Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘“democratic party”’


Of the people, by the people, and for the people – apparently not!  When you look at the polls and look behind them you see an electorate (democrat, republican, libertarian, etc.) that is in such discontent, even spitting angry, over the politics and governance of this country.  Neither major party is held in high regard as both parties have placed party and special interests above country.

Look inside the Democratic Party, and you will find two very distinct parties.  The party has old line democrats who have not yet realized that their party has been taken over by left wing radicals – well there are so many “radicals” that perhaps we cannot call them radicals any longer.  Radical thinking is no longer radical when the number of proponents reaches a critical mass, and it has.  It is a movement of such strength that it can topple our Republic.

These radicals are the socialist, wealth, and health care re-distribution advocates.  Their climate change philosophy is centered on America literally paying monetary tribute to the less developed nations of the world. They claim we owe these underdeveloped nations our wealth since we have been successful and have destroyed the atmosphere with carbon dioxide –stuff plants and trees love.  This is the core driver of this crisis of climate change or global warming.

If we were to institute all the changes the climate change supporters want, we would see worldwide abject poverty grow and widespread food shortages.  The result will be that we will only affect man made climate change by about 1% in the next 100 years.  (This statement can be supported by many prominent scientists and economists, but this writing is not the place for this debate.  If you must digress into this argument then view John Stossel’s information on the topic or do your own research.) As we have recently seen with the exposed emails of leading climate change scientists, Jones (the UN’s key scientist for the IPCC) and Mann, among others, climate change is certainly not settled science and their manipulation of the data findings, destruction of the raw data, and their overt attempt to squelch professional, educated dissent makes this a political wealth distribution gambit and not science.

Climate change is a well disguised and well planned assault on our Republic and the free market system.  The current populist movement is fermented by those who seek national wealth redistribution and to expunge capitalism, because capitalism is supposedly a detriment to the people of the world.  This is also driven by these former radicals, now just far left believers.  Our President and many in Congress are drivers of this movement.

Capitalism is not the problem. The problem facing our Republic is the marriage of government and big business that enhances the corporate profit motive – largess for the elites at all cost is the result of this unholy alliance.  The relationship between our federal government and Goldman Sachs is almost incestuous.  The number of government officials in and around the White House and Treasury, who were Goldman Sachs executives, is staggering   – true under both the Obama and Bush administrations.  Why has our government become wed to these corporations?

For the government, mostly made up of democrats, this means that small business enterprise can be squeezed out and unions supporting the democrats will prosper.  Unions do not do well when small business creates 70 plus percent of the jobs in this country.  When the government eliminates small business as a major jobs grower, the government will grow, foster more pro democrat union memberships, and the democrats will have a built in support system to simply stay in power.  Take a look at the government payrolls.  The salaries of government workers average nearly double those of the private sector.  Remember this is tax payer money being paid in large grants to those who economically produce nothing for the country.  The nature of government work is to manage government and not to produce goods and services.

For corporations this means government capital availability and big profits.  This also means special interests rule Congress and no longer is “What is good for the nation” the top agenda item.   “What is good for the small echelon of corporate elites” moves to the top of the Congressional legislative calendar.  This means that Congress no longer represents the people – can we say it is official now?– that the goal of Congress is to make more than half the nation beholden to the Democratic Party and to raise money from the corporate elites.  We are seeing a government coup occur center stage as we look on.  The Congress through the last stimulus bill, omnibus bill, and now the health care bills has written enough empowerment to bureaucratic regulators and entitlements for the tax takers of America that what has been done, might never be undone.  Government bureaucrats continue to be given the ability to make law, without Congress’ approval and the requisite signature of the President.  Entitlements are targeted to those who pay little or no taxes, but have a vote.  Current decisions by our government, mostly against the growth of small business, are focused on keeping the number of tax takers at a voting majority level and yes, keeping them beholden to the Democrats.

By now you are thinking this writer is just bashing the Democrats.  Well, it is the Republican’s turn.  Two Congresses ago, the Republicans attempted the same un-American plan that the Democrats are carrying out with perfection, they just did not know how to do it well.  Look through the ranks of the Republican Party leadership and you will find a host of Congressman and Senators who also regularly put party ahead of country.  The problem is that too many Republicans are dependent on democrat voters and special interest money – they may wear different uniforms in the Congress, but they sell their souls to the same devil.  No longer is it “Damn Yankee!” – it’s now “Damn American!”  The powerful moneyed special interests are Lola and “What Lola wants Lola gets.”  Climate change just serves to make them richer.

How did we get here?  Well the Constitution has and had a number of protections against this coup that is taking place, but sadly some powers are lost and new ones need to be enacted.  First, the states, you know, those sovereign powers that created the United States Government in 1787 and actually super cede the Federal Government under the Constitution in Article 1, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment, need to push for a repeal of the 17th amendment.

The Founders looking for a way for the states to control a centralized Federal Government created a control rod for the states, called the Senate.  Senators were appointed by the states’ legislatures and not directly elected by the people.  This made the Senators accountable only to the states’ legislatures and governors.  The states, via the Senate, were given the power to provide advice and consent on appointees, including judicial, and to ratify treaties with two thirds of the Senate voting in the affirmative.  Most importantly, the states through the Senate were given the power to keep the House of Representatives in check and continue the rights which their sovereignty brought them.

