U.S. Sovereignty and Barack Obama

It looks as if he's at it again...Barack Obama has signed an executive order to allow the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL) unprecedented freedom of operation within the United States.

Former assistant United States attorney Andy McCarthy says in his article at National Review Online that, "This international police force (whose U.S. headquarters is in the Justice Department in Washington) will be unrestrained by the U.S. Constitution and American law while it operates in the United States and affects both Americans and American interests outside the United States."

No president should be able to sign away our Constitutional protections or U.S sovereignty through executive order.  This order should be rescinded immediately and a Congressional investigation should be undertaken to get to the bottom of the motives behind this move.

Mr. McCarthy asks some very important questions: "Why would we elevate an international police force above American law? Why would we immunize an international police force from the limitations that constrain the FBI and other American law-enforcement agencies? Why is it suddenly necessary to have, within the Justice Department, a repository for stashing government files which, therefore, will be beyond the ability of Congress, American law-enforcement, the media, and the American people to scrutinize?"

Additional  detail is available at http://threatswatch.org/analysis/2009/12/print/wither_sovereignty/.

Un-American?

Barack Obama and the current Democratic leadership, in my opinion, represent the most radical, UN-AMERICAN group to ever gain control in U.S. political history.  That's right, I said it...UN-AMERICAN!  This country was founded on the principles of a "government of  The People, by The People and for The People," as Abraham Lincoln described it.  This group of usurpers do not even pretend to care for the rule of law under the Constitution or the will of the people any longer.  They force their agenda through with bribes, lies and political maneuverings in the dead of the night that would make the most corrupt communist regimes proud.

The current health care issue is just one example of the problem.  They have attempted to rush this legislation through from the beginning.  They tried to conduct votes when the bills were not even made available for review.  They have hidden behind closed doors and voted in the middle of the night.  They have lied about the financial figures and exaggerated the problem to an absurd extent.  They have pressured, threatened and bribed members of congress to get their way.  They have even stated that they don't care if they lose seats, they are going to push it through.  They are determined to thwart the will of the people to gain the centralized power they crave.  Health care is just one area where they are currently attempting to overturn Americanism...there is also "climate change," the banking takeover, the "stimulus" fraud and more. Is this the United States of America or some third-world, despotic banana republic?

How can I call the current government un-American?  Well, if a person did not believe in God...had no regard for the Pope or traditions of the Catholic church, you would not call him a Catholic because he visits a cathedral.  Likewise you would not call a person a Jew because they live on the same block as a synagogue. Why then should we call someone an American who has no regard for the founding principles of this great land just because they live here? What makes an American is not just geography, but belief in the principles of America.  This group of radicals who are in power now do not believe in these principles...indeed, they believe that these principles are outdated, inconvenient or just wrong. They wish to erase the basis of our society (republican federalism, individual liberty and responsibility) and replace it with centralized power, a command economy and redistribution of wealth...SOCIALISM.  These are not just different ideas...they are diametrically opposed world views...they cannot coexist.

Unless we, as citizens, demand a return to the principles that made this country great, we will see the end of America as we know it.  We must not just be content with reversing the course of the last few years, but to return to the basics that have made this republic one of the greatest nations on earth.  We must de-emphasize the centralized Federal government and bring the power back to the States and the People.  We should demand that the 17th Amendment be repealed.  And, in an effort to combat the out-of-control corruption in government, we should demand term limits.  But mostly, we must stop seeing the Federal government as the answer to all of our needs...we cannot allow it to become the source of all power and provision. We must act and vote on the uniquely American principles of our founders, and not from self interest or misguided utopian motives.

The time to act is short.  The People's power is almost gone...and when it is gone, I fear, it will not return without great blood shed.

Godless Socialists

During this season, as I have heard again the stories of companies who will not say “Christmas,” and discussions of whether manger scenes should be allowed in public places, I began to think about the rapid decline of religion in our public lives and the role of socialism in this trend.

Throughout the last more than half century, communists, fascists and socialists of all stripes have persecuted Christians, Jews and other people of faith. From Stalin to Mao to Pol Pot and others, an estimated 100 million or more “religious” people have been murdered in atheist purges, and many millions more placed in prison, work camps or chased out of their homes as refugees.

In the United States of America, faith has been under attack for as many decades through subtler and certainly less lethal measures. Incremental attacks through the legal system have lead to much of the “political correctness” we now endure in our land of supposed religious freedom. Our founding principals have been twisted; our history revised in an effort to diminish the role of faith in our founding and also in our daily life. Everywhere, the forces of socialism have attempted to purge religion from the public stage. We must have “tolerance” for those who believe differently, they tell us…we can’t display crosses, menorahs, The Ten Commandments, or any other symbols of our Judeo-Christian culture because some may take offense and that wouldn’t be fair.

Through popular culture they have sought to ridicule faith and portray people who believe in God as empty-headed dolts. They make science their religion and say that they are the only enlightened ones, even if they have to tweak their “science” a bit to fit their world view and agendas.

Why is it such a goal of socialists to eliminate God from our lives? Do you believe it is because they are really so concerned about people feeling offended or uncomfortable? Well, they certainly don’t care whether Christians are offended. They tell us that we should not be so touchy about a crucifix in urine, its just art, after all…free expression. They say that we do not have a right to think that homosexuality is immoral, though the Bible clearly defines it as sin. And while many feel perfectly free to heap scorn and contempt on those of faith…the faithful must always show tolerance for others.

Some people may be concerned about offense…some may truly think that belief in God is unenlightened. But these are the masses, the useful idiots of the socialists. I believe, at the highest levels it has nothing to do with these stated reasons. A leader or regime who seeks to wield ultimate power over a people cannot have those people believing in a power higher than their government. Pharaohs, emperors, kings, and dictators through-out the centuries have thought themselves the ultimate power, some even claimed to be gods. They also did not tolerate worship of other “gods.”

The United States of America was founded on a belief in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” We based our laws and liberties around the notion that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Americans see their rights coming from a power higher than the government. This creates an obstacle to those who wish to dictate your rights by fiat from the top. How can a government override a right that comes from God…unless they destroy the idea of God on the first place?

Socialists not only seek to destroy the idea of God, but further wish to replace God with the State. No longer do you need to look to God for your needs…no longer should you expect your church to help you in desperate times…No, the State is there to meet your needs – as they define them, of course. The State will tell you what is moral; it will tell you how you should live. All you need to do is give up those silly, outdated ideas of God and personal liberties. Those ideas are selfish and detrimental to the world community. You must be willing to sacrifice these childish notions for the good of the whole. And, of course, trust the State. It only has your best interest at heart.

Whether you are a person of faith or not, religious freedom and the “unalienable rights” which emanate from a higher power than government are vital ingredients to all of our liberties. We must keep government in its rightful place, as servants…not rulers. Our rights do not flow from government’s favor; this is arbitrary and disingenuous. It comes from a place that is above law and government. A place that is constant and true. Call it the Laws of Nature, if you will…I say it is God. But remember, when you cede the power to man, it will become corrupt and self-serving to those who rule. And your freedom, which is most dear in this life, will be lost.

Guard your rights jealously. Do not give them up lightly; they have been won at a great price. Always question government’s motives and always remember in The United States of America, the power of the government lies in We The People.

And, Merry Christmas.

The Climate Cover-up

Okay...I've waited to see how this Climategate stuff was going to play out before commenting.  Now, it seems that enough is known to make some observations.

The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has been one of the most influential organizations in the world in the man-made global warming movement.  The e-mails and data that were obtained (whether they were hacked as originally reported or available on a public server all along as was later reported is not important) shows a pattern of obfuscation and deceit by many of the scientists involved.  As Christopher Booker of the Telegraph reports, Several members of the CRU "have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws."

If the science truly supported the man made global warming claims, you would expect that the CRU would be not only willing, but insistent to share their data.  This is the way science is done...peer review.  Real scientists want to have their findings validated by the wider scientific community.  Peer review can validate theories or invalidate them...but in this way, we move closer and closer to discovering the truth.  Unless, the truth is not the goal.

The apologists have been out in strength.  Some have tried to make the method of the data release the issue...was it legal...was it fair.  Some are making all sort of excuses for the cover-up.  They say that since this is such an important issue, the CRU did not want to delay necessary immediate action because they didn't quite have all of the proof they needed.  And some I've seen just claim that it doesn't matter what the data shows because the ice caps are melting and polar bears are dieing.  I have not seen anyone, though, denying the data's authenticity.

The CRU's data has been used as a key factor in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations to spend trillions of dollars to avert  what they predict to be catastrophic effects of climate change.  The UN and other agencies have made recommendations for international taxes, and other global governance.  Now, however, the IPCC says that it was only one of many inputs.

The CRU defends themselves by saying that their data matches up with the data of other organizations such as NASA and NOAA.  Since we know CRUs data was fudged, this does not really provide defense of their data, but does call to question the data of the other organizations.  There is much to be gained by those who would administer the climate laws...they certainly may have corrupted more than one organization.

So you may be a believer or an unbeliever.  I do not believe that human activity has significant impact on the natural climate change cycles.  But regardless of which side you fall on, are you willing to give up national sovereignty, trillions of dollars and personal freedoms on uncertain science and fudged data?  I'm not.  This needs to be stopped now and a full investigation should be done by outside organizations.

Peter Principle or Puppet President?

I have to admit that my opinion of Barack Obama has changed slightly from his candidacy to when he first took office to now.  At the beginning of his campaign, I viewed him as an inexperienced, but articulate and charismatic man who had no resume that would recommend him to the highest office in the land.  I was of the same opinion as his primary adversary, Joe Biden when he said, "the presidency is no place for on-the-job training."  The man had no applicable experience.

As the campaign wore on and Obama seemed to unexplainably gain the momentum, I began to learn about his mentors and associations: Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Reverend Wright to name a few.  Any one of these guys could have sunk another candidacy...but Obama seemed untouchable.  His campaign was also a cash machine.  He was raising money at a record pace.  It turned out that much of the money came from left-wing organizations with ties to billionaire George Soros, a man known for making his money by manipulating markets and devaluating currency.  Now I began to wonder if Obama was a "Manchurian Candidate."

Then, when he was unbelievably elected and took office, he came on strong, moving at a record pace to try to bring about sweeping change. Bail-outs, payoffs, czars and health care...hurry, hurry, hurry, he want's it done right away.  No time to waste.  Wow, I thought, maybe he is really a dangerous ideologue.  He does have a lot of radical learning in his background.  He has made statements about the Constitution being flawed because it is "a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf.."  He bemoans the fact that the Supreme Court "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society."  Maybe he really was the ring leader, the one with the plan.

In recent months Obama seems to lost his momentum and direction.  He seems to keep himself busy in constant campaign mode while Pelosi, Reid, his cabinet and czars seem to do all the heavy lifting.  Even the decision to bring the Guantanamo terrorists to New York City for trial doesn't seem to have been his.  His Attorney General, Eric Holder, claims that he made the decision and just informed the president of it.  Obama has spent his time on TV, jetting around the world and bringing lavish parties back to the White House. He has played more golf in 10 months than Bush played in eight years. But he is not leading the nation.  He has not offered any solid plans of his own, and seems to be lost when he goes off the teleprompter.  One of his most important duties, that of Commander-in-Chief, seems only to get limited attention.  While our troops are in harm's way and the generals are asking for more troops, the president takes months to "deliberate"and has hardly any time to meet with Gen. Stanley McChrystal, U.S. Commander in Afghanistan.

In the prologue of his book he writes "I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views." He also says "my treatment of the issues is often partial and incomplete."  He never ran a state, a company or even a committee.  He has no experience in leadership...in making hard decisions. So I have to wonder, is this the ultimate example of the Peter Principle, where this charismatic guy gets promoted well beyond his competency level?  Or, is he simply the right puppet for the job?  In the primaries, Joe Biden  said Obama was "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.  I mean, that's a storybook, man."  Was he just the right sort of "blank screen" that certain political factions believed could get elected?  Was he the young, good looking family man that would make a good figurehead for their leftist agendas?  Either way, I think, the results are the same.

It’s the Economy, Stupid.

With all the talk of socialized medicine and corporate bailouts as of late, it may have slipped your attention that the United States of America itself is on the verge of needing a bailout. Even with the Federal deficit at historical highs and continuing to grow, our political leaders are continuing to spend money like there’s no tomorrow. It’s like an addiction; they just can’t seem to stop themselves.

In a November 22, 2009 article, the New York Times reports “With the national debt now topping $12 trillion, the White House estimates that the government’s tab for servicing the debt will exceed $700 billion a year in 2019, up from $202 billion this year, even if annual budget deficits shrink drastically. Other forecasters say the figure could be much higher.” Let me say that again…$700 Billion just to service the debt, not to pay it down, just paying the service on the debt.

The national treasure is not just gone…squandered away by greedy, unscrupulous politicians…it’s been replaced by a mountain of IOUs that we now have to pay back to banks and other countries like China. This is no mere inconvenience, but a matter of utmost national security. If we fail to pay back our debts, we will lose the good faith and credit of the world community that took so many years to build. This will hurt our ability to trade, to assert influence and project power around the world. We will be greatly weakened.

And what is government’s solution to this crisis? Let’s spend more money. This has gotten to a point where it’s even too much for the very left-wing Saturday Night Live writers (remember, Al Franken was an SNL writer). In their recent skit depicting a press conference between President Obama and Chinese president Hu Jintao, President Jintao says, through his interpreter, “You know, as I listen to you, I am noticing that each of your plans to save money involves spending even more money. This does not inspire confidence.”

But, Mr. Obama asks us to have patience over the economy. "Even though it will take time, I can promise you this: we are moving in the right direction; that the steps we are taking are helping," he said in his weekly address. Patience? Patience while they continue to move down paths that got us into this mess in the first place? Well, I guess if out-of-control spending is what got us here, we should keep it up to fix the problem, right? What is the definition of insanity again?

The health care issue may elicit strong emotions on both sides, but the plain fact is that we cannot afford the entitlements we’re providing now, let alone taking on more. Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid are already nearly bankrupt. None of the niceties are possible if we have no economy left. Our ship of state has a sizable leak. We must turn it around and head back for safer shores before it’s too late…before we reach the point of no return. This will not be easy. We will have to make cuts…just like any of our families or employers would have to in a similar situation. But the survival of our way of life is at stake. 

Government should be taking firm, decisive steps to shore up the economy.  Make cuts across the board in all departments.  Reduce spending and stimulate the economy the only way that has ever worked...tax cuts.  Instead they think of new was to spend OUR money.  Enough is enough!

One more line from the SNL Skit: "How exactly is extending health-care coverage to 30 million people going to save you money?" Hu asked.

"I don't know," answers Obama.

Of War and Civil Justice-Follow-up

Terence P. Jeffrey of CNS News has a pretty good article laying out some of the history and background of the decision to try Khalid Sheik Mohammad in civilian court.

Excerpt:

In a May 21 speech at the National Archives, Obama himself said: “Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts.”

Of War and Civil Justice

It is, in my opinion, a tremendous mistake to move Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed, confessed master mind of the 9-11 attacks, into the federal court system for trial. This sets a disturbing and dangerous precedent. If enemy combatants in a war are to be treated as if they deserve the full rights and privileges of citizens of the United States, then we are certainly entering into uncharted territory.

Attorney General Eric Holder said "For over 200 years our nation has relied upon a faithful adherence to the rule of law. Once again, we will ask our legal system in two venues to answer that call."  But this move, in fact, ignores the precedent of the past 200 years. Prisoners of war have never been treated in this way. Certainly there are rules and international agreements that dictate the treatment of these detainees, but the Geneva Convention even distinguishes between Lawful (uniformed soldiers) and Unlawful (those not in uniform) Enemy Combatants…and Unlawful Combatants have very few, if any, rights. They have never, though, been given the right to a trial in federal court. Justice for these prisoners has always been handled through military tribunals.

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution speaks to the issue of who is covered under our legal system. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Foreign enemy combatants are definitely not covered under this section.

What are the implications of this action? These prisoners were taken captive during military actions, not through civil investigation. The role of the military in the time of war is to kill people and break things. Taking captives is only done as part of that process. We cannot turn soldiers, in the heat of battle, into police officers, requiring them to meet rules of evidence and to properly mirandize their captives. If prisoners of war are now to be considered under the jurisdiction of the court, will the military have to obtain a warrants before they move on the enemy? Will the failure to meet the requirements of civil justice mentioned above mean that cases can be thrown out and enemies set free? There is no precedent in law for this…no blueprint.

There must be lines between military and civil justice. This lack of separation has been blamed for not capturing Osama bin Laden when we had a chance before 9-11. As Lisa Myers of NBC Nightly News reported on March 17, 2004 when speaking of missed opportunities, “A Democratic member of the 9/11 commission says there was a larger issue: The Clinton administration treated bin Laden as a law enforcement problem.” The War on Terror cannot be treated as a law enforcement problem. If it is, we will move too slowly to prevent future attacks. Captured terrorists will simply clam up when interrogated because they know they now have “rights.”

This action must be challenged strongly. The President of the United States or his administration does not have the constitutional authority to change the law and overthrow precedent by fiat…which is what they have done here.

If They Can Do It For You…They Can Do It To You.

At the dawning of the Age of the Nanny State, where the citizens of the United States of America increasingly look to the federal government to solve all of their problems and redress all of their grievances,  we need to stop and ask,  at what cost.  What are you personally willing to give up to have the government provide the things you want?  Are you willing to let the government set the limit on the amount of money you can earn?  Is it okay if they tell you what you can say or write?  Do you think the government should have the right to tell you what you can eat or what you have to spend your money on?


“Why there oughtta be a law!” -  Too many people today are willing to turn to government force to compel others to do things they think is right.  It all seems good if “those people” are being forced to do something or give up something…”Those people”, after all,  deserve it.  What we must all remember, though, is that reigns of power always change.  It may seem okay to limit the compensation of those rich corporate types…but who decides what is rich?  And what if a new President or Congress decides that they really know what’s best for all job categories?  What if they tell you that you make too much for the job you have…after-all, similar workers in India don’t make near as much as you do.  Does this seem unlikely?  Why?  Once you give government the power  to do it to one group, what is to stop them from doing it to you?

I remember when I was a kid, back when the ACLU may still have had some credibility, there were discussions about how the ACLU could defend the Ku Klux Klan or American Nazis or some other such offensive group.  The answer was, in effect, that all people’s rights to free speech, regardless of how much you may disagree with them, have to be defended.  If government can abridge their rights they can also abridge yours.  This was a noble cause.  Now, however, the ACLU seems to be more involved in helping to abridge the rights of others than defending them…but that’s a whole other post.

The Founders were very wary of too much government power.  This is why they framed the Constitution with all of its checks and balances.  As Patrick Henry said, “The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”  Constitutional restraint seems to be a fading principle with our lawmakers today.  When Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi was recently asked where the constitutional authorization to order Americans to purchase health insurance came from, her answer was simply “Are you serious? Are you serious?”  How dare anyone question the queen’s authority?

So, when you are tempted to cede more power to government, stop and think.  Though you may trust the President or Congress today, what happens after the next election…will you trust the next group.  And remember that if the government can do something for you, they can also do it to you.

Rebels With Out a Cause

It amuses me that the same left wing types who fancied themselves as rebels in the '60s and '70s, who railed against "the establishment" are now the supporters of big-government programs and policies.  These are the type of people who cheered the Cuban revolutionaries, protested the military-industrial complex and said don't trust anyone over thirty. They now are willing to trust the government establishment to unprecedented levels with control of their lives.  They blindly believe the big-government propaganda, despite any evidence to the contrary.  They are no longer rebels, if they ever were, but establishment drones.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are rebels in the mold of the Founders.  They hold government suspect and choose to keep governmental power limited.  They protest when government exceeds its limits or intrudes into private affairs.  Conservatives do not expect government to take care of them, they choose to make their own way.  They value rugged individualism.  The true Conservative does not kowtow to elected officials of any party, they know that these office holders are meant to be our servants, not our masters.

The Left accuses Conservatives of being robots who blindly follow the direction of their right-wing leaders, while they themselves continue to spew talking points directly from the Democratic party and the main-stream, establishment media.  They say they want "change," but they are not even sure what change is really being offered by their government masters.  They display the blind devotion to their party, regardless of how many are caught in crimes or other indiscretions, usually reserved to religious cults...and they think themselves rebels.  Pretty funny, really.

Emotions and Politics

“The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” Jeremiah 17:9

I am constantly amazed at how people are so easily manipulated through their emotions, and constantly disgusted at how politicians will exploit this fact to gain power.

Emotions are an important part of our lives. Emotions allow us to relate to one another, to have friendship, to have empathy for those in need. Emotions can also bring people to fits of rage or send them cowering in fear. Emotion is an important ingredient in art and music.

Emotions, however, are also transitory and unpredictable. They cannot be relied on as a basis of decision making or governance. Emotions are like sand, ever shifting and unreliable as a foundation. Certainly they can be considered when planning or making decisions, but they must be kept in proper perspective.

I still marvel at how quickly some peoples' emotions changed from rage at seeing thousands of their fellow countrymen senselessly killed in the 9-11 attacks to guilt, believing that we somehow brought it on ourselves…and some to mistrust thinking that it was orchestrated by our own government. I also marvel at how quickly many politicians, after hurrying to portray themselves as pro-war hawks, realigned themselves to anti-war doves once their supporters shifted their stand. This was a shining example of the lack of solid principles of many in government.

For decades we have been exhorted to rely more on our emotions. Don’t over analyze things, we are told, follow your heart. This has had the effect of dumbing-down our society. It has been seen in education where we are told it is more important how a child feels about themselves than what they learn…self-esteem is more important than knowledge. This was taken to the ridiculous extreme by some educators who said it was not important that a child properly solve a math problem, but it was how they felt about math that was important. This is ludicrous. A math solution is either right or it is wrong…black and white…and it is important for students to learn math, regardless of how they feel about it.

Politicians know how easily public emotions can be manipulated. “Never waste a good crisis,” as Hillary Clinton and Rahm Emanuel have said. And this government is not squandering any opportunity. We are constantly assaulted with huge appeals to our emotions through so-called crises. They play to our sympathy with images of a baby polar bear on an ice drift and stories of some elderly lady who could not afford her prescription drugs. They elicit fear with horrifying tales of coming natural disasters, crop failures and the end of life as we know it. They make us feel guilty for being so successful when there are those in the world who have so little. And all the while, they tell us that they are our only hope. If only we give them more control, more taxes, more of our lives, they can make it all better. Don’t think or analyze too much they say, now is a time for action or baby polar bears will die…the planet will die…old ladies will die. Trust us, your sacrifice will be worth it.

This is not the way our republic was built. The founding fathers were men of deep passion who were given to fiery oratory and heated disagreements. They were also men of great learning and deep thought. They brought about a form of government that had been theorized in parts by many different scholars for centuries but never before implemented. They drew from history and classical writings. They studied past successes and failures of government. They saw the tyranny of power centralized in the hands of too few and that of power given to the whims of the masses. They crafted the Constitution with great deliberation to give our government a balance between totalitarianism and anarchy that was ingenious and has stood the test of years. The founders, when presenting the new document to the states, appealed to logic and the soundness of the principles therein contained. These principles have provided the United States of America with greater levels of freedom and prosperity for the largest portion of its population than in any other country at any other time.

In these times of 24-hour news cycles and the 30 second sound byte, of constant imagery flooding into our homes, we need to be more careful than ever as to what we believe. We must look at all proposed “solutions” offered by government with a critical and wary eye. Of course bad things happen to good people, but are anecdotal tales of woe worth sacrificing the principles of our great republic? Are the pending crises real, or fabricated to evoke the proper response? And, if real, do the proposed solutions really solve anything, or just gather power to the politicians?

The examples of this type of emotional manipulation are endless, but the point is that in time of crisis, of pending sweeping change, we must appeal to sound reason and solid, proven principle rather than the vagaries of emotion. We must be ever vigilant to safeguard our freedoms and way of life from those who would capitalize on misfortune. Americans are a big-hearted people. We give more to the world and our own in need than any other country. We should not lose that gift…but we should also not lose the gifts of liberty. Care for the sick, the oppressed, those with no voice, but base it on the solid foundation of sound reason.

Feel deeply, but think deeply also, for “Liberty once lost is lost forever.” – John Adams.

Fox News and the Freedom of the Press

Whether you like Fox News, and agree with their commentators, or not...you have to be worried about the Obama White House's attempts to shut Fox out because they run stories opposing the President. Even the other news outlets in the White House pool think they have gone too far.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/23/white-house-loses-bid-exclude-fox-news-pay-czar-interview/

Using the power of the Executive Branch to exclude press that questions the President or his policies and to "suggest" that other news organizations also shun them is an assult on the First Ammendment.

Global Warming? - Follow-up

In the headlines on the Drudge Report this morning:

Heavy snow expected in PA...
“Cold high pressure will nose in from the north today and tonight. A low pressure system will move from the lower Mississippi valley to the Carolina coast by Thursday...then off the east coast. This storm will pull lots of Atlantic moisture into pa on deep easterly flow. This could lead to a possibly damaging early- season snow late Thursday into Friday night. A upper level low will linger overhead for the rest of the weekend...but a warming trend is seen next week.”

Chicago record breaking cold continues...
“Chicago has spent the last 17 days with below-average temperatures, and a high of a mere 47 degrees made Tuesday the coldest Oct. 13 in 82 years, CBS 2's Mary Kay Kleist says.”

Montana records fall...
“A strong arctic air mass pushed across the continental divide settling very cold and dry arctic air into the valley locations across western Montana and north central Idaho. The initial push of the arctic air was brought through a surface cold front that brought snow to part of west central Montana Friday morning. For the following weekend days...cold temperatures were the headline feature...keeping afternoon highs and overnight lows well below seasonal normals. Several records were broken...some by a difference of almost 15 degrees in the coldest locations.”

FORECASTS BLOWN: '09 Atlantic hurricane season quietest in decade...
”Thanks to El Nino, the 2009 Atlantic hurricane season has been the quietest in more than a decade, offering a reprieve for residents in the danger zone and a chance for insurance firms to refill depleted coffers.”

Don’t you hate Global Warming?

None of this was in the predictions of the Global Warming alarmists. They have gotten it wrong for at least the last 11 years.  They will probably come up with some reason why this is still dire Climate Change that has to be stopped through higher taxes and government control..

Do we want to significantly change our economy and lifestyle based on such faulty predictions.

Say NO to Cap and Trade!

Global Warming?

Well, according to an article by the BBC, global temperatures have not increased since 1998…11 years ago. Was the globe warming before that? Absolutely. And that is the nature of global cycles. While the current warming trend seems to have ended in 1998, the climate models, so touted by the climate change alarmists, did not predict it…they predicted continued rising temperatures.

I am old enough to remember the first Earth Day in 1970. Back then, when activists were flying their Ecology Flags, the big fear was that the world was about to enter the next ice age. The world was cooling and the ice caps were going to advance and our ability to grow enough food was going to be greatly impacted. These scare tactics were also eaten up by many well meaning but myopic folks who cannot see more than a few months…or years at most…into the past. Why were the alarmists convinced that there would be a new ice age? Simple, the earth was in the midst of a cooling cycle that went from 1945 to 1977 corresponding to a cold Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO) of the oceanic cycles.

When the whole Global Warming issue first began to hit the news, I immediately dismissed it as alarmist quackery. The reason is that within a year or two before that time, I had read an interesting article in a scientific magazine (Discover, I think) about a group of scientists who were studying samples of air that was trapped in the polar ice. What they found was that the level of carbon-dioxide in the air varied as the depth changed. The depth of the ice directly correlated with the age of the air sample. As they gathered the data from the air samples across thousands of years of history, they found that the Earth moved through long, climatic change cycles. And these cycles were in place long before the industrial age. I also remembered the previous warnings of a coming ice age.

So, what causes these climate change cycles to occur? I believe that it is a combination of many dynamic processes that are constantly in motion. These processes include ocean cycles, solar cycles and other things like volcanic activity. A single volcanic eruption spews more so-called “greenhouse gasses” than the whole industrial world can produce in a year. Of course I’m no scientist, but more and more real climate scientists are speaking out against the notion of “Man Made Global Warming.” Is there climate change…of course there is. It is an ever changing system that brought us the mini ice age of the eighteenth century and the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. It goes on with, or without our influence. It predates both Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used for air-conditioning and SUVs.

So, you may ask, if I am right and all of this climate change is just a part of a natural cycle of the Earth, why are so many people pushing the Global Warming agenda? Well, it seems to me that it is more politics than science. The “Left” has always used crisis to increase their power. In his book “Liberal Fascism,” Jonah Goldberg says that environmentalisms “most tangible fascistic ingredient is that it is an invaluable ‘crisis mechanism.’ Al Gore constantly insists that global warming is the defining crisis of our time.” He also states that “In practical terms this means we must surrender to the global nanny state and create the sort of ‘economic dictatorship’ progressives yearn for.” Goldberg also chronicles that though environmentalism predated Nazism “it was used to expand its base of support.” Not to say that if you care about the environment, you’re a Nazi…but it has been used before for political purposes.

What better way to get otherwise well meaning and intelligent people to willingly surrender their personal freedoms than a good old threat of global destruction? But, do you want to lose freedoms to an unfounded and contrived crisis? I don’t.

Waiting "On the Beach?"

It’s been a very long time since I read the book “On the Beach” by Nevil Shute. This book was written back in the late 1950’s and the plot, as I remember, was set mostly around a U.S. nuclear submarine crew in a time just after a nuclear holocaust had killed most of the world’s population. Only some in the southern hemisphere were still alive…but the radioactivity was working its way south, and it was only a matter of time.

The key point I remember about this book was that nuclear Armageddon was not started by the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. or even China. It was some small, relatively insignificant country in the Middle East, a mouse of a country that, because they had obtained nuclear weapons, roared.

I have thought of this book many times over the years. During the Iranian hostage crisis, I thought of this book.  When “The Wall” came down in Soviet controlled East Germany, I thought of this book. During the first Gulf War, after 9-11, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, I thought of this book. Again this week, with the news of a “secret” UN report that concludes that Iran has acquired "sufficient information to be able to design and produce" an atom bomb, I’m thinking of this book.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, many people wanted to believe that the world was a safer place. In some ways they were right…but in other ways, the world became a much scarier place. I said then, and believe now, that while we needed to win the “Cold War,’ we could not let down our guard because now there are many more rogue nations and factions out there who want to see our destruction.

The focus of danger in the world today is radical Islam which seeks to convert or destroy the rest of the world.  President Obama seems to want to talk them out of their beliefs. He seems to think that if we can all just talk out our differences, we can come to a mutually beneficial outcome. The problem is, the only outcome they are willing to accept is the destruction of Israel and all others they consider infidels. They believe that they are faith bound to kill the infidel even at the cost of their own life…and now, some of them are very close to having nukes.

How do you respond to such a threat? Do you wait until we experience a nuclear 9-11? Or, do you take them at their word that they want to kill us and stop them before they can act. I believe the latter is the only moral stance. I believe that we can stop the Iranian regime now through conventional military measures before ten’s of thousands of innocent people are murdered by these mad men. To burry our heads and believe that they will not try to kill us if they can is suicide.

At the end of the book, all the characters could do was sit on the beach and wait for the radiation to come. It was too late, the damage was done. There was no safety to be found. How will the world respond to Iran’s threat? Will we proactively move against the threat to stop the Iranians from completing a bomb, or we wait until there’s nothing left to do but count the dead? Will we act now, or wait on the beach later.

Obama: The Post-Racial President.

I thought the election of President Barack Obama was supposed to be the beginning of the post-racial era in America. However, since his election, we have heard an awful lot about the president’s race…and it’s all coming from the Left.

Professor Walter E. Williams, who is, as he says, “black by popular demand”, puts it very well in his latest column, “Obama's presidency is truly a remarkable commentary on the goodness of Americans and how far we've come in resolving matters of race. Obama convincingly won votes in states with insignificant black populations, such as the New England states, Iowa and Minnesota. For the nation as a whole, he managed 53 percent of the popular vote and 365 of the Electoral College votes when he only needed 270 to win.”

But the Left seems to know that while conservatives say they are against socialized medicine, what they really mean is that they hate blacks and are against anything proposed by a “black” president. Of course! That makes sense, because the conservatives also vehemently resisted “Hillary Care” when it was proposed in the Clinton administration…ah wait a minute, wasn’t Clinton a white guy? Well, any way, the left just knows what you are all thinking. You may say you’re against out of control government tax and spend policies. You may think that you just don’t want to see your tax dollars used to bail out private banks and the auto industry. You may argue that you don’t want to see the economy destroyed by an outlandish policy of taxing a totally harmless gas, one that plants use to live, carbon-dioxide. You may say those things, but the Left really knows that you are all really evil bigots who would go along with all of it if Obama were just…white.

The race card has been used as a tool by the left for far too long. Anytime someone is not going along with their twisted schemes, they pull it out if they can to beat the opposition into submission. Once it’s determined, by the Left of course, that you are a racist, the argument is over. This has led to a certain timidity among conservatives. Heaven forbid you be called a racist…even if it’s not true.

But the power of this tool, I think, is wearing thin. This president…this government has pushed too far, too quickly. People are beginning to realize that their freedom is more important than being called names. They are beginning to say to themselves, “I know I’m not a racist, and I will stand for my principles regardless of the names they hurl.”

The Left has had a vested interest in keeping racial tension alive and well in the America. They have played one group against the other to gain and maintain power for years. The overwhelming victory of the Obama campaign should show us all that race is no longer the issue it was in our past. Of course there are some bigots out there…of all races. Of course there’s room for improvement. But, President Obama’s race has nothing to do with the criticism from conservatives.

President Obama may very well be the first post-racial president. He was elected with the help of a large number of whites. And, he may be the catalyst that brings an end to race as a political tool. One can only hope.

Obama’s Priorities

Today the Associated Press reports that the President of the United States will travel to Copenhagen to make an appeal to bring the Summer Olympics to Chicago in 2016. Really? This is a job for the president himself? This can’t be handled by someone without so many pressing, critical national issues to handle?

The list of current issues that are vital to the national interest is fairly plain: The Iranians testing missiles and the news of secret nuclear facility in that country…The Afghan war at a slow boil…and the economy continues to falter and the unemployment rate continuing to rise. These are the issues I would expect to see the President of the United States busy at work on. I don’t think, if you polled the American people, you would see the 2016 Olympics very high on their list…just my opinion.

But, with all of this going on, President Obama finds time to go on a media blitz to push for a healthcare agenda that is increasingly unpopular with the citizenry and to fly off to Europe to try to bring home a big pay-off to his former state and city politician friends. All during a time when Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. Commander in Afghanistan, reports that he has only talked to the president once in 70 days.

Former Ambassador John Bolton told the Washington Times, "I think it’s very clear, and has been during last year’s campaign and in the eight months the president has been in office, that he just doesn’t regard foreign policy and national security as important as domestic issues, like reforming the health care system.” He continued, "If you think there are no threats, then it’s not illogical to pay no attention to the rest of the world. The problem is in his [Obama’s] basic reading of the international environment where we do continue to face massive threats for international terrorists and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, among others."

What are Mr. Obama’s priorities? He seems totally unable or unwilling to settle down to the real task of governing. He continues to seek out the spotlight and run in an extended campaign mode. So far, he looks to be in way over his head. This reminds me of the old story of Nero…fiddling while Rome burned.

The Post-American Era

As if his domestic policies, with healthcare, cap and trade, and czar of the day, weren’t bad enough, President Obama seems determined to wreck our foreign policy too. Since the beginning of his term, he has gone around the world bowing and scraping to third-world despots and apologizing for America’s freedom, success and wealth.

Most recently, in phase 2 of his grand plan to remake America, President Obama has begun selling out our allies. After saying that he does not want to be seen as “meddling” in the internal affairs of Iran, he has been perfectly happy to pressure Israel to give up its security to make concessions to the illegitimate Palestinians. He has also seen fit to weigh in on the side of the ousted would-be dictator Manuel Zelaya of Honduras who attempted, against the laws of his country and the ruling of their supreme court, to remain in office for another term. When he was forcibly removed from office, Hillary Clinton declared that it was a military coup. Under U.S. law, we may offer no aid to any government whose leader was toppled in a coup.

Earlier this month, President Obama announced that he was going to cut back missile defense shield in Europe. This move sells out American allies Poland and the Czech Republic to the Russians who have made no secret of their desire to regain control of former east-bloc countries. This also leaves Europe vulnerable to potential threat from a soon to be nuclear power, Iran. Representative Buck McKeon, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee said, "I am concerned that the administration is heading down a path where it is willing to undercut our allies and cave to Russian demands on vital national security matters,"

President Obama then went to speak before the United Nations. In an interview with National Review Online, former U. S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton characterized the speech as “a post-American speech by our first post-American president. It was a speech high on the personality of Barack Obama and high on multilateralism, but very short in advocating American interests.” He also said, “Overall, it was so apologetic for the actions of prior administrations, in an effort to distance Obama from them, that it became yet another symbol of American weakness in the wake of the president’s decision to abandon missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his recent manifest hesitation over what to do in Afghanistan.”

What will come next…will Obama sell out Taiwan to communist China? Will he pull out U.S. support of South Korea? Will he provide aid to Chavez in Venezuela? As you watch all of this happening, just remember what then Presidential candidate Obama said just before the election, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” Is this the change you voted for?  Is it the change you expected?  Are we really seeing the beginning of the Post-American era? The choice is ours. Will we allow this government and this president to bring about the end of America as we have known it?

If It Quacks Like a Duck, It Might Be a Camel

Sorry for the mixed metaphor, but let me explain. As I’ve been thinking about the actions of the Obama administration in the short time since January, I have been struck by the fact that so many people, even in the light of growing evidence, seem to really want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. They listen to what he says…but totally ignore his actions, associations and past history. Additionally, they accuse anyone who raises objections to policy or actions by the administration of being racists or conspiracy nuts. I’m not talking about politicians or political operatives, but rank and file citizens who believe what they hear Obama saying in his on-going campaign appearances in the media.

President Obama continues to “quack” out great-sounding populist drivel for the consumption of the weak minded, but his rhetoric does not stand up against even the most basic scrutiny. The examples are too numerous to list in this format, but I will mention just a few for effect.

Obama quack: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."

Fact: According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) the House bill, which President Obama is endorsing, will raise the deficit by $220 Billion over the next 10 years.

Obama quack: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

Fact: While the bill does not specifically spell out that illegal aliens are covered, there is no language to prohibit it, and any attempt to place such language into the bill has been soundly defeated by the President. And, to get past the issue all together, Obama wants to just go ahead and legalize the illegals, a plan that has been roundly rejected by a majority of Americans in the past.

Obama quack: "I pledge to you that under my plan, no one making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not income tax, not capital gains taxes, not any kind of tax,"

Fact: While President Obama’s policies will continue to raise the deficit to $9 trillion by 2019, he continues to say that taxes won’t be raised…how can that be? Well, as he did on CBS’s “Face the Nation” this past weekend, he simply chooses to call increases in revenue taken from the public and corporations by other names. Even former Clinton operative, George Stephanopoulos, insisted that what President Obama was raising taxes, regardless of what he calls it.

Obama quack: “My administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”

Fact: All the while appointing a whole group of un-confirmed czars and trying to push the health care bill through Congress before anyone had a chance to read it.

And it goes on and on …It’s not only what someone says, it’s more important what they do. As Ralph Waldo Emerson said “What you do speaks so loudly that I cannot hear what you say.” So, while Mr. Obama wants us all to listen to his words, he wants us to ignore his actions, past and present. Mr. Obama has been committed through out his life to communist “reform.” He surrounded himself with other, like minded individuals who have preached the evils of America and its system of economy and government.

For anyone who has been paying attention to his past and present deeds, none of his actions since he took office have been surprising. You see, to be a duck, you not only have to quack, but also look and walk like a duck. Watch what he does…pay attention to what he has said in the past. To me, President Obama is the big communist camel who is forcing his nose under the tent.

It Can’t Happen Here…Can It?

While many Americans seem to be waking up to the threat of a centralized, statist government to our liberties, many, I fear, believe it could never happen here. They cannot conceive of a totalitarian take over of our country. How could it possibly happen here? I believe a better question is what makes us think it can’t happen here?

The United States of America at its founding, with its form of self-government and guaranteed personal rights, was something different than the world had ever seen. In many ways, it still remains unique amongst the democratically oriented countries of the world today. Only the Constitution and a national desire to uphold its conventions, has kept us all free to this point. However, this desire seems to have been replaced in the hearts of many by the desire for comfort and future assurances of comfort. For this they have been willing to incrementally give more and more of their lives over to the ministrations of the federal nanny state.

Those who don’t believe it can happen here view the actions of government from a belief that the motivations of our legislative representatives are pure and looking for our best interests. Because of this belief, they overlook things that would have set our founding fathers to the streets with pitch forks and torches. The founders believed that all power should be viewed with a suspicious eye because they knew that, as Lord Acton said, “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Even legislators who start out with the most noble of intentions can be drawn to the seductive lure of power. They can also begin to see themselves not as servants, but as leaders. Many of these people are surrounded by sycophantic bureaucrats who constantly stroke their egos and tell them how great they are. They are also surrounded by people offering them money, power and position if they will just vote this way or play the game that way. They begin to believe that they know better than the voters what is “best for the country.” They begin to see our tax money as their money, to spend as they see fit…and these are the ones who start out with good intentions.

The founding fathers warned us over and over again of the dangers of consolidated power, as I covered in an earlier post, Balance of Power. And yet many seem content to sit idly by as more and more power is assumed by the government. As we have turned a blind eye to our representatives’ disdain of constitutional restraint of their power, they have become ever more emboldened to shed those “shackles” and ignore the rule of law to carry out their own agendas. The rate at which this usurpation of power is proceeding seems to be on an exponential curve. With the new administration and lopsided balance of power in Congress today, the trend seems to have shot straight upward.

It is not just the desire to control the health care industry (which comprises approximately 1/7th of the nations GDP), but also the banking industry, the auto industry, Cap and Trade and the “Stimulus Package.” It is these and bills in Congress that would give the President power to shut down the Internet in an “emergency,” and forcibly quarantine people in the threat of a pandemic (which they are already trying to make out of H1N1). It is the attempt to use the census to find out who has guns in their house and other information that is not proscribed by the Constitution. It is the fact that the White House is hiring a contractor to pull information from social networking sites, such as MySpace, Facebook, etc., to track those critical of their policies. Eventually, when you look at all of the attempts to change government’s role in our lives, even the least cynical souls among us has to begin to see a trend that is disturbing.

So, once again I ask, what makes us think it can’t happen here? Do we think that somehow, after thousands of years of history to the contrary, human nature has changed and no one wants to be a dictator anymore? Are we so arrogant to think that we are in some way so unique that no one could take over? Are we so naïve to think that government really just wants what is best for us?

Even if we may like the current President or Congress, even if we think they are noble and pure of heart, as we give more power to them, we cannot forget that they will not always be in power. Who comes next? What will their motivation be? How will they use the power we ceded to them?

It has happened many times before in countries like Russia, China, Korea, Viet Nam, Italy and Germany. It can happen here. It will happen here if we are willing to incrementally trade comfort for freedom. We must always be suspicious of government power. We must watch over it and insist that it acts according to the rule of law as based in the Constitution. We must not shrink from our duties as “The People” to vote for the best qualified and upright candidates, not simply listen to the propagandistic media. And, we must always remember…

“It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become a prey to the active. The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” - John Philpot Curran, 1790

Racing Toward Collapse

The Obama administration just released its dire predictions for our economy: A $9 trillion deficit from 2010-2019, doubling of the national debt by 2019 and 10 percent unemployment this year. Obama’s economic advisor Christina Romer said, “This recession was simply worse than the information that we and other forecasters had back in last fall and early this winter.”

Wow, the race toward collapsing the economy is even swifter than I could have ever imagined. President Obama has tried to place the blame on the previous administration, but President Bush does not have anything to do with the current spending and projected spending that is already projected to triple the deficit this year.

These projections will only come true if the Federal Government continues on its current path of unprecedented spending. With this news, it seems that President Obama either has no idea how to reverse this course or no intentions to do so. The former is ineptitude…the latter is just scary.

Why would Obama and the Democratic majority wish to continue down such a disastrous path? Why have they been so hell-bent to change the fundamentals of an economy that has provided more prosperity than any other in the history of the world? I think you need simply probe the past history and associations of Mr. Obama and many of the Democrats in congress. Obama has a long history of sitting under the tutelage of communists, including his father, Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers (the domestic terrorist), and the “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright to name a few. These people had a large influence on Obama as he formed his social/political philosophies. They were all either avowed communists or outspoken haters of America. It has been the standard mantra of communists for years that to “fix” what they see as wrong with America, they must first tear it down. This allows them to remake it according to their own ideology.

But, how can we really fix things? How do we move back from the edge of the abyss? The answer to that is simple, but does not allow the left the control they desire. The three steps to economic recovery are: lower taxes, decrease spending, and easing of regulatory control on business. Any one of these would have an immediate, positive impact on the economy.

Lowering taxes has had a positive economic impact every time it has been tried. This gives corporations more of their own money to spend on hiring and expanding, and gives individuals more disposable income to circulate through the economy. But, the Democrats say, we can’t afford this, the government has too many obligations. We can’t reduce our income to the government without jeopardizing vital public services. This, frankly, is a BIG LIE! Every time the Federal tax rate has been lowered in the last 50 years, income to the treasury has actually increased…First under Kennedy, then under Reagan and lastly under George W. Bush.

How can this be? How can I lower my cost and increase revenues? I don’t know, ask Wal-Mart. I know that this analogy is a bit simplistic, but not far from true. Simply put, as tax rates are lowered, more cash circulates through the economy and it grows…thus growing the tax base. Though the tax rate is lower, there is more money changing hands to be taxed. In a way, this is just like Wal-Mart…the lower their prices, the more people come and buy things, the more money they make. Of course, in Government, as with Wal-Mart, you can only lower costs so much before you reach a point of diminishing returns.

What we are currently seeing is the opposite effect. If you raise taxes, there is less money in the economy and thus a smaller tax base. The Democrats answer to this is raise taxes again. But what we are seeing now is that revenues at all levels of government, local, state and federal, are down. You can’t keep taking more and more taxes from a shrinking tax base and expect the economy to grow. Here too is a point of diminishing returns.

Decrease spending…this is self evident. Most of us have lived through this in our personal or business lives. When the income begins to shrink or prices raise, we must tighten our belts. Government is fond of telling us that we should do this…but seem totally unwilling to follow their own advice. As we all know there is fat and waste in almost any organization or budget that can be trimmed if needed. In the Federal government, the pork and waste is epic.

Easing regulations on corporations is also desperately needed. Many companies move operations off-shore not principally for cheaper labor, but to escape the huge regulatory burden placed on them in this country. Some regulation is good and needed. There is a time though when there is enough regulation, but like Congressmen who feel the need to keep turning out new laws, regulatory agencies feel the need to create new regulations to expand their influence and justify their existence. Depending on the industry, some companies need to hire armies of lawyers and other personnel just to track compliance.

So, does Obama really want to reverse the trend and move us toward a new prosperity? I don’t think so. He has shown no inclination to even consider the remedies above. What is his true agenda? I have my own fears about that, but whatever they are, he and the Democrats need to be stopped. They cannot continue to rush our country toward an economic collapse.

As Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, (R-Ky.) put it "The alarm bells on our nation's fiscal condition have now become a siren. If anyone had any doubts that this burden on future generations is unsustainable, they're gone — spending, borrowing and debt are out of control."

Town Hall Protests: A Very American Tradition

“I am disappointed about the attempts to characterize the behavior of Americans expressing their concerns as ‘un-American'. Although I strongly encourage the use of respectful debate in these town halls, we should not be stifling these discussions. There is nothing ‘un-American’ about disagreements. In fact, our great nation was founded on speaking our minds.” - Senator Orrin Hatch (R, Utah)

America was indeed founded by people who had a very profound distrust of centralized, concentrated power. The first attempt at a Federal government under the Articles of Confederation actually erred toward the side of being too de-centralized. The drafting of the Constitution was an acknowledgement that there had to be some level of centralization to provide for the proper operation of a nation. The Founders, however, were very careful to limit this government to just a very few enumerated powers.

In our form of government, a Representative Republic, the government derives all of its power, either directly or indirectly, from “The People.” The People have not only the right to disagree and protest the government when they are not happy with its direction, but an obligation to do so. Even Hillary Rodham Clinton, when she was still a Senator, seemed to have agreed with this point of view when she said, “I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.” Of course she was talking about the Bush administration at the time, but the principle is the same.

When The Peoples’ representatives are not hearing or paying attention to their concerns, they have the right to become adamant that their voice is heard. This type of public discourse and basic distrust of government power is in the tradition of our great country. It is, in a very real way, American.

Let’s contrast this with forms of government that have very powerful and centralized governments. These governments almost never allow disagreement or public opposition. These governments denounce protest as unpatriotic…or worse, treasonous. They have large propaganda machines that always promote the party line and encourage turning in unpatriotic detractors to the authorities. In modern times, these countries have been totalitarian communist or socialist regimes.

Debate is healthy. Public discourse is necessary to maintain the freedoms for which many have given their blood and lives. Those who rail against the town hall protestors and Tea Parties, who call them un-American, are themselves acting against the traditions of this country. They align themselves more with traditions of counties like the USSR and Nazi Germany in trying to shut-up the opposition…they are the ones who are acting un-American.

We should not confuse the protests against the current health care legislation with a desire to maintain the status quo. Many who do not want to see the government control health care, still believe that tort reform, controlling the access of illegal aliens, and allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines are needed reforms that can help. But many would rather do nothing than to give over healthcare to government bureaucrats whom they do not trust.

Myself, I agree with Hillary Clinton… " We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration.”

Balance of Power

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” – James Madison; Federalist No. 45

With the expansion of power of the federal government over the past decades the topic of States rights and the balance of power between state and federal government has become a hot topic again. How far can the federal government go in expanding their power into all aspects of life? Many people point to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” This amendment, the last of the original “Bill of Rights”,” clearly spells out that the Federal government’s power is limited only to those narrowly enumerated powers in the constitution.

In the past, with an acknowledgment of Constitutional restrictions, the Federal government has had to bribe the States on many issues where they had no power to compel. This bribery usually came in the form of offering federal funding to the States if, and only if, the States met certain Federal requirements. This method has been used for decades to induce States to bend to the Federal will. One example I can remember is the 55 MPH national speed limit. This was made possible only because Federal government threatened to withhold highway funds if the States did not participate in the 55 MPH maximum speed limit.

The maximum speed limit is only one example of the way the Federal government has used money to usurp State power, but at least this method acknowledges the limits of Federal power. Today, however, there seems to be no acknowledgement of this restriction in the Federal government. Congress seems to believe they can do anything they wish as long as they (Senate, House of Representatives, and President) agree. They appeal to popular will or crisis (whether real or fabricated) to justify their actions.

The balance of power between the States and the Federal government was a very large part of the debate in 1787 as the Constitution was being drafted. Would we have a federal or national form of government? A federal form of government is one where a number of sovereign States come together to form a confederated nation; one where the ultimate power resides with the States. The first form of American government, under the Articles of Confederation, was a more purely federal government. These articles were deemed to have left the Federal government too impotent since while it was given responsibilities, it did not have the power to carry them out without direct assent of the States.

When the States convened to consider amending the Articles, it was eventually decided to start over with a new Constitution. The general agreement was that the new Constitution had to retain a federal form while giving the national government the power it needed to carry out its responsibilities. A national form of government would be one where all of the power of government would be centralized in the national government and the national government would be supreme over the States. This was not what the framers wanted; these patriots were wary of too much accumulated and centralized power. To provide the proper balance between federal and national forms, the framers developed an ingenious mix of the forms that maintained the States' important role in the national government while providing the Federal government the means to act on its enumerated powers.

“The proposed Constitution therefore is in strictness neither a national nor a federal constitution; but a composition of both. In its foundation, it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of Government are drawn, it is partially federal, and partly national: In the extent of them again, it is federal, not national: And finally, the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal, nor wholly national.” -James Madison; Federalist No. 39.

The overarching principle on which the Constitution was based was republicanism in which the ultimate source of governmental power comes from the people. In a federal form, that power would come indirectly from the people through the elected State legislatures. In a national form, the power would be direct from the people. To balance these principles, the government had a mix of these elements with the Senate being appointed by the States to provide a federal input from the sovereign States; the House of Representatives being voted on directly by the people in a national manor. The President is elected in a mixture of federal and national forms with the people voting directly but their votes being considered as groups from states through the Electoral College. Federal Judges are appointed by the President (national) but must be approved by the Senate (federal). So, the checks and balances originally built into the Constitution were not only between the branches of the Federal Government but also between the Federal and State governments.

In 1913 a major change to the balance of the Constitutional government was made when the 17th Amendment was ratified by the States. This amendment changed the method of choosing Senators from being appointment from the State legislatures to a direct vote by the citizens. This makes a major move toward national government, removing the State’s control in the process. The reasons for this change were that some State bodies failed to appoint their Senators in a timely manor and some were involved in questionable methods and corruption in making their choices. This promoted a call for change. In making the change, however, it did not solve the problems but did adversely affect the delicate balance designed by the framers.

In recent years, there have been calls to replace the Electoral method of choosing the President with a direct vote. This would then give the advantage to areas with the highest populations such as New York City, and Los Angeles and move the country one more step toward nationalism. The argument for eliminating the Electoral system is that this was only done back in the beginning because it was too hard to gather votes from all across the country and that today, through technology, we can do this more easily. This argument however is not based on fact. The Electoral system was designed as part of the fine balance between nationalism and federalism.

Every step we take away from the original intention of the framers toward nationalism places more and more power into the hands of the centralized “Federal” government. This concentration of power is what the framers worked diligently to avoid. They saw this as the most dangerous enemy of a free republic.

“The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” – James Madison; Federalist No. 47.

Centralized, nationalistic governments have led to totalitarianism in the past. The examples are many, but a few stand out: Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China…to name a few. I believe that it is imperative that we return to the form of government, the fine mix of federalism and nationalism, laid out by the framers of the Constitution. The 17th Amendment should be repealed and any attempt to change the method of choosing a president should be vigorously resisted. The more I look at the history of the founding of our nation, the more I am convinced of the genius of those patriot framers of the Constitution of the United States of America. I do not see this level of knowledge or patriotism displayed by the self-aggrandizing politicians of today.

I leave you with one more quote…this one by Abraham Lincoln as a Whig congressman in 1848 who said this of the Constitution:

“No slight occasion should tempt us to touch it. Better not take the first step, which may lead to a habit of altering it. Better, rather, habituate ourselves to think of it as inalterable. It can scarcely be made better than it is. New provisions would introduce new difficulties, and thus create, and increase appetite for still further change. No sir, let it stand as it is. New hands have never touched it. The men who made it have done their work, and passed away. Who shall improve on what they did?”

Beware the Next Big Crisis

With President Obama’s approval ratings continuing to slip (he has gone into the negative range with -11 Approval Index according to Rasmussen), 53% of voters opposing the Democratic health care reform, and the Blue Dog Democrats revolting in the in the House, we may be moving toward gridlock. This is the best outcome we can hope for between now and the 2010 mid-term elections. Gridlock could stop the Obama administration from raising taxes, co-opting private industries and increasing the national debt to record levels…or worse.

But how will President Obama deal with gridlock? He has already tried taking his case to the people with an unprecedented media blitz over the last months. This has not seemed to work. It seems like the more he has talked, the more his numbers have gone down. He recently tried shame the Republicans when he said the following on a weekly radio address, “Now I know there are those who are urging us to delay reform. And some of them have actually admitted that this is a tactic designed to stop any reform at all. Some have even suggested that, regardless of its merits, health care reform should be stopped as a way to inflict political damage on my Administration. I’ll leave it to them to explain that to the American people.”

What will come next? Will he simply accept the will of the people and Congress? Will he acquiesce to gridlock? Or, will he resort to more extreme measures to force his will on the country. After all, President Obama sees himself as a transformative force. In a speech just before the election he said, “We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.” What will he be willing to do to bring about his vision of change?

Throughout history fascists, socialists, progressives, and communists (hereafter referred to as Leftists) have used crisis to bypass standard operating modes and enact their programs that they cannot get executed before the crisis. As Jonah Goldberg puts it in his book Liberal Fascism, “Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short circuits debate and democratic deliberation. Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency.”

Hitler used the economic crisis of post-war Germany to gain power, scapegoating the Jews as the cause of suffering. And in this country, Woodrow Wilson used World War I as an excuse to move America into a wartime “Progressive” dictatorship that nationalized industry under the War Industries Board, shut down dissent by denying mailing rights to any publications that spoke out against him, launched a huge propaganda machine and using goon squads from the American Vigilante Patrol to crack down on “seditious street oratory.”

Modern Leftists have been floating a new crisis on a regular basis. It seems like everything is a crisis or epidemic these days…banking, global warming, health care, the environment, bird flu, swine flu, etc., etc., etc. The left has had a measure of success with these crises. Americans have, by and large, believed the rhetoric and given in to allow more and more regulation of their freedoms.

President Obama, however, does not seem to be willing to accept the incrementalism of the past. He has already made sweeping change and proposed even more. But as his poll numbers drop and he loses political capital, will he, like so many before him use or create a new crisis to bypass democracy? And, if the many crises that have been used in recent years have not been enough to convince people to give up their liberty, what will it take…and how far will the current government be willing to go?

When the next big crisis hits, think about what you are willing to lose to allow the government to “fix” the problem. Also remember what Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” And John Adams, “But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

California: Welcome to the Real World

After years of out of control spending and tax hikes that chased many prominent companies to other states, California officials announced Monday that they will be pushing to pass a budget plan that includes significant cuts and financial restructuring to close the $26 Billion shortfall in the current budget.

It had to happen eventually. Even California, the land of Hollywood fantasy, had to come to reality sometime. Of course it took standing on the edge of bankruptcy and collapse to get here, being reduced to issuing IOUs to thousands of state contractors, but there’s no use rushing into things.

This is what happens in the real world to American families and businesses that can’t just raise taxes to continue growing their spending. Out here, where we are constrained by income growth that has slowed and higher costs, we have to tighten our belts, cut out some things and bring our spending into line with the reality of our financial situation. So, California, welcome to reality…welcome to my world.

Maybe if California can learn, the federal government can learn also? So far there seems to be little sign that the dominate party has any desire or plans to curtail their spending. In fact, the opposite is true. President Obama has expanded our deficit by trillions of dollars and isn’t done yet. What will it take? Complete collapse? Come on, Mr. President, Ms. Pelosi, and Mr. Reid, come on out here with the rest of us in our world…in reality. It’s really not so bad, and it’s a whole lot less scary than the bizzaro world in which you live.

Centralized Economies and the Arrogance of Power

In reading through the transcripts of President Obama’s recent speech to the NAACP Centennial Convention, I was mostly impressed. He eloquently summarized the struggles of blacks to overcome what was undoubtedly cruel and discriminatory treatment of the past. He recalled the days of Jim Crow laws, lynchings, and segregation and how the founding of the NAACP was a beginning of change that carried through to Dr. King, “Freedom Rides; taking seats at Greensboro lunch counters; and registering voters in rural Mississippi.”

“Because of what they did, we are a more perfect union. Because Jim Crow laws were overturned, black CEOs today run Fortune 500 companies. Because civil rights laws were passed, black mayors, governors, and Members of Congress serve in places where they might once have been unable to vote. And because ordinary people made the civil rights movement their own, I made a trip to Springfield a couple years ago - where Lincoln once lived, and race riots once raged - and began the journey that has led me here tonight as the 44th President of the United States of America.”

President Obama also acknowledged “the remarkable achievements of the past one hundred years,” and the “extraordinary progress that cannot be denied.” He also exhorted the African American community to do their part:

“But all these innovative programs and expanded opportunities will not, in and of themselves, make a difference if each of us, as parents and as community leaders, fail to do our part by encouraging excellence in our children. Government programs alone won't get our children to the Promised Land. We need a new mindset, a new set of attitudes - because one of the most durable and destructive legacies of discrimination is the way that we have internalized a sense of limitation; how so many in our community have come to expect so little of ourselves.”

All in all a good and inspiring speech. But, what also jumped out at me from the mid section of this oratory, as he listed the current struggles of the African American community, including lower educational achievements, higher incarceration and unemployment rates, was this troubling sentence:

“But our task of reducing these structural inequalities has been made more difficult by the state, and structure, of the broader economy; an economy fueled by a cycle of boom and bust; an economy built not on a rock, but sand.”

To me, this is a direct indictment against the free-market economy that has built the United States to the most powerful engine of opportunity the world has ever known. President Obama sees this as an economy “built on sand” because of what he sees as its “cycle of boom and bust.”

So, we ask ourselves, what is the alternative? Rather than an economy built on the innovation spurred by competition in a market where people are free to create whole new segments of the economy that never existed before…or equally, fail due to lack of innovation, or productivity…what would take us off these shifting sands and onto bedrock in President Obama’s mind? Well, I think he believes that the solution is a Planned or Centralized Economy where all aspects of the economy are controlled by a central government. This reasoning permeates his rhetoric and agenda from the bail-out and control of the banks and automobile industry, to the “public option” for health care to the cure for the plight of African Americans. Barack Obama believes that the good people in the government bureaucracy can do a better job at managing the economy than the people running companies.

Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Fascists always arrogantly believe that though it may never have succeeded before, they can make a centralized economy work. They never look at the root cause of past failures, they just believe that success was elusive because enough wasn’t done or the right people weren’t in charge…and they, of course, are the right people. It didn’t work for the Soviet Union, once heralded by American Progressives as the model for the economy of the future…It hasn’t worked for China, who has had to incrementally move toward more free-market and democratic reforms over the years. And, it has never worked in the United States.

Every time the U.S. government seeks to control markets or the economy, it has detrimental affects. It is strongly believed by some economists today that the government’s response to a recession actually moved the country into The Depression and lengthened the downturn. Jimmy Carter’s policies lead to high interest rates, hyper-inflation and rampant unemployment. Today’s banking crisis is a direct effect of Democratic meddling in the financial industry, coercing, intimidating, and downright threatening banks to change their lending practices and make loans to those who were previously considered bad risks.

Centralized bureaucracies have never and can never succeed in directing a healthy economy because their decisions are based on political issues that consolidate and expand their power rather on the cold hard facts of supply, demand, productivity, risk and reward that corporations in a free-market economy must balance. If a central planning initiative is not working, they simply throw more control, more bureaucracy at the problem. In some ways, corporations seek the same thing, to consolidate and expand their position in the market…but this is done through providing better, cheaper, faster products. Bureaucracy’s product is control, manipulation and patronage.

So, back to the troubles of today’s African American community. Does President Obama truly believe that he is the one who can solve these problems with more government after more than 45 years of Great Society policies and expenditures have apparently not worked? In fact, it is many of these policies that have failed the African American community. Large inner-city communities like Detroit, and Washington D.C. to name two, who suffer the worst of all from the problems have been controlled by Democrats for decades and the violence and frequency of crime have steadily increased. Welfare pays people not to work and incentivizes them to have babies outside of wedlock. Affirmative Action tells people that they don’t have to be as smart or as good as the other guy…they just have to show up. These and more are all products of past Progressive government.

As Mr. Obama just offers us more of the same, does he arrogantly believe that he is better able to implement these policies than his predecessors? Or, does he know it won’t work as advertised…and the end game is not making the economy work for everyone, but gaining and keeping control. Either way is very frightening.