Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’


Twist and turns from an unpredictable Chief Justice of the supreme Court of the land – what does it mean?  While the health care mandate is struct down as unconstitutional under the commerce clause, it is Phoenix rising from the ashes as a tax, under the authority of Congress to lay and collect taxes.

What does this mean?  Simple, the Affordable Health Care Act survives mostly intact, with medicaid in jeopardy.  States cannot be punished for not expanding medicaid.  The real meaning of the Affordable Care Act decision is that the democrats in Congress and President Obama insisted, promised, that this new Act is not a tax, but when they went to court they argued that it was a tax – gross misrepresentation, again from this administration!

Since the President was adamant that this mandate was not a tax, repeatedly over time and in all forums, then argued in federal court and in the supreme Court that the mandate was justifed as a tax, will he pay the price for this massive deception?  Did he win a battle and perhaps lose the war?  The majority of americans are opposed to the mandate, and it appears that they are not opposed because it is a violation of the commerce clause, and that it really was a tax.  Americans just don’t want to be mandated by our federal government to do anything and don’t care by what means this was accomplished.

Has Chief Justice Roberts, as the swing jurist in this decision, created a mine field for President Obama?  Does the president have to explain his supreme misrepresentation to the american people?  In addition, the hidden decision here is that the federal government has been reined in under the commerce clause, limiting its commerce clause power, but unleashed as a taxing giant to use taxes to control the behavior of the citizens of this nation?

I am sure the founders never dreamed of a free nation under the thumb of the central government created by its states to make the states, as a whole, stronger, but with “limited” powers.  It appears that the federal government under the right to lay and collect taxes to influence the behavior of its citizens is now unchecked with unlimited powers – thank you, President Obama for the deception!

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


Recent pronouncements of President Obama and a three year trend of his administration have crystallized just where he stands on economics and job creation.

First, look at the three year history of his administration.  The never-ending onslaught of regulation on business and banking under the guise of protecting the consumer and the environment have used a regulatory and lending blanket to smother the small business job generator.  Small business has traditionally generated over 70% of the nation’s jobs.  Now small business is both being smothered by regulation and a dearth of lending availability from the nation’s banks.  The latter due to new banking regulations and Federal Reserve created opportunities to earn, outside of lending, by using the spread between borrowing from the Federal Reserve and then buying Treasuries.

The EPA is single handily ripping the life out of the coal industry, and its jobs.  Oil drilling has been seriously curtailed on federal land and off shore, killing high paying jobs.  Even fracking for natural gas and oil from shale is under attack by the EPA.  Have you wondered why recent reports of EPA action indicate that the EPA has armed SWAT teams and why EPA agents now are armed?  If this is true, what is next – armed truant officers and meter readers?

Now let’s look at two of the tenets of socialism.  In socialism:

  • the government controls big business and the banking industry
  • jobs come from big business with small business being generally non-existent

President Obama has recently provided additional insight to what he believes to be job creation.  His statement that the private sector is doing just fine was ludicrous but more so indicative of where he wants to take this country.  His new plan is his old plan.  He wants to create jobs by creating more non-federal government, but local government jobs, and we already know that federal jobs are up as well. CNN-Money reports: “…The number of federal employees grew by 123,000, or 6.2%, under President Obama, according to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget…”

To be fair and the article points this out that this is just a continuation of President Bush’s job growth in the federal government. I say, more of what is not good is bad.  A word about President Bush – he expanded government, yes, and this was the start of our move to bigger government.  This does not mean that it is good that President Obama doubled down on what was not a good trend in the first place.  My mother would have said: “Two wrongs don’t make a right”.

The article also points out a greater number of regulations were introduced during the term of Bush than Obama.  Don’t go by the number, but by the severity and impact.  The Obama administration is masterful at private sector killing regulation and the regulations that place big business under the thumb of the federal government – Affordable Health Care is one and Dodd Frank is another.  Each of these laws authorizes the bureaucrats of Obama’s administration to write extensive, binding, impactful regulations that destroy small business and gives the federal government unprecedented power over big business and the banks – key tenets of socialism.

Back to Mr. Obama’s pronouncements about creating jobs.  Rather than unleash the private sector and small business to grow and truly create economically productive jobs, he is pushing for a repeat of the failed $800+ Billion stimulus which was going to create police, fire, and teaching jobs, as well as apparently non-existent shovel ready jobs, by doubling down and borrowing more money to pour into local government, government sector unions, and economically unproductive jobs.  Remember the reason why police, fire, and teachers have been laid off is the inability of local government to pay the benefits and pensions resulting from these government sector union jobs.  More socialism!

Apparently Mr. Obama is incapable of or has no desire to foster private sector jobs, even private sector union jobs, and he just has to feed the government sector unions with more stimuli.  His solution to unemployment and the stagnant economic growth is to move into the only direction he knows and believes in; and that is to grow government, foster government sector unions, minimize or eliminate small business, have the banks do the bidding for the federal government, and ultimately raise taxes.  His desired action requires more taxes and more taxes shrink economies.

I can only suggest that anyone who disagrees with me look up how failed socialist states operated.  The plan Obama is using is the failed plan of the past, worldwide.  There has not been one socialist economy in history that has improved and sustained the quality of life and standard of living of the populace.  Government jobs, while a necessary pill which must be taken in great moderation, are not economically viable contributors to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and the standard of living of any economy – they require more taxes and again taxes shrink economies.  Yet he steadfastly refuses to unleash the 70% job creator – small business.

 

Read Full Post »


Well, if we tax every penny earned by the rich (above $250,000 in income), then of course they will be paying their fare share and we will close the deficit.  President Obama says taxing the rich in not class warfare – it’s math.  Okay, let’s look at the math.

It is becoming well known that if we taxed all those folks making $250,000 and up at a 100% tax rate and took all their earnings each year, we would yield only $900B annually, but would still leave us short of the $1.65T annual deficit and no hope of paying down the $14 plus trillion debt.

Obama’s math simply does not work so this must be class warfare of a socialist.  Keep in mind that President Obama’s parents were communists, by his own admission; his grandparents were communists, by his own admission; and his childhood/young adult mentor was a communist, by his own admission.  Keep in mind that he only hung around with communists at Columbia, by his own admission.  Keep in mind that share the wealth, pay their fare share, fat cats on wall street, and all his other phrases are the phrases of a communist or a socialist.  Keep in mind that communist Russia was called the Union of Soviet Socialists Republics.  Keep in mind that communists embrace socialism.

With all this in mind, is he steering economic solutions for a free market America or forcing us down a path to socialism?

 

 

 

Read Full Post »


Tax the rich! The rich must pay their fair share! No more private jets! We keep hearing these refrains from our President and others on the left.  Is our debt problem caused by the rich?  Is our deficit problem caused by the rich?  Is our spending problem caused by the rich.  Recently, I happened upon an interview of a gentleman named Robert Frank.  He wrote a book call “Richistan”.

It seems that he took a pencil to paper to calculate the affect on our deficit and debt “taxing the rich”to solve our problem of spending would have.  His calculation is stunning and would suggest that our President and the left need to break out their calculators – their solution simply does not work. I have always believed that the left attended the voodoo school of economics and maybe I am correct.  Really, the far left progressives are not as much concerned about economics as they are about insuring that the few dictate to the many, how to live, how to work, and how to play – economics and facts just get in their way.

  • In the interview, Mr. Frank was asked “If we reverse the Bush tax cuts would that solve our problem.
  • His answer: this would yield $100B annually against our $1.65T annual deficit.

 

  • What if we taxed all those folks making $250,000 annually and up at a 100% tax rate – take all their earnings?
  • Answer: this would yield $900B annually, but would still leave us short of the $1.65T annual deficit.

 

  • What if we confiscated all the wealth of the Forbes list of wealthy Americans?
  • Answer: This would net $1.6T and would solve the deficit for only one year.  (deficit, under our spending ways is annual)

 

  • How about if we were to end that corporate jet depreciation?
  • Answer: This would yield a couple billion against a $1.65T deficit.

We owe more than $14 Trillion and add to that debt at the rate of $1.65 Trillion annually.  We are increasing our debt at nearly 12% per year.  When will the reckless spending end?  We need to end the spending before we have any hope of lowering our debt.  To lower our debt we need a surplus every year and not a $1.65T deficit.  In Washington they are wringing their hands over proposals that might yield $2Trillion over ten years.  They do the Irish Jig if they achieve a 1% cut from the spending growth rate.  These “great” plans will not solve our annual deficit.  More taxes will not solve our deficit.  Only sustained substantial spending cuts are the answer.

We, the federal government, should be taking from the economy – the taxpayers – just enough to provide the basic obligations of the federal government as found in the Constitution.

 

Read Full Post »


Over the last 100 years and more specifically throughout the last 50 years progressives have infiltrated our media, unions as progressive socialists, universities under the protection of tenure, K through 12 school systems via the socialist teachers’ unions and tenure, judiciary, and a host of other key areas of society, especially the U.S. Congress.

Of little note was the infiltration of our state legislatures, with 49 separate houses (Nebraska has only one), by progressive candidates masquerading as moderate and liberal Democrats and Republicans, yes Republican in name only – RINO.  After the election of 2008 and the supreme take over of the U.S. Senate and the House, along with the White House, by the progressive socialists of America, now known as the Democratic party, these folks got pretty smug.  Nancy Pelosi truly thought she could ram unpopular legislation through the Congress and did just that.  President Barack Obama, stocked the executive branch with one communist or communist sympathizer after another to begin his quest for one branch rule of this nation,with the help of his union and other friends (by the way, who is on the other end of his Blackberry).  The new Congress promptly accommodated him by abdicating its role of law making to the executive branch.

