Category Archives: Self-sufficiency

The lies of free trade proponents

In his SOTU speech, Barack Obama announced that his Administration is (unconstitutionally and thus illegally) negotiating trade agreements with the EU and countries of the Pacific Rim. Free trade proponents – including Iain Murray of the pseudoconservative American Spectator – applauded him, as they are ideologically aligned with him. In defense of their (and his) free trade agenda, they have regurgitated their standard litany of lies about trade.

Murray falsely claims that:

“The benefits of free trade are many, and accepted by virtually all economists. They include reductions in the cost of living, greater choice and increased quality of goods, higher incomes on both sides, economic growth and, perhaps most important in an increasingly corporatist America, a reduction in the effectiveness of lobbying. Protectionism provides the reverse in all of these cases, and would be just as foolish now as when the Smoot-Hawley law deepened the Depression. (…)

However, that last benefit in the list I just provided has not escaped the eye of special interests. Indeed, most of the free trade agreements which America has negotiated in recent years have been heavily influenced by lobbyists, not only from industry, but also from the environmental and labor organizations. They have consistently insisted on inserting measures into the agreements that maintain protections for their interests and reduce the scope for the full benefits from free trade.”

All of his claims are blatant lies.

There are NO benefits from free trade. None whatsoever. It is protectionism that brings about the benefits he claims, not free trade.

How do we know it? From the facts – from the results of real life, not theoretical theses put forward by Murray and others living in their academic ivory towers.

Increased quality of goods? Don’t make me laugh. The goods that the US imports from China and other “developing” countries are of abysmally low quality, made from weak materials in a poor fashion, breaking down after little time of use, and many of them – including toys and food – are poisoned with lead (toys) or melamine (food). The problem is so grave that one American mother raised that question in a 2007 GOP presidential debate. Virtually anyone who has bought anything made in China will attest to the poor quality of Chinese goods.

Reductions in the cost of living? Rising incomes on both sides? Is that a joke? Since the ratification of the first “free trade” deals in the 1990s, the real wages and real income of low-income and middle-class workers has remained flat in inflation-adjusted dollars. The only Americans who have seen their incomes rise since then have been the wealthy – the CEOs of large corporations who are happy to ship jobs overseas (mostly to China).

Greater choice? China’s price-dumping, flooding of the US with extremely low quality goods, and refusal to implement any environmental or labor standards has undercut and undermined American companies and to the flooding of store shelves with Chinese products, leaving Americans with little choice other than these low-quality products.

Reduction in the effectiveness of lobbyists? Don’t make me laugh. It was precisely lobbyists – and no one else – who wanted and secured the passage of all free trade deals ratified by the US, from the WTO to the GATT to NAFTA, to Most Favored Nation status for China, to the disastrous KORUS FTA.

American workers and voters did not want these disastrous free trade deals. Indeed, they vehemently protested against them and urged their Congressmen and Senators to vote against them (especially against the KORUS FTA).

It was the greedy CEOs of large multinational corporations and their lobbyists on Capitol Hill who campaigned for and secured the passage of these disastrous (for America) deals.

Economic growth? That’s the most idiotic claim Murray has made. Free trade has done nothing but stymie US economic growth. Historically, the US economy has grown fastest when operating under protectionist (economically nationalist) policies: protective tariffs.

Indeed, this is what all history – of all countries – shows. It proves that protectionism is what brings about fast economic growth, while “free trade” (i.e. being a dupe who borrows money to buy foreign products and destroys his own industry) leads to economic stagnation.

Protectionism (economic nationalism) is the trade policy of ascendant economic powers; free trade, the policy of descending, declining ones.

EVERY country which ever became an economic power became one by protecting and nurturing its industrial base – England under the Acts of Navigation, France under Jean-Baptiste Colbert and Napoleon Bonaparte, Britain until the mid-19th century, Prussia under the Customs Union (1834-1871), unified Germany under Bismarck and his successors, the US from 1861 to the 1960s, postwar Japan, China today.

NO country ever became an economic power by indulging in free trade, which is only for dupes and idiots and leads to economic disaster.

The US became the world’s economic superpower – indeed, was once the economic envy of the world – because from 1861 until at least the 1960s it protected and nurtured its industry with tariffs that effectively barred most foreign products from the US and protected its industrial base while not hampering competition between domestic producers in any way (and antitrust legislation ensured that such competition would stay alive in the US).

Thus, the US became a world producer of everything, an economically fully self-sufficient country, supplying not just its large population but the entire world with all sorts of products, from alloys, to cars, to planes, to everything else. By the 1940s and the early 1950s, it accounted for 50% of the world’s industrial production, partially due to the damage WW2 inflicted on Europe but partially due to the protection of the American industry (which was indispensable in winning that war by producing weapons for the US and its allies).

This was because, from its founding until at least the 1960s, the US followed the preceipts of the Founding Fathers, especially Alexander Hamilton: Trade surpluses are preferrable to trade deficits. It does matter where things are produced. There is no free lunch. Manufacturing, not finance, is the nation’s economic muscle.

But today, the US hardly manufactures anything and has become dependent on foreign countries – especially China – on all sorts of products, including the necessities of life.

“Free trade” has been a total disaster for the US. Since 2000 alone, thanks to free-trade policies, over 55,000 factories across the country have been closed and relocated overseas, mainly to China, and 6 million good, well-paying manufacturing jobs have been shipped – mostly to China. The only reward is the dubious privilege of buying low-quality Chinese goods.

Before NAFTA’s ratification, the US had an annual trade surplus with Mexico; since 1993, however, it has had a trade deficit with that country every year and the 2012 trade deficit was the largest between the two in history. After ratification of the KORUS FTA, America’s trade deficit with South Korea jumped threefold in April 2012 alone. Our trade deficit with Japan is the largest ever between us.

America’s trade deficit with China is the largest ever between any two countries in human history: $300 bn in 2012.

Not just between the US and China, but the largest between any two countries on God’s green Earth in all recorded human history!

And yes, trade deficits do matter. A lot. They decrease the country’s GDP while increasing the GDP of the country you’re buying from. This is not surprising to anyone who knows economics 101: to be able to buy something, you have to earn the money to buy it – or borrow it. If you borrow money, you’re driving yourself deeper into debt. If you buy it with the money you’re already have, you’re transferring your income to the other guy. He earns money and you lose it.

If he sells you more than he buys from you, he makes more money at YOUR expense than YOU do at his expense. In other words, on net, he earns money at YOUR expense: he takes money from you, while you lose money.

Producing goods creates jobs (all goods have to be made by someone). If you buy goods from a foreign country, you’re creating jobs in THAT country rather than yours, and increasing the income of THAT country rather than yours, while you lose money and jobs (or, at minimum, the opportunity to create jobs at home).

That country gains and you lose.

If you buy more from abroad than you export, you’ll have to borrow money to buy those things, thus driving yourself deeper and deeper into debt.

Those “economists” who support free trade clearly don’t even know Economics 101, or the Basic Facts of Life 101.

Free trade has also been a political disaster for Republicans. They’ve been complicit in its making, indeed often leading the campaign for it, and helped destroy most of American industry. Might the wiping out of most factories in the Midwest and the Northeast have had anything to do with Republicans inability to win those states and their foolish advocacy of free trade?

Illinois and Michigan haven’t voted Republican since 1984; Pennsylvania, not since 1988; Ohio, not since 2004.

By contrast, from 1860 to 1924, Republicans – then known as The Party of Protection – put 12 presidents only in the White House. The Democrats put only 2.

In short, the claims of Iain Murray and other free traders – none of whom have ever built a great nation – are blatant lies.

Olympic Arms Stands Up For The Constitution

Olypic Arms Logo

Gun manufacturing company, Olympic Arms, Inc. has turned down a solicitation to advertise in the FOP Journal, the publication of the National Fraternal Order of Police.  The FOP very strongly supports the most extreme of gun control measures, highlighted by their jumping for joy over the Diane Feinstein proposal.  Olympic Arms issued a statement with “grievances” listed as their reasons for refusing to advertise with the FOP.  They went even farther, saying they will not sell to, advertise with, or generally do business with any other entity supporting gun control, including the federal government. Other firearm manufacturers have also refused to sell to government entities.

In a related matter, Police Chief Mark Kessler of the Gilberton Borough Police Department in Pennsylvania has called for civilian volunteers to join with his police department in building a “reserve force” (sorry Sheriff, I live in Oklahoma or I would sign up).  The purpose of the group Kessler calls for is to provide aid to his police department should the need arise to resist Federal authorities when it comes to the Second Amendment and the confiscation of firearms from law abiding citizens.  This is about as “grassroots” as grassroots can get, local citizens joining with local law enforcement to enforce the tenets of the Constitution.Sheriff Mark Kessler  Many sheriffs across the nation have stood up for their oath to the residents of their counties and to their oath to The Constitution of the United States of America.  I call on every sheriff in the nation to join the Constitutional Sheriffs Association  and be a part of the defense of liberty in America. If you are a sheriff, please sign on.  If you are a relative, or just a citizen, urge your county sheriff to take this stand with We the People.

Another large concern is the situation with ammunition.  The government bought 1.6 BILLION, (yep, with a “B”) rounds of ammunition in just the last ten months of 2012  and are about to order 21.6 million more rounds in the next couple of months.   They bought .40 caliber hollow points and 5.56/2.23 ammunition, causing shortages and outrageous prices.  And to make a side point for the “low information voter” and those who may just not know anything about firearms and ammunition, hollow point ammunition cannot be used in war due to Geneva Convention bans on their use.  Also, the use of such expensive ammunition for target practice is ludicrous.  That only leaves one place to use those hollow points, and that is on We the People. They are Dept Homeland Security Logodesigned to do maximum damage to the human body, not paper targets.  The federal government has already amassed enough bullets to shoot each American citizen; that is every man, woman, and child in the nation, 5or 6 times.  And they are putting out solicitations for even more “personal defense weapons”, that in my hands is an “assault weapon”.  Same gun; different hands, different designation.

If the manufacturers of ammunition want to stand with We the People, and their own ultimate future, they will join in this refusal to sell to, and/or advertise with organizations and agencies that seek the demise of the firearms industry.   These companies stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars, money that will come out of the pockets of working class patriots who believe that the right to keep and bear arms comes from God, not man.  In their quest to put money in their pockets these manufacturers are enabling the subjugation of their own employees, along with the rest of us.

So essentially, I am buying “personal defense weapons” and a lot of ammunition; for bureaucrats, including the NOAA, our nation’s hurricane forecasters, and other bureaucrats who have no need for guns and ammunition at all, much less in such quantities.  How many weather forecasters need a full-automatic military rifle to forecast a hurricane? In the process of this government largesse, the availability and cost of guns and ammunition to people like myself is becoming impossible.  And where are these weapons actually going?

I call on all manufacturers of anything related to the 2nd Amendment to take this same stand.  We the People have shown our willingness to support your companies.  The sale of firearms, ammunition, and accessories have skyrocketed in the last few years as people become more and more alarmed at the actions of the federal government. Those who now reap huge profits from a growingly abusive government will eventually fall prey to the appetite of this same government.  If you don’t believe me go back and check on Willy Messerschmitt, for one.

Nazi Germany saw many industrial magnates profit by supporting Adolph Hitler and his regime of terror and murder. Naturally when the dust settled they had nothing.  How about the lessons from Soviet Russia, Cuba, Communist China, North Korea, Iranhitler4, and on and on and on?  Will our arms industries follow the example of these countries or will they join in the movement of a civilized people to return our nation to the values espoused by our founders?  Will these companies and the people who manage them look to the Constitution and our founders or will they stand with those bent on dictatorship?

We the People are standing up to the tyranny being forced upon us.  We have lost the sad excuse we have for a news media.  They are totally controlled by the NWO globalists and loudly call for disarmament and the abolition of the Constitution.   And while one political party actively and openly strives to enslave its citizens the other one hems and haws around while looking for excuses to send Abrams tanks and F-16 fighter/bombers to the Muslim Brotherhood.  These politicians, who are so concerned about “honoring a treaty with Egypt”, are hiding behind rhetoric to ignore their oath to honor the Constitution as they assist in the subjugation and Il Duce Obamaenslavement of their supporters. The Muslim Brotherhood can be trusted with state-of-the-art weapons systems but I can’t be trusted with a semi-automatic rifle!!!!!

Who is the enemy and who is the friend here? We already know where both political parties stand.  Those questions need to be answered by the ammunition manufacturers who are raking in profits from wanna-be dictators as our Republic travels down the rest of the road to dictatorship.

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

Bob Russell

Claremore, Oklahoma

February 14, 2013

Karl Rove: The GOP’s Progressive Woodrow Wilson

karl-rove-mug

 

“Architect” Karl Rove is a progressive disaster to the Republican Party: He’s pushing to destroy the Tea Party and American conservatism in order to install his version of politics that mirrors Woodrow Wilson.

There’s not much difference between Wilson and Rove: Wilson wanted control over the Democrat Party and the American people abiding by his will.  Rove is doing the exact same thing: Controlling the GOP vote by putting RINO candidates up against Tea Party candidates in order to destroy conservatives.

Rove  decides GOP primary winners,  not voters.  Rove chose the 2008 and 2012 presidential candidates:  John McCain and Mitt Romney. Both decisions failed and the GOP was defeated like Waterloo on steroids.

Yet, Rove is hell-bent on choosing the 2014 and 2016 GOP candidates and preventing Tea Party candidates from getting on ballots. And the GOP machine does not care: Its goal is power, not constitutionalism.

The result: The GOP is failing because it keeps bringing this power-hungry, overweight knife to the political gun fight.

Despite Rove’s American Crossroads Super PAC proving a dismal failures, the GOP refuses to learn lessons and listen to its conservative base. Instead, the GOP wants Rove to move ahead with his Wilsonian-style plan: Decide the candidates people need as president, Senate and House leaders.

 

9781451694932_p0_v1_s260x420

 

To pull off this anti-Constitution, strong-arming-the-people plan, Rove set up the Conservative Victory Group, another progressive-style Pac to choose candidates, and further to the point, advise candidates on what they can and cannot articulate.

 

Karl-Rove-puppeteer-460x307

 

Rove’s plan was laid out in the New York Times:

The biggest donors in the Republican Party are financing a new group to recruit seasoned candidates and protect Senate incumbents from challenges by far-right conservatives and Tea Party enthusiasts who Republican leaders worry could complicate the party’s efforts to win control of the Senate. Steven J. Law, a leader of the Conservative Victory Project, say they are taking steps to steer Mr. King away from a Senate run. The group, the Conservative Victory Project, is intended to counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates over the last two election cycles. It is the most robust attempt yet by Republicans to impose a new sense of discipline on the party, particularly in primary races.

 

Notice Rove’s goal: “protect Senate incumbents” from Tea Party candidates and “counter other organizations that have helped defeat establishment Republican candidates.” In other words, down with Mia Love Tea Partiers shaking things up, no Todd Akin slip-ups allowed on ballots, and defeat upstarts like incumbent Rep. Allen West, whom Rove could not “discipline” and “impose” his GOP power.

Rove’s ideology is similar to British constitutionalism where leaders, not the people,  pick prime ministers and MPs, and decide laws as they go. That was Woodrow Wilson’s ideology. Is it any different than Rove picking candidates? Worse, is that any different than Wilson’s desire to abolish the Separation of Powers?

No, Rove has never called for abolishing Separation of Powers so presidents have parliamentary-style control.  However, if party leaders control votes, prevent people from deciding primary candidates, party leaders control Congressional leader’s votes, and Separation of Powers dissolves, and the House and Senate belong to party leaders, not voters.

To cover his fat rump, Rove made radio talk show rounds, backtracking his bashing the Tea Party.  Big deal! Rove believes he is the architect of politics and he’s attempting to design America’s leadership.

Rove assumes he knows what’s best for the people, as Wilson himself believed. Rove is Woodrow Wilson in every sense of the Progressive Movement: Mold the party, voters, and America’s future to party leadership command, not the Constitution. How is that “consent of the governed?”

There is nothing conservative about Rove’s Conservative Victory Party or Rove.

Wilson said choose elite candidates best suited for making the people’s decisions. Candidates must do the thinking for the people, because citizens are too inept at making individual decisions.

Wilson said: “Governments are what the politicians make them…:”

[T]here should be a science of administration which shall seek to straighten the paths of government, to make its business less unbusinesslike, to strengthen and purify its organization, and to crown its duties with dutifulness.

 

Rove too wants to “make” the government.

Matt Hoskins, Executive Director of Senate Conservatives Fund said of Rove:

This is a continuation of the establishment’s effort to avoid blame for their horrible performance in the 2012 elections. They [the GOP] blew a ton of races up and down the ticket because they recruited moderate Republicans who didn’t stand for anything. Now they want to use this new PAC to trick donors into giving them more money so they can lose more races.

 

Hoskins is correct.  Rove helped destroy GOP conservative Florida Rep. Allen West by refusing to help West win reelection and stop the redistricting of West’s seat.

Rove trashed Tea Party favorite Sarah Palin as “thin-skinned,” claiming that if no one speculates “about her, she’d be upset and try and find a way to get us to speculate about her.”

It sounds like chunky skin, who was adamant Palin would run for the 2012 presidency, is not only off beam with erroneous predictions, he’s jealous of popularity that may possibly destroy his power.

Rove demonstrated disloyalty to Rep. Michele Bachmann when Bachmann demanded answers to why Muslim Brotherhood-connected Huma Abedin-Weiner was Hillary Clinton’s top aid with high security clearance in the State Department. GOP leaders Marco Rubio, John McCain, and Speaker John Boehner condemned Bachmann. Rove took the RINO side against Bachmann.

When it comes to breaking Constitution law to grant illegals amnesty, Rove tramples the Constitution for the Hispanic vote. He is empowering Tea Partier-turned-RINO Senator Marco Rubio, whom Rove says has “The framework of the proposed reforms highlights the persuasive powers of Sen. Marco Rubio.”

Notice the phrase “persuasive.”  Rove wants “persuasive” leaders making voter’s decisions. That is what Wilson wanted:

“Wherever regard for public opinion is a first principle of government, practical reform must be slow and all reform must be full of compromises… Whoever would effect a change in a modern constitutional government must first educate his fellow-citizens to want some change. That done, he must persuade them to want the particular change he wants. He must first make public opinion willing to listen and then see to it that it listen to the right things. He must stir it up to search for an opinion, and then manage to put the right opinion in its way.

 

This is exactly what Rove is doing with conservative voters who must reject what will surely destroy conservatism if “We The People” don’t stand up and fight Karl Rove.

Rove’s Conservative Victory Project is progressivism. His record demonstrates he’s not a Republican, he’s a left-wing progressive in GOP clothing molding the GOP into his image, just as Wilson did with Democrats and America.

 

Scissors: The Best Defensive Weapon

Will wonders never cease? The Department of Homeland Security has come out with a video telling Dept Homeland Security Logo We the People to attack a gunman with a pair of scissors if we can’t hide or run away. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/31/new-homeland-security-video-urges-americans-to-resist-shooters-with-scissors/ WOW!!! Why have I never come up with such an ingenious plan? That sounds really good to me!!!! I have several sets of scissors at my house though I don’t normally carry them with me when I am out in public. I am not sure how calm and collected I will be in such a circumstance but I would hope that I would be calm enough to stab the gunman without injuring any innocent bystanders or myself in the process. What about the possibility of a stray, panicked swing hurting an innocent child standing nearby?

I wonder why DHS doesn’t just demand the crazed criminal turn in his weapons so I don’t have to worry about it in the first place. As a matter of fact, why not just tell all the gang members and criminals to turn in their weapons, or face prison time? Wouldn’t that solve the whole firearms crime problem? They certainly want me to be disarmed and unable to return fire as a defensive method. I guess that banning all guns is the answer to this problem (see the murder rate in Chicago for reference) and apparently the answer is to carry concealed scissors.

Would I need a permit for concealed scissors? Who would issue that permit, if needed, and Scissors sharp tipwould I have to undergo extensive training to be eligible for such a permit? I don’t do well cutting out strings of shapes so I would need that extensive training. Also, can I defend myself with pointed scissors or do I need to use the blunt ended ones like first graders use, for my own protection?

I am a Special Forces veteran and have been handling guns since I was 5 years old. I am now 63 so I have 58 years of handling a variety of firearms, including military hardware such as M-2 .50 caliber machine guns, recoilless rifles, mortars, rocket launchers, grenade launchers, andAge 20 7th SFG-2 everything from a Spanish/American War rifle to an M-16. I have managed to fire hundreds of thousands of rounds from over one hundred different weapons, including anti-tank weapons, without accidentally shooting anyone, nor have I ever committed a crime with a firearm. If I would have known that a pair of scissors is the answer to the dangers of this world I could have saved myself a lot of time and effort in learning how to handle firearms safely. It certainly would have been much easier to tote a pair of scissors through jungles and swamps instead of an 8 pound rifle and the accompanying ammunition.

I also find it odd that the same DHS that tells me to defend myself with scissors is buying 7,000 AR-15 carbines for the self-defense of their Gestapo, er DHS, agents (like they will have semi-automatic fire only). Why is an AR-15 an “assault weapon” in my hands but a “personal defense weapon” in the hands of the Gestapo, er DHS, agents? And why should I buy these weapons for them while being denied the same right myself? Can you spell HYPOCRISY???

Janet the Nappy Napolitano seems to think her minions need such firepower when I don’t. Why is Janet Napolitanothat? Are they special or are the rest of us just so beneath her agents that only they have the right to self-defense? How about arming her agents with scissors if that is the answer to evil people intending to do harm to them!!! What is good for the goose should be good for the gander but tyrants don’t look at things that way. They are more along the “do as I say not as I do” genre. Somehow “fairness” seems to be missing in their mission to render We the People defenseless before their Gestapo, er DHS, agents.

Fairness is the mantra for everything they do until it comes to We the People being able to protect ourselves from murderers or Gestapo agents. Suddenly “fairness” isn’t so important. What is important is that We the People do not have the means to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. One thing I know to be an indisputable fact is that the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting or target shooting. It is totally about protection from a tyrannical government. The founders were very clear in the Constitution, the Federalist papers, and other writings, that We the People should be able to defend ourselves from King George III and future tyrants.

The battles at Lexington and Concord started because British soldiers were on a mission to disarm We the People. I guess our founders didn’t take to the idea of being defenseless anycolonial-minutemen-2-tn more than the patriots of today. If only scissors would have been more readily available to the colonists!!!

Another thought to chew on; if scissors will solve the problems of illegal use of guns why not just make “rock, paper, scissors” the law enforcement answer to solving every problem we face today. My 10 year old granddaughter explained the way the game works yesterday and I find it a refreshing way to resolve the issue of crazed gunmen or a tyrannical government and its Gestapo, er DHS, agents. When no one has a gun we can play this child’s game to resolve any disagreement and no one gets hurt, well, except for the poor unfortunate fool who chooses to defend himself with paper when facing a rock or a pair of scissors.

Once scissors are the weapon of the day will we need to register each set of scissors and store Scissors blunt tipthem in a federal government approved site? What class of scissors will be permitted to us peasants? Back to my earlier comment, will pointed scissors be “deemed” too dangerous for possession by the general public, as in us peasants? Will we only be allowed the kindergarten style blunt nosed scissors “to protect us from ourselves”?

I not only find this video totally absurd, but also resent my tax money being used for another moronic propaganda scheme of the Gestapo, er DHS. How much tax money did this video cost and how much are those 7,000 “personal defense weapons”, including high capacity magazines and ammunition, going to cost those of us who will have to scrape to find the money to buy appropriate scissors for our own personal defense and then pay for the permits we will no doubt be required to possess in order to carry them concealed?

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
February 1, 2013

Why Our Schools Are At Risk

gun-free-zoneIt would behoove us to consider, when pondering the option of equipping teachers with fire-arms, that Americans in favor of such proposals are not suggesting the distribution of weapons in the same manner that the students receive their books on the first day of school.

No one recommending that administrators call the teachers down to the shop class to pick up their Glocks, holsters, and loaded bullet cartridges before the students arrive in the morning.

What is being suggested (and not strongly enough, for it is this writer’s opinion that it should be DEMANDED) is for teachers to be permitted to carry in states whose laws prevent such measures.

I have learned of only four states that allow individuals to carry licensed concealed weapons to school: Utah, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Hawaii. In fact, ABCNews.com posted an article in December displaying pictures of teachers during a training session.

If there are only four states in this union that permit the lawful carrying of concealed weapons on school property, then that means there are forty-six states that do not.

Do Americans; do YOU, fully realize the implications of this? Do we stop to count how many children are at risk, I wonder…?

In taking measures to protect our children from harm, (banning guns on school property) we have indirectly placed them, along with their administrators and teachers, in the cross-hairs of the lunatic’s scope.

There are unstable individuals in this nation whose behavior can not be predicted.

Heartless, brutal, bloody, evil people…

They are people who have found a place to take out their frustrations on defenseless people of all ages in a most aggressive manner.

For the government of forty-plus states to deny their adult men and women the ability to defend themselves – and our children at the same time – with the insulting assumption that they will not be able to handle the same simple fire-arm that many twelve year old children can shoot, is not only preposterous, it is evil – a sabotaging of the safety of the American man, woman, and child.

At that point it becomes, not the unstable aggressor that is the killer, but the one who wrenched a means of self-defense out of the hands of the victim, before they could wrap their more than capable fingers around it.

For one to willfully deny an adult the ability to defend themselves properly, is to indirectly thrust them into the line of fire with their own hands.

I would not want that on my conscience.

As each new day dawns, there seems to be a new argument against allowing responsible adults the ability to protect themselves and our own children.
If we do not speak up – if we do not make the phone calls to Congress that need to be made – then not only will the rights of stable adults continue to be at risk, but their very lives, and the lives of our children as well.

Living 40 Years Cut-off From Civilization

Lykov Home Photo courtesy Wikimedia

Lykov Home
Photo courtesy Wikimedia

Do you imagine yourself living off the grid? Are you a survivalist? Could you go days, months or even years without travel into town for supplies? Imagine raising a family and living 40 years without seeing any other humans. It happened.

Facing persecution and death for their religion by the atheist Bolsheviks in the 1930’s, the Lykov family left their home village in Siberia and fled into the deep woods. There they survived with no further human contact for 40 years until scientists on a geologic expedition discovered their lone cabin.

Dependent only on their own skills and what the forest provided they managed to create shoes and clothing, hunt and grow food, and taught their children to read using only an ancient family bible. With no outside contact the family did not know about World War II or the rise and fall of the Soviet Union. It was an unimaginable life.

This week the Smithsonian chronicles their tale of survival and desire for religious freedom. It is an amazing story to read: Smithsonian There is a documentary video link with fascinating photos; however it is narrated in Russian.

A book was published about the family in the 1990’s: Lost in the Taiga

Lady Tries to Buy iPads with Food Stamps

Last month was busy so I missed the story about a woman who tried to buy an iPad with her Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program card (read Food Stamps).

Not only did this woman try to buy the iPads but when her card was declined she went to another store to try again. (Let’s give her points for the old adage: If at first you don’t succeed…) You can watch the clip below:

Okay, so most people don’t try to abuse the government’s food assistance program, but we see these stories way too often.

What happened to a program that started out with such good intentions?

Most readers may not know the history of the food stamp program. Here’s a short and sweet version (you can read the Wikipedia description here.)

Following the heels of the Great Depression our government wanted to get farm surpluses to the hungry inner city people. Those needing government assistance could get food stamps which allowed them to ‘purchase’ a 50-50 mix of both government surplus foods and regular groceries. Interestingly, the program ended when the widespread unemployment dropped in 1943. (A government program that ended itself? My, how times have changed.)food stamps

When the program returned in the ‘60’s the farm surplus component was removed. In the years following eligibility requirements were lessened, nutritional standards disallowed, and somewhere along the line the government decided it might hurt the feelings of individuals to accept assistance so the program changed its name and offered debit cards in place of the shameful food stamps.

President Obama, in his 2009 stimulus package, allowed for further expansion of the program with increased eligibility and each month in 2012 the number of recipients reached record levels. Today about 47Million Americans participate in this program. (There are about 307Million total in the US–so about 1 in 6.)

A far cry from helping the inner city poor receive farm surpluses in the original program.

An interesting note: When researching the statistics, a University of Maryland study showed that for every dollar received in food stamps only 17-47 cents was actually added to the food expenditures in families. Instead much of the ‘money’ collected by the family went to Income Maintenance; that is money that households are able to spend on other things because they no longer have to spend it on food.

So there you have it. What started as a simple plan to get farmers’ surplus to the hungry people has turned into another example of government run amok. Back in the 1970s, about one out of every 50 Americans was on food stamps. Today, about one out of every 6.5 Americans is on food stamps.

Without requiring nutritional standards food stamp recipients are allowed to buy more expensive prepackaged, prepared and/or junk foods. The amount of actual money that goes to put more food on the table is actually a fraction of what is received; people would rather reduce their grocery money and use the program to increase their income. Additionally, continued government assistance has created additional dependency on what should be a short term program, just for emergency aid.

Many of my friends are fed up. They watch the woman in line buy roast and seafood using her EBT card and then pay cash for her cigarettes and beer while they buy chicken because that’s all the budget allows. They buy bags of dried beans or peas cooking them up with the leftover ham bone to provide a nutritional yet inexpensive meal while they tell the kids ‘no chips this week’ because they’re saving to buy a new television while the neighbor brags how his girlfriend gets enough food stamps so they were able to buy a big screen TV last month and he can watch all the cable football games.

Maybe we need to return to the original program. Maybe we need to make some changes. The other day a friend offered the following suggestions:

  • Restrict food stamps to nutritional only foods; nothing with high sugar, salt or fat content
  • Only certain meat/proteins qualify; none of this lobster and prime rib…eat chicken like the rest of us
  • Give more value for fresh foods and produce (Former governor Mike Huckabee proposed a variable rate plan ie., if a person on food stamps bought fresh fruits or vegetables, $1 in food stamps could buy $1.25 in fresh produce. crockpotHowever, if the same person purchased a candy bar, that $1 would be worth .75.)
  • Give the government surplus foods directly to recipients and reduce the amount of grocery dollars. This program is not meant to replace income. While helping at a local food bank my nephew asked, “Aren’t these people poor?” After hearing the affirmative he replied, “Then why do so many have iPhones? I can’t afford an iPhone.”
  • Give each family a crockpot and recipes. Require recipients to attend cooking classes.

If your pride gets in the way and you don’t want to participate good. The safety nets in place were meant to help the disabled, elderly and infirm and for those in short term need. Not to be a lifestyle choice. We don’t need to wait for the government to take care of us.

Idealistic proposals with the government caring for all our needs is indeed where the frightening New World Order conspiracy ideas arise. This country was not built by the people being dependent on the government, to the contrary.  We must find a way to stop this growing dependency on the government.

Rep Davis: Your Unemployment Check is in the Mail

Here’s a quick little snippet from The Washington Times. Danny_K_Davis

For Rep. Danny K. Davis, Illinois Democrat, the “fiscal cliff” fight came down to one thing: the unemployment checks the government will still be able to send to thousands of his constituents.

“When I go to church on Sunday, I know that I will see people with the assurance that pretty soon an unemployment check is in the mail,” he said.

Wouldn’t it be nice if these representatives would push for work and jobs with the same enthusiasm? More jobs would mean fewer of Representative Davis’ church going constituents are waiting, dependent on their unemployment benefits.
Read the rest of the article here.

How Many Times Does America Have to Go Over the Fiscal Cliff Before the Concussion Kills Us?

uncle sam drives over the fiscall cliff

 

America has gone over the fiscal cliff so often; the concussions have definitely created economic brain damage and lunacy.

First: “Fiscal Cliff” is nothing more than an economic political term for economic idiocy leaders engage in more often than they do with Dominican hookers and interns.

Second: America goes over the fiscal cliff every time the Federal Reserve lowers interest rates to give the federal government an excuse to over lend, spend, and borrow what can never be repaid.

If you are panicking right now, you forgot America has been cliff-diving  for over 200 years and generations of economic brain damage hasn’t taught America one, single thing about printing paper currency and borrowing: Loans cannot be repaid with paper or excessive taxes.

If we paid attention to history, the Federal Reserve wouldn’t stand at attention every time it hears the ca-ching of cash registers ringing the national hymn of Weimar.

Most leaders are more interested in gambling for power than America’s preservation, which is why Obama and Democrats are hyping the fiscal cliff: Make Americans believe the wealthy caused the $16 trillion debt and they must be over-taxed! Only taxation can stop America from collapsing and going over the cliff!

The “Fiscal Cliff” is purposely used as a weapon to destroy the economy and push America to the brink of bankruptcy in order to destroy individual American wealth.

Obama and Democrats are using the “Fiscal Cliff” weapon well. They’ve scared the daylights out of Americans who prefer suffering blind eye concussions rather than understanding that history is repeating itself on a level like never before because of our leaders, not the people.

Example: The American Revolution cost a fortune, and when we ran out of money, the Continental Congress created a new currency: Paper notes known as “Continentals.”

 

hamilton note

As always, the government over prints paper and people assume the notes are equal to gold coins and paper will back up their means.

“Continental” currency worked as well then as now: The Central Bank over-printed to keep up with“Continental” demands.  But paper is not a redeemable, tangible asset.  As the war accelerated, Congress reneged on its promise to issue more notes, inflation skyrocketed, and Americans were left in desperate need.

Alexander Hamilton, whose ideas were more in line with British government, created another central bank with one currency. The colonies had few banks: Britain controlled banking and prevented rival banks from developing. America needed a way to smooth the progress of government financing to investors and lending to businesses to develop a prosperous American economy. The idea was great, but failed: Hamilton’s Second Bank sent all United States gold [currency backing] to foreign countries during the 1790s.

In Hamilton’s Writings, his December 13, 1790  “Report on a National Bank” to the House of Representatives he stated: “The bank did not have the ability to circulate great sums of money beyond actual gold and silver coins held within the bank’s vaults,” so another rout was taken that pushed America over a fiscal cliff:

The stamping of paper is an operation so much easier than the laying of taxes, that a government in the practice of paper emissions, would rarely fail in any such emergency to indulge itself too far, in the employment of that resource, to avoid as much as possible one less auspicious to present popularity.

 hamilton dollar

Hamilton’s Bank continued printing nonredeemable notes as inflation escalated. By 1812 America dove over the fiscal cliff.

I’ll never understand why we outlawed dueling!

According to the Bureau of Public Debt:

The War of 1812 was financed mainly through the use of borrowed funds. Total public debt increased from $45.2 million on January 1, 1812, to $119.2 million as of September 30, 1815.

America’s banking system was so mismanaged; we dove again: The Panic of 1819.

In his book Andrew Jackson and the Bank War, historian Robert V. Remini wrote that by 1822 America’s economy collapsed: American banks fell and the people lost everything. Anger was so wide-spread, Americans elected President Andrew Jackson, who tore down the Second Bank,  placed money back into individual state’s hands, pushed for gold and silver to remain in America, and sold federal land to pay off the national debt.

 

destroying second bank

Jackson’s policies never prevented future government borrowing and lending idiocy or the creation of Federal Reserve.

Cheap paper seems to cause convenient amnesia.

By 1846, the United States war with Mexico over annexation of Texas and California cost $64 million, so “Congress authorized the issuing of additional debt to meet these obligations. It is this concept that would later become the basis for the Savings Bond program. By the end of 1849, public debt totaled $63.1 million.”

The War Between the States:

A final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners’ pensions and other veterans’ benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war’s original cost.

By the end of the fiscal year of 1899, America paid much of its debt, leaving the country with $1.9 billion in gross debt.

But America elected Woodrow Wilson, who enacted the Federal Reserve, IRS, and borrowed $11.577 billion ($206.186 billion in 2002 dollars), we are still repaying today, to finance WWI, while borrowing further from Americans. This doesn’t include the enactment of the Debt Commission for borrowing funds.

Wilson admitted:

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world – no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.

Notice the “unhappy” president never repealed his ruination.*

Next, the “dominant” FDR “civilized” us with government programs and ended the gold standard in 1933,  declaring private ownership of gold illegal, except gold jewelry. I assume marriage had something to do with that decision.

exec order to confiscate gold

Though foreign governments could sell gold to America, President Nixon destroyed the gold standard completely, leaving America on a fiat standard not backed by commodities.

But hey, we have communist China backing worthless paper while manufacturing worthless American products!

Forget the damn cliff, we threw a rope over the highest limb on the tallest tree long-ago and hanged ourselves with our own economic stupidity!

* [Editor’s note: This story may be apocryphal.]

Conservatives Need to Kick GOP, Democrats Over Cliff – Replace with Tea Partiers

It’s time conservatives think about pushing the GOP machine over the cliff they are helping Democrats hurl America over and replace them with Tea Party conservative leaders. The moderate RINOs are nothing more than Democrats in cheap Republican clothing.

Seriously people, is John Boehner a Republican, is he a conservative, or a fence-straddling Democrat who sticks his cigarette in the wind to see which way the wind blows the smoke so he can decide which deal will keep him in power?

When conservative House members refuse to vote in lockstep with Reps Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy, they are politically  purged from Congressional meetings.

Reps Tim Huelskamp of Kansas and Michigan’s Justin Amash refused to vote with House Speaker John Boehner on key votes during the past two years. The punishment: losing their seats on the House Budget Committee chaired by Rep. Paul Ryan along with Reps. Walter Jones of North Carolina and David Schweikert of Arizona are losing their seats on the House Financial Services Committee.

Huelskamp said:

I think it’s the worst form of petty, vindictive politics that a member is removed from a committee when he votes his conscience and he votes his district… [but these People go behind closed doors. They [the GOP Establishment] don’t talk to your constituents. They don’t care about your constituents. All they care about is raw political power.

As America is headed over a cliff, Speaker Boehner and his Republican Democrats (moderates) are pushing conservative party leadership under a bus. TEA party conservatives need to take over the GOP.

The Republican Party’s authentic conservative base is the tea party who want America restored, not the likes of John Boehner who seems only concerned about keeping his job.

Moderates must go! Their preference to compromise America’s economic stability by making deals with Obama that increase America’s debt. Republicans in the House of Representatives caved to the $2.4 trillion debt ceiling hike and now they are willing to raise taxes by $800 billion.

Next: The GOP refuses to hammer home tax hikes and government spending truths: Tax increases, disguised as getting even with the rich, will hike taxes on the Middle Class.

 Thomas Sowell explains this:

The actual tax increase plans being proposed by Obama do not start with people who have an income of a million dollars a year. They start with people with incomes of $250,000 and up. That is more than most people make, but it is far short of a million dollars, and miles away from a billion dollars. How many of the people who stand to get hit with Obama’s higher tax rate plan are in fact either millionaires or billionaires? According to the Internal Revenue Service, there are more than 2,700,000 people who earn $250,000 a year or more — and fewer than one-tenth of them earn a million dollars or more. So more than nine-tenths of the people who would be hit with the higher taxes supposedly aimed at “millionaires and billionaires” are neither.

Hey, what’s another $800 billion? We’ll just borrow the money from China so taxpayers can experience that joyous funding of Arab Spring and enemy nations who hate our guts and want us all dead.

The GOP machine has become a bunch of liberal Democrats whose only care is reelection. If that’s false, they would have pulled out all the stops and fought Democrats excessive spending over the last four years, not to mention 20 years of over-the-top Clinton housing loans to the poor.

Is the GOP serious about restoration? They certainly didn’t nominate a conservative presidential candidate.

Furthermore, GOP leadership has sat back and allowed Obama to demonize  Republicans as greedy, rich fat cats, while Obama and Democrats falsely argue that raising taxes increases revenue. Unfortunately, Obama’s Trotsky ploy is winning the argument with his downtrodden 99% invention just as well as it won the election.

After Reagan left office, the establishment crumbled.  The GOP hurled conservatism over a cliff in favor of becoming Democrats in cheap GOP suits. In fact,  GOP leadership has become so liberally Democrat, it looks like the Democrat Party’s behind.

Tea partiers must take over GOP leadership. Conservatives must take up the restorative mantle and change America back to America. W need to push the GOP machine over a cliff, because authentic Conservatives will be be bullied by Democrats.

Conservatives must elect authentic fiscal Conservatives to the House in the 2014 mid-term elections. If we don’t, Nancy Pelosi will ride back in on her broom and her Flying Monkeys will have full control.

John Boehner, even your compromises can’t afford the bucket of water to melt that power.

America that needs leadership fighting unconstitutional administrative government, but today’s GOP lacks the Democrat’s dog-fighting spirit that knows how to go for the jugular and rip votes out of the necks of Republican candidates. Republicans leaders have become dogs who rolls over and submit to robbers invading the House, and Republicans allow those thieves to steal everything without a fight.

Worse:  Both parties are beginning to look like one of loyalists with conservative voters as the the new generation of colonists trying to save liberty from tyranny.

 

 

 

The truth is we conservative need to become the new generation of colonists fighting to save the Republic.

“Mr. Nice Guy” politicians refuse to stand up to Barack Obama and shove his Marxist “spread the wealth,” “fair share” policies back in his face, exposing his destructive plans to the nation. But the GOP hasn’t acted manly since Reagan and William F. Buckley. Republican leaders allow Obama and his administration to double-deal the race card demagoguery against Republicans, wealthy Americans, property and business owners, and basically anyone who has something Obama’s “poor” do not have and are told they are entitled to have by equal fair sharing.

Where is the leadership willing to stand up and rip open the lie behind those polices? Tea party conservatives.

But we can’t forget these leaders are being thrown under the bus because they  stand up against Obama and fight GOP corruption:  Governor Sarah Palin jailed Alaskan GOP leaders for corruption, Michele Bachmann exposed Hillary Clinton top aid Huma Abedin for connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and was trounced by the GOP for protecting national security. Let’s not forget tea party candidate Allen West, whom the GOP never bothered to stand up for as Democrats extinguished West’s district.

Do we need more proof the Tea Party needs to take over before America becomes a nation run by one monarchical party assuming divine rights until the Constitution is obsolete?

Moderates are handing America over to Democrat Trotsyites hell-bent on removing traditional conservative founding values, morals, independence, liberty, constitutional rights, while hurling America over the economic fiscal cliff we cannot climb up and out of.

The GOP has fantastic Tea Party leaders capable of moving this country in the right direction, but Speaker Boehner and his cronies trample them. They’ve turned on conservatives while enabling Democrat leftists to push America into socialist-control.

Moderateness must stop if America is to endure; that can only happen if conservatives shove RINOs over the cliff and elect authentic fiscal conservatives to the House in 2014.

If we don’t fight liberal Republicans and leftists, Obama will enact the “Dreams of My Father” and we can kiss our American lives goodbye.

Labor Force Drop Outs are the Younger Workers

Young people in the US are not working. Unemployment for ages 16-19 is 23.5%, ages 20-24 is still a very high 11.8% (according to the BLS). This week Stuart Varney on FBN interviewed Charlie Kirk of Turning Point USA. Turning Point is a group geared to reaching the high school and college age young adults believing that an informed electorate will force candidates to stand behind principles.

The twenty-year-olds today still living at home and benefiting from their parents and governments benevolence will become the thirty and forty-year-olds of the future. Can we change this entitlement mentality before it’s too late? Will they be willing to take responsibility for maintaining the quality of life we’ve come to expect in the United States or will they choose to riot like the young in Greece when ‘forced’ to find employment, pay for retirement and health benefits? This is the country that prided itself on a ‘can do’ spirit and a willingness to take on the hard tasks and accomplish them. What will happen to following generations who are raised by these laissez-faire young adults?

Talk to your young adult friends. The future of this country is in their hands.

This Thanksgiving Brought to You By — Capitalism

Mmm, capitalism tastes great. Love the wonderful aromatics glazing the crispy turkey skin on this fist-sized drumstick, dipping that bad boy in spicy turkey gravy, and then a glob of silky smooth mashed potatoes, and then maybe a dollop of stuffing, and then a hint of cranberry sauce, and then — gulp, scene.

Oh, I’m sorry, was that uncompassionate of me? Children are going hungry somewhere in the world where there is no food and we shouldn’t be so greedy? Well, once upon a time in America, everyone was going hungry, and it wasn’t because of corporate fat cats stealing their turkeys.

That’s not the narrative you’re likely to get at one of the socialist think tanks masquerading as colleges nowadays. PETA (People for the Eating of Tasty Animals) is comparing the plight of turkeys to those of gays and blacks (if you’d like to call them from “reality,” you’re going to have to leave a voicemail). Left-wing bloggers are showing solidarity with Native American students protesting the holiday, due to the ugly history surrounding the European immigrants settling the pristine wilderness and fighting off savages.

Of course, no land should ever be settled on our ever-so-gentle Mother Earth, which displayed its loving side by wiping out half of the Eastern seaboard a few weeks back. Not to mention that most “imperialist” powers like a few handfuls of religious dissidents in rickety sailboats wouldn’t be so kind as to offer free government everything and tax-free casinos to the conquered.

Let’s not pretend that certain Native American tribes didn’t declare war on each other (despite intense efforts to “white-wash” history); some of them even scalping their victims and trading their skullcaps for wacky weed. The idealized version where the Indians were just a bunch of brown-skinned, peace-loving hippies who sat around stringing wampum, skinning buffaloes, and smoking peace pipes is a nasty fiction, invented solely to make Americans feel guilty for being prosperous.

It wasn’t always that way. Oh no. Once upon a time, Americans were — shhhh — progressives.

Back in the day, “the day” meaning 1623, people fled to the New World to get away from the kind of nanny-statism our awesome left-wingers champion today. But our patriotic kindred who washed up upon former Taxachusetts’ shore were, one way to put it, a bit on the naive, utopian side. Another way to put it — they were socialist jackasses.

But we’ll forgive our Puritan brethren, because they were able to pull off a feat of such unparalleled brilliance that no modern left-winger has yet been able to achieve it. It’s called “learning from your mistakes.”

So there was this guy named William Bradford, Billy to his friends, and he was a bit of an overeducated nerd. See, he’d been reading this guy named “Plato,” and this ancient Greek dude said that all people should have things in common. Never mind that the smarter ancient Greek dude named Aristotle, who was nonetheless the pupil of Plato, said that was a bunch of bunk, and people should own their own property, but should generally be generous to others. He wasn’t real hardcore about property rights; but still, the guy was already about 2,500 years ahead of today’s Prius-driving radical professors.

Well, Bradford decided everyone would sing kumbaya and throw in lot together and that would make life good for the folks at Plymouth Plantation. One small problem: the system didn’t work. And it wasn’t because of greedy banksters’ ATM fees or even currency devaluation or anything wonky like that. It’s just that people had a tendency to “free ride” off of others in a situation known as the “tragedy of the commons.”

The stupid white man starved the entire winter and it really was a miserable experience. The Native Americans nearby, “Indians” in Old World speak (America’s forefathers didn’t have GPS), did help them a bit, and that was cool. But the main reason the people didn’t starve during the second winter was by implementing a primitive form of capitalism: private property and personal responsibility. The first “get off my lawn” signs went up. If you’re a hipster who has never read this story before, then study up, butter-cup.

“Right-wing” bloggers didn’t invent this story, it comes right out of Billy Bradford’s dream journal. Fleeing religious persecution in Europe, the members of various Christian sects set off to the New World to found their utopian societies. One of them was Plymouth Plantation, and its head honcho was Bradford. After successive winters of near starvation (aided in the first by the Native Americans), the HCIC (Head Calvinist-in-Charge) relates the experiences of the settlement (1623). Much apologies for not being able to translate this long passage into modern eight-grade level English:

“The experience that was had in this common course and condition, tried sundry years and that amongst godly and sober men, may well evince the vanity of that conceit of Plato’s and other ancients applauded by some of later times; and that the taking away of property and bringing in community into a commonwealth would make them happy and flourishing; as if they were wiser than God. For this community (so far as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. For the young men, that were most able and fit for labor and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. The strong, or man of parts, had no more in division of victuals and clothes than he that was weak and not able to do a quarter the other could; this was thought injustice. The aged and graver men to be ranked and equalized in labors and victuals, clothes etc., with the meaner and younger sort, thought it some indignity and disrespect unto them. And for men’s wives to be commanded to do service for other men, as dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery, neither could many husbands well brook it. Upon the point all being to have alike, and all to do alike, they thought themselves in the like condition, and one as good as another; and so, if it did not cut off those relations that God hath set amongst men, yet it did at least much diminish and take off the mutual respects that should be preserved amongst them. And would have been worse if they had been men of another condition. Let none object this is men’s corruption, and nothing to the course itself. I answer, seeing all men have this corruption in them, God in His wisdom saw another course fitter for them.”

The experience of Plymouth Plantation is that of other utopian societies in world history, that freedom from oppression by the state does not lead to absolute freedom. The revolution of private property did not merely provide the means for individuals to meet their own needs, but rather to flourish spectacularly. Those who thirsted for individual freedom risked their lives and fortunes to found a new nation on the pillars of liberty and property. These ideals gave birth to dreams of a world where all can strive for personal excellence, uninhibited by a tyranny of morally inferior men.

Enjoy your Thanksgiving! Even you lefty whiners.

Economic Advisor to State Department: Downgrade of US Likely

An economic analyst invited by the State Department to brief a group of foreign journalists on the U.S. economy. Her presentation included a forecast of the US economy for the next few years. Her prediction–not so good. Without a plan to change direction of the spending she expects that another downgrade of the United States Treasury Securities is very possible.

Prior to August, 2011 the United States Treasury had maintained a AAA rating. By signing approval to increase the debt limit the US saw it’s first rating drop as many companies lowered it to AA+.  Our neighbor to the north, Canada, has maintained its AAA rating for example while countries like UAE and Bermuda are rated AA.

Kathy Bostjancic is director for macroeconomic analysis at The Conference Board. A specialist in the U.S. economy and financial markets, she is a member of the team that produces the U.S. economic forecast and global outlook for The Conference Board. From her bio: Kathy Bostjancic  oversees and is a regular participant in The Conference Board Economics Watch™ monthly webcasts and author of The Economics Watch U.S. View. She appears regularly on Bloomberg Radio and TV and in the financial press.

The outlook from Ms. Bostjancic is not so rosy. She voiced concerns that the sequestration cuts (the fiscal cliff) will not be acceptable to either party but there are few options to pay to keep the impacted programs:

 

At the beginning of her presentation: So we’re looking at GDP growth for 2013 – let’s make sure I have the right number – I think we’re looking at roughly around 1.5 percent or so.

And a little bit later: And I should add, actually, in all fairness, that the fiscal cliff has already impacted fourth quarter growth and third quarter growth to some degree, because orders – business orders have plummeted and business shipments – again, businesses are just paralyzed right now trying to see what happens with the election and the fiscal cliff.

Al Wafd News: Why is there this pessimistic – over-pessimistic look to the U.S. economy?

Bostjancic: A little of this a little of that and then …In terms of the downgrade, there is a concern – I mean, to me, it seems the odds of us getting downgraded again are very high, because I don’t see either side, Republicans or Democrats, in favor of the sequestration of spending.

And she concludes in this election day speech: And in the short run, whether Obama wins or Romney and even the composition of Congress, unless somebody sweeps, which I think one party doing that is extremely low and unlikely – if we continue to have gridlock and divided government, the outcome of the election is not going to have much impact on the short-term economy. But it’s the medium-term view where we really need some clarity, and that’s where politicians can have some impact for good or worse. But laying out a credible, medium-term fiscal plan is what’s really needed, whether something such as Simpson-Bowles or something else. But therein lies – of course, everything’s wrapped up in that, and that’s where the real disagreement and the bipartisanship seems to be lacking right now.

Some think a downgrade of the US Treasury bonds will not directly affect them. But they might. Mortgage rates and credit card interest could rise. Retirement plans that include bond funds or the stock market may be impacted. The worth of the US Dollar may be lessened which could affect every day purchases. This over spending by the government and possible downgrade is sure to be felt by most Americans.

You can read the complete presentation at the State Department’s Website.

A Good Samaritan VS The City

Are you familiar with NIMBY? It’s the ‘Not in My Back Yard’ syndrome that can affect us all. Residents will hear about a fantastic altruistic plan to help others and are all for it…until they see it will be across the street from them. Suddenly, NIMBY takes over as they try to gather neighbors in an effort to stop the activity.

The following news story is one such case. This one happens to be in my home town in Arizona. For the past seven years a Good Samaritan by the name of Millie has run a food bank of sorts in her front yard. Daily she stops at local grocers picking up donations. After all, what can you do with over ripe bananas? Eat them today or throw them away. The food collected by Millie is placed on shelves by the curb (frozen items in a portable freezer) with a sign inviting those in need to help themselves.  Sometimes up to 50 families a day would stop by to pick up the much needed staples.

But now the City of Glendale has decided that Millie broke the rules. Based on a complaint from one of the neighbors the city notified Millie that one cannot place display shelves in the front yard. A spokesperson from the City of Glendale’s Code Compliance Department said residents can’t leave furniture or appliances in public view or they will be cited. As a code compliance issue, she therefore was ordered to stop giving away the food.  However, as of this writing the city has not returned to issue a citation though Millie says this mission of hers is too important to stop and she plans on defying the orders.

In the video it is easy to hear and see the compassion of this Samaritan, helping others, because she strongly feels this is the right thing to do.

On a personal note: While this topic was being discussed on a local radio program a female caller identified herself as the one who initially complained. Her concern was that ‘strangers were coming onto her street’ and she did not feel it was safe. The show host asked if she had talked to Millie about the situation to which she seemed surprised, replying it wasn’t her place. But she just didn’t like having this happen ‘in her back yard.’ The host pressed further asking if it wouldn’t be the neighborly thing to do before calling the police but she had no answer. So instead of working together for a win-win situation the Good Samaritan now has been pushed into a battle with the city.

Could this issue have been prevented? Or should it even be allowed? What do you think?

 

« Older Entries Recent Entries »