Do Words Matter?

Obama says "Don't tell me words don't matter."  I agree...they do.  This video takes a look at Obama's own words...and the truth.

Eroding Rights

We the People have largely fallen asleep at the wheel over the last hundred years or more.  Instead of driving the ship of state to serve our interests as citizens, we have allowed government at all levels to supplant the People's interests with their own.

At almost every turn, the government has been allowed torture and twist the Constitution to accrue more and more power to themselves.  Though the Constitution and the records left behind by those who ratified it is very clear that the powers of the Federal are very few and narrow, the power mongers in government seem to be able to find almost any power they wish to wield in this foundational document.  They have done this in the past by twisting and reinterpreting the word used and ignoring the clear "original intent."

In recent years, however, the statist usurpers have made more and more direct assaults on our power and rights.  Where they once at least made an attempt to cover their power grabs with heady, legalistic explanations about how they really do have constitutional authority to do x or y, Now, they simply laugh and scoff at the mere question of constitutionality.

To help overcome the last vestiges of resistance, the statists have begun to target the Constitution directly through the amendment process.  Representative Jim McGovern (D-MA) along with House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and 26 other democrats and a one RINO have introduced the populist sounding People's Rights Amendment to the Constitution.  In this amendment, McGovern attempts to precisely define the "words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution..."It goes on to say that these words do not apply to "corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state."

Okay...so far, nothing earthshaking, right?  We all know that corporations are not people.  I don't think anyone was believing that they were.  It is the next part that is the problem: "such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution."  In other words...government can do to corporations whatever they want to do because they are not "people."

In an article dated May 4, 2012, columnist George Will points out that the "proposed amendment is intended to reverse the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, which affirmed the right of persons to associate in corporate entities for the purpose of unrestricted collective speech independent of candidates’ campaigns."  The problem they had with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case is that the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not allow government to restrict independent political spending by corporations or unions, as required by the McCain-Feingold Act of 2002. In writing for the majority opinion on this case, Justice Kennedy points out that "[t]he First Amendment provides that 'Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.'"

He continued:

"The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—eitherto expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30days of a primary election and 60 days of a general elec-tion. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship." [emphasis added]

The so-called People's Rights Amendment, then, is an attempt to circumvent that nasty First Amendment restriction on Congress's power to control speech...one of our most cherished rights on the Left and the Right.  In his article, Will rightly point's out that this amendment would increase "the power of incumbent legislators — to write laws regulating, rationing or even proscribing speech in elections that determine the composition of the legislature and the rest of the government."  While they try to portray this amendment as a tool needed for election reform, it is in fact a naked power grab.

Amendment 1 - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

While corporations and other organizations are not people, they are made up of people...citizens who have implicit freedom of speech rights.  They also have a right to freely assemble into groups to address government.  This is also known as freedom of association, which the SCOTUS held in NAACP v. Alabama (357 U.S. 449) that:

"It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech...it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny."

This type of aggression...and that is truly what this is...toward our rights as citizens can not stand, and should not go unanswered.  Representative McGovern, Leader Pelosi and all of the other sponsors of this amendment should be censured...they should be soundly defeated in their next elections...and possibly recalled.  This is not simply a partisan maneuvering on their part.  This amendment would greatly restrict everyone's rights, no matter where they stand on the political spectrum.  And, it could easily lead to further aggression.  No, this is not a Right or a Left issue.  This is truly an American issue...and these usurpers are clearly UNAMERICAN.

Rich vs. Poor

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." This phrase, attributed to Benjamin Disraeli, seems quite applicable to many areas of politics...none more than the subject of the poor.

Much political capital has been gained by espousing the view that, "the rich keep getting richer, while the poor get poorer."  This is a standard, and quite effective weapon of the class warriors.  Those who view themselves as poor are driven to envy and resentment against the rich by such phrases...and this resentment drives their voting choices.

But what is the truth? Are the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor? Are the poor getting poorer over the years? Steve Horwitz, economics professor at St. Lawrence University, explains the facts behind the rhetoric in this video for LearnLiberty.org.

Related Post:
How Poor Are Our Poor?

Useful Occupy Idiots

Beautiful example of the useful idiots at the Occupy Wall Street mob.  No logic, no answers...just repeating the standard talking points.  Good job, Mr. Schiff.

Competing Money

Friedrich A. Hayek, famous economist and author of The Road To Serfdom, said the following concerning money in an interview:

"Oh, I am absolutely convinced that no government is capable of...politically or intellectually...of providing the exact amount of money that is needed for economic development. And, I should be all in favor...in fact, I'm convinced we shall never have decent money in name before we take from government the monopoly of issuing money and allow competing institutions...of course under different names...not issue the the same money, but competing monies...and let people decide which kind of money they prefer to use."

This may seem pretty radical.  Many people think that if the government doesn't control the issue of money,  poverty and anarchy will ensue.  But, we already have competing monies on a global basis and it all works fine. The markets decide, based on many factors, what the exchange rate is between the Dollar and the Yen...or between the Yuan.   In fact, when the European Union decided that they needed to consolidate their monies into a single currency, the Euro, it helped some countries and hurt others...so less currency competition is not necessarily best.

A century ago we had competing monies in this country. As Lawrence H. White writes on the Library of Economics and Liberty, "Much more competition in money has existed in the past. Under 'free banking' systems, private banks competitively issued their own paper currency notes, called 'bank notes,' that were redeemable for underlying 'real,' or 'basic,' monies like gold or silver. And competition among those basic monies pitted gold against silver and copper."

But, some will say, we had to get to a single currency to stop the cycle of bank panics and boom and bust.  The way we attempted to do this  is to give the Federal Reserve a government-granted monopoly on creating money.  And how has that worked?  Well, as Dr. Thomas E Woods Jr. points out in his book Rollback, "Since the Fed opened it's doors in 1914 following the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in December 1913, the dollar has lost more than 95 percent of its value, after having held its value in tact from the beginning of the republic until the creation of the Fed."  That is not a very good track record of itself, but what about the Fed's stabilization of the economy?  As you might guess, this also isn't necessarily the case.  "Some recent research finds the two periods (pre- and post-Fed) to be approximately equal in volatility," says Woods, "and some finds the post-Fed period in fact to be more volatile, once faulty data are corrected for."  So, taken as a whole, the Federal Reserve, and its monopoly on money creation, has been a over-all negative.

Many economists believe that we should return to "hard money" in the United States, and indeed across the world.  Hard money is a currency that is based on something with an intrinsic value, such as gold or silver.  What we have now is known as "fiat money."  Investopia defines fiat money as, "Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith."  Investopia further explains that, "Because fiat money is not linked to physical reserves, it risks becoming worthless due to hyperinflation. If people lose faith in a nation's paper currency, the money will no longer hold any value."  If the markets lose faith in the paper money you get what we have now, a greatly devalued dollar and lowered credit ratings.

Since fiat money is not based on any real assets, the government monopoly is free to just print more to finance their increasing lust for power.  They don't really care if it devalues, they can just print more.  It's "monopoly money" anyway, so to speak.  What do they care?  But we should care.  Every time they devalue our money by printing more, the value of your savings and investments go down, your purchasing power goes down and the over all economy declines as corporate investments and purchasing power also suffers.

So, government has had its monopoly for 97 years now and have done a terrible job at it.  The only real solution for monopoly is...wait for it...COMPETITION!  Imagine that.  And the market and States are beginning to take matters into their own hands.  Dan Armstrong of ConnectMidichigan.com reports that "New types of money are popping up across Mid-Michigan and supporters say, it's not counterfeit, but rather a competing currency."  The International Business Times reports that "Utah just became the first US state to recognize gold as legal tender. Its Legal Tender Act of 2011 allows U.S. minted gold and silver coins to be recognized as legal tender in the value that reflects the market price for gold and silver."  Minnesota, North Carolina South Carolina, Idaho and Georgia are also considering similar  legislation.  I believe this is a good sign that the States are willing to do what is necessary for the welfare of their own people.  Competition is good.

Hayek said, "Abolishing the government monopoly on issuing money would deprive governments of persuing monetary policies...that's what I want to see."  And, so do I.

Government Restricts Consumer Choice

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) puts the smackdown on the Light Bulb Nazis.

Good Causes - Bad Laws

Let me start by saying that I love animals...especially dogs.  I can hardly watch the TV commercials from the Humane Society or the ASPCA.  The images of those neglected and abused animals breaks my heart.  I think that anyone who abuses animals should be strictly punished through the law.  If someone abused my dog, or a dog I know...God help them.  That's where I stand on the cause of preventing animal abuse.

On a recent trip to the Washington D.C. area, I was listening to a local talk show host interviewing Wayne Pacelle of the  Humane Society of the United States.  They were talking about a bill making it's way through Congress that would make it a Federal crime to be a spectator of, take a child to, or organize dog fights.  This is The Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act (H.R. 2492). introduced by Reps. Tom Marino, (R-PA) and Betty Sutton (D-OH).

Sounds like a good cause, right?  I agree.  Dog fighting is a horrendous activity that should be stopped.  Pictures of animals who have been involved in dog fights (like the one above) sicken me.  And, the host and Mr. Pacelle both agreed that most people want to see it ended.  In fact, they speculated that this bill would pass with almost unanimous support.  After all, who would disagree with the cause of stopping such a terrible crime?  And that, in a nut shell, is the problem.  A good cause...yes.  A good law...no.

When people see something that is wrong, an injustice, they want to see it righted.  They look to government to pass a law.  That is generally how our representative republic works.  The problems is, most of our fellow citizens have no idea of how our governments are supposed to operate...the divisions of power designed into the Constitution.  They also do not understand or, sadly, don't care about the principles behind our founding documents.  Dog fighting is clearly a State issue.  It is not, in any way, an enumerated power of the Federal government.  And, in fact, according to a Humane Society of the United States report, all 50 States have laws concerning dog fighting.

So, you may ask, what makes the difference if it is a State or Federal law?  It's a very good cause, you say, it needs all the help it can get.  It is that attitude from our general citizenry that has brought us to the situation in which we now find ourselves.  It has lead to our behemoth, highly centralized, bloated and corrupt Federal government.  This mind set has given us out-of control bureaucrats who believe that only they know best and that they have unlimited power.

In the early days of our country, most citizens, being highly suspicious of centralized power, resisted efforts of the Federal government to take more power unto itself.  The Constitution was debated among those who wanted a very limited Federal government (the "Federalists") and those who wanted an even more limited Federal government (the "Anti-Federalists").  They saw highly centralized and powerful governments as a clear danger to the liberties of the citizenry. In contrast, today our citizens seem in a rush to push more and more power to the Federal government.  They see a good cause, a perceived injustice, or just something that makes them mad and they say, "Why, there outta be a law."  And they expect the Federal government to do something.

This trend of looking to the Federal government has grown and accelerated since the early 20th century.  And now, though polls show that most voters (71%) believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, they have no idea how we got here or what to do to fix it.  They do not understand that the founding documents were designed to decentralize governmental power...for good reason.  As James Madison stated in Federalist 47, “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.” And, as Thomas Jefferson explained, " The way to have a safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to [perform best]. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with local concerns of the counties, and each ward [township] direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all of its subordinates, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best."

So, a good cause does not necessarily make for a good law...especially when that law gives more power to the Federal government.  Certainly it is easier to deal with one national legislature than 50 State governments, and that is a big reason why causes of national scope are taken to the U. S. Congress.  But this does not make it right...or constitutional.  In taking this easy way, even for causes we are passionate about, we cede a little more of our liberty every time...we hasten the growth of what Alexis de Tocqueville referred to as a "soft tyranny" in our country.

We need a new, or should I really say renewed, paradigm; one that allows us to champion good and noble causes, but makes liberty part of the cause.  We should pursue legal remedies only when absolutely necessary and seek them only to the lowest level of government which is proper.  And, keeping the founding principles in mind, never sacrifice one good for another.

Repeal the 17th Amendment

The following is a copy of a letter I sent to the Governor of my state and my state Senator and Representative.  I encourage you to do the same.


Dear [Governor/Senator/Representative],

I am writing today to encourage you to help restore the historic and proper of balance of power between the Federal and State governments in our country.  I fear that the Federal government has become far too powerful and corrupt to offer any reasonable hope for reform from within.  I have now become convinced that the only hope for our country lies in the States operating, as they were intended, as the major check and balance to the centralized power of the Federal government.

As you no doubt know, the United States of America was founded as a federation of free and independent States.  As James Madison stated it in Federalist 39, "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.  In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a Federal, and not a National constitution."  The struggle against nationalist sentiment within the Federal government has gone on since the beginning of our republic.  However, possibly the largest single blow to the principles of balanced power designed into the U.S. Constitution happened in 1913, with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment.  With this one amendment, the States lost almost all of their ability to counteract unconstitutional usurpations of their power by the Federal government.  Senators, who were originally intended to represent the interests of the States, have, in many ways, become more powerful than the States themselves...now dictating to them instead of representing them.

The Seventeenth Amendment has been a chief catalyst to the concentration of power in the central government.  As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, "What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government that has ever existed under the sun?  The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate." This concentration of powers in the United States of America has lead to the situation in which we now find ourselves; with a Federal behemoth that has no regard for constitutional limits on its power.  This government believes itself free to force unwanted policies and regulations on the States and the People, regardless of whether it has legal power in these areas or not.  The steady movement toward total nationalism has brought us to the point of out of control spending and unbelievable debt that now threatens our very national security and world standing.

This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue, since both parties have been complicit in the abuse of power.  Neither is it a Liberal or Conservative issue since, though we may disagree in the specifics, we all generally agree in the liberty granted us by our founding documents.

As a leader of our state, then, I implore you to study this issue for yourself and to consider how you may be able to help champion the cause of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution.  With U. S. Senators restored to their proper roles, the States will also be able to retake their proper positions as the chief check on centralized government power.   It is with the members our State governments…with you…in which our hope lies for restoring our country to its founding principles.  The Federal government was created by the States and received its power from the States and from The People.  It is time for the States to reassert themselves and roll back the power of the Federal government.

“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

Sincerely,

Ban the...Bulb?

1960s: Ban the Bomb

It's pretty pathetic that the Lefties have gone from the Ban the Bomb movement to Ban the Bulb.  You may not be aware that a 2007 federal energy bill was passed into law that will ban the good ole' incandescent light bulb by 2014.  This was the same law that increased the auto fuel efficiency standard requirements by 40 percent.  The bill was symbolically sent from Capitol Hill to the White House, for signing by President Bush, in a Toyota Prius hybrid "go-kart."  Both of these measures have the effect of limiting consumer choice and are both outside the scope of the enumerated powers of the Federal government.

While there are pros and cons to the newer, compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs, this is not a decision that we, the consumers, should have made for us.  I myself converted my own home to CFL bulbs about a year-and-a-half ago.  Not because I believe it will have any significant effect on the environment or over-all energy consumption...but because I read that I could save significant money on my electric bill...I'm all for that.  However, the increased cost of the CFL over the incandescent is only justifiable, in my eyes, if  they save you on electricity costs and last as long as advertised.  This has not been my experience.  I have since began converting back to incandescent bubs as the CFLs fail, far sooner than they're supposed to, all over my house...with no noticeable savings on electricity.

2000s: Ban the Bulb?

Congress is now considering the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act which would repeal the earlier ban.  The Obama administration has come out strongly against this bill.   On Friday, July 8th, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said, concerning the ban, "We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money."  I'm sorry, Mr. Secretary, how I may or may not "waste" my money is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

This guy is extremely arrogant and DANGEROUS.  Sure, right now it's just light bulbs...but what else could he use this same twisted-logic on?  Maybe you shouldn't waste your money on non-hybrid cars.  The increased fuel efficiency standards are aimed, I believe, at forcing that exact outcome.  Obama once chided that, "You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you're trying to save for college.”  Is going to Vegas a waste of money that Big Brother disapproves of...they do use a lot of energy lighting up that town.  Certainly you shouldn't waste your money on dangerous guns or buying boats  or motorcycles or other recreational vehicles, or living where you have a long commute to work...or many, many other things that could be considered a "waste of money" by some government hack or other.

It's just a light bulb, you say.  But it's so much more than that.  This ban is symptomatic of the politics, ideology and agenda of the radical, socialist Left that has come to power in this country.  They believe they know what's best for us all...they believe that only they can pick winning technologies...they believe that they have the right to rule...the Divine right of Oligarchs.  We must check this arrogance of power.  We must stop it's incremental wearing away of our rights...before it is too late.

So,no...it's not just about a light bulb.  You may like CFL bulbs and think they are a good idea.  But, if they can take away my right to choose on this issue, they can take away your right to choose on another.  Will we  allow "Big Brother" to rule every small aspect of our lives.

Capitalism...Not What You May Have Been Told

As I study the history of this country, more and more I find that much of what we've been told is a cartoon version of reality...and many cases, a pure fabrication. Why would anyone fabricate history, you ask? Because they want to promote an agenda. And in this country, where we have government-run schools, that agenda is pro-big government.

Revisionist history is nothing new. As Winston Churchill said, "History is written by the victors." In the early days of our country, John Adams, at the end of his career, complained of the mythologizing and romanticizing of the history of the revolution. He decried the Virginians' use of "puffers," or what we today call "spin doctors" to paint themselves in a more favorable light or to cover over scandals. In his martyrdom, Abraham Lincoln has been depicted as a saintly, abolitionist who only cared for the freedom of oppressed African slaves. This, I believe was to cover the blatant trampling of the Constitution and total disregard for the principles of the federation of the States. After all, how can you question the motives, or actions of a saint?

This type of revisionism has gone on from the beginning of our republic and will continue past its end. In the video below, Tom Woods speaks of some of the revisionism we have all been subjected to when it comes to the history of capitalism. Why? Because big government needs us all to believe that we are all helpless without their constant guidance and control. Take the time to watch it all. He talks about the fallacies of most often told views of the "evils of capitalism."

Foreign Policy and Spending

Soon after I published yesterday's post, I was made aware of this video by Jack Hunter of The American Conservative.  Also see my earlier post, Budget Cuts - No Sacred Cows.

I think it makes the point very well.

The Democrats' Spending Addiction and the Codependant Republicans

It has become very obvious that the Democrats are absolutely addicted to spending.  And they act just like addicts do...Despite being on the verge of going the way of Greece, they deny that there is a problem...they blame others for the problem, that isn't really a problem anyway, they look for new ways to hide and disguise their addiction, and they routinely lie about their addictive behavior. 

But, what about the Republicans?  Well, they have a long history of being enablers and codependents. Remember, if you will,  in 1982, President Ronald Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes that the Democrats were asking for.  The tax hikes took effect...spending cuts, no.  When George H. W. Bush's famously pledged, "Read my lips: No New Taxes" in his run for the presidency, the Democrat-controlled Congress would have none of it.  They demanded more tax money to feed their addiction.  Not learning the lesson from his former boss, Bush finally relented to tax increases after being "promised" a $2 spending cut for every $1 in tax hike.  And again...well you can guess what happened by looking at the chart above.

When faced with the fall-out from the inevitable housing bubble collapse, George W. Bush agreed to sign the "Porkulus" bill...without so much as a token promise from the Democrats...just because they said they had to have it.  This bill provided spending to bail out "too-big-to-fail" Democrat cronies and to "create" jobs...jobs that Jeffery H. Anderson of The Weekly Standard reports were created or saved at "a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job."  Anderson points out that, "the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the 'stimulus,' and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead."  And, to add insult to near-fatal injury, numbers from a recent report from Obama's own advisers show that "over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the 'stimulus' than it has with it."

And now the Spendocrats are telling us that the fiscal problems we have cannot be solved through spending cuts...again, I'll wait while you look at the chart...we have to raise taxes on the hated rich...those despicable owners of business jets and signers of paychecks.  The problem is that the additional revenue gained from these proposed taxes, if any at all (see previous post), would make up about one-tenth of one percent of the current deficit. The question now is not whether the Democrats will overcome their serious addiction and cut spending, but rather will the Republicans stick to their stated principles and break their cycle of codependency.

Dr. Lawrence Lindsey was a former Governor of the Federal Reserve System from 1991 to 1997, and a Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Economic Policy during the first Bush Administration, among many other things.  He was basically kicked out to the Bush administration for estimating the cost of the first Iraq war at $200B, which Donald Rumsfeld said was "Baloney" and the Office of Management and Budget said would only cost $60B.  The true cost was over $1 Trillion.  In a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece Lindsey stated his belief that the true budget deficit is much higher than is currently being estimated by the Obama administration.  "Underestimating the long-term budget situation," Lindsey said, "is an old game in Washington. But never have the numbers been this large."   Lindsey says that "only serious long-term spending reduction in the entitlement area can begin to address the nation's deficit and debt problems. It should no longer be credible for our elected officials to hide the need for entitlement reforms behind rosy economic and budgetary assumptions."

My fear is that, like so many times in the past, the Republicans will cave-in and enable further deficit spending.  And, as with so many addicts, I'm afraid the Democrats won't change their ways until we have hit rock bottom.  I pray that I am wrong and that the Republican leadership finally gets some backbone.I guess we will know soon.

The Ten Commandments of the Federal Government

The bureaucrats in the Federal Government seems to think of themselves as the all-powerful and uncontested rulers of  our lives.  This made me wonder, since they think of themselves as god-like, what would their version of the Ten Commandments be.  Here is my version of...

The Ten Commands of the Federal Government:

1. We are your Wise Overlords.  You shall have no governments before us...including those pesky States.

2. You shall not make for yourself any non-governmentally approved, unregulated or untaxed idols.

3. Do not use the name of the Lord!  It might offend somebody.

4. Remember tax day is April 15th and keep it holy...or else!

5. Honor your mom and dad...unless they are some kind of right-wing, wacko religious nuts or something.  Really, they don't always understand what is best...it takes a governmentally-sanctioned village to raise a child and properly indoctrinate...er, I mean...educate them these days.

6. You shall not kill...unless there's an inconvenient pregnancy involved. 

7. You shouldn't commit adultery...I mean, it's not nice...but hey, we're all human, right?  Consenting adults?  What can we do...we have our needs.  Just try to be a little discrete, huh?

8.You shall not steal!  Your government hates the competition. 

9. Don't bear false witness against your neighbor...unless they are some rich, spoiled lacrosse players, or some political rivals we don't like.

10. Don't covet your neighbor's wife...or stuff.  If he is unfairly taking more than his share of the goodies, we'll tax him out of existence...we got your back!


But, Mr. Government Official, what is the greatest commandment? 

Just remember this: Do what we say...when we say it...and nobody gets hurt.  All the other stuff is pretty much summed up by this commandment.

The Destruction of America

In the 1980s, Soviet defector and ex-KGB agent, Yuri Brezmenov warned of calculated and on-going subversive activities designed to destroy America.  This is just as former Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev told us they would do.

“We will take America without firing a shot...We will BURY YOU! We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism. We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.”

Brezmenov estimated that only "about 15% of time, money and manpower" was spent by the KGB on intelligence activities.  The bulk of their effort was spent on what was called "ideological subversion or active measures."  This was an attempt to "change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that, despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country."  Sounds like that would meet Kruschev's goals, doesn't it?

These "active measures" were designed as a slow, long-term process that was to be carried out in four major phases:

1. Demoralization - a 15 - 20 year process.  The minimum amount of time to educate one generation of Americans in Marxist/Leninist ideals.
2. Destabilation - 2-5 years. This phase attacks the economy, foreign relations, and defense systems.
3. Crisis - as little as 4-6 weeks. 
4. Normalization - A term used by the Soviets to describe the heavy-handed tactics the government would use to recover from crisis.

Brezmenov's opinion at the time was that "The Demoralization process in the United States is basically complete already."  He said that Marxist/Leninism ideology had been "pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students...without being challenged or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism."

"The result, the result you can see.  Most of the people who graduated in the sixties, drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, educational systems.  You are stuck with them.  You can't get rid of them.  They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern.  You cannot change their mind, even if you expose them to authentic information."

In this country, we have a long history of ignoring our enemies...even when they tell us what they are going to do in advance.  When Hitler announced his plans to carry out his "final solution" and annex Austria, Poland and other parts of Europe, we didn't believe him.  That wacky Adolph...such a kidder.  Peace in our time...Peace in our time.  We ignored, as we have seen, Kruschev's bold proclamations.  And today, we choose to ignore the Islamists when they tell us that they will wipe Israel from the face of the map and destroy America....LOL...what a crazy bunch of jokers.  What is even more disturbing than those who ignore these threats, is those in government, media and academia who try to actively deny or negate the threat.

Though the Soviet Union was unable to see the complete fruition of their decades-long "active measures," they certainly softened us up.  We are at such a state of politically-correct paralysis that we cannot even come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending our country.  We harass and a assault children and old ladies in airport security lines...but we best not look askant at a Muslim or person of Middle-Eastern decent.  In the spirit of cooperation and fairness, we reach out to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, regardless of years and years of evidence of their murderous intentions, while telling Israel that they should contract their borders to pre-1967 lines...even if they can't properly defend themselves.  Those silly Iranians, Palestinians, Syrians, etc., they don't really mean any harm.  And now we embrace the so-called Arab Spring movement...a movement specifically designed to exploit our weak-minded political correctness.


Brezmenov's warning then is still applicable for today: "If people will fail to grasp the impending danger of that development, nothing ever can help the United States.  You may kiss goodbye to your freedoms...including freedoms to homosexuals, to prison inmates.  All this freedom will vanish in five seconds."

Watch Brezmenov in his own words below:

Part 1: 






Part 2:

The End of the World and Other Non-Disasters

We have recently been treated to a media circus surrounding the doomsday predictions of an 89-year-old wacko preacher, Harold Camping.  Camping predicted that the world would end on May 21, 2011 at 6:00 PM...That's six o'clock in what ever time zone you happen to live...you see it was going to start in Fiji and work its way around the globe hour by hour.  The fact that he was wrong when he predicted the end of the world in 1994, or was wrong this time, doesn't seem to deter him from claiming that his math was just a little off.  The new doomsday is now set for October..mark your calendars.

All but a few of his faithful followers knew Camping was a crackpot.  I mean, come on...everyone knows the world is not going to explode until the end of 2012.  The Mayans told us that...geez.  But while we have all had fun at the expense of  the poor, deluded old preacher Camping...well, maybe not so poor since millions of dollars in donations poured in...we continue to give credence to other doomsday crackpots.  Take for example the horrible predictions surrounding last years Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  Why this was to be the mother of all disasters.  Life as we know it in the whole Gulf region would be gravely changed for decades, and decades.  This was just the proof the environmentalists needed to show once-and-for-all that big oil meant big trouble for planet earth.  Why we may never recover from the tens-of-millions of barrels of crude oil spilled into the waters of the Gulf...we will be lucky if the whole ocean doesn't die from this.

Well, just as with crazy ol' Camping, these prophets of disaster were wrong...spectacularly wrong.  As Humberto Fontova reports in the Washington Times, the would-be devastation...never was.  Just a short three months after the spill, marine scientist Ivor van Heerden said, "There’s just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster...we’re not seeing catastrophic impacts. There’s a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it.”  Take the time to read the article, its worth it.

At the beginning of the spill, I tried to tell my Facebook friends that, while this was not a good thing, the earth has a tremendous ability to "heal itself" of these sorts of impacts.  The vastness of the oceans, I said, would disperse the oil.  I pointed out that oil is a natural product of the earth's processes and that it seeps out, unaided by man, all the time.  I reminded them of similar predictions in the past and how wrong they had been: 

• The Exxon Valdez site was almost as if nothing ever happened in a year or two.
• The Alaska pipeline not only didn't kill off the wildlife, but actually helped increase the caribou population.
• The late Carl Sagan's predictions in 1990 that if Saddam Hussein set the oil wells on fire we could see a miniature nuclear winter.  The oil wells burned and...well...Sagan was wrong.
• In the early 1970s the environmentalists were predicting a coming ice age...now "the planet has a fever."

And on, and on , and on.  I predicted that within a year, we wouldn't hardly be able to see the impact.  I was wrong...it was much quicker than that.

These prognosticators of peril never seem to be correct...and yet, we continue to listen to them.  We laugh at the followers of preacher Camping and castigate them as a bunch of rubes...but we allow the enviro-vangelists to set our national energy policies and determine allowable uses of our land.  Both Camping and the enviro-wackos have long track records of being wrong, which begs the question, who are the real rubes?

When will we see these charlatans for what they are?  When will we treat them with the same humorous disdain that we reserve for the likes of Camping?  Wrong is wrong.  At least Camping only had limited ability to bilk people of their money.  The environmental lobby has almost unlimited power through their hold on government.

Politics in the Land of Make Believe

An unfortunate fact of life, especially in this world of 24 hour media is that people are drawn to things that entertain and make them feel better.  And it seems that the culture in general are less and less able to distinguish between fact and fiction...reality and make believe.  And this goes across all all areas of life from home to work to politics.  It is sad, but it is the truth.

The video below from ZONATION points out that in the current culture, while conservatives "live in reality, Liberals live in a world of make believe...that's why they are so good at it."  He also says, "Liberals are able to make compelling points because they have to be creative to sell their B.S...Lying takes creativity by default.  A lie, in itself, is an exercise  in creativity...Telling the truth is not a creative process.  That's why its so hard to make the truth entertaining."  He warns conservatives that they had "better start tapping into the creative side to promote the truth."

Here's an entertaining, but sad, coverage of the topic.

Pigford - "Government Run Amok"

For those who think there is no fat in the Federal budget that could possibly be cut, allow me to introduce you to Pigford.  Not Eva Pigford...the beautiful actress...but the case of Pigford v. Glickman.  Pigford, as it is simply referred to, was a class-action suit filed by Timothy Pigford against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on behalf of 400 other black farmers who alleged discrimination in farm lending.

As Andrew Breitbart of BigGovernment.com reports, "There seems to be considerable evidence that some black farmers were denied access to timely loans and generally received unfavorable treatment by some USDA employees."  While the USDA did not admit to doing anything wrong, they did make some changes to their procedures and directed the Civil Right's Action Team (CRAT) to investigate.  "CRAT issued a thick report confirming that black farmers had been denied equal access to credit"

The case was adjudicated in favor of the farmers. Qualifying farmers could either "be paid $50,000 tax- free and would possibly have their government loans erased." or, through hearings "before a court-appointed independent arbitrator to seek larger damages."   But, that was just the beginning, the fraud and corruption had just begun.  As Breitbart explains:

"The original estimate on both sides of the lawsuit was that the number of claimants would total between 1,000-4,000. But what started out, as a relatively small case of perhaps 4,000 claimants at most, is today a multi-billion dollar settlement with over 94,000 claimants.  What makes that figure so problematic is that during the years the alleged racial discrimination took place (1981-1996), there were never more than 33,000 black farmers total in the entire United States according to the census bureau." 

FBI investigations estimated that at least half of the claims against Pigford were false...before the investigation was shut down.  There were aplicants who lived in suburbs and urban areas, who never farmed in their lives.  One USDA whistle blower reported that "“Pigford was basically legalized extortion. It reached the point where they were just handing money to people."  "The legal standard was supposed to be a preponderance of evidence,” says another employee, “but soon they pretty much gave money to whoever filled out a form.” 

Pigford began to be seen by activists and some in government as deserved reparations to blacks for the past sin of slavery, which has long been a goal of black activists.  Gary Grant, President of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association said, “If you are an African-American, you deserve $50,000 because your roots are in farming and your folks have already been cheated.  You are collecting what your grandparents didn’t have the opportunity to.”   These activist groups used the Pigford case as litmus test for political support.  As long as candidates promised to keep the gravy train running with continued Pigford payouts, the groups will deliver the votes.

Since not enough people were able to get in on Pigford, Congress is working on Pigford II, sponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama.  This incarnation offers up $1.25 billion in taxpayer money.  It also opens the door to claims by Hispanics, Native Americans and women to get their peice of the pie...seems we're all farmers now.

While the Crew of 42 blog on black members of the 112th congress decries the so-called raising of the bar for payouts to black applicants, they never really deny that there is fraud.  In fact, they quote Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) concerning changes made to Pigford II to raise the eligibility bar saying, “There’s fraud in everything the government does. There’s just not gonna be as much fraud.”  Well, I feel better, how about you?

There are many more details to this case.  Facts like the largest recipient of Pigford I was Shirley Sharrod, the USDA employee who was caught up in the NAACP racism charges and who was fired...then re-hired.  Her and her husband received over $13 million.  The next largest award was $675,000.  The fact that Obama has seemed to use this fraud as a pay-off for votes.  The fact that officials have seemed to turn a blind eye to the corruption, either through lack of political backbone...or for personal gain.  And then there is the hundreds of millions of dollars paid out to the attorneys. The details are still emerging.

As Breitbart concludes:

"This embezzlement of taxpayer money, possibly to the tune of billions of dollars, demands congressional attention. At the very least, it would seem prudent to have a congressional investigation into the very real possibility that over a billion dollars of taxpayer money is going to fraudulent claims into what ostensibly began as a legitimate grievance by a few thousand black farmers."

In the video below, Jimmy Dismuke, a real farmer and qualified recipient of Pigford I tells of  the fraud perpetrated  by attorneys in recruiting claimants for the class-action suit.



Additional information:
Me & Mrs. Sherrod — And The $1.25 Billion Pigford II Black Farmers’ Settlement

High Cost Government

Judge Andrew Napolitano speaks about the High Cost of Government Control in this country and the need to return to "first principles."

Budget Cuts Across the Board!

With all of the discussion about deficits, debt and government budgets, we see all of the usual suspects coming out of the woodwork to cry that you can't cut THEIR thing...THEIR thing is the most important of all.  Apparently, if we even cut 1% of the budget, terrible, terrible things will happen.  Children will starve to death, old people will be made homeless and all infrastructure and public safety services will fail..."real wrath of God type stuff. Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria"*

The facts are that, as seen in the chart to the left, the median household income in the U.S. has gone up 29% in inflation adjusted dollars since 1970, while Federal government spending has increased by 242%...with no end in sight. And we are supposed to believe that there is no fat at all in the Federal budget to be trimmed.  They need every penny of tax dollars they can get, and more.  Trust them, they say.  They only have your best interest in mind.

In a previous post, Why Feed the Pig, I lay out the reasons why it doesn't make sense to launder our tax money through Washington D.C.'s leviathan bureaucracy to fund our country's infrastructure.  They add no value to the process and use our own money to buy votes.  But there are many other examples of monumental fat and waste across the spectrum of government.  Dr. Thomas E Woods, Jr. documents many of these in his latest book, Rollback.

Let's look at one of the touchiest subject of all, welfare programs.  Even if you take as fact that everyone...or at least most everyone...on welfare today absolutely need and "deserve" it. The system itself is bloated and inefficient beyond repair.  As Dr. Woods points out:

"Another way to approach it is to recall that at least two-thirds of the money assigned to government welfare budgets is eaten up by bureaucracy.  Taken by itself, this would mean it would take three dollars in taxes for one dollar to reach the poor.  But we must add to this the well-founded estimate of James Payne that the combined public and private costs of taxation amount to 65 cents of every dollar taxed.  When we include this factor, we find the cost of government delivery of one dollar to the poor to be five dollars."

Is this an efficient...or even sane ...use of your tax dollars?  Where there is such a huge amount of bureaucratic overhead, there is fat to be cut.  But, you see, that fat represents a block of people who's product and trade is to put people on and maintain welfare programs.  To protect themselves, they perpetuate the myth that any money cut would directly remove food from the mouths of the poor, health care from the elderly, and safety from the children.  This is all about maintaining the status quo.  "We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!"**

This does not even deal with the fraud and misuse of the systems or whether all of this welfare spending even provides us with what it promises.  Ask yourself if poverty and crime rates are better or worse as a result of all of the so-called Great Society programs.  The answer is that things, by all objective measures have gotten worse, not better.  Don't we have a right to expect that our taxes are being used in an effective manner?  Dr. Woods offers another insightful point on this issue:

"What if poverty, crime and social dysfunction had been very high before the Great Society programs were instituted and then were dramatically reduced?  Can we doubt that its advocates would have attributed the decline in these features of inner-city to the government's wise new programs?  Yet when things work the other way, and the inner-cities become almost unlivable after these programs were introduced, we're hastily assured that the one has absolutely nothing to do with the other."

But what about Education?  Surely there is no fat to be cut here!  It is all for the children, after all.  Well, here again, the truth is different from what those who would protect their fiefdoms would tell you.  Just ask yourself if it is a necessity for high schools to have AstroTurf on their football fields or computerized white boards in their class rooms?  Boards not even found in my son's computer engineering classes at  the university.  But any talk of cuts in education inevitably leads to claims that teachers will be fired and quality of education will fall.

So, as with the welfare issue, let's examine the relationship of educational spending to quality of education, as measured by test scores.  If  an increase in spending would correlate to better test scores, the Educrats (educational bureaucrats) may have a case.  But in fact, it seems, according to statistics from the National Center for Education Statistics, as compiled into the chart above by the Cato Institute, increased spending has no distinguishable effect on test scores.  From the data represented by this chart, a case could reasonably be made that we could cut inflation-adjusted spending back to the level of 1970 without negatively affecting test scores.

Again Dr. Woods points out that while education spending has skyrocketed, "in 2003, the federal government found only 13 percent of Americans at or above age sixteen to be proficient in reading prose, following written directions, and carrying out quantitative tasks."  Is this an acceptable return on your education dollars?

And how about one for the "Far Right?"  Military spending.  No patriotic American could suggest that we can or should cut military spending, right?  Surely if we cut defense spending our brave and deserving warriors and their families will go without food and basic necessities.  At least this is what the leaders of the, as Dwight D. Eisenhower called it, military-industrial complex would have you believe.

A big problem with assessing fat in military spending is that the Department of Defense is not subject to audit.  That fact alone should raise huge red flags.  A department of the government responsible for approximately 20% of the federal budget with no audits; no chance of abuse there, huh?  Add to this the manner in which Defense Department procurement is carried out through cost-plus and fixed-fee contracts, rather than sealed bids like most of the rest of the rest of the country operates and you get an environment primed for gross inefficiencies at best and massive fraud at worst.

These issues are not Republican issues or Democrat issues.  They have come about and been defended by the actions of both parties.  It is issues like these, and many others, that have lead to incredibly bloated and feckless juggernaut we call government.  There are no departments, no bureaus, no offices of government that do not have considerable fat that can be cut...and without adversely affecting their stated missions.

The problems of our economy, the deficits and crushing debt, are far to large and intricate for our politicians to sort through with a fine tooth comb.  They are also too fraught with political pit falls.  But, it is up to our representatives to solve the problems.  So what should they do?

I believe that the only workable solution is to make cuts, by a given percentage, across the board...all budgets.  Congress should mandate that the heads of each governmental department come up with plans to cut their budget by the proscribed amount.  This mandate would come with the direction that no vital services will be cut.  There is to be no "playing politics."  The bureaucrats should be put on notice that this is a mandate from the people and failure to make the cuts in an appropriate way will mean that heads will roll...starting at the very top.  This method will take control back from the bureaucrats and avoid the appearance of any political favoritism.  Republicans and Democrats could come together in a bi-partisan manner and proclaim the real dangers we face if the cuts are not made.

I think that as a first step, the budget could be cut by 20%.  After this, Congress could begin to look for whole departments that could be eliminated.  The Department of Education, which has only been around since 1979, adds little or no value in actually providing education to our children.  As we have seen above, they have also not been a positive influence on test scores.  Department of Energy?  What good has that done?  Soaring oil prices and no viable alternative sources of energy.  Well, you get the point.

All of these bureaucracies claim that they could indeed do what they are tasked with...if only they had more money...and control.  Well, they have had more than 40 years to try.  I say times up and remind you of Einstein's definition of insanity: "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

One more quote from Rollback.  This one brings home the ridiculousness of our current situation:

"Every year $250 billion is borrowed from China so the U.S. government can play superpower. (Paul Craig Roberts, assistant secretary of the Treasury under Ronald Reagan was more blunt: 'A country whose financial affairs are in the hands of foreigners is not a superpower.')"

* from the movie Ghost Busters (1984)
** from the movie Blazing Saddles (1974)

Osama Bin Laden: Dead

Bye bye, bin Laden

Osama bin Laden, head of the al Qaeda terrorist network, is dead.  GOOD! We should be happy that the man responsible for the death of thousands of innocent people through directing cowardly acts of terrorism has been killed.  We should be thankful for the dedication of the hundreds of people in our military and intelligence organizations...for the skill of our Navy SEAL warriors who took him down. 

Last night in President Obama's speech, he said, "Over the last 10 years, thanks to the tireless and heroic work of our military and our counterterrorism professionals, we've made great strides in that effort. We've disrupted terrorist attacks and strengthened our homeland defense. In Afghanistan, we removed the Taliban government, which had given bin Laden and al Qaeda safe haven and support. And around the globe, we worked with our friends and allies to capture or kill scores of al Qaeda terrorists, including several who were a part of the 9/11 plot."

But, then, he would have you think that nothing really happened until HE got there: 

"And so shortly after taking office, I directed Leon Panetta, the director of the CIA, to make the killing or capture of bin Laden the top priority of our war against al Qaeda.. I was briefed on a possible lead to bin Laden...I met repeatedly with my national security team...And finally, last week, I determined that we had enough intelligence to take action, and authorized an operation to get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice."  And on it went. "I've made clear, just as President Bush did...Over the years, I've repeatedly made clear that we would take action...These efforts weigh on me every time I, as Commander-in-Chief..."

He did spend two short paragraphs thanking and recognizing the "countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals who've worked tirelessly to achieve this outcome."  And also "the men who carried out this operation, for they exemplify the professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve our country" who he said have "borne the heaviest share of the burden since that September day."

Truth be told, Obama had little or nothing to do with this victory.  It has been a long 10 year slog by the intelligence, counterterroism, and military personnel.  Obama just happened to be in office at the time.  So while he is quick to blame all of his problems on his predecessor, George W. Bush, he seems more than willing to assign himself credit for something that was in the works through most of the Bush administration.  But, I guess this is not much different than what many politicians do...and that's the problem.  We need Leaders, not politicians.

I do agree with parts of his speech, especially when he said. "The cause of securing our country is not complete."  Bin Laden is dead!  Good.  But he is just one man...an important man to the cause of radical Islam, no doubt...but, one man only.  So while I'm happy that this murderer is gone, I worry that, to his followers it will be a martyr's death with a martyr's cause.