These folks knew that in 2010, a limited number of Senate seats were up for election and that the way congressional districts have been defined by federal law a host of safe seats existed, insuring that the core progressive faithfull, many ranking members of committees, would be reelected, and they were.  Despite the historic turnover of Congress, Pelosi kept her role as the leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives.

Well surprise, the progressive playbook had a flaw.  It did not properly consider the role of the state legislatures.  2010 meant that nearly 700 democrat and democrat progressives were thrown out and replaced by Republicans, conservative Republicans to boot.  27 states currently have both houses controlled by Republicans.  Many more states have at least one branch and the executive branch controlled by Republicans with the other branch holding only a tiny majority for democrats.  Wisconsin replaced a progressive Democrat controlled Senate, Assembly, and Executive Branch with Republicans.

The movements bubbling up from the states offering a host of federal government push back are building steam.  These include efforts for state driven balanced budget, debt ceiling, nullification, and general states rights U.S. Constitutional Amendments.  A reassertion of the 10th Amendment, herculean efforts to stop Obama-care, reclaim land seized by the federal government, anti-public union give-aways, and a host of other anti-federal government legislation and lawsuits.

The war between traditional individual liberty, free market, limited government believers – the Tea Party types, and the progressive socialists who despise our Constitution and equal justice system – everyone has an opportunity not a promise to succeed way of life – is not over, but of late the progressives have been seriously outflanked.

Read Full Post »


The following is an excerpt from the book-blog “U.S. Constitution: “Sine Die“.  It sets up what is now actually happening.  The list of executive branch regulations is growing exponentially and is heaping great cost on the fragile U.S. economy at a time when we need less regulation and lower cost to survive.

“Congress Abdicates Its Lawmaking Power”

In 1913, the progressive socialists destroyed the vertical checks and balance between the States and the federal government, with the seventeenth amendment.  Just as in 1913 with the action against the States, today, a critical milestone on the path to a socialist government and economy for the progressives was to destroy the horizontal checks and balance and the separation of powers among the branches of the federal government.  This has clearly picked up pace in the last eighteen months, with the progressive socialists chairing just about every committee in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.  With the extreme progressive socialist leadership of Nancy Pelosi in the House and Harry Reed in the Senate, the progressives enabled the passage of two major bills with no one given time to read the bills – yet like lemmings fellow progressives and liberals voted for; a health care bill; and a financial regulation bill.  Neither bill was truly about health care or financial regulation.  These bills were all about progressives taking over the economy and collapsing the separation of powers in the federal government.

These bills, combined, create numerous new federal agencies and thousands of rules to be written by executive branch and independent agency bureaucrats appointed by the Executive Branch – not by Congress.  Bureaucrat written rules will now carry the force of law.  These new and existing executive branch and independent agencies are empowered to write unchecked regulations – they have been empowered to write a massive amount of invasive law.  Essentially the progressives in Congress just transferred, by law, their Constitutional legislative authority to the Executive Branch and to independent agencies, like the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, also known as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).  The Executive Branch and independent agencies now have the capability of writing law unchecked by your elected representatives and to selectively enforce existing law to control the future of this nation.

The horizontal balance brought about by the separation of powers and the checks and balances among the branches of the federal government are gone.  The vertical check on the federal government by the States is gone.  The executive branch and the CFPB are now able to control all aspects of our financial transactions, capital markets, and our health.  They will grow more powerful in 2012 as they write more new law.  The President and his appointee at the CFPB can now actually penalize one or more businesses or industries and even seize companies it considers a threat to our economy, without due process.  Where is the freedom from seizure found in the Bill of Rights?  As the new central government grows, our individual liberty will continue to shrivel until it is gone.

The progressives will now pick up the pace on their march to move us to failed socialism for the sake of power and world wealth redistribution.  The executive branch can and will engineer events that will continue to move our economy to total collapse and thus with a groundswell of despair from suffering citizens, the public will readily accept a totalitarian government’s help and an abandonment of what remains of the Constitution.  This will be the end game of the progressives and it is around the corner.  History repeats itself and if you look at how totalitarian government comes into power, you will find that it is by promising suffering citizens a bright future – “if you will just follow us”.  First, however, the progressives need to create the suffering and this is well underway.  Our economy is at a crossroads – continue the Obama and friends progressive socialist prescription, and they will have achieved this goal of extreme suffering.   Shall we rename this once great nation “The National Socialists of America” or “The EBCG of America” – “The Executive Branch Central Government of America”?-