The 17th amendment removed the Senate as an arm of the states in 1913.  This was a crucial mistake by the Congress and the states ratifying the amendment.  Senators were now subject to the money and power of specials interests, instead of the one special interest they represented – their state.

What if this “angry electorate” votes out the incumbents?  Will this change the special interests’ impact?  Will the elite corporate echelon disappear? No! They will just have new meat to work with, new people to make rich.  Members of Congress have learned that entry into the club of representative government means that they can retire rich, give us our own money to buy votes, and provide for a cushy retirement and a wonderful lifetime medical plan.

Unless and until we successfully remove the money and largess of riches bestowed on our lawmakers nothing will change.  We are told that term limits already exist – called voting for the other guy.  Well, sitting Representatives have the decked stacked in campaign contributions and in name recognition, so that they are returned to Congress over 90% of the time.  Does this sound like to you what the Founders intended for the “People’s House”?

Our Republic founded in 1787 , with its “People’s House” and its upper house, the Senate, formerly representing the states, is in serious danger of morphing into what it was never intended to be, an inefficient socialist  economy and an oligarchy government with no real representation of the people.  It was intended to be the best form of government possible – not perfect, but better than all the rest.

Ill conceived changes to our Constitution and 21st century forces from corporate greed and special interest money, never anticipated by the Founders, are seriously threatening this grand and successful form of republican government.

If you want to vote out the incumbents go ahead, but then unceasingly demand of your candidate a constitutional amendment that will:

  • prohibit any campaign money received by a congressional candidate from any source other than a source predominantly domiciled in the candidate’s district;
  • prohibit all earmarks, limiting all appropriations to openly debated expenditures;
  • prohibit a congressional representative from accepting gift funds or in-kind services  from any person or organization, until five years after leaving office;
  • repeal the 17th amendment;
  • establish Congressional term limits at three terms;
  • prohibit retirement from the House; and
  • prohibit Congressional medical benefits one year after leaving office.

If your candidate commits to this amendment, then vote him or her in, otherwise find and support a candidate who will.

Read Full Post »


Whatever happened to the national goals of a Strong National Defense, Fiscal Responsibility, Energy Independence, Free Market Solutions, and Individual Liberty? Why have we moved 180 degrees from this goal — a goal that made this country great?

National Defense

Over the past eight years we have worn down and, as of the latest poll of military morale, demoralized our once superb fighting force. We have had two long wars fought with politician oversight, mostly not to win, but to avoid losing. Why are we repeating mistakes of prior wars? We seem to use a calculator and a checkbook to measure our commitment to a fight, rather than providing an all out commitment to win rapidly and decisively.

In an effort to avoid drawing out the Afghan war further, our President, is considering a plan to wind down this conflict and either fight a small scale war or leave entirely. His personally appointed Afghan Commander has provided the President with a plan to win the war, but needs a greater commitment from the White House – a commitment that the White House appears unwilling to make. What the White House, and the many others, who decry that the Afghan war grinds on interminably fail to grasp simple plan. The plan is that similar to the strategy of World War II, where the Pacific Theater was fought as a holding action until the European Theater was won, we have fought a holding action in Afghanistan while we won the Iraqi war.

Our President needs to understand that the reason we went into Afghanistan was that the Taliban were allowing Al Qaeda to move freely, train freely, and constitute a large fighting and terror delivery force. Pulling out of Afghanistan or downsizing the war will embolden the Taliban and re-constitute a powerful al Qaeda. Pulling out now will waste the lives of those who have fallen and the sacrifice of those who suffered injury and permanent handicap fighting that holding action so that we could win in Iraq and then take on Afghanistan to win.

Fiscal Responsibility

Under George Bush and a mostly Republican Congress this nation experienced wild spending. Government intervention via a supposed oversight with a manipulated Community Reinvestment Act, allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to light the time fuse for a mortgage meltdown.

Now, Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress have shown the Republicans just what irrational and fiscally unconscionable spending can be. The Democrat spending in the name of stimulus has been off the charts. Unfortunately, the stimulus bill is only stimulating local governments to continue spending, and providing the Congress with the ability to funnel funds to pet, non-stimulating projects—few long term sustainable jobs have been created. Thus the unemployment rate has crossed the 10% threshold, when it was not supposed to go above 8%. We were told that the fiscal situation had reached a crisis of economic collapse and that the stimulus had to be passed quickly and fully to prevent this. Then we were told that no one could foresee just how bad the crisis was. What is worse than a national economic collapse? This failed stimulus and out of control unemployment rate has forced the administration to count “saved” jobs – a measure that simply cannot be realistically counted.

Energy Independence

The Department of Energy was created to find an alternative to gasoline in the Carter Administration—we see how well that went, yet we are still funding a $70+ billion department filled with bureaucracy.

While we sit on an abundance of oil and natural gas, we are pushing a green energy platform that has no hope of meeting the immense power needs of this country in the next ten years. Last year, we produced a little more than 2% of our energy from wind and solar. We have abandoned nuclear power – a source for clean energy, with albeit a disposal problem – yet European nations, and especially France have embraced nuclear. We are seeking to cripple this nation’s resource of cheap energy with Cap and “Tax” — sorry, Cap and Trade. According to CBS News, this effort will raise each family’s home energy bill by $1,761.

This tax will also affect business and everything you consume, by raising prices on just about all good and services originating in this country. This will be a cascading tax. The tax on a tax will have a cascading effect and will hamper small business’ ability to create jobs—these are the folks who generally create about 70% of the jobs in this country. What is absolutely dumbfounding about this effort is that the U.N.’s climate projection models which equated the increase in CO2 with a corresponding increase in earth’s temperature have been proven wrong with actual data. (Jeffrey Ball, Wall Street Journal, Monday, November 2, 2009)

On the matter of this insane backbreaking energy restriction on our economic growth, at a time when we need economic growth to pay down our gargantuan, out of this world debt, I can only assume we have gone mad.

Free Market Solutions

In just about a year, reaching back into the Bush administration, we apparently decided that government knows better that the individual. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people, has become government by and of the elected to the people not for the people — a dangerous change.

We have seen how bond holders suffered a lapse of the rule of law in the way bankruptcies were adjudicated, with unions actually being placed first in line above bond holders. We have seen how executives are being capped on earnings. Yes, there may have been abuses, but the government need not be and should not be the arbiter of how much someone in the private sector can make. Rather the shareholders should have been given more power to control the Boards of these “run a muck” companies, and to control the compensation of the top executives.

We have seen how our government has taken ownership of, and is managing private enterprise companies, like General Motors. Enough! Government can’t manage government, yet win at private enterprise. There is enough corruption in Congress today to greatly overshadow the “greedy” corporate executives, who we have been told are the scourge of the earth and the source of all our problems, by our corrupt government in Washington. For starters, just think about those sweetheart mortgage deals to Chris Dodd and others.

Individual Liberty

The 2,000 page House Bill (H.R. 3962) and the even bigger Senate Bill are supposed to provide health care for those who are uninsured, yet they do not. Too many uninsureds remain uninsured, despite the bills. The final bill will have a front loaded tax revenue stream and a back load delivery date, and it will still costs nearly a Trillion dollars. These bills severely infringe on individual rights and liberty. These bills require individuals to purchase health care insurance or be subject to fines and even jail time.  One taxes small business and both will lead to a single payer universal health care system run by the government.

Why don’t we just buy health insurance for the uninsured – it would be substantially cheaper. These 2,000 page bills are really not intended to provide health insurance for the uninsured. If they did only intend to insure the uninsured, they would only need to be 100 or so pages. Instead the Democrats hide their true agenda behind 2,000 pages wherein they control of our lives and our bodies. Remember how hard the Democrats fought and continmue to fight to allow a woman a choice over her body— “reproductive rights”.  Why then do the Democrats now wish to control every other part of our bodies?

Read Full Post »


The funeral for the main stream cable broadcast media is occurring today.  At this writing, note this post’s date and time of 2:05 PM EDT, the Mall in Washington, D.C. is filled with Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and Independents.  TV pictures reveal that the Mall is tightly packed from the Capitol to the Washington Monument, with overflow, as  a CBS affiliate reports, onto Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House.

The Fourth Estate, aptly brought to life by Edmund Burke in the House of Commons on a particular session during the 19th century, is the press.  The clergy, nobles, and commoners being the other three.  These estates were essentially the makeup of the British government at that time.  He referred to the Fourth Estate as the most powerful of the estates present that day in the House of Commons—they were in the gallery.  Closer to home, our Founding Fathers believed the Fourth Estate was similarly powerful and sufficiently independent to keep the three branches of our new government in check.  This is why freedom of the press is clearly written into our Constitution.  They were depending on the press to keep government honest.  In no way did they ever believe that the press would become complicit with the government and withhold key pieces of news, slant the news coverage, and become the house organ of two of the three branches of government.

Incredibly, at this writing CNN is broadcasting a Barack Obama speech on reform before a large  partisan audience.  It is yet another speech by him in three or so days on healthcare reform—are they expecting him to say something new?  The President is stumping in relatively Democratic conclaves trying to repair the breach in his Party over health insurance reform—this breach has gone mostly unreported by CNN.  At this writing, MSNBC had planned a televised mystery / crime documentary which must be quite good and must serve the public interest to allow them to skip reporting about a long time planned event at the Mall in the nation’s capitol, now mostly filled with grass roots demonstrators made up of every day citizen protestors.  It now appears that MSNBC did manage to do some reporting of the event after all.  These protesters are mostly against big government and big spending, regardless of political party.  If this were an anti-war rally, MSNBC would be reporting.  If this was a Obama campaign rally, they would be reporting with flourishes.

The estimate for the attendance by the Park Police is 60,000.  Recently, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, issued a memo claiming that 2 Million will show.  She was setting ultra high expectations, so she could later minimize any protest significance.  Well if the Mall is filled, depending on how tightly packed it is, it can hold anywhere between 1.7 Million to 2.1 Million people.  TV pictures indicate that the Mall is filled.  Remember CBS reported that crowd overflow filled Pennsylvania Avenue.  Of course, government estimates, the Speaker’s estimates, and the news media’s estimates will be substantially minimized to accommodate their agenda.  The Washington Post had an article written at the inauguration of President Obama about how many people the Mall can hold—Mall information found at the Washington Post click here.

Based on the broadbased main stream media failed reporting on the just broken high impact ACORN story and the failed or minimal reporting on the Tea Party protests around the country today, I can only state, if you are depending on this dead media for information, you are uninformed.  The exceptions are those of you who are getting your news from Fox or by searching the internet for real news, not a blog like mine, otherwise you are seriously in the dark and cannot make informed decisions about our nation’s future.  If you meet this uninformed criteria, then careful, you are being manipulated with all the news these “news” operations deem you should have, with the slant they want you to have.

This ideological conspiracy is an attempt at censorship plain and simple.  MSNBC and now apparently CNN among other complicit news organizations are attempting to feed the populace with what they want us to know and are withholding selected news.   If it weren’t for Fox News Channel and the internet—call it the Fifth Estate, they would be successful in using censorship to manage government propaganda.  Are we living in a free nation or are we in a government and media controlled society, like Venezuela and Iran?   

I for one will not be steered and will not comply.  Want more? Read The Acorn Story Truly Exposes Main Stream Media.

Read Full Post »


Members of Congress have taken to calling those who are angry and attend health care town hall meetings “un-American” and a “right wing mob”.  Anyone who has viewed segments of these meetings should come to the opinion that while some may be on a mission from an organization, the crowd in general seems to support the more outspoken attendees. Speaker Pelosi has demonized anti-health care bill protesters at town hall meetings.  Her demonization of these very upset and frustrated people confirms that she is a hypocrite—watch in her own words.

Perhaps the anger goes deeper than the actual health care bill.  Perhaps the anger reaches all the way to defending one’s rights against a federal government intent on rolling right over the individual.  In this bill are requirements for citizens to attend counseling sessions and to create a board which will decide what procedures are good or bad for the people based on a formula.  As in other counties being held up as bastions of humane treatment by providing health care for all, this formula will look at a person’s age or health status to determine if the individual is entitled to a procedure, a type of care, or a pill.

Here is the $64 question!  Where does the federal government derive its authority to dictate how an American obtains health care or insurance and where he or she obtains health care or insurance?  What part of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution, provides the federal government the right to make these decisions and interfere with the lives of its citizens’ freedom of choice about health care management?

Our Constitution is unique in that it provides the federal government with limited specific powers and it attempts to protect the citizens from their own federal government.  At some point in the last twenty years, we have forgotten this important constitutional keystone of our republic.  We must assume that the Speaker of the House and the Majority Whip of the Democratic Party in the House in their leadership positions should be acutely aware of the freedoms provided citizens in the Constitution and the limits on the federal government.  If they are not aware, then they should not be in those positions.

Since there is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to minimize the health rights of the citizen, the anger being seen at town hall meetings may very well encompass more than simply a disagreement on healthcare.  These attendees are furious over the federal government’s unconstitutional attempt to regulate the health care of individuals and thus appear to be an unruly organized mob.  Their anger, most likely, also extends to the recent out of control spending by Congress and the prior and present administrations.

If you listen carefully, there is distrust of government and government representatives reflected in the comments of the attendees.  And if you listen more carefully to the comments from the Democratic hosts of these town halls, you will hear often disingenuous and trite statements and a desire not to listen to the attendees.  Often these disingenuous or trite comments inflame the already angry attendees to an even higher degree.

Since much of this healthcare bill is a gross violation of the powers provided the federal government under the constitution (if you don’t believe me, read it here or for a simpler version here), the attendees are being driven to frustrated ugly mob status because no one appears to be listening.  These deaf ears are attributed to the leadership in the House of Representatives and other federally elected officials.

Consider that this healthcare bill, specifically H.R. 3200, is enormous and hard to digest; the Democrats often themselves do not understand what is in the bill; and yet are attempting to unconstitutionally takeover one sixth of our economy while in the dark about the bill.  This is not only inadequate representation, it is also unconstitutional behavior.

If these actions by our elected representatives do not make you angry, you are not paying attention or you are getting your information from the wrong sources.  You need to join the angry mob, if only to defend the freedoms granted you in the constitution.  These freedoms are a bigger issue than little old healthcare.

Read Full Post »


Let’s for a moment put party labels aside.  The Republicans, Libertarians, independents, and the Democrats are no more, for the sake of this post.   Let’s look at politicians and advocates only as proponents of public sector or the private sector.

The proponents of public sector support the government’s caretaking of its people, either through public or co-op option medical care, providing money for car purchases, subsidizing power generation, and so on and so on—spending everywhere.

The private sector proponents seek growth of industry and economies, healthier paychecks for all, faith based options for caretaking, and wealth generation for reinvestment into greater wealth generation for all.

The public sector advocates want to spend resources on all sorts of programs but struggle with how to pay for the largess.  Remember the public sector produces nothing.  It is simply a drain on the economy and cannot be sustained.  Taxing the rich and businesses will generate funds for near term projects, but over time the law of diminishing returns kicks in and the cupboard runs bare.  There is a limit to how much money can be pulled out of an economy to pay for public sector programs—the limit is what gets put back into the economy to replace what was spent.  Remember as you grow the public sector you shrink the private sector.  Soon the private sector will disappear and the public sector will have to provide less and less for the populace—rationing.

Remember the empty store shelves in the Soviet Union?  Well this will happen here if the production economy does not grow.  Unless we find a way to grow our economy we will not survive.  This country has been a consumer and not a production economy for nearly 40 years.  All this has done is deplete our reserves, build debt, make the dollar weaker, and make us unable to replenish what we are spending—we simply consume.  As a nation will will run out of whatever wealth we have left.

Just look at how the government has reacted to the current fiscal crisis.  It was brought on by debt.  Now we are fixing the problem by growing the public sector and we are borrowing to get out of debt—does this make sense to anyone. We should have ignited the private sector by placing a moratorium of income taxes for two or three years—it would have cost the same as the unproductive stimulus, but it would have already begun paying big dividends.

 The private sector advocates want smaller government, with the government being a small drain on the results of the private sector economy.  If the private sector is supported by the government through lower taxes, less restrictive rules, use of natural resources that allow the private sector to produce, the economy will produce, export, grow jobs and this will feed on itself, as if it were a perpetual engine—okay I exaggerate a bit.

If this government fosters a strong small business segment and a somewhat controlled big business segment usually through competition, but with legitimate— not choking —government regulation, the private sector over the long term will grow, and provide prosperity.  Since the public sector produces nothing, and is a 100 % drain on resources, it can never produce prosperity, that is unless we can have a replay of the miracle of the loaves and the fishes .

There are those who say that profit is bad, well unless these anti-profit people can offer another way to grow and replenish an economy to continue to deliver these goods and services, private sector profit is the only way to go.  Remember, how long can government deliver these goods and services without replenishing what has been used?  Remember the Soviet Union store shelves. 

Now I make the leap to government medical care.  Forget about the lack of efficiency and effectiveness in anything the government does.  Let us simply look at the non-replenished resources from a stagnant public sector economy.  How much time will pass before medical rationing must occur in a service driven by an economy that does not grow—it only shrinks.

Anyone who has not as yet joined the flat earth society should seriously consider that when you vote for a representative, that representative should be a long term thinker and always vote to build and grow an economy by producing.  If the person is a short term thinker and only believes in picking the fruit from the tree without ever feeding or water it, then you will get the diminishing public sector option and everyone will be equally poor.

Read Full Post »


Recently the Democratic leadership in the House of Representatives sought to move a global warming bill – a 900 page bill – that has not been read or digested by any legislator, out of committee and to the full House for a vote.  Congressman Henry Waxman, Democrat, the committee chairman, acknowledged publicly that he did not fully understand what was in the bill.  He simply wanted to move the bill out of committee and to the House for a vote.  At 900 pages, this an enormous bill covering intricate “cap and trade” and other environmental regulations.

“Cap and trade” potentially represents a radical change in the cost to the people of this country of our industrial infrastructure and power generation.  This bill has the potential to devastate our economy beyond the economy’s current volatility and yet no one person really knows what is in it.  What makes this plan even more flagrant is the cavalier attitude and approach by the Democratic leadership on passage of this bill.

When the committee Republicans were insisting that the bill be read aloud – their right under our Congressional procedures – Chairman Waxman hired a speed reader for the clerk’s staff and threatened to have the entire bill read by the speed reader.  Remember, speed readers are those folks no one can understand and are found in comedy routines.  Are our legislators this arrogant and whimsical about how they represent us in Congress?  Instead of taking bill content knowledge seriously, the Democrats just want to pass an ideologically radical, economically risky 900 page bill without any one legislator knowing what is in it.

Don’t we as citizens deserve more?  When we elect someone to Congress, we expect them to represent us on matters of legislation.  We don’t expect our legislators to abdicate learning about bills before them so they can make a prudent and intelligent vote.  If they are not going to bother learning what is in a bill, then we can either use a dice roll or hire chimps to vote.  Hiring a speed reader is not a funny or laughable matter.   It is an arrogant abuse of power and a mockery of our constitutional republic.   Just how many bills will these legislators vote on without reading?  This flagrant approach to bills started with the unread $770B stimulus package.  We deserve better.

Read Full Post »


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 »


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 »


Why is the Housing and Urban Development website being used to ferment social upheaval?

If you don’t believe me take the two minute internet tour.   The instructions follow.  Even though there is a rather weak, cover your butt, disclaimer we know exactly what is intended.  This abuse of government power must be stopped or the current administration will become more brazen.  There is an agenda to this administration and the current Congress and it is to move this country squarely into socialism.  If you want this government making your decision for you then do nothing, otherwise get the word out and notify your representatives in Congress and in your statehouse.  Notify your friends – the ones who wish to think for  themselves.

The two minute tour can be followed here:

1. Using the internet go to the HUD website: www.hud.gov
2. On the left hand side of the page under Communities click on Organizing
3. On the right hand side under Related Information click on the Citizens Handbook
4. After reading the rather weak and perfunctory disclaimer click on:  http://www.vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/
5. Under the Citizen’s Handbook on the right hand side click on the Citizen’s Library
6. Now click on books on action organizing

Is this what you voted for?

Read Full Post »


Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior, does not want to drill for oil off our coasts and will reverse the Bush Administration’s position on off shore drilling.  He prefers wind and solar.  I also prefer wind and solar, but I understand that effectively creating a new national energy infrastructure with additional and rebuilt power grids is tentative at best in the next ten years.  Why do we need to gamble on getting it right with a massive shift on source energy and delivery, when we can have that domestic off shore oil as a security blanket?  If we were to displace off shore oil with domestic wind and solar, we could become an oil exporter and actually change the balance of trade deficit to a trade surplus. 

Watch Salazar’s statement on Bloomberg.   Read Bloomberg’s article here.

Regardless of what he says, no matter the excuses he makes, the public interest calls for domestic offshore drilling now – it is clearly in our national security interest.

If we drilled for and sold our off shore oil on the open market, we could blunt the sale of oil by nations like Iran, Russia, and Venezuela.  We could actually use oil as a foreign policy tool.  We need all the edge we can get.  Yes, right now the price of oil is down, but where will it be in five years?  The Democrats put us in a bind over the recent oil price hike, with decisions that made it difficult for us to have more domestic oil on hand when we needed it.  It has been the war against off shore drilling by democrats that has left us defenseless against foreign oil.  The balance of power in the world will be in our favor if we have our own oil to use and possibly sell.  If we are successful in switching to renewable power generation, other nations may not switch as successfully.  Other nations will still need oil – it is better that they get it from us than from nations hostile to us.  In any event, wind and solar source energy will be a fifty year national change over. 

The Obama administration is so intent on shifting to green energy to save the world, that they are gambling our near term ten year future on an untried and unproven massive change on source energy and source energy delivery to power our entire nation.  Why not drill just in case?  Keep in mind that both wind and solar are harvested where the energy grid is not.  We need to build out our energy grid to deliver the wind and solar source energy through the existing grid for delivery to businesses and homes.  This necessary grid project alone is massive and wrought with a not in my backyard mentality (NIMBY).  Shutting out the mining for and drilling for domestic oil resources located off shore is foolish and myopic.  Gambling on adequately replacing our foreign oil with solar and wind in the next ten years is not only foolish, but arrogantly foolhardy.  It is national security negligence.

Read Full Post »


Socialism may be coming to a country near you soon.  Yes, if Senator Obama and the Senate and House Democrats win, it will be the end of the trail for capitalism.  The secular progressive movement, led by George Soros and his minions, has been funneling money into the Democratic Party and to its candidates for some time now, with the intent on building a slate of Senators and Representatives who are decidedly socialists by nature.  The crowning achievement for the movement was the support provided a Senator chosen early on for his socialist beliefs to run for President, Barack Obama.  Read: Soros poised for payback on his political investment an editorial from the The Examiner.

George Soros will now have a superhighway to Change – Socialist Change.  We will see wealth redistribution on a grand scale – Obama said it himself recently when he told a hard working self employed plumber that he will experience wealth distribution – his wealth will go to some one else.    We will see the single largest growth in government in the history of this nation.  We will expand the culture that people are not accountable to themselves or to others and that regardless of their actions, government will attempt to take care of them, albeit in a grossly inefficient manner.  Who will be the arbiter of just how much wealth will be redistributed at any time?

There are basically three economic systems found in the world.  Communism, Socialism, and Capitalism are the three, but no one is practiced in its purest sense.  We might ask why an economic system is important.

“…a country’s economic system determines the allocation of the nation’s resources of labor, land, machinery, materials, etc. between their alternative possible uses.” “… a country’s economic system determines the distribution between the individuals in the nation of that which is produced using the nation’s resources.”  “We need to know how an economic system attempts to solve the problems of allocation and distribution before we can see why there is unemployment, inflation, poverty, and so on.” These quotes were taken from an old text book  “Introduction to Economics” by John Craven.

Socialism is chosen by some as an artificial means of controlling unemployment and poverty.  The problem with this noble effort is that time after time, in national experiment after experiment, it actually creates more unemployment and more poverty.  The key element of socialism, redistribution of wealth, actually reduces the incentive for those who create jobs by growing businesses and making wealth for themselves.  When the incentive is removed, as there can be no success in business, the effort dwindles and the economy shrinks.  The shrinking economy fosters more government programs, and greater protectionism.  More government programs means taking more from those who “have it” and giving it to others, until the loss in incentive becomes a vicious cycle.  As protectionism grows, the cost of imported goods rises, and the ability to export diminishes, further restricting jobs, increasing unemployment, and increasing the price of goods and services.  The vicious cycle continues.  By now you get my point.

Socialism is a misguided effort by those who do not learn very well from history.  Read “Disillusioned with Socialism: South Asia experiments with free enterprise.” Europe has toyed with socialism.  Just look at their GDP and unemployment rates – they are far worse than the capitalistic United States.  Europeans have learned that once you start the wealth re-distribution project for those who are either not motivated to contribute to society or have been unsuccessful, you have spread the proverbial toothpaste into the culture and that toothpaste cannot be placed back into the tube easily.  Europeans are paying the socialism price now – yet we do not learn from the failed experiment.  Be careful of what you seek.

What we do have here is a lawyer, an avowed socialist masquerading as a populist, supported by the George Soros machine.  Barack Obama is about to achieve an ignoble change in our economic system by taking income from hardworking productive people – medium and small business owners – job creators,  and redistributing it to those who either have been less fortunate or are simply not as productive.  If he is elected, we shall see just how effective this lawyer’s theory is: reduce the incentive of hard workers to work hard; forcibly share what they have worked for; and grow government to create jobs.  The theory fails to take into account that without the medium and small business job creation machine; jobs will be lost, not created.

Remember, the man, Barack Obama, has never run anything, managed anything, or built anything, in his life.  He is a lawyer turned socio-economic theorist.  Remember that his espoused social plan has not worked in the past and will not work now.

Read Full Post »


Listening to the arguments and intentional misinformation spewing forth for and against drilling, it has become clear that this struggle is not between today’s low gas prices and high gas prices, but rather a struggle of ideologies. It is about forcing a change in the way we want to live or finding a way to continue to accommodate the way we want to live.

The Democratic Party’s defense of the status quo about not drilling for oil on shore and off shore is that the price at the pump will not come down tomorrow; drilling will not help for ten years – this was said by the same Party ten years ago; oil companies have 68 million acres not as yet drilled; ANWR, a frozen tundra covered in snow and ice so far north in the Arctic that no one will visit it for its scenic beauty, is too pristine to drill in a minuscule portion of that preserve; and on and on for the excuse of the day.

If you carefully examine the quotes on the topic of domestic drilling and pump price from Obama and other Party notables, a different motivation surfaces. These folks look to the high gas prices as a blessing. They seem to believe that high gas prices will finally force the SUV driving, air conditioning loving, home heating, energy wasting public to conserve. This is a “global warming trumps all other positions” manifesto. The elite of the Democratic Party are looking to and hoping for the pain at the pump to last indefinitely, and to use it as medicine to bring the energy loving fools in line. We have heard from Obama about how we must be more like Europe and conserve. Bottom line is that the Democratic Party elites simply do not want us burning oil. There is no attention paid to the ravages our economy has and will suffer at the hands of the foreign oil gods. There is no attention paid to how we have stripped our independence and defense bare as we have become dependent on these foreign oil gods.

The demographics of the Democratic Party have changed from the 50’s and the 60’s, when it was easy to spot a Democrat – he or she was a middle class working person who wanted protection from big business. Today’s Democrat can come from a variety of socio-economic positions. The Party ranges from the 1) secular progressives, usually affluent people who feel there is no moral right or wrong; 2) blue collar workers left over in the Party from the prior positions of the Party – these are the folks Obama referred to as “bitter”; 3) immigrants, both illegal and legal who are looking for a perceived better life; and 4) highly educated individuals who tend to be academics and who are pursuing the “I know what is best for you” agenda – these people truly believe that they are much smarter than the rest of us, therefore they need to tell us how to live our lives.

The Democratic Party hierarchy is filled with the “I know what is best for you folks” crowd, now led by Barack Obama, and this group, many who are also secular progressive, have decided that what is best for its party members and the independents, Republicans, and other assorted groups is to conserve and to go global. They want us to embrace the European lifestyle, have no confrontation with other nations – just let them be and all will be well, eat less, and ride our bicycles instead of driving. They have embraced the as yet unproved theorem that man is causing global warming, and yet they want us to make saving the planet our highest priority and that we must pay any price to accomplish this. Now just for a minute, let’s look at how this position affects the other Democratic Party members and the non-enlightened members of other parties and independents.

The blue collar crowd and immigrants, both legal and illegal, are being pounded by gas prices, food prices, health, and education expenses. To combat the perception that the Party does not care about these groups in its quest for European equalization, the Party has adopted a very socialistic view – let’s “villanize” corporations, especially big oil, the military, and any group that has the audacity to believe in any other policy than they do. The Democratic Party has embraced, even more than its historical positions, the take from the rich and give to the poor approach. Of course, they have to keep redefining the rich to accomplish this. If they do not take this position, then the elites in the Party will find that they will have lost the rank and file due to the policies of the Party – remember the pain of the expense of oil, food, etc. due to the march to save the planet from global warming. Also remember that taking from the rich and giving to the poor deprives this economy of the initiative to succeed and is self defeating in the long run.

This energy struggle is really about using today’s high cost of oil and the future high cost of oil to move this country off oil and toward incredibly expensive renewable energy before it is ready. While the drilling for oil today and tomorrow; and becoming self sufficient for energy will not immediately lower prices, it will mitigate the cost of energy, all types, in the years ahead as the world increases energy demand to 146%, of what it is today, by 2030 – EIA is the source. They do not want the U.S. to drill now and drill here because it interferes with their view of the future. They are not concerned about the impact of immediately moving to expensive renewable energy, before it is ready, done by restricting access to domestic oil and gas. They are not concerned that this method will negatively impact this nation by undermining our economy before we reach the utopia of 100% renewable energy. This premature move will make us dangerously vulnerable to foreign powers; and will make these foreign powers even richer and more powerful than then they have become today due to oil.

This Democratic Party Hidden Energy policy does not take into consideration that hybrid vehicles, and solar arrays are out of the price reach of many of their rank and file, as well as many other Americans due to the pain at the pump and other forces squeezing their wallets. It does not consider that hydrogen vehicles and electric cars are still experimental and when ready will also be priced out of reach for these people. They do not consider that the SUV and pickup owners along with the home heating oil consumers in this country cannot easily exchange their vehicles for the hybrids, or their equipment for solar heating because it is too expensive to do so.

Let’s remember that the Republican Party has offered no real energy solutions or any plan for energy either. The Republicans are not as smarmy as the Democratic elites about energy. If fact, they are pretty transparent about not addressing this problem either. They are just more straight forward about their incompetence.

This country needs a comprehensive energy policy now. It should cover how we transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy. It should cover how drilling here and drilling now will strengthen our economy. It should cover how drilling here and drilling now will add good paying jobs to the economy. It should cover how we develop and initiate renewable energy in an energy matrix that includes all other forms of energy. Unless we choose to become a second tier society, as Europe has chosen, saving our economy does trump the attention paid to global warming. We can do both, but a blended plan is required.

Energy independence early on from oil and natural gas and transitioning through 2030 to mostly renewable energy will keep us from sending more than $500,000,000,000 – yes Five Hundred Billion – to other nations annually to acquire replacement oil for the oil we are currently sitting on. Sending this much money to foreign powers each year has undermined and is undermining our economy, our standard of living, and our security in the world. If Norway, a “clean” nation, can drill off shore for energy independence, and France and Sweden can use nuclear power for their version of energy independence, we can have our own march toward energy independence starting with drilling everywhere and finishing with renewable energy to burn so to speak. If the Democrats and the Republicans representing you in Congress do not want to build a comprehensive national security saving, economy saving, and environment saving energy plan covering the energy transition of this nation through 2030, then you are represented by the wrong person. Think about that in November.

Added June 22, 2008 9:33 PM MST- Arizona

The following is information from the American Petroleum Institute that refutes the claims by most Democratic politicians and Democratic strategists that the oil companies have 68 million leased acres to drill on and that they should drill on these leases first. This refrain from the left to make arguments against drilling falls into the hidden agenda. Here are questions and answers to the leases about why drilling takes place or not. The API makes a lot more sense then these reckless individuals who will spout just about anything to prevent drilling.

The facts about non-producing federal leases:

CLAIM: Oil and natural gas companies are given leases by the government and purposely don’t produce from them to increase prices.

FACT: Companies pay billions of dollars for the right to explore on federal lands. If the company does not produce within the lease term, it must give the lease back to the government, and the company does not recover the billions of dollars it may have invested.

CLAIM: Companies let many of their leases sit idle and don’t produce them

FACT: Companies actively develop their leases – but not every lease contains oil or natural gas in commercial quantities. In many cases, the so-called “idle leases” are not idle at all; they are under geologic evaluation or in development and could be an important source of domestic supply. However, this does not mean all leases have the potential to produce. Companies can evaluate leases for several years only to determine that they do not contain oil or natural gas in commercial quantities. The road to bring the oil and natural gas to market — obtaining the lease, evaluation, exploration and production — is a long and complicated one.

CLAIM: If the lease doesn’t contain oil or natural gas, then the company shouldn’t have bought it.

FACT: There are tremendous risks and challenges involved in finding and producing oil and natural gas. There is no guarantee that a lease will even contain hydrocarbons. It is not unusual for a company to spend in excess of $100 million only to drill a dry hole. A company usually has only has limited knowledge of resource potential when it buys a lease. Only after the lease is acquired, will the company be in the position to evaluate it, usually with a very costly seismic survey followed by an exploration well.

CLAIM: There’s absolutely no reason for a company not to produce if it finds oil or gas on the lease.

FACT: If the company finds resources in commercial quantities, it will produce the lease. But there can sometimes be delays – often as long as seven to 10 years – for environmental and engineering studies, to acquire permits, install production facilities (or platforms for offshore leases) and build the necessary infrastructure to bring the resources to market. Litigation, landowner disputes and regulatory hurdles can also delay the process.

CLAIM: The vast majority of federal and gas resources are already available for development.

FACT: In the Lower 48 states, about 85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf and 67 percent of onshore federal lands are off-limits or facing significant restrictions to development. There is no way, at this stage, to determine exactly the extent of the resources off-limits because many of these areas have not been subject to inventory studies in decades.

CLAIM: Non-producing leases could provide a major source of new supplies.

FACT: Many of these leases will provide a major source of new domestic supply once they are developed. Companies are actively developing the leases, and in addition to paying for the lease, they must also pay rent to the government while they conduct development and exploration efforts. But this process takes time. Reducing the time companies have to develop a lease or increasing the costs imposed by government will not increase supply for American consumers. Nor will denying access to areas of oil and natural gas potential like the Atlantic and Pacific OCS.

CLAIM: Increased domestic drilling activity has not led to lower gasoline prices, and more leases and drilling won’t help either.

FACT: Our nation needs more supplies of all forms of energy, including domestic oil and natural gas, to meet its growing energy demand. Increased drilling has helped the United States offset the natural declines in domestic oil and natural gas production from older fields. Greater drilling activity tends to produce more supply. Fundamental economics suggest that additional supplies put downward pressure on prices.

CLAIM: Companies should be penalized for not producing from their leases.

FACT: Oil and gas companies take all the risk with federal leases. Not only do they pay billions to obtain leases, they pay to hold them while they are spending even more capital to determine if these leases contain resources. Penalties on leaseholders on top of those fees would only discourage U.S. exploration and production, at a time when the United States needs all the energy it can get.

Added June 24, 2008:

You will hear that it takes 10 years to bring oil to the gas pump – the answer according to the American Petroleum Institute is 7 to 10 years depending on location and infrastructure. Now the rhetoric has been heightened by the left . Tom Daschle on Fox News Sunday, June 22, 2008, stated that oil from new drilling would not be available until 2030. As this is outright intentional misinformation, it supports the argument that the left has a hidden agenda.

Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: