Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for March, 2009


Many people in perceived fairness say that President Obama is in office a little more than two months, so we  should give him a chance.  To these people I ask, how long do you give a new nanny who demonstrates poor child rearing skills, with your children?  For the ladies, how long do you allow a  new beautician who is clearly doing her own thing and not doing what is best for you to continue before you yell stop?  We are seeing so called fixes to our economic problems that are not economic problem fixes.  We are seeing major changes to our civic culture under the guise of fixing our economic problem.  We are seeing a serious threat to our constitution, by a man who openly does not like our constitution the way it was written. 

President Obama is a “big government” – government is intended to take care of people – kind of guy.  Just listen to his own words.  He is asking to spend hundreds of billions on energy, health care, and education – sounds noble, but he has no plan on how to spend this money.  No businessman in the world could borrow money without a business plan, yet he wants multiple billions without a plan – he wants you to buy into his wishes sight unseen – something like buying land (swampland) in Florida.  This massive spending on noble targets may sound great, but you need to lift the hood to see just what happens when the big government engine is turned on.  In the world of gross domestic product, government produces nothing – it is a drain.  It does not foster job growth.  It does not provide the necessesary economic energy to sustain growth and to keep on delivering.  Government simply takes from the producers and the only thing it gives back is a portion of what it has taken – the rest is government overhead.  Over time, the producers stop producing because there is no upside for them to produce.

Sure government can create jobs, government jobs, and this does two things that should make you run from government intrusion in your life.  First, any government job created takes away from the producers the ability to produce, grow, and create jobs with a multiplier effect.  It must continue to take from the producer to support the government created job.  Second, the government created job, as it takes away from private sector job growth, keeps you permanently chained to the government to keep your job.  Some may say – “what is wrong with a good job from the government?” – the answer is that the government job is not sustainable and that over time, the ecomony and quality of life shrink.  As the economy shrinks, the government must take more and more from the remaining producers to sustain those made up government jobs – remember, government jobs produce nothing and add nothing to the economy.  As more and more is taken, the producers produce less due to loss of economic motivation – this becomes a cycle of doom.  Countless countries have tried this and met the same result – failure.

Throughout history in Latin America, South America, Europe, and Asia (most of the globe), power hungry despots and some well meaning socialists have adopted the control afforded by socialism and the “government can do it all” approach, and failed miserably.  Our current President is an academic with a law degree.  He has never produced, never managed anything, and appears to have never studied history on the failure rate of big government socialism.  That is, unless he is not concerned with 100% failure rate or the success of the venture (we cannot call it an experiment since the experiment failed in a plethora of tests around the globe), and he is only seeking the control and power that comes to a few, not the masses, from the big government socialist venture.

The following is Barack Obama, when he was a state senator, in his own words describing why our constitution is flawed and in need of change.  If this does not send chills up your spine, then you have not been paying attention.  He feels that the constitution does not provide government with sufficient powers.  In this video Mr. Obama telegraphs just where he wants to take this country with the big government socialist approach.  The video was found on a blog Bob’s Bites. (Thank you Bob’s Bites).

This bullet train approach to CHANGE toward a big government socialist nation with an understanding that the constitution does not permit the kind of change being attempted, must be stopped.  Unfortunately, President Obama will be in office for four years and the current very left, very socialist Democratic Party controlled Congress will be intact for two years, making the stopping of this train very difficult, but not impossible.

We need to pressure the members of the U.S. Senate’s Democratic Party who hold the more moderate and conservative economic voting records in the Democratic Party Senate caucus and three Republican RINO’s (republicans in name only) to act as a buffer and to take steps to retard the hi-speed approach to socialist economic change.  We must pressure these Senators to slow the massive government spending for big government.  This government spending is not sustainable and simply cannot be repaid.  You see, right now, the government is a sub-prime borrower seeking an unsustainable mortgage – have you heard this before?  This is what got us into this mess and now we are attempting to spend our way to prosperity and borrow our way out of debt – show me one budget text book that portends a happy outcome when you spend more than you can produce for a sustained time.  One book does explain this unique economic plan – it is the bible – the new testament to be exact.  It is commonly known as the “Miracle of the Loaves and the Fishes”.  Unfortunately for us, while Barack Obama may think he can walk on water – he cannot and he cannot perform the “Miracle of the Loaves and the Fishes” or make wine from water!

Do what you can to stop this bullet train, before it is too late! Tell them (cut and paste the statement if you wish):

“Stop the over the top spending and borrowing now – don’t destroy our country!  Socialism does not work!”

The Democratic Senators in the Senate, with the most conservative economic voting records and the three Republicans (RINOs), who should be pressured are:

Baucus, Max – (D – MT)

 

511 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2651
Web Form: baucus.senate.gov/contact/emailForm.cfm?subj=issue

 

Bayh, Evan – (D – IN)

 

131 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5623
Web Form: bayh.senate.gov/contact/email/

 

Byrd, Robert C. – (D – WV)

 

311 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-3954
Web Form: byrd.senate.gov/contacts/

 

Carper, Thomas R. – (D – DE)

 

513 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2441
Web Form: carper.senate.gov/contact/

 

Conrad, Kent – (D – ND)

 

530 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2043
Web Form: conrad.senate.gov/contact/webform.cfm

 

Dorgan, Byron L. – (D – ND)

 

322 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2551
E-mail: senator@dorgan.senate.gov

 

Landrieu, Mary L. – (D – LA)

 

328 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5824
Web Form: landrieu.senate.gov/contact/index.cfm

 

McCaskill, Claire – (D – MO)

 

717 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6154
Web Form: mccaskill.senate.gov/contact/

 

Nelson, Ben – (D – NE)

 

720 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-6551
Web Form: bennelson.senate.gov/contact/email.cfm

 

Tester, Jon – (D – MT)

 

724 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2644
Web Form: tester.senate.gov/Contact/index.cfm

 

Webb, Jim – (D – VA)

 

248 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4024
Web Form: webb.senate.gov/contact/

 

Wyden, Ron – (D – OR)

 

223 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5244
Web Form: wyden.senate.gov/contact/

 

Collins, Susan M. (R – ME)

 

413 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-2523
Web Form: collins.senate.gov/public/continue.cfm?FuseAction=Contact…

 

Snowe, Olympia J. (R – ME)

 

154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-5344
Web Form: snowe.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactSenat…

 

Specter, Arlen (R – PA)

 

711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
(202) 224-4254
Web Form: specter.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Co…

Read Full Post »


Professional Congressmen – Why?  Today there are 251 members of the House of Representatives serving for more than ten years or five terms.  This is nearly 58% of the House of Representatives.  Remember the House is the people’s house and the representatives serving in this house were intended by our founding fathers to be of the people and from the people.  When representatives serve in the House for more than two terms they become insolated from the people.  They begin to work the system for their own benefit and not for the benefit of their constituents.  Mostly this is caused by the treatment they receive from lobbyists and the personal wealth they begin to obtain.  The more time in the House, the more power they can build and the more they can build an organization that will keep them being reelected, by making contribution connections – contributions most often originating out of their district.  This means that they are now representing contributors of other districts and not the people of their district.  The old adage that “power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely” is simply how our Congress works.

The numbers about tenure become more frightening as you look at the more senior members of the House.  Today there are 42 Democrats and 20 Republicans serving for more than twenty years.  Nineteen representatives, fifteen Democrats and four Republicans, are now serving for more than thirty years or an unconscionable fifteen terms.  Two Democratic representatives are serving for more than forty years.  The number and dollar amount of earmarks is almost in a direct ratio with the time in Congress and the power achieved. As a Congressman delivers more earmarks, they build a contribution base and name recognition to aid them in reelection.  Remember that many of these earmarks are payback to political contributors and are not in the best interest of the district, the state, or the country.

Still not convinced that this professional Congress needs to change?  Consider that these people represent old thinking, with little recent real world experience or real world business or management skills, and a heavy dose of cronyism.  Most committee chairs are based on longevity and have the power and connections to kill bills or fast track bills on their own.

The Senate, the upper house with longer six years terms, suffers it own brand of professional legislator.  Ten Democrats and zero Republicans are now serving for more than twenty-four years or four terms in the senate (update – 9 with the loss of Senator Kennedy).  Of this group, three members are serving for five terms or thirty years and three are serving for more than thirty-six years or six terms.

Only fifty-four members of the House are freshman representatives (32 Democrats and 22 Republicans).  This group represents little more than 12% of the House.  In reality, there are enough members of the House of Representatives serving longer than most members of the Senate that determining which body is the upper house or the lower house is difficult.  Statistics indicate that voters (that’s us) return their Congressman and Senator to Congress at an alarming repeat rate of over 90%.  Does this absurd unrealistic return rate represent a love affair of the voter with his or her representation or does it reflect a broken system where power makes it nearly impossible for an incumbent to lose and allows little opportunity for new blood?

When did serving in Congress become an occupation? When did it stop being a noble calling of fellow citizens who put real careers on hold to serve their country for a limited time?

If we are to have a country of the people, by the people, and for the people, then we must make changes.  Congress will not change on its own.  We need term limits applied to both the House and the Senate. We need to limit both Congressional Representatives and Senators to no more than two consecutive terms – but how?  We need a constitutional convention called by the states with two goals.  The first is to limit congressional terms and the second is to make changes to reinstate state’s rights over a massive out of control incompetent federal government.  Return this country to the vision of the founding fathers.

Contact your representative to your state’s legislature (not your U.S. representative) and push for your state to call for a constitutional convention to achieve these two goals.

Listed below are the twenty year plus Congressmen and women who have been in power far too long and need to move on to a real job, if they are able.  They are grouped by state with party affiliation and district following the name.  Those with 30 and 40 years in Congress are so indicated.  Click on the name and see a summary of the rereprsentative’s background and congressional status, including committee assignments.

If you wish to breakdown your Congress by other attributes than term go to Contacting the Congress: Power Search.

Twenty Years Plus
Representative Don Young (R – Alaska At Large) 30 Yrs
Representative Wally Herger (R – CA02)
Representative George Miller (D – CA07) 30 Yrs
Representative Nancy Pelosi (D – CA08)
Representative Fortney (Pete) Stark (D – CA13) 30 Yrs
Representative Elton Gallegly (R – CA24)
Representative David Dreier (R – CA26)
Representative Howard L. Berman (D – CA28)
Representative Henry A. Waxman (D – CA30) 30 Yrs
Representative Jerry Lewis (R – CA41) 30 Yrs
Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R – CA46)
Representative Cliff Stearns (R – FL06)
Representative C. W. (Bill) Young (R – FL10) 30 Yrs
Representative John Lewis (D – GA05)
Representative Leonard L. Boswell (D – IA03) 30 Yrs
Representative Jerry F. Costello (D – IL12)
Representative Peter J. Visclosky (D – IN01)
Representative Dan Burton (R – IN05)
Representative Harold Rogers (R – KY05)
Representative Richard E. Neal (D – MA02)
Representative Barney Frank (D – MA04)
Representative Edward J. Markey (D – MA07) 30 Yrs
Representative Steny H. Hoyer (D – MD05)
Representative Dale E. Kildee (D – MI05) 30 Yrs
Representative Fred Upton (R – MI06)
Representative Sander M. Levin (D – MI12)
Representative John Conyers, Jr. (D – MI14) 40 Yrs
Representative John D. Dingell (D – MI15) 40 Yrs
Representative James L. Oberstar (D – MN08) 30 Yrs
Representative Ike Skelton (D – MO04) 30 Yrs
Representative David E. Price (D – NC04)
Representative Howard Coble (R – NC06)
Representative Christopher H. Smith (R – NJ04)
Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. (D – NJ06)
Representative Donald M. Payne (D – NJ10)
Representative Gary L. Ackerman (D – NY05)
Representative Edolphus Towns (D – NY10)
Representative Charles B. Rangel (D – NY15) 30 Yrs
Representative Eliot L. Engel (D – NY17)
Representative Nita M. Lowey (D – NY18)
Representative Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D – NY28)
Representative Marcy Kaptur (D – OH09)
Representative Peter A. DeFazio (D – OR04)
Representative Paul E. Kanjorski (D – PA11)
Representative John P. Murtha (D – PA12) (update – now deceased) 30 Yrs
Representative John M. Spratt, Jr. (D – SC05)
Representative John J. Duncan, Jr. (R – TN02)
Representative Bart Gordon (D – TN06)
Representative John S. Tanner (D – TN08)
Representative Ralph M. Hall (R – TX04)
Representative Joe Barton (R – TX06)
Representative Lamar Smith (R – TX21)
Representative Solomon P. Ortiz (D – TX27)
Representative Rick Boucher (D – VA09)
Representative Frank R. Wolf (R – VA10)
Representative Norman D. Dicks (D – WA06) 30 Yrs
Representative Jim McDermott (D – WA07)
Representative F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R – WI05) 30 Yrs
Representative Thomas E. Petri (R – WI06)
Representative David R. Obey (D – WI07) 30 Yrs
Representative Alan B. Mollohan (D – WV01)
Representative Nick Joe Rahall, II (D – WV03) 30 Yrs

Read Full Post »


The real no spin definition of most earmarks is a Member of Congress targeting a group with your money taken right from the ever flowing government monetary fountain to either get votes or campaign funds for reelection.  This keeps the “select” few in Congress.  Search high and low and you will not find much integrity in Congress or with those who use the system to keep getting reelected.

Who runs our government?  At any given time, the decision makers in Congress represent the 15% of the population who place party above country.  Most people who are registered Democrats or Republicans follow their party and generally agree with their party, but do not place party above country.  Most elected representatives are of the 15% of the population who are Democrats or the 15% who are Republicans – these are the folks who place party above country.  Under the Bush administration there was a push to expand the Republican Party by expanding government and spending more – sounds like the Democrats doesn’t it?  The theory was, if we give the people “stuff” they will vote for us, since this has worked for the Democrats for some time.

 The problem was that the Democrats had elevated giving stuff to those who don’t have stuff to an art form and thus the Republican plan badly backfired.  In the case of the Republican representatives, they placed party above country.  The problem with the Democratic Party, now that the backlash against the Republicans has given the Democrats essentially a majority in both Houses of Congress and possession of the Whitehouse, is that they are seizing the opportunity to take their art form of expanding government and giving stuff to those who don’t have stuff to a new level.  They are using this opportunity to forever move this country, in a series of well planned steps, to the far left progressive governance of socialism and control by their party.  Again this is party over country.

In a previous posting “Fix Congress, But How?” I suggested changes to our Constitution as a means of regaining control of the country from the parties.  It should always be what is best for the country, not what is best for the party.  That posting did not cover one other method of regaining control of our country and the re-establishment of bi-partisan governing or more importantly multi-partisan governing.  This type of governing is brings back checks and balances.

By allowing a third or even more parties to grow and prosper to major status, we will force compromise, build in check and balances, and blunt extremism from the two major parties of today.  This means changing state laws that have been put in place to make it very hard for other than a Republican or Democrat to run for federal office.    Today’s Democratic Party is not the party to which my father, a union bricklayer, belonged.  The Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy was more like the Republican Party today.  Both Parties have moved very left.  Within each party are those who represent the centrist, left and right camps of party members.  The Blue Dog Democrats are fiscally conservative members of the Democratic Party, and are mostly from the south.   They may be Democrats, but they do not control the party – the Far left does.  This group would bolt to a viable third party if it could achieve major status.  Do you think they were comfortable recently when Speaker Pelosi demanded a yes vote for the 1,000+ page American Recovery Act (stimulus bill of $787 Billion) with no time to read or digest it?  This was a case for these people to place party over country, because if they did not comply, the party would not support them going forward during the reelection primary campaign.

You can initiate change yourself.  Find a party of your liking and change or simply go independent.  However in most states independents lose out during the primary season by being shut out of the vote.  The two major parties are simply too powerful, with the Democrats being in an über power position.  This situation is incredibly dangerous for this nation.  The far left 15% of the population are now in control of our country.  Is this how you want this country managed?  Spinning off those other major parties is change you can trust.  Change you need to push for by contacting your state representatives to insure that getting on the ballot is equally easy for all parties.

Read Full Post »


Tired and frustrated about Washington, D.C.?  Do you believe that Congress is out of touch with the people?  Do you believe that Congress does not represent us and instead represents special interests with their legions of lobbyists and big campaign donations.  It also seems clear that those in Congress have a sole purpose of continuing to serve and this purpose is to do everything and anything they can to remain in Congress.  Have you noticed that those who retire usually retire very wealthy?

Where else can we be told time and time again how the Congress will clean up its act, yet we suffer powerful committee chairpersons and rules designed to keep and grow the status quo.  The affliction of power brought about by seniority affects both parties.  Our two party system appears to be the problem and not the solution – ideology takes second place to capturing power and remaining in office.  Their real constituent is reelection!  We routinely return the incumbent to Congress at greater than a 90% rate.  Something is radically wrong when the very people who complain about the Congress, us, routinely return their representatives to Congress more than 90% of the time.  Perhaps this 90% return rate is not totally our fault, but can be traced to the design of the election system, campaign funding, and the support of special interests.  Does it seem right that your Congressman or Congresswoman is more influenced by money from outside his or her district?  Why should some agricultural company in Hawaii be allowed to monetarily influence a Congressman from an industrial district in Pennsylvania?  It happens that money flows in to Congressional campaigns from all over the United States and yes, Europe and China, among other places.  Why is it okay for everyone in the world to buy the loyalty of your representation in Washington?

If and when you call your representative in Congress, you will most likely get voice mail that asks you to leave a message about your issue.  They keep raising the funding for the staffing of their offices, yet there is no one to answer the phone?  These people feel so insulated that they have openly and brazenly discussed, and in committee voted to add a voting representative in Congress to the District of Columbia and the State of Utah.  This is highly unconstitutional behavior – the Constitution is crystal clear on how representation is handled and representation is not established by the Congress at their whim.  This vote in committee and soon to be a floor vote represents the ultimate example of people serving in Congress suffering the aphrodesiac of unchecked power.

What can we do about our Congress?  Can we amend the Constitution?  Congress controls the Constitutional amendment process or do they?  Our Constitution provides for an alternate amendment process, one initiated by the states.  A state can call for a constitutional convention and if two thirds of the states agree, i.e. 34 states, it convenes.  The states send representatives to the convention and any amendment coming out of the convention needs ratification by three fourths of the states, i.e. 38 states, to become an amendment of the United States Constitution.   Now you can petition your state legislators, your representatives in your capitol, for a constitutional convention to change Congress and to restore lost rights back to the states.

We can seek a change in how Senators are elected.  When the Constitution was adopted, it provided for election of Senators by the states legislatures and not direct election of the senators by the people.  While this method was subject to politics and political maneuvering, it gave the States a say in the size of the federal government, the judiciary, and foreign affairs through the Senate.  It was the seventeenth amendment that made this change.  We need to repeal the seventeenth and replace it with an amendment that provides for election of senators by their respective legislatures, with a restriction on recall requiring a two thirds vote in all houses of legislature of the state – Nebraska has only one house of legislature, while the others have two.  This would take the pandering and special interests out of the Senate, since Senators would not need multiple millions to run for reelection.  This amendment would add an additional check and balance – the state itself through its Senators.

We can seek an amendment that would limit campaign contributions in cash, property, or services to an individual residing or a corporation headquartered in the district of the congressional candidate – no political party contributions, thus only constituents are important to the member of Congress.

We can seek an amendment that requires all spending bills and any spending appropriation to be of like kind in a bill, be in the body of the bill with no spending amendments, and have gone through committee and been approved by the majority of the committee.  This will eliminate earmarks. 

We can seek a change in ballots across this nation for candidates for a federal office.  No longer can states make special rules that make it hard for third party candidates to get on state ballots for president and vice-president, or congressional representatives.  This would stimulate the candidacy of members of parties other than Democrat or Republican parties.

We can seek term limits on members of the House of Representatives to three terms.  This will eliminate the individual absolute power some members of Congress have achieved.

These few amendments will re-establish this republic and fix the now forever and perpetually corrupt Congress.  Members of Congress are addicted to a drug of Congressional power and will never give it up on their own.  We need to make this change through the states – push your state representatives to make these changes.  Tell them these amendments will provide the states with more rights and make it easier and less costly for the state representatives to run for federal office.

Read Full Post »


President Obama, I have a question.  Very often during your campaign for President, you were adamant about eliminating earmarks.  You stated that you would go line by line in every bill looking for earmarks and have the earmarks eliminated before you sign the bill into law.  The current $410 Billion Omnibus Bill before the Senate and passed by the House, with your encouragement and support, contains nearly 9,000 earmarks.  Some of these earmarks are absolutely insane, especially in a time of fiscal crisis.  One item in the Senate version of the bill was an earmark submitted by you when you were a Senator from Illinois.  This earmark has now had your name removed, but it is yours just the same, because while you name was removed, the earmark remains in the bill – you did not eliminate your own earmark.

Perhaps, after the Stimulus Bill, The American Recovery Act, it is too soon to challenge you on this earmark thing, because we have been told by you and you’re your spokesman, Mr. Gibbs, that the Stimulus bill did not contain any earmarks.  However, we know this was true only in the technical sense, but if pork looks like an earmark, spends like an earmark, is not debated like an earmark, and is slipped in like an earmark, then it is an earmark.  The current Omnibus Bill earmarks explanation from your Mr. Gibbs is even more strange.  It is that these were last years earmarks and thus don’t count toward your pledge.  Please understand that I and many others find this to be a moronic, disingenuous explanation from the Obama Administration.  

For two years you campaigned against earmarks and yet you will not come out against last years, as yet to become law, earmarks?  Mr. Obama, will you veto this bill if it ever gets through the Senate?  This pork laden earmark filled (9,000) bill was written by the Democratic leadership in the House.  Even that ultra small band of fiscally conservative former Democrat colleagues of yours in the Senate are choking on this bill and are joining the Republicans in fighting this bill.  If they have come out against it, why haven’t you?

Mr. Obama, I have noticed a pattern in your positions.  You have verbal positions that are presented to the people and you tell us what we want to hear and you have actionable positions on the same issue that are just the opposite of what you told us.  You did promise transparency, so is this lack of transparency in your actions on purpose?  Can we expect this I will tell you one thing and regularly do the opposite to continue throughout your term of office?  Yes I said one question, but I got carried away.

Read Full Post »


A surprising number of people today are seeking a socialist government because they have a hope that a nanny state will improve their lives.  Many of these people, group one, are of modest income, brought about by modest education, and some early life mistakes.  Let’s not confuse these folks with those who want socialism because it gives them control of how we should all live, group two.  Group two is the alpha group with generally higher education and income levels.  This posting is targeted to those who are of modest means in group one.  There are three types of people: those who don’t know and know they don’t know; those who know and know they know; and those who don’t know and think they know – these are the dangerous ones and a bulk of these people fall into group two.  You will find a lot of these folks in Hollywood and in the Capitol Building.

Group one was provided an education in our schools run by controlling far left educators – group two.  The educators in their wisdom most likely dismissed the in depth teaching of U.S. and world history.  Group one simply does not realize exactly what they are seeking.  They have been sold a Utopian view by the far left of the Democratic Party, members of group two, with nary an explanation that all previous attempts at beneficial socialism worldwide have been abject failures.   China’s people are benefiting from improved prosperity and some limited advances in personal freedom, but these advances and improved prosperity are only brought about by shifts toward capitalism.  I cannot think of one nation that has adopted socialism and has seen economic prosperity and experienced widespread individual freedoms for its people through socialism.  The populace of these nations have no incentive to become wealthy and are generally regulated to death.  The socialist movement deflates any opportunity for a “rags to riches” rise.

Rather than use one of an unending list of failed socialist foreign nations as an example, I thought I would highlight one of our fifty states that entered into the socialism track years ago.  It is a state that has passed law after law impinging qualified personal freedom to the limit of our U.S. Constitution and has tried to be the most prolific nanny state that it can be.  It is a state where no one is held personally accountable.  I point out that personal freedom is qualified because their definition of freedom is unique to the rest of the country.  Smoking pot is good, but the rules on personal business expansion and prosperity are onerous.  It is a state that is suffering through and sharing the current U.S. and world severe recession, but is also suffering a self imposed economic collapse as a direct result of its attempt to be a nanny state.  It is a state that during a recession, where millions are suffering due to unemployment and rising costs, has decided it is good to increase taxes.  It has chosen to increase a regressive tax, the sales tax, to help solve the budget problem.  This is almost incredulous since they are raising taxes disproportionately on the people who have been weaned to depend on the nanny state.  How brilliant is that?

If you have not guessed as yet, it is the State is California.  This very liberal experiment in creating a nanny state, which included onerous rules on businesses and outrageously high taxes, is tanking faster than a falling meteoroid.  This State is suffering years of debt taken on to achieve the very liberal social programs that are the underpinning of the “nanny state”.  I hope the millions who are seeking the Nanny States of America take a moment to see what will become of the United States of America, if we continue on this path to a national socialistic nanny state.  One look at California and the multi-tentacled sink hole it has become should be enough to demonstrate to those of modest means, that in the long run the nanny state will only bring them abject misery.

This post is not targeted to group two socialism control freaks who truly believe that they know better how we should live and what our culture should look like – these are just misdirected fools and there is nothing you can tell or show them that will change their minds, since it is all about control to them.  They have no problem with constantly repeating history but with an expectation of a different result.  Fortunately for the conservatives and moderates who populate this nation, they cannot accomplish this trek to socialism on their own.  They need the votes of those with modest means.  They try to obtain these votes by promising stuff, lots of stuff.  They get these votes by pounding into these folks just how badly they have it and how dastardly corrupt business types are.

All we need to do is to point out California in detail to these modest means folks over and over again, and maybe we can wakeup some of these folks to the reality that their invitation from group two that says “we would like to have you for dinner” really means that they are the dinner.

Read Full Post »


Our new Attorney General, Eric Holder, has recently come out against semi-automatic weapons.  He says that our laws permitting semi-automatic weapons are fostering the shipment of these weapons to Mexico for the drug cartels, exacerbating the drug violence at the border.  Thus we must control the sale of these weapons in the United States and restrict ownership to address this crisis.  Boy does this ever sound reasonable.  I personally have no use for semi-automatic weapons, but I think that we do need to agree that the second amendment gives my solid citizen neighbor a right to own these weapons.

The truth, not told by our Attorney General, is that the Mexican drug cartels use not only these semi-automatic weapons, but fully automatic P90’s, hand grenades, and RPG’s as well.  The truth of the matter, not heard from Mr. Holder, is that the semi-automatic weapons are being purchased in the United States in such bulk as to be a currently illegal sale or they are bartered for drugs, also not legal.  The truth of the matter is that the Mexican authorities have not installed the proper detection equipment at the border to catch these weapons coming in to Mexico.  The truth of the matter is that Mr. Holder is using the Obama Administration playbook to “not let a good crisis go to waste”.   As was done with the stimulus bill and with the omnibus spending bill, we are told that an action is needed to solve a crisis, when in reality the bulk of these actions are designed to install their brand of socialism and government control of how we live.   For a very good and informative read on the Mexican gun and drug violence, read Stratfor’s piece: Mexico: Dynamics of the Gun Trade.

Mr. Holder has told us just enough to justify the Administration’s longstanding desire to eliminate gun ownership to fight crime.  Do you really think drug dealers apply for a gun permit before acquiring a gun?  Just how much illicit gun violence is there from permit carrying gun owners?  Mr. Holder would do better to spend his time marshalling his forces to track down and stop the wholesale market for illicit guns going to the drug cartels.   He need not spend his time trying disingenuously to snuff out the second amendment, simply because he and the rest of the Administration do not like it.

There are many people in this country who really want socialism, just read various blog comments on the internet.  Those who want socialism should study up on the effects of socialism.  It is a disease that slowly deprives a populace of freedom, and prosperity, with the non-workable utopian hope that the government can right all ills by bringing economic balance from those who have more to those who have less.   There are also many who open mindedly want to cut the Obama Administration slack because they feel that the Administration is working to solve our problems.  These people should stop and take a very close look at what the Administration is doing, under the guise of fixing a financial crisis.  If they did look under the hood, so to speak, they would find a host of actions that have nothing to do with fixing a financial crisis, and everything to do with installing heavy government control over the citizens. 

We must start to really listen to the Administration when its members speak, and we must really start to look at the people who are chosen to be in this Administration.  We cannot assume that because they say they are fixing our problems, that they are.  We must prevent them from acting like that distant cousin who shows up to stay, acts like he is mowing our lawn and fixing our shingles to help us out, but is really quietly cleaning us out of our silverware and other valuables.  When Erik Holder and other members of this Administration speak, listen very carefully to the actual words used, and you will hear the real agenda.  You will hear the very slick use of the English language to make you believe one thing, while they are doing something else.

Be sure to vote at: Rate the Obama Administration – Vote Here

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: