to the loss of control of both houses of Congress. Some would claim that it was President Bush’s military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq that cost control of the Congress, but they would be wrong.

So what makes a conservative? According to Limbaugh, there are several attributes that mark one as a conservative. Here are a few of those he mentioned:

·         Reducing taxes

·         Reducing the size of government

·         Pardons

·         No amnnesty for illegal aliens

·         Securing the border

·         Support for the war in Iraq

I’ll address the first two simultaneously. When you’re not spending billions of dollars each and every day engaging in undeclared wars, in direct violation of the Constitution, you can actually save a ton of money. By elimination of the Departments of Education, Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, Labor and Commerce, you can easily see that it might just be possible to eliminate personal income taxes while actively paying off the national debt.

Pardoning criminals is neither a conservative or liberal trait. It is an action undertaken for specific reasons, none of which must ever be allowed to consist of campaign contributions or payoffs.

Amnesty for illegal aliens is a difficult concept to sell to rational people. My own senator answered my concern by saying we shouldn’t punish the children of illegal immigrants; it wasn’t their fault that they are here illegally. The same argument could be made for allowing the children of violent criminals to keep the money and assets that were obtained through illegal activity. I don’t buy it, and I don’t think any sane person would entertain such an idea.

Securing the border is neither a conservative or liberal matter. National sovereignty is a tenant of the Constitution that every elected public official swears to uphold in his or her oath of office. Those unwilling to uphold their oath of office are unworthy of their office and must not be allowed re-election. They must be defeated and driven from political life.

Support for the war in Iraq. I can’t for the life of me understand how Limbaugh came up with the idea that support for the invasion of a sovereign nation, removing that nation’s rulers by force and continued occupation of that nation – in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution – is an attribute of a conservative. That undeclared war would never have taken place had a conservative been in the Oval Office.

Is it possible that Mr. Limbaugh doesn’t know the attributes of a true conservative?

Until next time,
/sec

Extracting money by any means necessary seems to be the sole purpose of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). You may not agree with my appraisal of that group, but read this article and you might be tempted to agree with me.

The RIAA is understandably concerned over slumping record sales. They point the finger of blame at file sharing technologies for the drop in revenue. I believe that the industry’s loss of profits is due to inflexibility and hubris.

Rather than adapting to change, the music industry unleashed the RIAA to try to teach the consumer lessons in copyright enforcement. At first, the RIAA contented itself with attempting to stop the practice of on-line music sharing. Because music recordings take money to create, produce, package, deliver and advertise, their attempts at shutting down file sharing is understandable. However, their efforts at modifying behavior through litigation have infuriated the public and driven away potential customers.

Now this group of lawyered-up suits is claiming that people who transfer music from legally purchased CD media to computers for any purpose are guilty of copyright violations — and subject to legal action. In an age where we like music to be portable, the RIAA seems to be of the opinion that we must carry around CD players and a large supply of purchased CDs. I’m sure that some people thought it was cool to carry “boom boxes” around, but I don’t happen to think so. It looked ridiculous 25 years ago and it would look even more ridiculous today.

There are a large number of media players and portable mp3 players. Whether its streaming media throughout your home or playing your favorite music while travelling, it’s all about portability and collections. Locating and changing CDs is time consuming and not acceptable in today’s world.

The RIAA is out of step with the world we live in. If the courts don’t take the side of the consumer, there is but one option: stop buying music in any form for a few months or even years. The music industry will soon realize that today is the day of portable digital media. Once that concept is understood, the business people can develop acceptable business practices that embrace the new technology.

Until next time,
/sec

The Archbishop of Canterbury claims that the nativity, a pillar of Christian tradition, is nothing but a “legend.” That’s an unfathomable position for a leader of a Christian church to take.

In reading Archbishop says nativity ‘a legend’ I found myself questioning this man’s religious conviction and his moral authority to lead anything resembling a Christian church.

Christians are taught that the Bible is a writing inspired by God. To label a portion of the Bible as “a legend” is to cast doubt on the scripture as a whole. I’m not sure whether Dr. Rowan Williams understands that words have meaning and the importance of thinking through the consequences of words — before they are said.

Dr. Rowan Williams is a human being, and subject to committing errors in judgment. Let’s just hope the remaining mistakes he makes are not of the magnitude of this one.

Until next time,
/sec

After reading this article in the UK’s Daily Mail I just have one question. Does anyone think the guys pictured to the left of (and looking at) Mr. de Boer take him any more seriously than I do? Words like “amusement” and “disdain” spring to mind when I look at their expressions, and I think I’m being charitable!

Perhaps his on-stage breakdown and outpouring of emotion qualifies him as some sort of Dutch “drama queen.” I think he’s in dire need of a high colonic.

For maximum dramatic impact, the so-called “hard man” of climate change should have permanently reduced his output of carbon-dioxide to zero. And if he has any disciples, they should follow his lead. Yes, if all those prophets of doom and proponents of carbosocialism would simply stop breathing, the world would be a better place. And we’d all sleep better knowing that the world’s population of lunatics was significantly reduced.

Ok, I’ll admit that’s a bit harsh. I simply tire of reading socialist propaganda about accords on man-made global warming. And Mr. de Boer’s assessment that a lack of agreement on global warming could “plunge the world into conflict” is pure lunacy. A war fought to reduce carbon emissions would surely produce a hell of a lot of carbon emissions.

This period of global warming is a natural cyclical occurrence. It has happened before and will happen again. The activity of the sun is directly related to temperatures throughout our galaxy. There is only so much humanity can do to offset solar activity. No amount of global taxation or global governance will cure the phenomenon.

Until next time,
/sec

Here’s a list of things that have been attributed to global warming. I think you’ll find it mildly amusing.

/sec

I’ve already stated that I like the word Sean Corrigan used to define the “blame man and make him pay” mentality at work in the world today. I’m certain you’ll be seeing “carbosocialism” in this space from time to time, beginning today.

You expect the left to continue blaming global warming on mankind. Classic Liberalism has been replaced by militant socialism in this country, and elsewhere it would appear. They’ve never spared an opportunity to engage in wealth redistribution and mass behavior modification. Quite frankly, the climate change prophets of doom have not ended their assault on humanity since the 1970’s, when they claimed that man-made hydrocarbons were taking the world into another ice age.

From the freezer to the oven, these green Kool-Aid drinkers have sought ways to take wealth from industrialized nations and sprinkle it around 3^rd world countries — while keeping a good chunk for themselves. Through proposed international taxation or attempts at controlling behavior, we are under assault from the carbosocialists.

But now, even the GOP frontrunners have demonstrated their allegiance to the junk science surrounding man-made climate change. In yesterday’s GOP debate, only Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Alan Keyes, Duncan Hunter and Fred Thompson had the courage to disagree.

Alan Keyes laid the blame for this wave of carbosocialism on a betrayal of U.S. sovereignty, elite politicians and the destruction of our Constitution. He added that the only emission that is need of control is the hot air coming from politicians who make promises and never deliver. I have to say that I agree with his assessment.

Candidates Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani and McCain are in need of a reality check on their newfound religion. Any who think that man-made actions can reduce solar activity are suffering from group delusion.

Until next time,
/sec

I can’t tell you the depth of shock that reading this article caused me. How can a father’s devotion to his religion ever convince him to kill his 16–year-old daughter for not wearing a hijab (head scarf)? I don’t think any parent can fathom such an abomination.

I’m well aware of the story of how God told Abraham to sacrifice his own son, Isaac, but I’m more than reasonably sure that Allah didn’t appear as a pillar of fire and tell 57–year-old Muhammad Parvez to kill his 16–year-old daughter, Aqsa.

Because of this man’s twisted religious beliefs, a young woman will never see a life of her own. She’ll never experience the joys and sorrows of parenting. She’ll never see tomorrow.

I don’t know if there is a hell deep enough or that burns hot enough for a parent who murders his own child. I’m sure that Mr. Parvez will have a long time to consider his actions. I wish the Canadian court would see to it that his daughter’s face was painted on the wall of his prison cell. Every day, he could gaze upon her likeness and ask himself how he could have been stupid enough to believe that his religion demanded that he kill his daughter for not wearing a head scarf.

As for the rest of the Parvez family, who sat idly by rather than calling police, one can only hope that behind the veil of their religious beliefs, they will mourn the loss of Aqsa. Not only have they lost a daughter and sister, they’ve lost the head of their family.

Until next time,
/sec

As I read this story, I was once again reminded of just how far to the left of reality most  greenies truly are. The very thought of charging parents $5000 for each newborn, and $800 annual carbon taxes per child is patently absurd.

In a piece by Sean Corrigan I saw the term carbosocialism for the first time. I think that’s probably the most accurate word to describe the baby tax proposed by Professor Walters,  a “medical expert” in western Australia. This gentleman prescribes “condoms and ‘greenhouse-friendly’ services such as sterilization procedures to earn carbon credits.”

I wonder if it’s too late to prevent this idiot from reproducing? Lord knows there are enough delusional people running around. There is no need for more of them.

Maybe the good professor should show his sincere concern over carbon dioxide emissions and stop breathing.

Until next time,
/sec

Powered by ScribeFire.

While promoting the facade of a nation which takes the moral high ground on many International issues, we as a nation have actively worked to define decency downward at home. Not all of us are on that train, working behind the scenes to test the limits of morality. To be sure, many people have tried to act as conscience for the nation.

Most of those who were willing to stand up for what they believed in have been ridiculed, marginalized and ruined by both the news media and those who think that any level of morality is too great a burden for members of society to bear.

While reading news last night, I stumbled across the story of Jim Trulock and his efforts at defining decency downward in the suburban community of Duncanville, Texas. According to the AP article, Mr. Trulock has been hosting sex parties for up to 100 people in his home. His sex club has been endeared with the moniker “The Cherry Pit.”

What makes this particular story worthy of my attention is that his neighbors actually complained to the city. The city listened and passed an ordinance banning sex clubs in residential areas. The story didn’t mention a preferred location for the city’s sex clubs, only that they were banned in residential areas.

Before anyone starts applauding the community’s stand for morality, I should point out the reasons the city used to ban Mr. Trulock’s gatherings. The city has made it clear that they don’t object to wife swapping and other forms of debauchery. They said that Mr. Trulock is operating a business featuring live sex acts. I wonder if this “business” has paid taxes, or even filed a tax return.