It the last few months the Obama administration has enacted regulations:

  • severely limiting oil drilling in this country,
  • knocking on the door to impose a version of “Card Check”,
  • allowing an expansion of the use and volume of ethanol in a gallon of gas, despite its disruption of the food supply, increasing food prices, and being deterious to the engines it powers,
  • using the EPA to further regulate the biomass industry and requiring expensive controls on power company and industry emissions, raising energy costs when this country needs to seek cheaper energy to restart our manufacturing base,
  • adding to consumer product safety, and ear safety regulation and cost,
  • reinterpreting the laws on illegal immigration to minimize deportation on non-criminal illegal immigrants,
  • implementing “Net Neutrality” is the first step of taking over the internet,
  • opening up the opportunities for trial lawyers to sue the meat and the poultry industries, again adding to prices,
  • providing tax breaks for trial attorneys,
  • and instituting onerous and costly heavy truck fuel economy standards.

(Source: The American Spectator, December 2011/January 2011, pages 23 through 25)

So many of these federal regulations have been enacted over the overt objections of Congress, it is safe to say that we have lost our federal republic form of government.  We have gone from limited power with the states still in charge to unlimited power centered in the executive branch with a feckless Congress and powerless states.  This must change or we are doomed to a new form of government, with central planning at the executive branch, a continued weak economy, people dependent on the state, and loss of individual freedom in the free market: Socialism.

Read Full Post »


I have not been delivering posts for this blog of late for a number of reasons, but this is one that I must write.  Normally, I provide solutions, but in this case I have no solutions to offer.  Now that the primaries are underway and some have finished, we begin to see the landscape shaping toward a removal of incumbents in both parties.  While the removal of incumbents, especially those who are progressive socialists / large central government heavy spending types is essential, we are headed to a dramatic radical change in this nation; one that we have never experienced, at least in my lifetime.  When we complete the purge of the Congress in both the House and Senate (only one-third of the senate is up for reelection) in the general election, we will have created a powerful lame-duck beast.

From November 3rd through and including January 3rd 2011, we will have between 40 and 50 unseated politicians who have nothing to lose by doing President Obama’s bidding.  The draconian severity of the legislation these lame ducks will pass for their President to sign will be earthshaking.  We will see amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens, and a bailout of the union pension funds. Keep in mind that the unions have unsustainable pension problems because they simply cannot fund the promises made and they have used their available funds to get socialist progressive candidates elected.  During this dark period we will see our government collected tax money used to reimburse unions for the vast sums they poured into the campaigns of the folks who will now pay them back with our money.  This means that these unions will have dramatically transformed our America from what we know with our own money.

You might say that when we have replaced these incumbents with fresh faces we can reverse the legislation of the 111th Congress.  Well we will need two-thirds of each house to override the President’s veto.  During this period of lame duck representation, those who are shy right now in the campaign period to increase our deficit and our debt will be unshackled from the fear of being voted out.  They will now be able to set a record for stimulus, earmarks, and progressive big government legislation, along with a massive cap-and-trade bill to solve an imaginary man-made climate problem – it is really a worldwide wealth redistribution tax that will be imposed.

We will see Puerto Rico as our 51st state, an end to drilling for oil in this country, and the beginning of serfdom for the citizens of the United States of America.  We will also see an intentional further opening of the border with Mexico.  Every dream that the  progressive wealth redistribution activists have ever had will become a reality during this lame duck period – they will have nothing to lose.

President Obama will be served his radical transformation of America on a silver platter – he will only have to sign legislation.  During the revolution lame-duck period there will be no checks and balance system that we need to protect this country from ruin.

Read Full Post »


Do we really want judges making law from the bench based on their own beliefs of how things should be?  Do we really want to obfuscate the legislative process by having unelected jurists – a party of one – make our laws?  President Obama has stated, as recently as yesterday, that he wants jurists who render decisions based solely on the law and to look at the existing law and U.S. Constitution for their decisions.

If he really believes this than why did he nominate Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court?  Once again we have to watch both hands when he speaks.  He appears to be shaking your hand with his right hand and quietly picking your pocket with his left hand.  I say this because Sonia Sotomayer is clearly a jurist who openly brags about making policy from the bench.  She has laughingly talked about legislating from the bench. 

We do not need to look at her prior decisions, when she has openly, and I might add arrogantly, admitted legislating or making policy from the appellate bench.  A recent YouTube clip says it all!  Yet she is nominated for the highest court in the land, and is young enough, that if affirmed, will serve for the next thirty years.  Is this what was intended by checks and balances?  If you don’t believe me and you have not seen the clip click here, remember she is the one speaking to law students.  She is explaining where they might best pursue a law career.  She is suggesting appellate court experience, since that is where policy is made.

If we continue to allow jurists to make decision on how they wish the law to be and not how it stands as written, an enterprising defense attorney will, sooner or later, use the “I disagree with the law as written and I feel it should be different, just as Justice so and so does on a regular basis” defense.

Had enough yet?  If you believe in the rule of law and not law of the judge, you may want to get on the phone with your Senators and tell them to keep looking for a balanced jurist.

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 »


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 »


Last night’s nonsense and unprofessional journalistic approach to the speech by Governor Jindal exhibited by the MSNBC team demonstrates the lack of objectivity in the media today.  The Republican Party clearly has another hurdle to return as a prominent party.  The media is necessary to getting your story and image out to the public.  When the outlets selectively make it difficult to get your image and message out, not only the party suffers but America suffers.  While last night’s show was a commentary show, a minimum of respect is necessary to allow a fair presentation.  Listen carefully to the MSNBC personnel coment and laugh as Jindal walks toward the microphone.  The man said nothing and already the MSNBC folks were making fun of and demeaning the man.  Where was the professionalism?  Even in a commentary show, comment should be withheld until after the man has spoken.  Governor Jindal did not purport himself and the Republican party well with his speech – it was a downright awful presentation, but he should have been allowed to fail without the stage being set for failure prior to his speaking.

If the Republican Party does not yet see its biggest challenge, it has no chance of recovery.  The main stream media has all but become totally corrupt in selecting and slanting the news.  It materially controls free speech and a free electoral process.  It is getting harder to find news, nothing but the news, to be informed of national and world events affecting this country and our lives.

The fourth estate as it was once called was given freedom of the press to insure its role as an independent check and balance to government actions.  When the fourth estate uses that freedom of the press to turn public opinion with often doctored reporting and suppresses news that does not support the media’s agenda, then the fourth estate has lost its right to freedom of the press.  Along with that right, comes the responsibility to be the purveyor of truth.

It is clear that the left in this country has co-opted the main stream media.  MSNBC has clearly become the Obama house organ.  What can be done about it?  This twisting of the news for political agenda is not new.  Way back at the formation of this country, Alexander Hamilton had about enough with newspapers in the tank for Thomas Jefferson, that he co-founded a newspaper to get his message and his party’s message  out (The Federalists) – it was the New York Post founded in 1801 as a daily publication.  Yes the same Post of today.  Oddly enough it was founded to combat the media’s one sided adoration of the new Democratic Party and its leader, Thomas Jefferson.

The Republican Party needs to find people who have the wherewithal to buy a major newspaper or a network and bring in real journalists.  These people should be respected balanced journalists who understand that the message is truth and not agenda.  I am not suggesting that this newly acquired media achieve an agenda.  If it did, then nothing would be made right.  The fourth estate would still be unworthy to hold the right of freedom of the press.  If it has to have an agenda, then it must be the agenda of truth without the partisan diatribe.  The agenda should be “All the news that is fit to print” – wait that is taken and it has been seriously abused by the New York Times.  The Times should be sued for false advertising.

Republican Party!  Unless and until you can get your message out you cannot bring balance back to this great land.  Michael Steele, start the process of finding balanced people who will assume control over some of the failing agenda driven papers and networks, so that a message of truth will be delivered.  Only then will the Republican Party be able to get a fair chance to serve the public.

Read Full Post »


The AFL-CIO’s web site says this about the Employee Free Choice Act:

“The Employee Free Choice Act (H.R. 800, S. 1041), supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress, would enable working people to bargain for better wages, benefits and working conditions by restoring workers’ freedom to choose for themselves whether to join a union. It would:
• Establish stronger penalties for violation of employee rights when workers seek to form a union  and during first-contract negotiations.
• Provide mediation and arbitration for first-contract disputes.
• Allow employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representati
on.”

This web site offers a few very interesting statements on why this act should pass in Congress.

First it calls the act a bipartisan coalition.  Know this, in the Senate no Republicans have sign on and that one of this Bill’s co-sponsors is now President-Elect Obama.   In the House the Bill has 234 co-sponsors, of which 6 are Ohio and Northeast Republicans – some bipartisan coalition?

Second it slyly says that the Act will

“Allow employees to form unions by signing cards authorizing union representation.”

In another area of the web site it says

“But the current system for forming unions and bargaining is broken. Every day, corporations deny workers the freedom to decide for themselves whether to form unions to bargain for a better life. They routinely intimidate, harass, coerce and even fire workers who try to form unions and bargain for economic well-being.”

One would think that with all this “bipartisan” support in Congress and the need to prevent the coercion of workers in forming a union, this Bill must pass.  Nowhere does the web site state that today workers enjoy the private ballot to decide whether they form a union or not.

Yes, a private ballot currently protects workers from both union and management coercion and intimidation.  This private ballot protects workers from being fired for making a choice against management and from being blackballed by the union should they vote against the union, and it succeeds.  The only reason to strip workers of a private ballot is to allow union organizer coercion from unions to force workers to complete a “Card Check” form in front of the union organizer to form unions – say hello to big Domenic and three fingers Vinnie, your friendly neighborhood union organizers.  Remember unions have had management from time to time charged with and convicted of racketeering and other not so nice crimes.

Here is the real story.  The Democrats want more unions, because the unions will collect dues of 1% to 2% of the employees pay.  These dues will be used to pay union member salaries and as contributions to Democratic political campaigns and Political Action Committees.  The Democrats see this as more unions, means more union dues, means more contributions to its candidates.  Thus the Democrats are ready willing and able to outright strip today’s workers of the democratic right to a private ballot in a true free choice union organizing election.  How democratic of the Democrats to eliminate a secret ballot for a good portion of the membership of their own party who are currently workers in non-union companies.  The icing on the cake is the name they gave the Act.   It is called the Employee Free Choice Act.  How apropos is it that there is no free choice in the Act?  We asked for Change and change we will get.  The candles on the cake is that this act will not apply to government workers, whom will be working for the democrats.

The Heritage Foundation has studied this Act and produced a number of articles and reports on the matter.  The Foundation has determined that “…the EFCA would disenfranchise 105 million American workers, which encompasses more than two-thirds, or 68.8 percent, of the American workforce.”   Read the whole report at The Employee Free Choice Act Would Disenfranchise 105 Million Workers.

The word needs to get out on this charade carried on by the Democratic party in power.  Come January 20th, 2009, the House with a Democrat majority, the Senate with a possible filibuster majority, and a co-sponsor of the bill in the White House, Barack Obama, will disenfranchise 105 million workers by passing this bill.  By removing the secret ballot and encouraging the flourishing of unions without real worker choice, the Democrats will start the march to socialism in this country.

Read Full Post »


Before you vote for Obama, you might want to stop and think of who you would be placing in charge of this nation.  Much has been said about Obama’s ties to radicals and his far left leanings to the point of creating nausea.  Obama has denied or made little of each accusation.  Is Obama telling the truth?

When he says that Ayers is a casual acquaintance or that he sat in Wright’s church for twenty years and never heard one of the anti-American sermons, is he telling the truth?  He was close with Father Flegler and never heard him provide an anti-white, anti-American sermon?  His personal and financial relationship with Tony Resco, where in strange financial dealings about Obama’s house have come to light.  It involved a monetary windfall Obama received through the transaction of buying his home, from convicted felon Resco.

When all these relationships are not passing the smell test, and when combined the whole is actually greater than the sum of its parts.  We now have serious cause to question just who this man is and how truthful Obama has been with us.  The newest questionmark is Obama’s relationship with yet another Chicago radical, Rashid Kahlidi, an activist with strong ties to the Palestine Liberation Organization or better known as the PLO – formerly a serious terrorist organization and a criminal terrorist organization when Obama was apparently close to Kahlidi. The PLO is an enemy of Israel.

The L.A. Times apparently has a video tape wherein Obama reveals just how close he has been to this radical.  The LA Times will not release the video tape.  I ask, if the tape is benign than why not release it?  The LA Times is a staunch supporter of Obama, you might even say they are in the tank for him.  They are zealously are guarding this tape – why?  They say they have promised the supplier of this tape that they would keep it out of public reach.  Well the toothpaste is out of the tube.  Are they withholding a tape that finally reveals just who Obama is and who he hangs with – a host of Chicago, anti-American, radicals?  If the tape is nothing then release it.  Withholding the tape tells this writer that they and Obama are hiding something big.  Read the article at  Allies of Palestinians seek a friend in Barack Obama, LA Times.

Again, do we really know who this man is?

Read Full Post »


The nation appears to be moving left of center and the populace is more accepting of socialism.  Recent polls indicate that about half the populace is just fine with wealth redistribution.  These are the people who most likely are in lower paying jobs and have depended on the main stream media (MSM) to enlighten them on just how they are feeling about the economy.  If we go back beyond the current maelstrom and look at the economy of say 2004, we would see very low unemployment (actually the definition of full employment), inflation under control, and a Gross Domestic Product moving along so well that many felt that it might overheat the economy.    The MSM and the Democrats just kept telling the populace that they were hurting.

What moved the nation left in such a short time?  Well the move has been percolating for some time; it just took some recent troubles and a Party in desperate need of achieving the White House to give it the shove it needed.  This journey started many years ago.  It started in our school systems and our universities.  The ranks of the teachers union and our college instructors have become a magnet for those who do not produce a tangible product and have very social progressive beliefs – yes there are many very good teachers out there.  You don’t believe me about the teachers union, well then why is the teachers union a major funder to block the California marriage amendment – what has this to do with furthering quality education.  The union is making an ideology play.  These ranks have become inhabited with secular progressives who hold the opinion and an ideology that what the person next to us does is of no concern to us.  It is permissive ideology that eliminates accountability for one’s actions.  It is an ideology that screams “It is not my fault that I have not succeeded – it is your fault”.  The curriculum in our schools has spent precious little time teaching history and the various types of economies to our youth.  We have not taught them that socialism has usually resulted in higher unemployment and a lower standard of living across the board for the populace.

Immediately after the presidential election of 2000, the Democrats, led by Howard Dean who is on the other end of the puppet strings held by George Soros, decreed that the Democratic Party would be in a perennial campaign for President, that the Party would fight the Republicans at every opportunity until the next presidential election.  From that point forward the Democratic Party has been telling its faithful that they are hurting, suffering economic imbalance, and are owed more.  When the 2001 attacks on the Trade Centers and the Pentagon threw this country into an economic tail spin, the Democrats told their faithful that it was the Republicans’ fault for the tail spin.  When the country recovered from the downturn and started to boom, the Democrats told their faithful that they were hurting.  Up until the beginning of this current recession, Democrats told their faithful that they were hurting.  Democrats have used “big business or big oil” as a scapegoat for all Democratic Party caused scenarios – such as our failure to drill for our own oil or the mortgage crisis with the excesses of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The Democrats has help build the circumstances for the exodus of middle class jobs.  Our Congress, both Republican and Democrat, and our Administration paid no attention to the exodus of middle class type jobs from our shores.  Companies driven away by income and other taxes – higher here than elsewhere – moved jobs overseas to greener pastures.  With those jobs went the middle class.  These jobs were replaced by low end jobs, atypical of the middle class jobs our parents held.  Under both the Democrats and Republicans, credit was used to artificially prop up our standard of living.  Credit cards and credit card balances skyrocketed.  Our leaders were happy to see the money supply expand and the economy grow through the use of credit purchases, including home equity credit lines used to either pay down credit cards, thus freeing up more purchasing power or providing cash for large purchases.  This enormous expansion of credit artificially inflated the money supply and made the economy, sans good jobs, continue to grow.

Instead of addressing the root cause, the evaporation of good middle class jobs, our leaders, both Democratic and Republican, helped to push credit to non-credit worthy people – non-credit worthy strictly in a lending sense.  They were not credit worthy mostly due to a culture that now fosters a lack of drive to be responsible that has been spreading in our country -“It’s not my fault – I am a victim”.

Between the MSM, Democratic Party, loss of good jobs, and blind Republicans we have wiped out the true middle class in America, taught our young that everything is owned them, convinced even those who are still doing well that they are hurting.  Along comes the credit crisis and the collapse of the stock market sucking 401k’s into the vortex and you have the perfect incubator for socialism.  Obama’s rise is testament to this change.  We can only hope that our future experiment with socialism will be reversible and that no permanent damage will be done.

Viva la socialism!

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 »


Update: March 2, 2009:

Watch almost any political talk show and you will hear a Democratic strategist or campaign person enthusiastically state that the deregulation of the banking industry meant that no one was watching Wall Street for you.  Barack Obama has even used the refrain “deregulation by the Republicans” to point a finger about the mortgage crisis.

Well deregulation did occur and it did change things in the banking industry.  First some background.  Until 1999, banks were restricted to certain businesses, Bill Clinton and a Republican Congress jointly deregulated the banking business.  An example is that previously they could not enter into the insurance or brokerage business.   Other factors were at play, such as interstate banking and states’ deregulation of banking.  Non-bank insurance companies and brokerage houses were actively offering money market checking accounts.  The sum of these changes placed banks at a disadvantage, since other non-regulated companies were divvying up the limited areas where bankers could operate.   For a more detailed read try The Case for Banking Deregulation or The Real Effects of U.S. Banking Deregulation.

Thus deregulation.  Did this mean that banks would no longer be regulated?  No.  Did this mean that bank regulators would go away?  No.  It simply meant that banks could enter brokerage, insurance, and other businesses to a modest degree, with restrictions.  This deregulation had nothing to do with the mortgage businesses of any bank or non-bank financial lending company.

Either the Democrats know this and choose to mislead you – not good, or do not know this and do not know what they are talking about – worse.  The real problem, about which no one talks, was the intensity to which Democrats and with a modicum of Republican support fell in love with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Watch: Saving Our Economy: What’s Next? to see just how much the Democrats were involved in causing this problem.

This seemed like the perfect vehicle for helping people of low income obtain a home.  This was the populists’ greatest tool.  Not only did Fannie and Freddie have an appetite for mortgage paper with lower credit requirements, they also had an appetite for lower equity requirements and to buy securitized mortgage assets.  Thus the subprime mortgage lending business was born.  The Achilles Heel of the subprime business was value of collateral.  As long as the collateral remained valued at or higher than the loan, it could be liquidated easily with minimum loss.

As the subprime lending business began to not only heat up, but to overheat, the demand for homes began to become intense, raising the sale prices and values precipitously.  Now the good part.  Lenders using collateral guidelines began to anticipate the future value of homes and created zero down lending with borrowed down payments, via a line of credit – ingenious, except that if the value of real estate faltered with a faltering economy, the house of cards would come tumbling down.  It happened.  This problem became so accute that the Bush administration five years ago asked Congress to reign in their twin prodigies, Fannie and Freddie, with regulation – the Democrats in the House and Senate blocked the effort.  Now let’s look at a primary cause of today’s financial meltdown.  Bad mortgage paper, due to undercollateralized loans, bought by investment houses and resold to investors as securitized mortgage assets represents nearly 2+% of our GDP.  The government had no choice but to step in or our economy, our dollar, and our standard of living would follow the bad mortgages down the proverbial tubes.

How did this happen?  Look to the Democrats more than to Republicans.  Democrats were in love and some were in bed with Fannie and Freddie.  Barack Obama cannot explain away the league leading MVP type of the size of contributions his campaigns received – now and in the past, from both of the these institutions and their leadership.  Chris Dodd has much explaining to do about his personal sweetheart mortgage, especially considering his position on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Please note that when the Democrats get their hand caught in that political cookie jar, their standard procedure for being Teflon, is to loudly blame a target scape goat.  They did this when their environmental positions about drilling for oil placed this country into an energy vise.  Then they blamed big oil.  They are now screaming about deregulation causing the mortgage meltdown.  1999 banking deregulation had nothing to do with the mortgage crisis.  Yet, the new target scape goat is Republican deregulation of the banking industry.  Remember, the banking industry was deregulated in a bipartisan way between the Republicans and Bill Clinton.  That deregulation had nothing to do with the type of mortgages being made.

Some, so eager to point to banking deregulation as the cause of the mortgage crisis, fail to understand that the The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, was the act that mostly affected these swaps.  This bill was signed into law in 2000 by President Bill Clinton.  Read more on this at The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

The International Herald Tribune has a good article on credit swaps.  It can be found at Obscure, large and arcane, credit default swaps face a big test.

Read about who is responsible for the melt down at: https://brokengovernment.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/democrats-out-politician-the-republicans-with-our-financial-crisis/

To read about how we can get beyond this meltdown, try Why isn’t the Housing Bailout Effort Working?

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 »


The Washington Post has a piece today on Obama and the racism towards him and his supporters.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/12/AR2008051203014.html?hpid=topnews

What the piece fails to convey is that the national outlook about Senator Barack Obama changed due to the Senator himself. Early on, the junior Senator from Illinois conducted himself as a different candidate. He was a man with a vision and one who purveyed hope to those in political and financial despair. He was assisted by the media who portrayed him as a rock star politician, without bothering to vet him. His followers listened to him, believed him, hung on every word. They did not question his, out of nowhere, rise to a key national political role. His inexperience also was not considered by those impatiently seeking change, in fact it was considered a plus. Early followers were crying for change and ignored his inexperience and history of partisan legislation. They were enraptured with his oratory style promising what they wanted to hear. He engaged the young voters in mass – young voters who have no experience of rapture with a politician lacking the experience and dealing solely in ideals, without regard to the pragmatism of the real world – Jimmy Carter comes to mind.

Today, things have changed, post Reverend Wright and post Michelle Obama’s comments on how proud she is now, finally. Barack Obama’s handling of these distractions and his own comments on voter class, the “bitter” comment, have changed how he is viewed by some who have already voted for him, a substantial segment of the Democratic party, and a significat number of undecided independents, who have not as yet voted.

A previous posting called, “The Real Barack Obama!”, talks to the transformation of Obama from a man running for office to a black man running for office. https://brokengovernment.wordpress.com/2008/03/28/48/ The media really want to perpetuate the racism issue as it is an enticing news story. In fact some in the media and perhaps Obama’s supporters want to perpetuate the racism issue in an effort to drive sympathy toward him and his campaign. As time goes by and Obama starts to really get vetted, his inexperience and idealism will predominate. His far liberal nature and voting record, when he actually voted; his view on taxes – no middle class tax increase, but maintain the tax on gas and diesel, increase the social security tax, and the dividend tax rate which all will actually tax the middle class reveal the impact he would have on the economy and jobs. His distortion of the truth in campaign ads and his comments toward his opponents, even after being corrected, steal away his veneer as the different candidate. Other than the idealistic young voter and the far left liberal, the voters previously supporting him will begin to peel away as the opposition shines the light of reality on Barack Obama.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: