Category Archives: Legislation

Forest Fires: Can We Lessen Damage?

It’s only mid-May and Arizona already has several raging forest fires. In less than a week and involving more than 1,700 firefighters the five fires have already cost $5 Million. Fighting wildfires in rugged Arizona is fraught with danger. Hot Shot crews in the Crown King area are contending with hidden mine shafts from prospecting days. The fires awaken hostile animals including venomous snakes. In addition, the crews are dealing with hot weather now in the triple digits.

There is no doubt that the warm La Niña weather pattern with less rain and snow make for a potentially bad fire year, especially in the Southwest. With temperatures well above average, burning restrictions are already in place on most Federal Forest land in Arizona.

Though the cause of these fires is under investigation wildfires are often nature’s way of keeping a healthy forest. As we watch the line of fire march across the landscape we must ask, “Are we doing what’s best for our forests? Can we lessen the damage so that our children are able to return to these areas for recreation?

There are some who believe all forests should remain in their natural state without human intervention. Some believe good forest management means limited access to people. Past disagreements over how best to create a healthy forest ecosystem stopped programs such as clear cutting when, managers moved to the other extreme of limited use land. The unfortunate end result of both extremes is an unhealthy forest, thick with undergrowth and vulnerable to disease and severe wildfire.

Native American Tribes, considered sovereign nations, are allowed to manage forests through contracts developed with the Bureau of Indian Affairs.  Both the BIA and the Forest Service have mission goals of a healthy vibrant forest. Some argue that the tribal interest is financial only and “they prioritize timber extraction over conservation and preservation of fish, wildlife and watershed…” Tribal members will tell you that they have a long term, inter-generational investment and desire for a healthy forest.

The 2011 massive Wallow Fire of Eastern Arizona gave a unique opportunity to study the two different management systems. The fire bordered both the Fort Apache and San Carlos Reservations. As it burned from federally managed forest into the reservation land the fire slowed and was stopped. Part of the tribes’ strategy for forest management was to thin through timber extraction (logging sales) knowing that the increased tree spacing keeps fires from crowing and jumping from tree to tree and use aggressive prescribed burns to keep underbrush manageable. Further evidence that fuel treatment methods are effective can be seen in the area surrounding the tiny town of Alpine where the fire was halted due to thinning and good management.

The Wallow Fire Fuels Treatment study results are expected to show that aggressive management of the forests allow for a healthier ecosystem and trees that are better able to survive a fire.  This study comes at the same time the Obama administration works with the Sierra Club and Earthjustice to promote a new management program. One would hope this administration would take the Wallow Fire study to heart and consider implementing some of the tribal strategies.

Please join Arizonans as we pray for less wind, lower temperatures and for an early monsoon. Pray also for the safety of the many firefighters who brave these difficult conditions, not for themselves, but for us. And pray that this administration will look hard at the Wallow Fire to see the benefits of the Indian management plan. Diligent management of the forests may improve the chances for tree survival and faster recovery from fire. Forest fires are a natural part of life but those with less impact will allow our children and grandchildren future enjoyment of our timbered lands.

*Photo of the Willow Fire, 2011, courtesy Jane Boyles, photojournalist.

Did You Know?

You may feel as though you are well aware of the events that seem to shape the world today? Perhaps you feel as though they are beyond your power to change?  And then again, you might be inclined as many American’s are, to state you don’t care about politics.  In either case even the most diligent American would have a hard time keeping up with all the rhetoric on a daily basis that continues to plague the world we live in. It hard to keep up on the facts, and even harder to recognize what is fact and what is fiction on the Hill, when integrity seems to be a thing of the past.  The reality is, despite the attempts to dismiss the threat of radical Islam by the media and government officials, Islam is very much close to home and a real threat to our national security.  The majority of people are under the impression there is no cause for alarm; they fail to recognize the depth of the infiltration of Islam which is deeply rooted in our U.S. culture, society, and government.

Ironically, probably 99 percent of American’s probably don’t know most of what I am about to tell you. If they do know, and discuss it publicly, they are either criticized, dismissed, or marginalized.  To a certain extent we have become complacent and have allowed our government to spiral out of control while those we elect have their own self-serving agendas.  Career Politicians seem to feel as tho they are the voice for us, yet the words they choose behind close doors would probably make most of us cringe.

This year, and election year, you may want to take a closer look at who your voting for because not caring, lack of interest, or the other typical excuse “I’m not interested in politics” are all reasons that could contribute to the downfall of the United States as you believe it to be.   As an American you have a moral, ethical, and civic duty to care about the people you put into office, because they not only effect you, they have a significant impact on generations to come – not caring, lack of interest, or whatever the reason is what got us here in the first place.

Did you know:

There are real threats to the United States by Terrorists?

Did you know:

One of those threats included the use of Anthrax, brought in through Mexico to the U.S via our unprotected borders. Had they succeeded 330,000 American’s would have died in one hour.

Did you know:

There are undocumented people from more than 130 countries who have entered the U.S. illegally?

Did you know:

Since 2010 there have been multiple plots to smuggle “weapons of mass effect” into the U.S.?

Did you know:

According to Border Patrol Estimates, between 2010 & 2011 only 5 percent of individuals crossing the border illegally were apprehended?

Did you know:

February 2, 2012 – Michael Braun, former chief of operations @drug enforcement agency, testified before a Congressional foreign affairs committee.  He testified Hezbollah has developed, strong ties to drug cartels. He said, “These groups allow them to operate freely in our neighborhood and they are getting closer to our door-step.  He continued … there will be hell to pay in the not to distant future.”

Did you know:

Iran has reached an agreement to build missile bases in South America – close enough to hit the U.S.?

Did you know:

There are active members of the Muslim Brotherhood working within the U.S. Government with access to the president?

Did you know:

February 26, 1993 radical Islamists declared Jihad on American soil – a bomb went off at the base of  the World Trade Center?

Did you know:

Freedom and Justice are the slogans for the political party of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in Egypt?

Did you know:

Umar Ahmad Ali Abdel Rahmah, aka “Omar Ahmed – Ali” aka “Omar Abdel Al-Rahman” was the mastermind behind the bombing? He entered the U.S. despite having a warrant for his arrest from Egypt for the murder of Anwar Sadat.

Did you know:

In 2004 the FBI raided the home of Ismail Salim Elbarasse, alias Abdul Hassan in Annandale, VA. He was the founding member & finance officer for an Islamic school & center in Falls Church, VA, named Dar al-Hijrah.  The Islamic center hosted some of the U.S. Islamic militants namely: Abdurahman al-Amoudi .  He was jailed in 1998 for 9 months, along with Abdelhaleem Ashqar, for refusing to testify in terrorist funding.

Did you know:

In that raid, in a sub-basement, they found a 1991 Explanatory Memorandum which held the strategic Goals for MB Groups in North America?

Did you know:

The Holy Land Foundation which was disguised as humanitarian group was actually a front for terrorist groups?

Did you know:

The Holy Land Foundation trial in 2008 was the largest Foundation trail ever held in the U.S.?

Did you know:

Among those indicted as co-conspirators was the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) & the Islamic Society in North America (ISNA)?

Did you know:

CAIR operates under the disguise of a Muslim Civil Liberties Advocacy Group, founded in 1994, with documented ties to Hamas and other terrorist groups?

Did you know:

In addition to CAIR and ISNA those indicted were: Shukri Abu Baker (02), Mohammad El-Mezain (03), Ghassan Elashi (04), Mufid Abdul Qader (07), and Abdulraham Odeh (08)?

Did you know:

CAIR has 32 chapters operating in the US?

Did you know:

The co-founder of ISNA, Sami AL-Arain plead guilty to terrorist charges, he has documented ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, and was named a co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial?

Did you know:

The trial exposed a number of Muslim Brotherhood fronts?

Did you know:

After the trial the groups did not disappear they simply regrouped under the disguise of other civil liberties groups?

Did you know:

Despite the fact these groups have terrorist ties they remain trusted sources for many of our news outlets such as CNN and MSNBC?  (CNN – Nihad Awad; MSNBC – Ibrahim Hooper, Council on American Islamic Relations).

Did you know:

Members of CAIR, et.al., are trained in public relations, media management, etc.?

Did you know:

CAIR produced and made public, “The Islamophobes Nightmare?”

Did you know:

One of the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood is a military term called Information Dominance, whose objective is to shape the perception of them ultimately giving them the upper hand in defeating their enemy? The objective of the MB is to destroy America from within.

Did you know:

Another goal of radical Islam, the MB, is the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate – an Islamic super-state which would destroy the US and Israel?

Did you know?

President Obama talked about the Arab Spring as a good thing while radical Islamists took advantage of the chaos in Egypt?  The Muslim Brotherhood controls around 80% of Egypt at the time this was written.

Did you know?

Former Ann Arbor, MI resident, Bassem Kahfaji, Egyptian presidential candidate vows to implement Islamic Law in Egypt? (shari’a law). He was the former director of community affairs for CAIR, he was arrested and later convicted in 2003 on terrorism charges?  He was deported.

Did you know?

The Creed for the Muslim Brotherhood, since its indoctrination in 1928 is: “Jihad is our way. Dying in the name of Allah is our highest hope.”

Did you know?

James R.Clapper, retired lieutenant general in the United States Air Force and is currently the Director of National Intelligence made a very dangerous statement when he stated the “Muslim Brotherhood is largely a secular organization“?

Did you know?

The Muslim Brotherhood continues to expand in the U.S?  They have infiltrated and continue to advise the White House, State Dept, CIA, FBI, DHS.

Did you know?

In 2009 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) positioned Arif Alikhan as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development? Alikhan was a career prosecutor with the U.S. Department of Justice from 1997-2006. During that time, he served as Chief of the Cyber and Intellectual Crimes Section for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles and as a Senior Advisor to the U.S. Attorney General in Washington, D.C., where he oversaw the national Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property Program for the Department of Justice.  Just prior to his appointment he participated in a fundraiser for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC). MPAC has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.  In addition, President Obama appointed David Heymen as Assistant Secretary for Policy. Heymen comes from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

Did you know?

Arif Ailkhan called Hezbollah a “liberation movement?”

Did you know?

In 1991, a memo written by Mohamed Akram for the Shura Council of the Muslim Brotherhood spelled out the objective of the organization. Akram said the Muslim Brotherhood “must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and God’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Did you know?

In 2002 Mohamed Elibiary, Founder & President of Freedom & Justice Foundation in Plano, TX was appointed to the Homeland Security Advisory Council.  Rep. Louie Gohmert R-Texas, 1st District reported Elibiary had access to security documents and on October 26, 2011 he took sensitive reports from Texas Department of Public Safety.   Janet Napolitano, head of DHS, stated she would look into the matter.  As of April 12, 2012 the committee has not received a response.

Did you know:

Salam Al Marayati (Los Angeles, CA) is the founder, president of MPAC,  was denied a leadership position in 1999  for the National Commission on Terrorism.  He has ties to terrorist groups and Hezbollah; he wants Hezbollah and Hamas removed from US terrorist groups list, and considers Hezbollah a legitimate organization with the right to attack Israel..

Did you know?

In 2010 President Obama appointed Rashad Hussain to a prominent envoy position at the State Department.   A background check showed in 2004 Hussain spoke at a Muslim Brotherhood Affiliate – MB Student Association Annual Conference.  He spoke in support of convicted terrorist Sami Al – Arian and criticized US terror prosecutions.  2009 -2010 he served as Deputy Associate Counsel to President Obama.

Did you know?

The very first Islamic National Islamic organization in America was founded in 1962, at the University of IL-Urbana, called the Muslim Student Association?

Did you know?

In 2007 NY police report on Radicalization – Student organizations are used for the recruitment and development of extremists?

Did you know?

The North American Islamic Trust in Plainfield, IN funds  the Muslim Students Association?

Did you know?

The North American Islamic Trust was named as an unedited co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Trail?

Did you know?

In February 2012 – NYPD identified 12 former members of the Muslim Student Organization Association.  They were later arrested or convicted on terrorism charges?

Did you know?

Anwar Al-Awlaki, the former head of AlQaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, was the mentor to the Ft. Hood shooter, and the Underwear bomber. He was also the president of the Muslim Student Association at Colorado State University?

Did you know?

In March 2012 Reza Naqdi, head of Iran’s BAsij Parliamentary forces said, “As long as America exists, we will not rest.” America is Iran’s ultimate target?

Did you know?

According to Professor William Forstcher if the United States were to experience an EMP attack 90 percent of all Americans would die within 12-18 months after the attack.

Did you know?

Rep Roscoe Bartlett-R Maryland – 2008 study done confirmed Professor Forstcher statements.

Did you know?

Rep Bartlett introduced House Bill H.R. 5026 with authorized the federal government to take emergency measures to protect the United States from solar flares or an EMP attack? This bill passed the House of Representatives unanimously in August 2010.

Did you know?

Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski – D, killed the bill in favor of a clean energy bill which was back by senate democrats?

Did you know?

This all began under the Clinton Administration?

Did you know?

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s top aid since 1996 is Huma Abedin. Former Palestinian terrorist, now converted Christian Walid Shoebat, says that Abedin was never properly screened..Shoebat reports that Abedin “is closely associated with her Muslim Brotherhood family and even joined Clinton at an event with her mother, Saleha Abedin, at Dar El-Hekma College in Saudi Arabia. Clinton recently overruled the Immigration and Nationality Act by allowing Tariq Ramadan entry into the United States. Ramadan, described as an independent power center within the MB, is the grandson of the founder of the MB. He has been banned to travel in the US since 2004 for his contributions to Hamas and links to radical Islamists.

So what do you think? Time to take and active interest in your country?

References:

1 Clabough, Raven.2011. Self-avowed Muslim Marxist Says White House Tied to Muslim Brotherhood.  Read more: http://blog.beliefnet.com/watchwomanonthewall/2011/08/self-avowed-muslim-marxist-says-white-house-tied-to-muslim-brotherhood.html#ixzz1tkbf6PBl

 

AP Spins Obama's Unanimously Destroyed Budget as GOP Obstructionism

Ridiculously, the Associated Propagandists (AP) have tried to pin the Ø-414 slamming of the $3.4 Trillion “budget” Obama submitted to The House on an obstructionist GOP trying to make political hay in an election year. Oh, they didn’t write that, but let’s “deconstruct” the AP’s headline (via Yay-hoos):

GOP-run House easily rejects Obama budget

Normally, left-wing AP bias is about as unsurprising as a late-season Mets collapse, but in this case we’ll explore it a little further. What is a little surprising is that the AP would expose themselves as being totally in the pocket of the Democrat Party, instead of just being fellow-traveling left-wing ideologues. This is because the outfit is running cover for a president whose bill was shot down in flames by his own party, and yet the AP is trying to blame this solely on the Republican Party.

The intended reader inference from placing “GOP-run House” at the front of the headline is to frame the current event in the context of implied GOP obstructionism. There’s really no other way to read it, because the headline should logically read “House unanimously rejects Obama budget.” This obvious headline would be both more accurate and have around the same number of characters as the AP’s. Thus, there is no reason to cram “easily” in the headline when “unanimously” would convey more accurate information (unless you are an AP reporter with a limited vocabulary, which is entirely possible).

Another interesting aspect of the headline and the story is that the AP is trying to provide political cover to pretend “blue dog” Democrats up for re-election who don’t want to look like “left-wing extremists” unconcerned with deficits and debt spending. As a bonus the AP also gives cover to left-wing insaniacs who think the bill should go even further to restore “economic justice” (a catch phrase for plundering unearned wealth). How is this possible?

It’s possible because if the bill is defeated Ø-414 people will believe that there was a consensus in each party that something was wrong with the bill. But how can it be that some Democrat lawmakers voting against the bill would think that total spending was too high, and others would think that it was too low, while none would think that it was “just right”? The odd voting suggests a strategic public relations maneuver by the Democrat Party.

The Congressional Black Caucus, for example, proposed an alternative budget that sought $4 trillion more, which would be financed by tax increases on the rich (like that will help create jobs, right?).  This was defeated 107-314. So it stands to reason that the 86 Democrats who did not vote for the bill withheld support because they wanted to posture as relatively fiscally responsible to the voters in their district.

Understanding a few basic facts about the voting makes the AP narrative look absolutely absurd. Read the first few paragraphs from the AP piece:

The Republican-run House has overwhelmingly rejected President Barack Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget for next year after a vote forced by GOP lawmakers to embarrass Democrats.

Republicans have opposed Obama’s budget all year, criticizing its tax increases on the wealthy and saying it lacks sufficient spending cuts.

Democrats have defended Obama’s budget priorities but they largely voted “no” Wednesday night.

Let’s take this one at a time in rapid-fire succession. First, Harry Reid has forced votes on the Senate floor countless time. A quick Google search of ‘harry reid forced vote’ yields nearly 8 million hits. If the vote is “embarrassing,” then that makes the bill embarrassing, and the president an embarrassment. Also, the Republicans opposed Obama’s budget “all year”? So they are being obstructionist for still opposing it, even though Obama didn’t submit a balanced budget? Finally, every single Democrat present voted no on the bill, not “largely.” The Democrats who don’t show up, don’t count.

In conclusion, it is hard for an analyst to react to a left-wing media intentionally distorting the news without wishing to resort to satire, though this is becoming increasingly hard to do. The left is notoriously difficult to parody nowadays. In some cases, it is more useful to deconstruct the story.

House Budget Proposal Votes Tell an Interesting Truth

obama-pelosi-reid-debt-lovers1-150x150

On Wednesday, March 28th 2012, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on 3 different budget proposals, all that ended up with the same results of being shot down by huge numbers. One budget proposal went down in flames by an astounding vote of 0-414.  Rick Mulvaney (R-SC) proposed an alternative budget plan based on President Obama’s 2013 budget numbers and it went down in an historic 0-414 vote. Not one vote in support of Obama’s 2013 budget. Mulvaney went on to explain that “The budget that the President offered and that is contained in this amendment never balances,” he said. “It is a balanced approach to reach a never-balancing budget.”

 Thus Obama’s budget proposal is exposed as nothing more than increased government spending under the guise of Obama’s often-used motto stating his desire to a “balanced approach in creating a budget.” And don’t forget the always-included tax hikes present in every Liberal Democrat [balanced] budget proposal of the past 5 years.  Nothing proves these points more emphatically than the Obama-Democrat yearly deficits since 2007, which have averaged over $1 trillion dollars in increased national debt since the year Democrats took over complete control of the U.S. Congress.

The CBC (Congressional Black Caucus) put forth their own pathetic attempt of a  budget proposal also on Wednesday. It went down in flames by a vote of 107-314.  Republicans stated that the CBC budget proposal would spend far more money than the U.S. government has available. No surprise there. Why does the U.S. Congress even have a Black Caucus anyway? There isn’t an Asian caucus, or even a White caucus, even though white people still make up a huge majority of the population today.  With the current race-baiting media circus of the Trayvon Martin tragedy being used by fake Democrats to further divide the nation this week, maybe it’s high time Americans call for the immediate disbanding of the discriminatory CBC.

The third budget proposal voted down in The House on Wednesday was a bi-partisan proposal put forth by Steve LaTourette (R-OH) and Jim Cooper (D-Tenn) that was modeled after many aspects of the Obama-created Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction commission. This proposal too went down in flames 38-382. Instead of responsible governing by enacting solid cuts in big government debt-spending, 382 members of The House have now been exposed as being the main engine of America’s plunge off the Greek-style debt-cliff.

Up next will be the passage of the Paul Ryan House budget proposal 2.0. Chris Chocola breaks down Ryan’s new proposal as follows: (emphasis added)

There’s a lot to like about Paul Ryan’s budget proposal. It cuts some spending. It flattens the tax code down to just two individual marginal tax rates. It also includes some innovative policies designed to halt the unsustainable growth of health care entitlement spending. However, on balance, the budget is disappointing for fiscal conservatives for two main reasons: It waives the spending restraint that was agreed to in last year’s debt limit deal, and it doesn’t balance the budget until 2040. Broken promises and unbalanced budgets as far as the eye can see are neither good policy nor a good campaign rallying cry.

As informed Americans stand on the edge of the Greek-style debt cliff looking out across the debt-laden landscape of their children’s future,when looking at the current budgetary buffoonery of Congress today, they are being left with 2 simple choices: Vote for Obama and the Democrats in 2012 and jump to their deaths right then and there, or vote for Republicans and hop on back of the slow-moving freight train that is on the exact same track of financial disaster as the Obama high-speed train to financial hell and chaos.  One kills you this decade, while the other slowly pushes you off the debt-cliff to the inevitable chaotic collapse of America and the Armageddon that financial insolvency brings with it. Not much of a choice there is it?

 

Sustainable Development is Truly Unsustainable

As the Supreme Court determines whether government can infringe into the depths of our lives, it appears our representatives are leading us toward the creation of global soviets. Where the planning of our lives, commerce, communities and even our health are accomplished through facilitated community groups, centralized planning or the strong arm of the law where only the few in the room truly prosper.

This does not just occur with health care but also with land-use planning. We always hear about sustainable development, open spaces, the value of mixed-use communities, transportation options like light rail, high-speed rail and even bike and walking paths and most of all, the importance of planning.

In describing these amenities, nice sounding buzzwords like green, regionalism and communities are used…sometimes even throwing in the usual mockery of smart growth over dumb growth or sustainable as opposed to unsustainable development.

…then we normally pursue the same pattern of planning meetings, organizing committees, scheduling more meetings. After that master plans are unveiled, maps drawn and ordinances passed with no true evaluation of the success of these programs except the politics involved; as master plans, ordinances, permits and inspections assume control of our private property, dictate the market and control commerce, the only thing we do is work, taxes, sign the bank note and complain during our monthly three minutes at city council meetings. Meanwhile, all that planning and our community resemble other communities throughout United States.

Instead of allowing the free market where each individual contributes their vote to the needs of the community, the blunt instrument of local government and non-governmental organizations are used to force a centralized plan and police the contents of the federal mandates. For if we think that we can concoct a MASTER PLAN, some ordinances and follow it to utopia, we might want to consider history.

Shown is a photograph taken by NASA of the Korean peninsula at night. If you look closely, you will see the Republic of Korea and the Democratic Republic of Korea.

Yes…the most oppressive regime on earth is known as the “Democratic Republic of Korea” and this photograph shows it completely blacked out. As every aspect of life is centrally planned, property and commerce is controlled by the state. It’s sustainable to Mother Earth because there is NO electricity. At least they have guards who protect their borders with land mines, barbed wire and fences but not to keep immigrants out…but the people in.
If we look to their South Korean neighbors …life is booming as individuals plan their lives and contribute to each other, they rely on each other more than their North Korean counterparts. This is because most people are naturally compassionate and take care of each other…that is, if they aren’t in Maslow’s safety or physiological mode.

If you say that this is an isolated incident, we can look at Mao’s centralized plan known as the Great Leap Forward. He moved resources from the fields to making steel and it was the worst famines known to mankind killing over 30 million people. Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s Russia and Mussolini’s Italy provide a glimpse of the different directions centralized planning can go. History is quite clear that centralized planning is catastrophic for the masses.

As we embark on our centralized plan to utopia, the question is whether our path is a prosperous nation as we have as a nation where individuals are free to plan their own property and life. Or are we moving toward an oppressive regime like North Korea where federal mandates, high taxes and a disconnected central authority determines our fate.

Throwing Granny Off The Cliff: Part 2

 

Remember this?

Following Representative Paul Ryan’s budget proposal progressives tried to scare seniors into believing that Medicare services were in danger and Republicans didn’t care about the elderly.

This year conservatives are taking a proactive position. Poor granny again finds herself in a precarious position. But this time it’s the man behind ObamaCare doing the throwing.

Some will say the ad goes to far; that it’s not nice granny actually is tossed and that they shouldn’t use the likeness of the president. Personally, I’d rather have seen, then, Speaker Pelosi who famously told Congress they’d have to sign the bill to learn what was in it. A strong argument could be made that Team Pelosi were the ones who did sacrifice Medicare to pay for ObamaCare.

In any case, I’ll be watching with great interest the Supreme Court hearings on the constitutionality of the individual mandate. And no matter the outcome, I’ll be voting in November.

Senate Socialists Bailout Buffoonery Continues

The United States Senate, led by Liberal Democrat Harry Reid, is lining up at the taxpayer-funded debt-lovers cash trough again this week in the form of trying to “fix” another crisis of their own making. Meet  S. 1789  , or as today’s Senate Progressives call it, the 21st Century Postal Act of 2012: A bill to improve, sustain, and transform the United States Postal Service. This bill is sponsored by the lifelong fake Democrat posing as an Independent, Joe Lieberman. (L-D-CT) This USPS bailout bill  poses as a bi-partisan piece of work based on the support of the co-sponsorship from another fake Republican posing as a moderate, Susan Collins. (RINO-ME) The cost of the Senate-Progressives-USPS-bailout bill to the U.S. taxpayers? A cool $41 billion soon-to-be-borrowed taxpayer dollars.

For a more detailed understanding of just why the taxpayer is being forced to bailout the USPS by Senate Progressives this week, check out The United States Postal Ponzi Scheme.

It is none other than the U.S. Government itself that has caused this most recent “crisis” that threatens to shut down the USPS. In the words of Mr. Donahoe, the Postmaster General himself back in the summer of 2011, we see glimpses of the big government intervention causing the collapse of what was once a proud, viable U.S. Mail delivery system:

“The Postal Service is in a crisis today because it operates within a restrictive business model and has limited flexibility to respond to a changing marketplace,” To which he added, “We need the ability to operate more as a business does. This applies to the way we provide products and services, allocate resources, configure our retail, delivery and mail processing networks and manage our workforce.” (emphasis added)

That info-byte above is the Postmaster General of the USPS himself, begging the wizards of Congress to allow him to reform the USPS system so that they would not have to be bailed out in 2012 by the taxpayers due to the impending insolvency. Congress basically said no, and refused to allow Mr. Donohue to enact the needed reforms. Enter S. 1789, which also has another progressive debt-loving fake Republican on the co-sponsor’s list, Sen. Scott Brown. (RINO-MA) While select politicians and D.A.M. media operatives will hail this USPS bailout bill as bi-partisan during the coming weeks, it in fact, only has the support of Progressive Senators who are lining up trying to score political points for the upcoming elections.

The description of S. 1789 claims that is it designed to sustain,improve, and transform the U.S, Postal System. What will the $41 billion borrowed tax dollars be used for? As Daniel Horowitz  informs the citizenry, “This time, taxpayers will be tapped for another $41 billion to subsidize the healthcare retirement benefits of postal workers – benefits that are quite scarce in the private sector.”  The Progressive Senators USPS Bailout Bill of 2012 will not in fact “reform” the USPS into a more business-like sustainable entity, as claimed, but once again kicks the insolvency can down the road and opens the door to never-ending taxpayer bailouts of the dysfunctional, unsustainable USPS, much like the Progressive thievery  of the past two decades known as the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “everyone deserves a house, regardless of ability to pay” programs that led to the housing and mortgage crisis. For a look into another reason for the USPS insolvency, check out the Liberal election-buying Union manipulation that is also behind this scheme, please see The USPS is Broke.

Call up your Senators this week, demand that they say no to the Progressive USPS Bailout Bill of 2012, (S.1789) and let every single one of them know you will be paying close attention to their votes on it.

Martin/Zimmerman: Fuel For The Democrat Attack Machine

Recently, the Huffington Post Enquirer ran a post regarding the shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman in Sanford, Florida, entitled Trayvon Martin Case: ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law At Center Of Shooting. The unwritten implication of this article is that enhanced self-defense laws, such as Florida’s, grant protection to murderers.

The left have already begun spinning this killing into an attack on Republicans. Note, for instance, MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski making a sloppy attempt to connect this shooting to Rush Limbaugh. Jay at The Right Sphere reports Media Matters has already begun spinning this tragedy for political points in a number of posts.

Let’s debunk the assertion that Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law somehow protected Zimmerman. To do so, we need to examine the 2006 changes to Florida’s Justifiable Use Of Force law, specifically, the portion contended here- Zimmerman’s immunity from criminal prosecution:

776.032 (1) A person who uses force as permitted (…) is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force (…) As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

Stated in plain English, Florida requires police officers to establish probable cause before arresting someone for using force in self-defense. This is a far cry different from HuffPo’s claim:

The Florida law lets police on the scene decide whether they believe the self-defense claim. In many cases, the officers make an arrest and leave it to the courts to work out whether the deadly force is justified. In this case, however, police have said they are confident they did the right thing by not charging 28-year-old George Zimmerman.

The failure, then, isn’t with the “Stand Your Ground” law- a point which even Al Sharpton concedes- but with the failure of Sanford police to thoroughly investigate the shooting. The recording of Zimmerman’s 911 call alone debunks his self-defense claim. From Doug Mataconis’ excellent article:

The police on the scene appear to have reached the conclusion that Zimmerman shot Martin in self-defense, but the 911 calls from that night raise some doubt about just how much danger Zimmerman was actually in, and the extent to which he may have pursued Martin despite being told by a 911 operator not to do so.

Rep. Dennis Baxley, the author of the ‘Stand Your Ground’ law, wrote this op-ed for FOX News, summing up the issue thus:

Mr. Zimmerman’s unnecessary pursuit and confrontation of Trayvon Martin elevated the prospect of a violent episode and does not seem to be an act of self-defense as defined by the castle doctrine. There is no protection in the “Stand Your Ground” law for anyone who pursues and confronts people.

The “pursue and confront” phrase is especially applicable here: While Florida has a very well-written and well-articulated law on self-defense, it is one of the few states which has no statute authorizing private persons to use force to pursue and arrest fleeing criminals. Even if Florida did authorize this use of force, however, Zimmerman still wouldn’t be justified, because Martin had committed no crime.

The anti-gun crowd, however, never let facts or the law stand in the way of their political agenda.

This law, championed by Republicans and vilified by Democrats, was contentious when it was passed in Florida in 2006; now there’s a murdered boy, and a wrongful claim of self-defense. This is an election year, and the Democrat attack machine feeds on accusations that Republicans are “bitter clingers” and racists.

Take this for what it is: the Democrat attack machine working to make all Republicans look like George Zimmerman’s accomplices and enablers.

Shocker: Sandra Fluke Loves ObamaCare

A screenshot of Sandra Fluke's love letter/birthday card to ObamaCare.

I am more shocked than the eTrade Baby watching his friend scratch lottery tickets in a gas station.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqVBKO_QM3o

This week, useful tool and all around idiot, Sandra Fluke, was allowing herself to be played on the national stage again via an article she wrote for the Huffington Post.  That’s right, y’all, the lady who was too stupid to figure out where to find $9 birth control pills has been tapped to scribble down Left-wing talking points for the country’s most high profile scandal rag.

And what has she come up with in her big piece?  She loves ObamaCare.  Well, we could have already guessed that without reading it, couldn’t we have?  The woman that’s too cheap to buy $9 birth control pills is definitely going to be too cheap to pay for her own mammograms.  Actually, here’s a list of just some of the things she doesn’t want to pay for:

…mammograms, cervical cancer screenings, pre and post natal care, flu shots, regular well-baby, well-child and well-woman visits, domestic violence screening, and the full range of Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives.

In the very next paragraph, she dispels the idea that this is all “too good to be true”.  (sorta)

If this seems too good to be true, think again. This is the product of women in action – this is what happens when women stand up for what they and their families need to be healthy and are finally heard by people at the highest ranks of our government. This is what it looks like when government works for us and prioritizes our health.

Um… Okay… But WHO PAYS FOR IT?  Does “the product of women in action” have a method of paying for all of this “free” stuff?

And, of course, she ends her scribble with a big thank you and happy birthday to the “Affordable Care Act”.

I know that when women have the opportunity, they will take care of their health, which in the end benefits both our families and our country. On this second anniversary of the passage of the Affordable Care Act, I express my gratitude and celebrate the new opportunity for healthy lives, before, during and after our reproductive years.

It’s not a surprise that Miss Fluke likes ObamaCare, and/or the getting of “free stuff” on the public dime, but it does seem interesting that she’s so willing to let herself be used to further the Left-wing agenda.  I hope she’s not being paid to be this Left-wing shill.  If she is, what does that make her?

2 Wrongs Don’t Make a Right

The rush to quell fears that the president’s latest executive order is a vast overreach of authority seems to have grabbed hold of both left and right pundits by the teeth. Clamoring in desperation to sound “reasonable” and “fair” their justification for the president’s move sounds a lot like, “well it’s always been done this way so it must be okay.”

To fully understand the National Defense Resources Preparedness Executive Order signed by President Obama late Friday afternoon, we must first examine its origin.

The first Defense Production Act was signed in 1950 by President Harry S. Truman, a Democrat with ties to the communist Soviet Union and oft accused of corruption and harboring Soviet spies within his administration. The purpose of the act created at the start of the Korean War was to:

“ensure the availability of the nation’s industrial resources to meet the national security needs of the United States by granting the President powers to ensure the supply and timely delivery of products, materials, and services to military and civilian agencies.
The DPA codifies a robust legal authority given the President to force industry to give priority to national security production and is the statutory underpinning of governmental review of foreign investment in U.S. companies”

Truman, believing in a Wilsonian progressivism, would later attempt to nationalize several industries. Accusations aside, Truman had a history of promoting a socialist-leaning ideology which was evident in many decisions he made from the Oval Office.

Truman:

Called himself a “Wilsonian Internationalist” and supported the United Nations

Advocated the Marshall Plan – whereby the United States establishes and pays for the reconstruction of Europe after World War II; gave the United States partial control over the economies of foreign nations

Created & implemented the Truman Doctrine, policy of “containment” – to provide monetary and/or military assistance to any democratic nation threatened by totalitarianism; essentially created interventionist foreign policy for the United States

Made a strong push for Nationalized Health Insurance

Lead the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act which ultimately expanded the National Labor Relations Board

Led UN forces against North Korea just after naming then retired General George Marshall (of the Marshall Plan) as his Secretary of Defense

In 1952, just 2 years after signing the Defense Production Act, Truman attempted to nationalize several US Steel Mills. As part of his argument in favor of the controversial move, Truman cited the DPA of 1950. The Supreme Court ruled the president’s attempts unconstitutional.

Knowing the political philosophy and background of Harry Truman, arguably one of the most corrupt and potentially socialist presidents in US history, puts a slightly different spin on the “reasonable” and “fair” arguments in defense of President Obama’s updated version of the act.

Enter the new Executive Order.

The most notable change is the inclusion of the term “in peacetime” whereas the original and its subsequent reauthorizations were for emergency preparedness only.

Just as the original act gave sweeping authority to the president to control civilian business, energy production and distribution, food and other resources, the Executive Order signed by President Obama expands on that authority to unprecedented levels. The order grants the individual cabinet secretaries massive amounts of executive power and the authority to delegate its responsibilities to other agencies.

So while political pundits attempt to appear “reasonable” and “fair” to the president for his latest powergrab because “lots of presidents have done this kind of thing before,” I will ask, “if your friends jumped off a bridge, would you do it too?” Just because one president institutes bad policy doesn’t make it relevant or helpful today.

In other words, 2 wrongs don’t make a right.

Pennsylvania Voter ID as the Left-Wing Hot-Button Issue

Voter ID has been the topic du-jour for the left-wing as an issue that will cause the end of voter freedom for millions of people. Well, maybe not millions, but quite a few. And all of those people have the absolute right to cast their ballots. Requiring that voters show valid identification is onerous, and discriminatory against the elderly, minorities, and the poor. It is right that Texas has been dragged into Federal Court to defend it’s Voter ID law, and Pennsylvania should face the same.

Governor Tom CorbettWhether or not the Federal Government has any business in determining the Constitutionality of States’ Voter ID laws in general is another matter. First, it is necessary to dispel misinformation on the Pennsylvania law itself.

When Governor Tom Corbett (PA) signed the Voter ID bill into law, he said one thing that seems to have been forgotten in all of this – “one man, one vote.” That is an ideal that theoretically should have been handed down to us from our Founders. In principle, this law is purely to preserve that ideal. In practice, it is to prevent voter fraud.

In Pennsylvania, both sides of the aisle concede that fraud isn’t considered a significant problem. However, we do have a problem with citizens that are not registered to vote showing up at the polls, and demanding to cast a ballot in particularly contentious races. Additionally, we are in the process of updating our voting systems throughout the Commonwealth. Many counties have stepped into the 20th century, and started using computerized systems, but there are still a few outposts where they rely on the old manual machines. While it’s not being mentioned by Corbett now, it is not unreasonable to assume that this law is part of a larger plan of creating a standardized modern system for voters in the future.

Voter registration has been attached to photo ID applications for some time now here in Pennsylvania. According to the FAQ on driver’s licenses and ID’s, people are asked if they want to register to vote when getting their pictures taken for their ID’s. They can also change their voter registration address via the online ID system.

If someone in the Commonwealth does not have photo ID, all is not lost. The procedure includes the completion of an “Oath/Affirmation Voter ID Form” at the polls. Once one has completed this form, that individual can obtain photo ID free of charge, since the normal $13.50 fee will be waived. As for what one needs to get a photo ID in the first place, the Commonwealth requires a Social Security Card, proof of citizenship, and proof of residency in the form of utility bills, lease or mortgage agreements, or tax statements. Now, that would exclude a very small percentage of the population, primarily individuals that could not prove citizenship or residency. In either case, those individuals’ right to vote in the first place would be in question.

While the timing of this law might be questionable, given the fact that it will cost the Commonwealth a fair amount of money to implement it, it is necessary. Contrary to what the left might want to make everyone think, this is not about denying legitimate voters the ability to cast a ballot. It is about preventing ineligible persons from stuffing the ballot box. What really lies under all of this is the desire on the left to grant voting privileges to non-citizens. That adage Corbett stated needs modernized as well – “one legal citizen, one vote.”

SB1: Indiana’s “No Illegal Police Entry” Bill

Last night, the Indiana General Assembly passed Senate Bill 1, which, once signed into law, will resolve a nearly year-long deprivation of the civil rights of residents of the State of Indiana. Readers who have followed me for the last year will be aware of my previous “Outrage In Indiana” posts on this very subject. For those who haven’t, let me recap.

In Part One, on May 13th of last year, I described the appalling decision by Indiana’s State Supreme Court in the case of Barnes v. State of Indiana. The court determined that a private person had no right to resist unlawful police burglary of their home. I detailed the 800-year-old legal precedents which allow for such use of force, and the farce of the court’s decision. In Part Two, I published an open letter to Governor Mitch Daniels, imploring him to take whatever action he possibly could to provide relief to Hoosiers subjected to police lawlessness. In Part Three, I published the very thoughtful response I received from his office.

To review the matter at hand: Richard Barnes had an argument with his wife, and neighbors called the police. Upon their arrival, the Barneses had reentered their home, and no further argument was occurring. Officers Lenny Reed and Jason Henry (more on them in a moment) insisted on entering the home, and Mr. Barnes refused them entry. The police, unlawfully, entered the home anyway. Mr. Barnes attempted to use non-deadly force to expel them, and he was tased and arrested.

Eight centuries of legal precedent, from the Magna Carta to two 20th century SCOTUS decisions, explicitly authorize the use of reasonable force to prevent unlawful acts of the police. The laws of the state of Indiana do not privilege police officers from justified force if they are acting outside the bounds of the law. The Fourth Amendment, and a substantially similar provision in Indiana’s Constitution prohibit precisely this conduct- the unwarranted and unlawful entry into a private home by government agents.

Nonetheless, Indiana’s Supreme Court ignored the eight centuries of legal tradition, multiple decisions of the United States Supreme Court, the United States Constitution, and the Constitution and laws of Indiana, and determined that a Hoosier’s only lawful recourse was to sue the police agency for damages after being the victim of a violent crime (in this case, burglary and assault) committed by a police officer.

Our Second, Third, and Fourth Amendment rights were established by our Founding Fathers for expressly this reason: Prior to, and during, the American Revolution, armed agents of the British government- soldiers- would routinely enter private homes without cause, assault homeowners and arrest them without charges, and quarter themselves in private homes in order to intimidate homeowners into submission. Expressly for this reason, we have a right to keep and bear arms, a freedom from quartering in private homes, and a freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

We also have a natural, or God-given (depending on your outlook), right of self-defense, a topic which I have written about extensively. The instinct to protect ourselves, our families, and our property from violent attack is as natural to us as the need to eat. A government decree that a certain class of persons- namely, police officers- are “untouchable”, and may commit violent crimes at will, and the prosecution of private persons who exercise this right against them, is wholly offensive to the basic principles enshrined in our founding document.

Thankfully, Indiana’s legislature has taken up the cause of preserving individual liberties in this matter. Senate Bill 1, introduced by State Senator Mike Young and sponsored by numerous other state legislators, seeks to amend the Indiana Code to explicitly authorize the use of reasonable force against law enforcement officers who commit crimes against private persons.

In short, SB1 changes the language of the state’s use-of-force laws to state that “any person” may be the recipient of defensive force, and adds a section specifically addressing the use of force against police officers. This section authorizes the use of non-deadly force against “any law enforcement officer” to prevent the police officer’s criminal attack upon the person or property, and authorizes deadly force to prevent a law enforcement officer’s criminal attack which may inflict death or serious bodily injury.

Once signed into law, Indiana will become only the second state in the nation to specifically authorize the use of force against police officers acting unlawfully. North Dakota authorizes the use of force to terminate a police officer’s unlawful use of deadly force. Indiana’s statute would dramatically exceed this limited level of protection.

I applaud the state legislature for taking this necessary step to improve the right of self-defense. I also understand Sen. Young is facing a primary challenge this year. I hope Hoosiers will go to the polls in droves and show their support for this fine representative of the people.

And on a final, and ignominious note: Officer Lenny Reed, one of the two goons who burglarized Mr. Barnes’ home, and (ironically) the medic for Evansville PD’s SWAT team, was also involved in an incident involving racial profiling and substantial damage to an innocent man’s RV- which the man was delivering to a buyer- when Reed initiated a wrongful drug search. This incident occurred less than four months before the Indiana Supreme Court’s Barnes decision. Inexplicably, Reed was promoted to Sergeant during roughly the same time frame.

The other goon involved, Officer Jason Henry, resigned from Evansville Police Department after beating up a former sheriff’s deputy, only three months before the Barnes decision. The beating occurred at a meeting of the Indiana Fraternal Order of Police, no less.

Residents of Vanderburgh County have ample reason to question Evansville Police Chief Brad Hill’s professional judgment. Apparently Hoosiers can’t even rely upon the common sense of local officials and police administrators for relief from police lawlessness, which makes the passage of SB1 all the more vital. Mary Beth Schneider of the Indianapolis Star tweeted last night that SB1 passed the Indiana Senate 38-12 and passed the Indiana House 67-26, and is now on its way to Governor Daniels’ desk.

Many thanks to my dear friend April Gregory for her invaluable assistance in researching this post.

Media Deception and Brainwashing Techniques Working Well

I ran across an article by Ben Kinchlow in a World Net Daily “Commentary” column  a few days ago, and the title caught my attention. The “Exclusive” line hit a nerve with me. The quote in that line, “Founders’ intent has been subverted by new doctrine” must be the largest understatement in the history of this nation. But he hits the nail on the head, directly and powerfully. This article by Kinchlow is absolutely fabulous and right on the money. He has broken our nation’s problems down to a level that anyone with any bit of comprehension should be able to see and understand. The media is one great big propaganda scheme orchestrated to control everything we think, and do.

The media tells us how we “deserve” anything and everything we desire, and that whatever we want should be provided for us by someone else. Unfortunately it is working all too well. These people are trampling on the very fabric of our nation and pulling the rug of freedom right out from underneath us while millions sit around and watch the latest rage in “I Got’s Some Talent” nonsense.
Kinchlow quite aptly describes the treatment and even the “labeling” of conservative elements in society today by the media, and the politicians they pay to control us with laws and regulations. Isn’t profiling and labeling wrong according to these very media brainiacs? Everything the founders stood for is ridiculed at the very least. Most of the values of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and the others are totally derided or ignored by the media and the politicians. Anyone espousing anything decent, honest, traditional, or earned is ridiculed and intimidated into silence by bullies and tyrants. And don’t you dare bring any mention or glimpse of anything remotely Christian.

Time Magazine comes out and says Catholic bishops should be put in prison for expressing their outrage at the latest example of dictatorial bullying in the Sebelius rule about abortion and religious facilities (a part of Obamacare no one mentioned in the highlight reels of the campaign). That is some nice “freedom of speech” stance by that veritable Communist rag. “Thank You 3rd Rail” for the staunch defense of freedom of speech for all. Now, back to “I Got’s Some Talent”.

And while America is focused on the latest “talent” show serial, the politicians are flowing with this politically correct nonsense and passing laws and regulations, including involving our very use of language (“Hate Crimes” legislation comes to mind). More “feel good”, “let’s stop bullies” legislation, yeah!!! But it doesn’t stop the bullies, it only encourages them. The bullies are the ones deciding what is bullying and what is “freedom of speech”.

When you see there the money is and where it goes in KInchlow’s article you begin to find a pattern. The unions, and Wall Street / “K” Street tycoons make and spend their money in the same places. Look at the money spent by politicians and their backers to buy media time, some of it even acknowledged as political ads. Go research some more and broaden your horizons. This is one big circle of financial deals that doesn’t include us “commoners”. This benefits the REAL 1%’ers, and it really isn’t that hard to see if you look.

Take a real close look at the Republican candidate debates. The “moderators” can’t find anything more important than who is going to pay for condoms for whom? The candidates all wring their hands and say we have to be “compassionate”, and “we need to be inclusive”, yada yada yada. We are being played by a very elaborate system of bait and switch, and we are being played by professionals. This is what they do, con good hearted people into doing what is desired by the baiters. It is a mob mentality of “attack the one who doesn’t conform”. Isolate, Denigrate, Destroy. Make an example of one to keep millions in line.

Your freedoms are being spirited away right under your noses. Anyone who stands up and speaks out against this activity is pounced on by the wolves in an instant. Look at the treatment given “Joe the Plumber”, Sarah Palin, Sharon Angle, Christine O’Donnell, and countless others who have had the audacity to stand in defiance of the media and their left-wing politicians (both parties included here).

And notice how few of the “staunch conservatives” in the Senate stand with Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn when it comes time to start giving some semblance of control back to the citizens. The House of Representatives is even worse. Leadership of both parties in both houses of Congress is corrupt and playing us every day by cheap talk and actions opposite of what they promised us to get elected.
Once again the Republican Party trots out a bunch of current or former politicians, the same lame ones who have had a hand in ruining our nation, and tells us we better “pick one of them or our nation is lost”. “Anyone but Obama, as long as it is one of these guys”. Go back as far as Gerald Ford and see if I am right (guess who didn’t want Ronald Reagan). And then all the “conservative” talking heads come on and tear anyone who does not fit their agenda to pieces, i.e., Herman Cain. “Conservatives need not apply” is the message from those running the Republican Party and its propaganda arm in the media. Of course, the Democrat Party and their large propaganda subsidies are more than happy to assist in the character assassination of anyone remotely conservative in any value. Oh, by the way, “truth need not apply” either.

Each candidate is the “only one” that can solve our nation’s woes and “if we don’t vote for him we are doomed” We the People are also told, by the same media people mentioned earlier, that Republicans better nominate Mitt Romney, not so affectionately known here as Mitty the Poo, or “all is lost”. What a line of crap; but out trots John McCain to endorse Mitty. “He lost to me last time so it is his turn for the limelight”. “Mitty is my ‘Jimmy Carter’ moment”. “Thanks, Mitty”. “He will lose worse than I did and I will be off the hook as the worst candidate ever”.

Now, back to “I Got’s SomeTalent”. In the meanwhile politicians are busy tightening controls on internet information. We saw what they did to the TV broadcasts a few months back. They haven’t quite managed to totally control the internet yet but they are very close, watch for March 8th. Those intent on taking total control of everything in America are dependant that citizens continue to be enamored with the latest cutsey talent show while they destroy your very way of life.

Are you aware of how society used to be in Cuba, pre-Castro? Not the way it is portrayed in the media, but the REAL society of Cuba. There were rich, there were poor, and there was the middle class. After Che Guevara and Fidel Castro were finished there were only very rich and very poor. The ultra wealthy paid Castro for protection, or left the island. Those without the assets to pick up and move to America had everything they owned taken by the government. Homeowners were pushed out of their homes and business owners were pushed out of their businesses by bureaucrats. Those who worked to earn the wages for a decent income were forced to become slaves because the “benevolent rulers” decided that poverty was a good lifestyle, it was equal for everyone. Of course, that “everyone” didn’t include the Castro brothers and their friends.

Ladies and Gentlemen of America, you are being played for suckers by people with evil intent. Once you have frittered all of your rights away you will be cannon fodder for tyrants. These tyrants are in both political parties. When “I Got’s Talent” is no longer needed to distract you it will go away and you will be left with a situation you really don’t want. But by then it will be too late to do anything about it, the barn door will have been shut, the trap door will have come down.

We don’t have to fall for this and lose the republic our founding fathers forged with their courage and their blood. There is time, there are solutions but it is up to We the People to implement those solutions. I have some thoughts, Next!!!!!

I submit this in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, in faith, with the responsibility given to me by Almighty God to honor his work and not let it die from neglect.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
March 6, 2012

Who’s Offering Economic Solutions?

Given America’s growing national debt, now in excess of $15 trillion:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

A per capita government debt that’s worse than Greece’s:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/chart-america-s-capita-government-debt-worse-greece_631797.html

Unemployment numbers “officially” listed at 8.5%:

http://www.bls.gov/bls/newsrels.htm#OEUS

Petroleum prices trending higher, adding pain at the pump for consumers while decreasing money available to them for spending on vital necessities like food and shelter:

http://www.livecharts.co.uk/trend_signals/trend_forecast_chart_selector.php?ts=Futures_WI

A statement like: “America’s in need of economic solutions” is certainly far from a stretch. Many would say such a statement falls more into the “You have a firm grasp of the obvious” category.

The questions are:

Who will offer the solutions? What solutions will be offered? When is someone going to offer these solutions? Why are the solutions being offered the best solutions available? Where will the money come from to put these solutions into motion?

According to an Associated Press-GfK poll conducted February 16 to 20, 56% of Americans preferred cuts in government spending, compared to 31% who considered higher taxes as the best medicine.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120224/D9T3L7SG3.html

With Social Security burdened by a growing $15.5 trillion in unfunded liabilities, with Medicare’s unfunded liabilities surpassing $81.6 trillion, plus an additional $20.5 trillion for Medicare Part D, there simply isn’t enough discretionary spending available to make the cuts necessary to get America out of debt. However, despite over $15 trillion in debt and unfunded liabilities exceeding $117.7 trillion, with America’s economy in the midst of a deep, long recession struggling to display a flicker of hope for a less than vibrant, jobless recovery, most economists agree that now is not the time to raise taxes.

The first order of business is to get the American economy growing.

Higher tax rates results in reduced profits to investors, thereby inhibiting capital investment. Reduced capital investment leads to economic contraction, resulting in fewer jobs and reduced tax revenue, which in turn tempts government to raise tax rates. In the face of lost private sector growth, Statists persist with the illusion that government spending stimulates economic growth. It didn’t work for FDR to end the Great Depression, and it resulted in a “Misery Index” during Jimmy Carter’s term in office. Government spending on “jobs creation” is inefficient. Not only is money wasted on unproductive pet projects, a portion of the revenue is lost before it ever hits the streets thanks to the cost of government overhead. The end result is less long term private sector growth and larger deficits, which in turn tempt the government to increase tax rates yet again. A downward spiral is set into motion.

Historically, the most efficient way to stimulate America’s economy has been to allow individuals and businesses to keep their own money by cutting taxes. When tax rates are reduced, the economy experiences sustained periods of growth. It worked when Calvin Coolidge reduced taxes in the 1920s. It worked when John Kennedy cut tax rates in the 1960s. It worked again when Ronald Reagan followed suit in the 1980s. Not only does cutting taxes create jobs, the increased revenues lower the government’s deficit. Despite businesses and individuals paying smaller percentages, thanks to economic growth, the IRS collects more revenue from a larger pool of taxpayers. Businesses enjoy profits which allow investments in expansion, which creates greater output, sales and profit, which in turn stimulate the need to hire new employees, who have more revenue to buy products created and produced within the private sector. An upward spiral is created.

Once the private sector economy is growing and providing new jobs, the next step is to cut government overhead.
First, government employee unions should be ended. Government employees could choose between keeping their jobs at private sector salaries or seeking employment elsewhere. Since unionized government employees make an average annual salary that’s $32,000 more than private sector employees doing the same jobs, the across the board savings would be considerable.

Second, with the exception of proven friends and allies, America should cut all foreign aid. Why does the United States borrow money from Communist China and allow the Federal Reserve to inflate its currency in order to give foreign aid to countries hostile to America?

Third, the United States should withdraw from the UN, stop paying dues to the organization, and expel them from American shores permanently. The UN was founded after World War II to prevent a third world war involving nuclear weapons. Since North Korea has and Iran is on the brink of deploying such weapons despite the existence of the UN, why does America allow dictators to come to the United States, grant them diplomatic immunity, then sit idly by while they insult Americans and the American way of life…on America’s dime? The UN is involved in programs and regulations that go so far beyond its original mandate that continuing to fund and be a member of this organization is no longer in the best interests of the United States.

Fourth, cut all government subsidies. With the exception of being the referee as required, government should not be involved in the free market system. Government subsidies interfere with the free market principles of supply and demand, and are being kept alive by corruption breeding special interest groups.

Fifth, defund and dismantle government departments that have proven to be costly and ineffective. The quality of America’s education has declined steadily the Department of Education was established. Additionally, centrally planned curriculum has allowed “progressive” infiltrators to use the Department as a means to indoctrinate generations of American youth to their Marxist agenda. The Department of Energy was founded during the Jimmy Carter Administration with the expressed goal of making America less dependant on foreign energy. The results have been the exact opposite of the stated goal. America is more dependent on foreign energy than ever before. Why is this failure still being funded?

There are other big government programs that feast on the national treasury that can also be eliminated. Among these are the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Homeland Security. At a time of pending fiscal crisis, surely it’s to America’s advantage to free itself of the weight and expense of these bloated bureaucracies.

This is the pathway to reducing America’s annual budget deficits. But what of those looming unfunded liabilities? The inevitable conclusion is that that major reforms are needed in the way Social Security and Medicare function.

When Social Security was established, the age of eligibility was 65. At that time, the average life span of an American male was 58, while women lived to an average age of 62. Combine that life expectancy and eligibility age, factor in people making Social Security payments for the duration of their working careers and the original system was financially solvent.

Today, the average lifespan of men is now 73, while women live to be an average age of 79. Combine this longer duration of payout with the increase in eligible recipients that is resulting from the maturation of the baby boomer generation and there is clearly going to burden the existing system. The age of eligibility should be adjusted to conform to our increased life expectancy. This same revised actuarial formula should be applied to Medicare.

Additionally, no payments should be made to those who have not paid into the system. This would apply to all foreign nationals. If a foreign national is working legally within America, they won’t be responsible for paying in, because they won’t be eligible to collect. If they’re here illegally, they shouldn’t be on anyone’s payroll to begin with.

This is by no means a complete list. More needs to be done, but this is a place to start the conversation. The debt America has and continues to accumulate is an existential threat to the United States. To mortgage the well being of future generations in order to postpone the inevitable is not only irresponsible and dishonorable, it would be the first time a generation of Americans chose to leave the country a worse place for their children than was the one they inherited. All to spare themselves the pains of growing up.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2012/02/25/whos-offering-economic-solutions/

Why Government Will Never Change

Every election cycle – let’s face it, every day – voters criticize the government for its inability to function. We decry that electing someone new doesn’t mean anything when it comes to improvement. We hope that new politicians will mean new ideas and new policies that will help our country move in a positive direction, but alas, what we really get is SSDD (same stuff, different day).

Clearly, the voters want change; one need only look to the Obama campaign slogan of 2008 for evidence. But the kind of change the politicians continue to bring us isn’t at all what the voters have in mind. This is why Congressional approval ratings are so atrocious (ended 2011 with a record low 11% approval) and why this President hovers at 50% approval (coincidentally, 49.5% of people in this country are not paying taxes…hmmm). What we want is for the changes to make us a better country, to offer our citizens greater opportunities to grow wealth, to tax us fairly and less, to leave us to make decisions for ourselves, to protect our freedoms – not squash them – and to generally get out of our way.

When politicians are criticized for their inability to move this country forward in a positive direction, they complain that they are being blocked by their opposition, that it’s increasingly difficult to get bipartisan agreement on anything. But why is that? Don’t both political parties have the nation’s best interest at heart?

I know it’s an unpopular idea to consider, but do politicians really have a motivation for moving us forward? After all, if our nation’s people don’t have legitimate educational, health care, financial, retirement, and employment problems, they don’t need the government. If we don’t need the government to resolve these day-to-day challenges for us, then there isn’t as much at stake in the elections. Without a need for change, what would drive voters to the polls to vote in new candidates? It might sound outrageous to posit this, but we must consider that our politicians actually create problems instead of solve them just to ensure a future for themselves.

Our founding fathers would surely roll over in their graves if they considered this twisted idea, because they believed Americans should be self-reliant. They designed the framework of our country around the principles of limited government precisely because they didn’t want the masses to become dependent on government. They were wise enough to realize such dependence would lead to an over-powerful political body that would infringe on individual liberty. Each day, each election, we are moving farther and farther away from what our founding fathers envisioned for this country. We even have leaders who are so arrogant to claim that maybe the founding fathers didn’t have it right and maybe we need to “change with the times.”

But it is essential that we remember not all change is good change, and we need to question the motives behind our political figures’ inability to get this country moving forward. Beyond just questioning these motives, we need to demand that they start answering to the inefficiencies and total lack of meaningful action during their time in office.

Term limits are a great place to start. If politicians know there is a finite amount of time they can serve in public office, then maybe they will actually SERVE us instead of their own interests. Maybe a limit to their time in office will prompt only those who are genuinely interested in working toward positive change, progress, growth, and freedom to apply for the job. It sure would put an end to the distraction of campaigning while in office (and on the taxpayer’s dollar).

A resurgence of “citizen legislators” would bring the focus back to getting work done and making a positive difference while in office, and it would ensure that those who are making laws that impact the real world have actually worked in it.

Government should be limited, as should the power and influence of politicians. Our political leaders need a reality check and a real job. It’s high time we re-ignite this conversation on a national level. I wonder what the likelihood is that a career politician will get on board. Yep, that’s why the government will never change.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »