If you're keeping score at home, here are some of the biggest boondoggles with the price tags attached:

"Continuing Resolution" legislation to fund existing federal programs at $410 billion -- an 8.7% increase in spending over the last year which is the biggest increase on domestic spending since the Carter Administration. Currently being debated this week and next.

Obama/Pelosi Housing Bailout at $275 billion.

Bank Bailout at estimated $1 trillion. Details of this new Bank Bailout are still fuzzy but there is no argument that the numbers are huge.

Nationalized Health Care proposal is to be announced this Thursday. The President is saying his "health care reform…will not wait another year." You should know what that means. Hundreds of billions more of your money and less individual health care choice for you.

So far, the Obama/Pelosi agenda has been ALL spending while taking our nation to historic debt levels. Last night, we saw the first big Obama/Pelosi tax increase. And it is genuinely massive -- try $1.2 trillion over the next decade on what else, ENERGY - the one sector of the economy where prices are lower (for the moment).

President Obama and Speaker Pelosi are now championing a "Cap and Trade" scheme that will ration energy while increasing taxes. A version of this proposal was introduced last year as the Warner/Lieberman Cap and Trade bill. Here are the key details from last year's legislation that are the basis for the Obama/Pelosi plan:

$1.2 TRILLION Tax Increase over 7 years on gasoline, home energy and really all energy in next decade. Source: Congressional Budget Office, April 10, 2008

This tax would cost the economy 3 to 4 million jobs according to an analysis by the American Council on Capital Formation

The average family would lose over $4,000 per year in purchasing power (and remember the Pelosi/Obama tax cut was only $800 per couple)

Gasoline prices would increase anywhere from 77 to 145 percent--that means prices of about $2 a gallon now would go up to $3.50 or even $5 a gallon.

In addition, the Washington Post has reported that President Obama's budget will also include income tax increases.

The numbers are staggering. But there is more. Under the Obama/Pelosi "Cap and Trade" scheme, for the first time the federal government will literally ration energy -- deciding how much energy should be available and at what cost to families and businesses. The impact on our families and economy will be disastrous.

Is this what you voted for?

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

--------------------------
Response by Fritz:

When added up, the new proposals which are pouring out of the White House at lightning speed, the totals are incomprehensible. Obama likes to say will be the only ones with tax increases will be those making over $250,000 per year. Even if those making over $250,000 per year, a shrinking group I assure you, gave up 100% of their income the new projects would not be funded.

Have you seen one proposal that would encourage new business formation? The idea that alternative energy is going to be the new business of the United States is not only short sighted, but sophomoric.

All of a sudden $700 billion here and $700 billion there is of no consequence. Those that say the Bush administration piled up enormous debt, should tighten their seat belts as this train is accelerating. The Iraq war has cost about $600-$800 billion over 6 years. The deficit for this year alone is projected at $1.75 trillion by the congressional budget office, and that is before the $410 billion the house and Senate has in their latest spending bill. There are trillion dollar deficits being spawned for years to come. Congress has criticized Americans for living beyond their means, with the use of home equity loans and credit cards. Their solution to the problem is to continue the process, however with government bonds and higher taxes.

This is insane.

« Close It

Income redistribution (redistribution of wealth) is a political policy promoted by liberals as part of their ideology, and understandably it is opposed by conservatives. The basic premise of the belief system underlying liberalism is that money (wealth) should be more equally distributed so that accumulated wealth benefits all members of society, regardless of who earned it, and that the rich should be obliged (forced) to assist the poor on the pretense that the income shifting mechanism benefits the whole of society.

Thus, earned money should be redistributed from the earner to those who have not earned it, creating a more financially egalitarian society. Politicians expect - no, demand public funds, your tax money to subsidize those who they have arbitrarily classified as somehow disadvantaged (in return for votes). The entitlement culture (egalitarianism) is saying you owe it to them.

Egalitarianism is a liberal moral doctrine imposed by force. It is an ideology that equality ought to prevail throughout society even if it is at the detrimental expense of many members of society, typically those in the top 50% of American wage earners (those with a joint income over $31,000 per year). The most common form of egalitarianism today espoused by liberals, of whom both political parties are rife, centers on the belief that government should engage in an unnatural communal approach to individual income.

"Who is supposed to be equal?"
"In what respect are they supposed to be equal?"
“At whose expense are they supposed to be equal?”

Apparently it isn’t enough that equality already exists in all endeavors of the American mind, hands and heart, only that those Americans who compete poorly believe they are wrongfully and/or “unfairly” materially disadvantaged and therefore should be subsidized by others in society.

• According to legal egalitarianism, everyone ought to be considered equal under the law.
• According to education egalitarianism, everyone ought to be provided an education.
• According to moral egalitarianism, each person is of equal moral worth.
• According to democratic egalitarianism, everyone ought to have an equal voice in public affairs.
• According to political egalitarianism, everyone ought to be equal in political power.
• According to opportunity egalitarianism everyone ought to be equal in economic opportunity.
• According to material egalitarianism, everyone ought to be equal with respect to material possessions.

With the exception of the last liberal epistle, American society is egalitarian. Few would dispute this as a fact except to be argumentative. The final premise regarding material and financial wealth is understandably the greatest source of consternation and debate. Those receiving have come to expect it. Those giving have come to resent it. The undeniable correlation is an inverse relationship between material egalitarianism and the American Economy, the latter peaking over 30 years ago. Material egalitarianism (redistribution) continues to grow unchecked, arguably beyond reason, and seemingly without limits.

Our founding documents provided all egalitarian equalities, short of income and education redistribution, which only began after income taxes became a national reality and Congress attempted to engineer social mores with the revenues. Until then education was viewed as the reward for seizing opportunity, regardless of an individual's material circumstances. All that need be provided was opportunity.

Often, liberal proponents of redistribution argue that the rich are somehow exploiting the poor, first by the rich educating themselves, then working, achieving and enriching themselves, and somehow gaining “unfair” benefits as if by deceit and avarice. Socialists, a synonym for liberals, contend redistributive practices are necessary in order to redress the imbalance. Today, even when opportunity is spurned by the recipients, as in education for example, all other forms of wealth are never-the-less liberally redistributed with life-time tenure.

If in fact all men were created equal, why are some still receiving welfare? Egalitarianism is nothing less than the liberal acknowledgment that nobody is created "equal," except arbuably in the eyes of the law in the United States of America. Egalitarianism is also a profound liberal acknowledgment that redistribution will be a wildly successful method in a representative society to obtain and hold on to power. Thoughtful reflection will convince anyone that redistribution benefits no one - except politicians. (See archived article: The End Times)

“Unfair” is the key word. Everything depends on the vantage point of the person using the word. In typical fashion, the person using the “unfair” word has either: (1) never had to compete for anything in their life and seeks equitable distribution of national assets without competition, or (2) is so poorly prepared to compete, often by presonal choice, that productive citizenship is not reasonably possible. Congress has seen fit to reward the latter’s stellar performance with lifetime tax-free annuities on behalf of the rest of us, members of what should be Team America.

From each according to his ability (education and work ethic and a host of other attributes), to each according to his need (lack of education, lack of work ethic, etc.). It is often lost on ideologues that education and work ethic are somewhat redundant and typically the result of personal choice.

You may not believe it today, but redistribution has only just begun. If the current Administration has not made you a believer, it is hard to imagine what could. Barack Obama maybe.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

It's the rest of the public that remains in the dark, which is why we're launching this special educational series.

"Economic justice" simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism. In the past, such rhetoric was just that — rhetoric. But Obama's positioning himself with alarming stealth to put that rhetoric into action on a scale not seen since the birth of the welfare state.

In his latest memoir he shares that he'd like to "recast" the welfare net that FDR and LBJ cast while rolling back what he derisively calls the "winner-take-all" market economy that Ronald Reagan reignited (with record gains in living standards for all).

Obama also talks about "restoring fairness to the economy," code for soaking the "rich" — a segment of society he fails to understand that includes mom-and-pop businesses filing individual tax returns.

It's clear from a close reading of his two books that he's a firm believer in class envy. He assumes the economy is a fixed pie, whereby the successful only get rich at the expense of the poor.

Following this discredited Marxist model, he believes government must step in and redistribute pieces of the pie. That requires massive transfers of wealth through government taxing and spending, a return to the entitlement days of old.

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.

Among his proposed "investments":

• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.
• "Free" college tuition.
• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).
• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").
• "Free" job training (even for criminals).
• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).
• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.
• More subsidized public housing.
• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."
• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't. That's just for starters — first-term stuff.

Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress.
But could he really be "more left," as McCain recently remarked, than self-described socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (for whom Obama has openly campaigned, even making a special trip to Vermont to rally voters)? Obama's voting record, going back to his days in the Illinois statehouse, says yes. His career path — and those who guided it — leads to the same unsettling conclusion.

The seeds of his far-left ideology were planted in his formative years as a teenager in Hawaii — and they were far more radical than any biography or profile in the media has portrayed. A careful reading of Obama's first memoir, "Dreams From My Father," reveals that his childhood mentor up to age 18 — a man he cryptically refers to as "Frank" — was none other than the late communist Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress opened investigations into his "subversive," "un-American activities."

As Obama was preparing to head off to college, he sat at Davis' feet in his Waikiki bungalow for nightly bull sessions. Davis plied his impressionable guest with liberal doses of whiskey and advice, including: Never trust the white establishment. "They'll train you so good," he said, "you'll start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that sh**."

After college, where he palled around with Marxist professors and took in socialist conferences "for inspiration," Obama followed in Davis' footsteps, becoming a "community organizer" in Chicago. His boss there was Gerald Kellman, whose identity Obama also tries to hide in his book. Turns out Kellman's a disciple of the late Saul "The Red" Alinsky, a hard-boiled Chicago socialist who wrote the "Rules for Radicals" and agitated for social revolution in America.

The Chicago-based Woods Fund provided Kellman with his original $25,000 to hire Obama. In turn, Obama would later serve on the Woods board with terrorist Bill Ayers of the Weather Underground. Ayers was one of Obama's early political supporters.

After three years agitating with marginal success for more welfare programs in South Side Chicago, Obama decided he would need to study law to "bring about real change" — on a large scale. While at Harvard Law School, he still found time to hone his organizing skills. For example, he spent eight days in Los Angeles taking a national training course taught by Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation. With his newly minted law degree, he returned to Chicago to reapply — as well as teach — Alinsky's "agitation" tactics.

(A video-streamed bio on Obama's Web site includes a photo of him teaching in a University of Chicago classroom. If you freeze the frame and look closely at the blackboard Obama is writing on, you can make out the words "Power Analysis" and "Relationships Built on Self Interest" — terms right out of Alinsky's rule book.)

Amid all this, Obama reunited with his late father's communist tribe in Kenya, the Luo, during trips to Africa. As a Nairobi bureaucrat, Barack Hussein Obama Sr., a Harvard-educated economist, grew to challenge the ruling pro-Western government for not being socialist enough. In an eight-page scholarly paper published in 1965, he argued for eliminating private farming and nationalizing businesses "owned by Asians and Europeans." His ideas for communist-style expropriation didn't stop there. He also proposed massive taxes on the rich to "redistribute our economic gains to the benefit of all."

"Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed," Obama Sr. wrote. "I do not see why the government cannot tax those who have more and syphon some of these revenues into savings which can be utilized in investment for future development." Taxes and "investment" . . . the fruit truly does not fall far from the vine.

(Voters might also be interested to know that Obama, the supposed straight shooter, does not once mention his father's communist leanings in an entire book dedicated to his memory.)

In Kenya's recent civil unrest, Obama privately phoned the leader of the opposition Luo tribe, Raila Odinga, to voice his support. Odinga is so committed to communism he named his oldest son after Fidel Castro.

With his African identity sewn up, Obama returned to Chicago and fell under the spell of an Afrocentric pastor. It was a natural attraction. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright preaches a Marxist version of Christianity called "black liberation theology" and has supported the communists in Cuba, Nicaragua and elsewhere. Obama joined Wright's militant church, pledging allegiance to a system of "black values" that demonizes white "middle classness" and other mainstream pursuits. (Obama in his first book, published in 1995, calls such values "sensible." There's no mention of them in his new book.)

With the large church behind him, Obama decided to run for political office, where he could organize for "change" more effectively. "As an elected official," he said, "I could bring church and community leaders together easier than I could as a community organizer or lawyer." He could also exercise real, top-down power, the kind that grass-roots activists lack. Alinsky would be proud. Throughout his career, Obama has worked closely with a network of stone-cold socialists and full-blown communists striving for "economic justice." He's been traveling in an orbit of collectivism that runs from Nairobi to Honolulu, and on through Chicago to Washington.

Yet a recent AP poll found that only 6% of Americans would describe Obama as "liberal," let alone socialist. Public opinion polls usually reflect media opinion, and the media by and large have portrayed Obama as a moderate "outsider" (the No. 1 term survey respondents associate him with) who will bring a "breath of fresh air" to Washington.

The few who have drilled down on his radical roots have tended to downplay or pooh-pooh them. Even skeptics have failed to connect the dots for fear of being called the dreaded "r" word. But too much is at stake in this election to continue mincing words.

Both a historic banking crisis and 1970s-style stagflation loom over the economy. Democrats, who already control Congress, now threaten to filibuster-proof the Senate in what could be a watershed election for them — at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. A perfect storm of statism is forming, and our economic freedoms are at serious risk. Those who care less about looking politically correct than preserving the free-market individualism that's made this country great have to start calling things by their proper name to avert long-term disaster.

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
July 28, 2008

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=302137342405551&kw=socialism

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Economic collapse is preferable to this deal. And I think we ought to call their bluff.

Just because the secretary of this and the chairman of that tell us that a global financial meltdown is just days away, that doesn’t make it so. These same people have been wrong about everything else they’ve predicted since this difficulty began. I personally don’t feel any obligation to believe their sky-is-falling routine.

And even if they’re right, I’d rather take the economic hit and work our way out of it than commit the sins against our Republic that are all through this immoral scheme.

And this is exactly that – immoral.

It is immoral to make working Americans pay for the failings and greed of individuals and companies on Wall Street. It is immoral to make responsible people clean up the mess of irresponsible people. It is immoral to put this vast amount of money and power into the hands of one man or one committee. It is immoral to impose textbook socialism on American finance and business without the consent and cooperation of the people. It is immoral to give to government sweeping powers that cannot in any way be justified by a resort to the Constitution. It is immoral to heap such debt on the government or the taxpayer. It is immoral to expect the American taxpayer to shoulder the cost of “saving” the world economy. It is immoral for such a massive governmental move to be made without extensive and deliberate public input and debate.

Put another way, the Wall Street people crapped the bed – let them sleep in it. Working people didn’t cause the problem and working people shouldn’t be expected to clean up the problem. People who pay their mortgage shouldn’t have to pick up the tab for people who don’t pay their mortgage.

And we shouldn’t abandon principle for expediency. Americans shouldn’t have to abandon their beliefs, the free market or their form of government because some business types got greedy and some government types got stupid.

If the American economy is so mis-structured that the collapse of some alphabet-soup companies puts it over the edge, then maybe it needs to go over the edge. If we’re that weak, maybe we should knock it down and start over.

We’ve gone through recessions before. We’ve gone through collapses before. We’ve been through economic hell in this country several times, but each one of those times – except, possibly, under FDR – we stuck by our Constitution and we stuck by our heritage. There’s no reason we ought to do any different this time.

And there’s no reason we ought to believe that government debt – the root cause of so many of our economic problems – is the solution to this problem. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and this cure is worse than the disease. To saddle our economy with this debt will have a long and terrible impact on American workers, taxpayers and businesses.

Far better to take our medicine now and get it over with. Better to weather the storm than to delay it and ultimately intensify it.

So I’m not going along anymore. The negatives outweigh the positives. I don’t trust these people when they predict dire outcomes, and I don’t believe that those dire outcomes – should they happen – are worse than what the fat cats are trying to shove down our throats.

Don’t sell out your principles for a mess of pottage. Don’t throw out the Constitution and capitalism because we’re in a tight spot. Stand like Americans, don’t capitulate like slaves. Men have fought and died for political and economic freedom, and Washington wants us to hand some of that back because of something we don’t understand on the evening news.

This bailout is a bad thing. It is a first cousin to slavery. And I’ve turned against it. I’m going to call my congressperson and my two senators and I’m going to ask them to vote against it.

by Bob Lonsberry

http://www.lonsberry.com/writings.cfm?story=2471

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Over at Political Affairs Magazine, a publication of the Communist Party USA, writer John Case is gloating. His article about the crisis is headlined, “A Dose of Socialism to Forestall Disaster.” He thinks that Paulson and Federal Reserve Board chairman Ben Bernanke have been reading the works of closet Marxists.

But none of this is secret. At a time when many pieces of legislation before Congress take up thousands of pages and do their best to hide pork barrel spending, Paulson’s three-page plan for Wall Street socialism is straightforward and simple. If passed by Congress, Paulson would assume the dictatorial power and authority to designate financial institutions “as financial agents of the Government” and order them to perform “all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Government as may be required of them…”

The bill gives Paulson automatic access to $700 billion and raises the limit on the public debt to $11.3 trillion. He gets the power to issue regulations, hire people, establish various financial “vehicles,” and take other “necessary actions.”

Conservative Senator Jim Bunning is brutally honest, saying that “…the free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America.” He said Paulson’s plan “will take away the free market and institute socialism in America. The American taxpayer has been misled throughout this economic crisis. The government on all fronts has failed the American people miserably.”

“After reviewing the Administration’s proposed bailout plan, I believe it is completely unacceptable,” said conservative Senator Jim DeMint. “This plan does nothing to address the misguided government policies that created this mess and it could make matters much worse by socializing an entire sector of the U.S. economy. This plan fails to oversee or regulate the government failures that led to this crisis. Instead it greatly increases the role for Secretary Paulson whose market predictions have been consistently wrong in the last year…”

Every newspaper in America should print a copy of his plan. Every news anchor and commentator should read it out loud to the American people. The American people have a right to know that President Bush and Congress are officially creating a socialist America.

Over at the “conservative” Fox News Channel, however, some commentators think this is just great. “I love it,” Fred Barnes of the “conservative” Weekly Standard said of the temporary market rise in response to the anticipated Paulson plan. “Look,” Barnes said, “when I keep hearing this is going to cost a trillion dollars, and so on, it may not cost anything.” The U.S. may “come out ahead” in the long run, he confidently predicted. He praised Paulson and Bernanke for acting “boldly.”

Another “conservative,” Charles Krauthammer, was almost giddy. “It took FDR a decade to put in place all the institutions of the New Deal,” he commented. “Paulson and Bernanke did it in ten hours. I mean, in one night, they created a whole new world.”

However, on the September 21 edition of Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace pointed out that Paulson has already been caught making reassuring but false statements about the crisis. In March, also on Fox News Sunday, Wallace had asked him, “Are more Wall Street firms in danger, at risk, of going under? Paulson replied, “I’ve got great confidence in our financial market, our financial institutions. Our markets are resilient. They’re flexible. Our institutions, our banks and investment banks, are strong.”

And this is the guy being entrusted with virtual dictatorial power over Wall Street? Rather than praise him for his intellect and ability, why aren’t Barnes and Krauthammer demanding that Bush fire him?

The liberal media are, of course, also trying to keep the American people in the dark about what is happening. The Washington Post deceptively calls it a “rescue plan.”

The “debate” taking place in Washington and the media is being carefully controlled. The Republican Bush Administration supports the plan and Congressional Democrats want to take it further. The Democrats want even more federal involvement in the firms that are being acquired. In other words, it is a question of how much socialism they want. The Democrats want more socialism; the Bush Republicans want slightly less. But it is still socialism.

There is a bipartisan note: both sides agree that there should be a new government board assigned to monitor America’s transition into a socialist economy.

Both major party presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, have not objected to the proposed federal takeover, although McCain has raised questions about giving Paulson too much power.
Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin, who has been endorsed by Rep. Ron Paul, is ripping the Democrats and the Republicans. “That deer in the headlights look on the faces of Obama/Biden/McCain/Palin when discussing this crisis should tell Americans everything they need to know about these candidates,” he said. “Not one of them is letting on they know what’s really happening, much less how to fix it!”

He said, “So far, the only solution being talked about is more of the same failed monetary policies that got us into this mess in the first place―more fake money, more debt, more usury. It is time to demand a return to sound money.”

On the House side, 31 members of the House of Representatives have voiced public objections in writing to going further down the socialist road. They are members of the Republican Study Committee (RSC), the Caucus of House Conservatives. They have sent a letter to Paulson and Bernanke.

Rep. Mike Pence, the former chairman of the RSC, said, “The Administration’s request amounts to the largest corporate bailout in American history. Congress should act, but should act in a way that protects the integrity of our free market and protects the American taxpayer from more debt and higher taxes. To have the freedom to succeed, we must preserve the freedom to fail. Any solution to our present crisis must preserve our essential economic freedom.”

“Government bailouts and takeovers are nothing new,” points out financial advisor Ric Edelman.

He cites the following: “In 1971, Richard Nixon rescued Lockheed by providing $250 million in loan guarantees. When the Penn Central Railroad failed in 1971, Nixon created Amtrak. Jimmy Carter gave $1.5 billion in loan guarantees to Chrysler in 1979. Under Ronald Reagan, the FDIC in 1984 spent $4.5 billion to rescue Continental Illinois, which still holds the record as the largest U.S. bank failure. Then, during the S&L crisis of the 1980s, George H. W. Bush approved the bailout of 747 savings and loans at a cost to taxpayers of $124.6 billion. In 1998, under Bill Clinton, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York bailed out Long Term Capital Management at a cost of $3.6 billion. During the Mexican Peso Crisis, Clinton arranged for loans and guarantees to Mexico totaling almost $50 billion. Then, following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, George W. Bush approved $15 billion in subsidies and loan guarantees to aid the faltering airline industry. This year, the Federal Reserve approved a $30 billion credit line to help JP Morgan Chase acquire Bear Stearns and engineered takeovers of Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae and AIG. The names, dates and amounts are different, but that’s about it.”

In fact, however, the massive scope and price tag make the Paulson plan far different.

Meanwhile, some “progressive” economists and writers are urging the Democrats in Congress to take the plan much further by implementing the first phase of a global tax.

James Parrott of the Fiscal Policy Institute says that Washington needs to establish a “new regulatory regime that covers all financial institutions (including hedge funds), controls risk and introduces a tax on financial transactions to help repay U.S. taxpayers for coming to the industry’s rescue.” A tax on financial transactions, which would affect stocks and mutual funds, could be part of a global “Tobin Tax,” named after the late Yale University economist James Tobin, to bring in billions and even trillions of dollars a year to national governments and international institutions such as the United Nations. Such a plan has usually been marketed as a way to diminish “global financial instability.”

Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research says that “The government should impose a modest financial transactions tax, comparable to the one in the United Kingdom. This can both restrain excessive trading and raise more than $100 billion a year in revenue.”

One cannot exclude the possibility of such a proposal being slipped into the final legislation. It is being reported that Senator Christopher Dodd, Democratic chairman of the Banking Committee, has been circulating a 44-page version of the bill. But Dodd’s Banking Committee website only has a three-page summary. What is in the rest of the proposal?

The next few days are critical. The American people can stop this rush into socialism, if only the liberal and conservative media start telling the truth about the socialist “new world” into which we are about to enter.

AIM Column
By Cliff Kincaid
September 23, 2008

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/socialism-is-coming-to-america/

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

---------------------
Response by Suzanne:

I've just finished reading this and I am ready to go puke!

---------------------
Response by Len Salonsky:

From my vantage point, the American people have been enabling the turn towards socialism for decades by their complacency and by their almost universal demand for entitlement increases whose implementation lie outside the principles and codification of the US Constitution. Unscrupulous politicians (perhaps the majority) are glad to accommodate any end-run around the Constitution if such an act will bring them a majority of votes.

The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism, but under the name of Liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened. ~ Norman Thomas - Socialist Party Presidential candidate (1976)

No republic has long outlived the discovery by a majority of its people that they could vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. ~ Alexander Tyler

In general, the art of government consists in taking as much money as possible from one party of citizens to give to the other. ~ Voltaire (1764)

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of many by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away mans initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves. ~ Abraham Lincoln

There are severe limits to the good that the government can do for the economy, but there are almost no limits to the harm it can do. ~ Milton Friedman, Nobel laureate

« Close It

LAMB: We started a number of weeks ago trying to get you to come talk to us, and you were on vacation. And you live six months of the year in Colorado. So, it was – I guess it was perfect for you to be here the week of the takeover.

WALLISON: Oh, yes. This has been quite a week.

LAMB: Where are you personally coming from? Where do you reside, and what have you done in your past?

WALLISON: Well, I’ve been in the government a fair amount. I’ve never run for office, but I’ve helped people who are running for office. And then, in Republican administrations, I’ve had some roles. I’m a lawyer – graduate of a law school, and then I practiced law for many years. But during that time …

LAMB: Harvard Law.

WALLISON: Harvard Law School. And during that time, I came in and out of government. I was a counsel to Nelson Rockefeller. I’m a New Yorker, actually, by birth. And so, I got to know Nelson Rockefeller. I became his counsel when he was vice president. And then in the Reagan administration, I was the general counsel of the Treasury Department. And finally, when Don Regan went over to become chief of staff in the Reagan White House, I went over about a year later – left my practice once more – and became a White House counsel for Ronald Reagan. So, I’ve had a fair amount of government experience and a lot of financial experience in the government. That’s one of the things that gave me a real interest in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

LAMB: When did you start getting interested?

WALLISON: Well, when I was at the Treasury Department. They were – Fannie Mae was a fairly significant company in the early 1980s, when I was at Treasury. And even then, it occurred to me that this was an accident waiting to happen. They were in a – they had a business model that seemed to me to be unworkable, and one that would eventually cause a lot of problems. I wasn’t able to do anything at Treasury at the time. We were too busy with many of the problems, including the S&L collapse. But what I did remember when I left Treasury was that this is a subject that I’d like to return to at some time in the future. And fortunately, when I had an opportunity to go to AEI, I was able then to start looking more seriously at Fannie and start investigating a little bit more exactly how they were doing and whether my thoughts about what was going to happen to them were likely to come true.

LAMB: The statement by Ralph Nader had the word G – or the letters – GSE in it. I want to run a clip, just a very brief clip, of Henry Paulson, the secretary of the Treasury, last Sunday, at 11 o’clock in the morning, when he announced the takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HENRY PAULSON, U.S. TREASURY SECRETARY: These preferred stock purchases agreements were made necessary by the ambiguities in the GSE congressional charters, which have been perceived to indicate government support for agency debt and guaranteed MBS. Our nation has tolerated these ambiguities for too long. And as a result, GSE debt and MBS are held by central banks and investors throughout the United States and around the world, who believe them to be virtually risk-free. Because the U.S. government created these ambiguities, we have a responsibility to both avert and ultimately address the systemic risk now posed by the scale and breadth of the holdings of GSE debt and MBS.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

LAMB: OK. Break it down. What is MBS?

WALLISON: Mortgage-backed securities.

LAMB: What does that mean?

WALLISON: Well, what happens, one of the ways that Fannie and Freddie operate is to create pools of mortgages. And then they sell securities that are backed by those pools of mortgages. That’s how you get a mortgage-backed security.

LAMB: OK. Let me stop you for a second. I buy a house. I go to a bank, or the realtor gets me a mortgage. And I agree to pay, let’s just say $400,000 for a mortgage. What happens to that mortgage?

WALLISON: Well, if the mortgage gets to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac, it’s put into a pool with a lot of other mortgages. That’s not the only thing they do. They have another way of doing this, but let me deal with the mortgage-backed security issue first. It’s put into a pool with a lot of other mortgages. Some of them are larger, some of them smaller, but thousands of them, all in the same pool. Then, securities are sold, backed by that pool. And the securities say we will pay you what we receive from the mortgages in the pool – your share of what we receive from the mortgages in the pool. And if we don’t – if the mortgages in the pool don’t perform as we anticipate they will perform, we will pay you anyway. In other words, we guarantee a certain return out of this pool. That’s what a Fannie or Freddie mortgage-backed security entails. Now, the reason you are able to get your $400,000 mortgage from some bank that is the lender, is that they know they can sell your mortgage to Fannie, which will buy the mortgage and put it into the pool, and then reimburse itself by selling mortgage-backed securities to investors.

LAMB: So, as an individual, could I turn right around and then buy securities with Fannie’s name on them?

WALLISON: Absolutely.

LAMB: Preferred or common? And what’s the difference?

WALLISON: No. It’s not that kind of security. It’s called a mortgage-backed security. And what it would say is, this security represents a one-millionth share of a certain pool of mortgages that we have created. And if we don’t pay you the specified amount to come out of this pool, then you have us backing the pool.

LAMB: So, if I had bought a security – and where would I buy that? Through a …

WALLISON: Through a broker.

LAMB: … broker?

WALLISON: Sure.

LAMB: And I owned it right now, and the government just took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, do I still have the security backed?

WALLISON: Oh, sure. S ecurity is absolutely solid. And that’s one of the reasons why the government had to take over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, because so many individuals and mostly financial institutions around the world hold exactly those kinds of securities.

LAMB: How much of those securities do the Chinese own?

WALLISON: Oh, I don’t know the number, but it would be very large, probably running into maybe the hundreds of billions of dollars.

LAMB: Japanese, same thing?

WALLISON: Very large. Yes. Most central banks own these kinds of securities. And not only the mortgage-backed securities, but they buy direct borrowings by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, that they use – that is, the two GSEs, government-sponsored enterprises – use to buy and hold mortgages themselves. They don’t securitize all their mortgages. They hold a certain number of those mortgages, amounting now to about $1.5 trillion, in their own portfolios. That is, in fact, the most profitable way that they operate. The mortgage-backed securities is not a very profitable business. It’s a much less risky business. And as a result, it’s not as profitable. But when they really want to make profits, they buy and hold the mortgages themselves, because what is being paid on the mortgages is a lot more than they have to pay for the money they borrow in order to buy those mortgages.

LAMB: OK. What is a GSE, a government-sponsored enterprise?

WALLISON: Government-sponsored enterprise.

LAMB: And when was the first one started?

WALLISON: Fannie Mae was created in 1968 from an existing organization called Fannie Mae, which was started during the New Deal, and was an actual government agency. The trouble is that, by 1968, when we were in the middle of the Vietnam War, we were running deficits. And …

LAMB: In our general government.

WALLISON: In the general government. And the Johnson administration realized that the way Fannie Mae was growing, it was causing these deficits, because it was putting out a lot more cash than it was taking in any year, as it grew and bought more and more mortgages. So, they decided one of the ways to reduce this deficit was to get Fannie Mae off the government’s books, which they did by selling shares to the public in Fannie Mae, and turning it into a quasi-public company – with private shareholders, but at the same time, a kind of implicit government guarantee, because they were allowed to keep a number of ties to the U.S. government. So, since that time, the capital markets have believed that the government would back Fannie Mae, and ultimately, Freddie Mac, which was created a few years later, in case they got into any difficulty. And that’s why they’ve never had any trouble raising funds, because there was always the thought in the markets that the government would back them if they got into any trouble. They denied this for many years. They said, no, no, no. There’s no doubt that we are independent of the government. The government has no responsibility for us. Their supporters in Congress said exactly the same thing. But now we realize that the markets were right all along. And as soon as they got into trouble, the government stepped in and saved them.

LAMB: I want to jump in this process, because I found this on the Web, again from Ralph Nader. And it’s – he wrote a letter to Christopher Cox, who runs the Securities and Exchange Commission, about a lot of things, and including why do the people who run Fannie Mae – and there’s also Freddie Mac in this – but Fannie Mae make so much money? And the time period was the years 1998 to 2003. I’m just going to go down the list. Franklin Raines, at the time, the CEO, compensation from 1998 to 2003 was $90 million. Portion derived from components tied to attaining EPS goals – earnings per share goals, I assume – $52 million. Timothy Howard, compensation the same time period, $30 million. He was, I believe, the chief financial officer.

WALLISON: Yes, CFO.

LAMB: Jaime Gorelick, who we saw a lot of during the 9/11 Commission, she was the Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae, took away $26 million in those years, ’98 to 2003. And that her portion derived from components tied to attaining her earnings per share goals was $14 million. And then, Daniel Mudd, who was just let go as the CEO, during that time period – we’ll come back to him in a moment, because there was a lot more money since 2003 – took out $26 million. Now, how is it – I’m just asking you as a citizen. How is it that this government would have an organization that was solely government, and then created – Lyndon Johnson created a private company – quasi-private company …

WALLISON: Right.

LAMB: … with 18 board members …

WALLISON: Right.

LAMB: … and five board members from him …

WALLISON: Right.

LAMB: … and then subsequent presidents …

WALLISON: Right.

LAMB: … would let this kind of money be taken out of this organization? How did that happen?

WALLISON: Well, they are private companies, after all. If they have private shareholders, their obligation is to make sure that their shareholders earn profits. And to the extent that they were successful doing that, they would claim, like any other CEO, or any other major officer of a private company, that they’re entitled to the compensation that they were receiving. The problem with that argument is that they were helped substantially by the backing of the taxpayers of the United States. And so, one would think that anyone who realized he or she was getting that kind of backing would be less demanding in the compensation that they wanted. Unfortunately, they didn’t behave that way. They behaved as though they were entitled to all this compensation, when their jobs were made very easy by the fact that the government was seen by the markets as backing them up.

LAMB: Was the original decision on Lyndon Johnson’s part cynical?

WALLISON: You know in Washington, it’s very hard to say what is cynical. This is called smoke and mirrors, I think. It was – the idea was to get Fannie and Freddie – well, get Fannie, at that point, off the books of the government. If they had done it completely, if they had said, you won’t have a congressional charter, what you will have is a charter from, say, the State of Delaware, and you won’t have any line of credit to the Treasury Department, as they initially had, and we won’t say it’s possible for banks to invest in an unlimited manner in your securities, take away many of the benefits that Fannie and Freddie were given at the time they were privatized – then, it would have been a perfectly reasonable thing to do. That would have been a real privatization. Unfortunately, they only did a quasi-privatization, where they allowed the markets to believe that over time, if it was necessary, the government would step in and back them.

LAMB: Well, as you know an awful lot of political people in this town were put on the boards over the years. But I found this – and I’m going to go over a list in one of your books – but I found these couple of paragraphs in a ”New York Times” today. We’re recording this on Tuesday before the Sunday night airing.

”Mr. Bush has never been a fan of the government’s involvement in the mortgage markets. He has long viewed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as ’ticking time bombs,’ said his former chief economist adviser, Al Hubbard. As far back as 2002, he began arguing for greater regulatory control over the companies, but was thwarted by Republicans who controlled Congress. Democrats eventually granted the authority, which provided the legal underpinning for the takeover announced on Sunday.”

”Mr. Bush was so disapproving of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Mr. Hubbard said, that beginning early in his administration, he refused to appoint members to their boards. ’That is very significant,’ Mr. Hubbard said. ’No president has ever done that.’ But he said, ’We’re not going to put people on the boards of these institutions that are these huge, systemic financial risks to the economy.’”

Now we call it OFHEO.

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: Which is a long way of saying …

WALLISON: Their regulator.

LAMB: … a regulator of this. I mean, it’s interesting that these are supposed to be private organizations, but regulated by outsiders.

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: So, we just asked that simple question. ”Can you tell us what’s the regulation? What’s the fact today about presidents you know naming people to the board?” And they said ”You have to write us a letter.” And we said, ”We’d like an answer quickly.” And they said, ”How quickly?” I said, ”We’d like it today or tomorrow.” And we never have gotten an answer from them.

WALLISON: Is that right?

LAMB: Yes. But I just bring that up, because when you wade into this, you look at this fact right here, that he has not appointed …

WALLISON: That’s right.

LAMB: … board members, can you explain that?

WALLISON: Sure.

LAMB: And is the president on the side of right as far as you’re concerned?

WALLISON: Yes. Absolutely. I was for this. I was for a number of things the president was proposing, and still am. But the point he was trying to make, I think – I think Al Hubbard’s got one part of it right. But I think what the White House was trying to do was to separate the government from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the extent possible. The way this thing was set up by Lyndon Johnson and his administration, was to have a real quasi-government agency, in which the president appointed five members of the board, and the shareholders elected the remaining 13. And so, that reflected a certain involvement of the government in their business. And that – I think the White House thought – encouraged the markets to believe that, if they went belly up at some point, the government would step in. So, I think what the president was trying to do here was to send a different signal. And that is no. We’re not responsible for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They were trying to get the markets to believe during this period that there really wasn’t a connection between the United States government and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the markets simply would not believe it. And the markets turned out to be right, because now we find, when they have gotten into financial trouble, that in fact the government did step in and back them. And this has happened before. I mean, the markets are not crazy, and they are not – they are not particularly prescient. They just look at what’s happened in the past. And in the 1980s, the farm credit system had financial difficulties. And, of course, that was also a government-sponsored enterprise. And, of course, the government stepped in and bailed them out. So, the markets look at that, and they look at what Fannie and Freddie are in relation to the government, and they say, well, this is going to be the same thing. The U.S. government is never going to allow one of these organizations to fail. And the markets, of course, turned out to be right. We are not allowing them to fail.

LAMB: Again, help us understand how the left and the right come together, on both ends of this, for it and against it. Bill Greider, a liberal writer for The Nation Magazine – found this on TheNation.com – just six weeks ago wrote this.

”So much for market discipline. For everyone else, Washington recommends a cold shower. Talk about warped priorities! The government puts up $29 billion as a sweetener for J.P. Morgan, but only can come up with $4 billion for Cleveland, Detroit and other urban ruins.… A generation of conservative propaganda, arguing that markets make wiser decisions than government, has been destroyed by these events. The interventions amount to socialism, American style, in which the government decides which private enterprises are too big to fail.”

WALLISON: Yes. Well, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sui generis in this respect. And that is, it was always clear to me, and to a lot of other conservatives, that the government was going to bail them out if they got into difficulty. And that’s why they would get into difficulty, because there wasn’t any market discipline. We believe – and I think most economists believe – that the best way to control risk in private companies is to make sure the market is at risk. And so, they will not get the funds that they need, if they are taking risks, and the market is wary and interested in the steps that they are taking in their business before it will lend them any money. But when they’re backed by the government, that doesn’t happen. And that’s how – at least in my mind – we get this kind of corporate welfare that we’ve had with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in particular.

LAMB: But what about the bailing out of a Bear Stearns, or …

WALLISON: Well you know all of these things have their reasons, which are somewhat different. The Bear Stearns issue – and I happen to agree with that, because at the time the Bear Stearns bailout occurred, the market, the international financial markets, were in a panic. And there was for the first time, certainly in my lifetime, and probably for the first time since the Great Depression, there was real concern worldwide in the stability of all of the major financial institutions in the world, in the global capital markets – the major banks in Europe, the major banks in the United States, the investment banks in the United States and many other such institutions. And I think the fear was, at the Treasury Department and at the Federal Reserve, that if Bear Stearns – which was not one of the larger investment banks in the United States – but if Bear Stearns failed, the panic that was current in the market at the time would cause investors to run to all these other financial institutions and start withdrawing their funds – in other words, runs throughout the world. And they hoped to prevent that by showing that the government will step in and stop that from happening. This actually was the right thing to do under the circumstances. And with all respect to Bill Greider, if the government had not done that, the people of the United States and the people in the developed world, generally, would be far worse off now, because there wouldn’t be – many of these financial institutions would have failed, and there wouldn’t be the financing available that is necessary to keep our economies running.

LAMB: Do the people running these institutions ever pay a price? It seems like they walk out with these tremendous severances …

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: … multi-millions of dollars they take out, and just go on with life while everybody else gets punished.

WALLISON: Yes, well, this is – this, unfortunately, is part of the process of recruiting executives very frequently. They get contracts. I’m not justifying this in any way. But in order to recruit a high-powered executive, you have to sign a contract with that person. And frequently, the contract says, unless you do something wrong, if you’re dismissed by the company, we will pay you a certain amount as a severance. Again, I don’t want to justify it, but if you go through each of these conditions, each of these cases, case-by-case, I think you’ll find that that’s what happens much of the time. And it’s happening again with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, because their two top executives, according to today’s newspapers, may walk away with almost $15 million each as severance – for managing these companies down the tubes.

LAMB: What I see – the ”Washington Post” this morning has a piece. The severance packages could be worth as much as 14.9 for – is it Syron? Is that his last name?

WALLISON: Syron.

LAMB: Syron, Richard Syron, the former Freddie Mac chairman and chief executive. As much as $9.8 million for Daniel Mudd. But why, in the first place – again, I go back to the point, the government of the United States created these institutions. I know you say they were standalone companies, but they had five members of their board provided by the United States …

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: … by the President of the United States. Why wouldn’t there be some restriction on taking that kind of money out, when they’re supposed to be serving, in many cases, the little person?

WALLISON: Yes. Well, I think from the standpoint of the boards of directors – let’s assume the president still had five members on the board. What is the obligation of the board members? Those board members, I think, were advised by their counsel, that their obligation was to the shareholders, and not to the government. That’s one of the reasons I think why the White House decided initially to withdraw those board members, and not to appoint them anymore, because they weren’t doing anything on behalf of the United States. They were just there as kind of symbols of the government’s backing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but were not changing the policies of the company in any way.

LAMB: Let me show you a piece of paper. This is not very fancy graphics, but there are 70 members of the House Financial Services Committee. Every time you see a line through a name, that means that, in the 2008 cycle – and you can actually turn the pages here, same thing on the other side – the names really don’t matter. But out of the 70 members, 50 of them got (ph) money for their campaigns …

WALLISON: That’s right.

LAMB: … from Fannie Mae. And, of course, money from Freddie Mac. But we can add to that, not only do they get tremendous amounts of money all the time in the coffers, they have their PACs give to PACs.

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: And the PACs end up serving the members.

WALLISON: Right.

LAMB: And then you have the foundation, which was shut down last year, which I want to ask you about. And then you have the advertising. They spent $75 million a year on advertising. Why would these institutions have to advertise? Why would Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac have to spend $75 million on advertising?

WALLISON: A very good question. And in fact, until they ran into their financial difficulties, there were many in the financial world, including mortgage lenders, who believed that Fannie and Freddie were trying to get into the business of originating mortgages, and so, were trying to make themselves familiar to the American public in general as good guys. So, they were doing a lot of kind of public service advertising, and trying to tell the American people that a Fannie Mae or a Freddie Mac mortgage would be something they should want. They never did get into the mortgage origination business. They stayed in the business of buying mortgages from other lenders. But that was only because they ran into financial difficulties in the early 2000s. That’s why they were advertising. And all of these payments to Congress, that’s only part of the story. This was truly a culture of corruption. This is the kind of thing that, say, John McCain, who is running against the culture of corruption in Washington, can point to as a perfect example of what is wrong with this town. These organizations were made out of federal backing, taxpayers’ backing. They were made into powerful organizations. And their executives and their shareholders took tremendous profits out of these companies – again, because of the backing of the shareholders. They then took some of these profits, and they turned it over through campaign contributions to the people on the committees in Congress, who were supposed to be supervising them …

LAMB: By the way, in 2005, total lobbying expenditures, Freddie Mac – this is not for Fannie Mae, and I want to ask the difference between the two – was $12,560,000.

WALLISON: Yes. Oh, that surprises me it’s so low.

LAMB: That was actually – their highest year was 2004. It was close to $16, $17 million.

WALLISON: Yes. Well, it depends on the issues that were before Congress at that time. They hired just about every lobbying firm in Washington, D.C.

LAMB: At one point, there were 42 outside lobbyists.

WALLISON: Yes. And one of the reasons they did that is, not that they needed 42 outside lobbyists. They just wanted to keep anyone else from having lobbyists. And they practice a very tough business in politics, very tough on individuals who are critics. And a critic could get in a great deal of trouble. There were people whose careers had been ruined by criticizing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And I personally happen to be very fortunate that I’m working at a place like the American Enterprise Institute, because they were not intimidated by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac when I began to criticize those two companies, but they made a run at me in other aspects of my life, including a board of directors that I was on. And …

LAMB: Where was that?

WALLISON: I was a director of the Mortgage Guarantee Insurance Corporation, which is a mortgage insurer, and dealt regularly with Fannie Mae.

LAMB: And in what way? How would you deal with Fannie Mae?

WALLISON: Well, they guarantee, they insure mortgages that Fannie Mae makes. Fannie Mae makes a mortgage that has more than an 80 percent loan-to-value ratio. They are required by statute to have mortgage insurance for the remaining 20 percent. So, that’s – the mortgage insurance business relies very much on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for much of their business. And it came to pass that the president of this mortgage insurance company went to speak to Fannie Mae about the fact that they weren’t being selected as a mortgage insurer. And he came back to the board meeting that I was at, and he said, ”Well, we were told that they only like to deal with companies that are friends of theirs. And with Peter Wallison on your board, we just don’t regard you as a friend anymore.” So, I resigned, right then and there. But it is to me an example of the kind of thuggery that these companies were capable of. And they did that all through Washington, so that the media in Washington and individuals in Washington, and people in Congress who wanted to stand up to them, were under threats all the time.

LAMB: The next one, Public Radio did a report in September – actually, it was in July. And they just had this one line in here. It was a piece by Peter Overby. ”A rival lobbyist once described Fannie Mae as a political organization that happened to be in the mortgage business.”

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: I mean, you had people coming out of the Reagan administration, like Ken Duberstein – you worked in the Reagan administration – he went on their board. Ann McLaughlin Korologos was on their board.

WALLISON: Right.

LAMB: She was secretary of labor back in those years. There’s a lot of other Republicans. John Buckley came out of one of the campaigns from the Republican side and went to work over there.

WALLISON: Right.

LAMB: What …

WALLISON: This …

LAMB: I mean, what’s – how does this happen? Where are the morals of people who have been in the government? They know they’re taking this kind of money. And they know that they are allegedly in the business of helping – again, how many times have we heard it – the little people who can’t get mortgages.

WALLISON: Yes. It’s very sad. It’s sad that people are willing to do this. But the trouble is that this was known. This was known to everybody in Washington. This was known to the media. Where was the ”Washington Post”? Where was the ”Washington Times”? Where was the ”New York Times” These things were known. But Fannie and Freddie are huge advertisers in all of those media. Maybe that’s the reason why all of this stuff was not exposed. On the other hand, there’s the National Public Radio, which presumably doesn’t have major advertising from Fannie and Freddie, or didn’t at the time. And they didn’t expose it either. So, it is a very troubling thing to see that something as serious as this, which everyone in Washington knew about, everyone who was on the inside in Washington knew about, refused to do anything about. That’s why you really do need a political revolution, if you will, someone coming in at the top who says, ”I’m going to change the way this town does business.”

LAMB: Well, let me – and I don’t mean to be accusatory toward any individual, but just take the secretary of the Treasury, Hank Paulson. He used to run Goldman Sachs. A whole bunch of Goldman Sachs CEOs have been involved in all this process.

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: Wikipedia site says he’s worth $700 million. He served on the Financial Forum, or whatever they call it. TIME Magazine called it the most powerful organization in town, 20 big financial institutions. One of those on there besides Goldman Sachs is Merrill Lynch. The guy who was brought in now to run Fannie Mae is Herb Allison, who used to be the finance chief of the McCain campaign in 2000. He came out of Merrill Lynch. He’s now running Fannie Mae for the government. What are the – and I’m not impugning his motives. But it seems like the financial community is all interconnected. And the person that just wants the mortgage out there is the one that is least thought of in this process.

WALLISON: Yes. Although I certainly wouldn’t blame Herb Allison – yet.

LAMB: I’m not blaming anybody. I’m just saying, it’s all a matter of people who are in these banks, all these banks around the United States are all interchanged with these companies.

WALLISON: But you do – you do need to have knowledge of the financial markets in order to function in the financial markets. You have to know the people, and you have to know the way the markets work, and so forth. We actually are very fortunate that Paulson is there right now, because the two earlier secretaries of the Treasury in the Bush administration were not people from the financial markets, and probably would have required a lot of coaching to understand what they were seeing happening. So …

LAMB: Could I, though, suggest this, and just see what your reaction is? D on’t you really have to have people on these boards that will stand up …

WALLISON: Sure.

LAMB: … to the leadership, and more importantly, just ask questions?

WALLISON: Yes, absolutely. And the fact that they brought in people from Washington for these boards was a terrible mistake, but one that they could be expected to make, because they were purely political creatures. The reason they survived as they did was because they had the support of the government. So, you would want people on your board who don’t know anything about the financial markets, or anything about making mortgages, or anything about how to construct a financial system or a financial business. You don’t need those skills on your board. What you need in Washington are people who are in the Washington cognoscenti, the people who go to the cocktail parties and know the congressmen and know the senators, and can make sure that you’re getting heard when there is a challenge.

LAMB: OK. We’ve established that they spent a tremendous amount of money on advertising. They spent a tremendous amount of money on lobbying. They interchanged former presidential appointees in both Republican and Democratic administrations to the board of directors and to the staff.

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: They had this kind of quasi-backing – now, the full backing – of the United States government.

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: And then, there’s the foundations.

WALLISON: Yes. This is a very interesting – a very interesting thing, because, of course, we tend to think of foundations as (INAUDIBLE) and charitable, and in some cases, educational. But they use their foundations for the purpose of garnering what? Political support.

LAMB: OK. Let me put on the screen here some information from the Fannie Mae Foundation. Funded by $650 million in stock since 1995, and $12.5 million in cash in late 2006. Employed 105 people. Headed by Stacey Stewart, whose 2005 salary is $575,000 plus $72,000 in benefits and deferred compensation. Shut down in February of 2007. Ms. Stewart went to work inside Fannie Mae. And then, in a statement that was made by Director Jim Lockhart, who is the now-regulator of Fannie Mae …

WALLISON: Right.

LAMB: … it was just – it was kind of an off-hand comment. I was watching his news conference last Sunday, and he had eight or nine points that he made. And the eighth one was, all political activities, including all lobbying, will be halted immediately. But then there’s this one line, and it wasn’t explained. ”We will review the charitable activities.” The Fannie Mae Foundation spent $60 million there last year, giving $60 million around the country in every state and every district. I think $20 million of that was given in Washington, D.C., alone. Why did they need a foundation? And what purpose did it serve?

WALLISON: Well, it served their political purposes, like everything else at Fannie. The boards of directors served their political purposes and their foundation served their political purposes, because they gave money to community groups. And whenever there was a challenge to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac of any kind, those community groups would write to the congressmen or call the congressmen or the senator and say, ”Don’t do anything to Fannie Mae. They’re good people. They support us. We are in your district. We do these good things for the people in your district.” So, even though the money was actually being used – probably, I assume – for good purposes within these districts, the reason Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac gave out this money was to gain the political support that it bought them in districts all over the country.

LAMB: Do you have any idea why they shut it down?

WALLISON: Yes, because I think they recognized that this was the purpose, that what they were doing – every time a challenge came up to Fannie and Freddie inside the government, a call went out to all these community groups – e-mails and telephone calls – and said, ”You better get on the phone to your congressman and let him know that, if he does anything that’s adverse to our interests, you will be very upset. And you represent X number of people in his district.” There were records of that. And presumably, when Dan Mudd came in at Fannie Mae after the accounting scandals they had, he said to himself, we don’t need this problem anymore. We’d better shut this stuff down.

LAMB: By the way, Dan Mudd is the son of Roger Mudd …

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: … former CBS …

WALLISON: But this is a – frankly, this is just another part of the scandalous process that was going on here. This is using essentially government money, taxpayer money, to lobby Congress indirectly through these groups. And more has happened. In the new housing legislation, one of the elements in this housing legislation, which contained the new regulations for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, never would have been passed, but for the fact that the Democrats wanted the housing bill aspect of this, because the problems in the housing market – Senator Shelby said, there isn’t going to be a housing bill out of this committee unless you put tough regulations of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in it. So, he got those tough regulations in the bill. But in addition, Congressman Barney Frank in the House wanted a special fund that comes out of the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and is then used for all of these community groups around the country. So, we see the same process continuing to work. Even though reform legislation was passed, it contains a nice slush fund that can be used by community groups around the country. So we see the same process continuing to work, even though reform legislation was passed, it contains a nice slush fund that can be used by the officials of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to reward community groups.

LAMB: You can go on Google and go looking for this Freddie Mae foundation and some of the information is still there. I did it and I just looked up one state, one year, to get an idea of the kind of money they gave away …

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: … and I wondered if you could fill in the blanks here, and I’m just going to read a couple of them. This is from 2006. The state of California, first one on the list is $5000 and they are all in various denominations, even $750 for somebody that travels some then, support the AFI Silver Theatre and Cultural Center’s 17 annual Larsen Latin American Film Festival that fostered cross-cultural understanding and civic dialogue. There—let me just read a couple of them. Korean churches for community development, supportive research on how Korean faith-based institutions could strengthen the cohesiveness of the communities in which they are based, building relationships between different ethnic and racial groups and supporting the community infrastructure, $10,000. Media (ph) economics for women, 16th Maxwell Award, that’s named after David Maxwell, your CEO …

WALLISON: Right.

LAMB: (INAUDIBLE) Excellence for Tierra del Sol, a 119-unit affordable rental housing project for low income people in Canoga Park, California. And then this is an interesting one: Regents of the University of California at Berkeley. A rather rich place. $35,000 approved in 2006, supportive research on the nexus between housing and schools and effective ways of integrating housing and educational policies in order to create prosperous livable communities. I can go on, and …

WALLISON: Sure.

LAMB: … this is an idea, and there are thousands of them …

WALLISON: Sure.

LAMB: … over the years.

WALLISON: Sure.

LAMB: … and that bought them very substantial political support.

WALLISON: See, ordinary corporations, of course, give away lots of money to community organizations and charitable organizations and cultural organizations, and they do this in part to support their products. So if General Motors gives a gift to a cultural organization, what they hope is that people will then think better of buying a General Motors car. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are different. Those gifts were given for the purpose of building political support for them, not their products because they weren’t at that point selling any products directly to the—to individuals. They were buying mortgages from banks. These gifts were given to organizations that would then, hopefully, come back and support them politically in Congress, so they were using, in effect, the taxpayer money that was backing them to gain—to buy political support in districts around the country that then reflected back on the Congressmen and Senators here in the United States. That was the process that was going on here.

LAMB: Now, you were a lawyer in Gibson Dunn …

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: … Crutcher—and Crutcher. That’s a—isn’t that a political …

WALLISON: No.

LAMB: I mean, aren’t there a lot of political lawyers in there? Isn’t Ted Olson there?

WALLISON: Ted is there. Yes. Ted is one and Brad (ph) Starr (ph) was a partner of Ted Olson, yes, but the — this is a — Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher is about 850 lawyers at this point, but all business lawyers and litigators, there’s very little political work done, and even in the Washington office of Gibson Dunn.

LAMB: So you didn’t lobby?

WALLISON: I never lobbied, but I think we had one or two. We may now have one or two lawyers in a 150-lawyer office here in Washington who actually lobby.

LAMB: I mean, the reason I’m bringing this up, I mean, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not the only American institutions that do everything we’re talking about in this town. The connection here and the reason I’m asking you to explain it is because they were government institutions and had government sponsored people on their boards, and were backed up, even though they weren’t directly backed up, by the government money and we’ve seen how …

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: … the government’s taking them over. Explain this, and I know you’re on the other side politically, but just help us out on this. This was in the ”New York Times” today.

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: This is Tuesday, before the Sunday that this runs. Mr. Dodd, that’s Chris Dodd, is Chairman of the banking committee.

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: The Democratic Chairman, called the White House, accusation incredible and libel, Mr. Dodd all but accused Mr. Paulson, Secretary of the Treasury, of misleading Congress less than two months ago when the Treasury Secretary prevailed upon lawmakers to give him the authority to spend untold billions of dollars to rescue the two companies, assuring them at that time that he had no intention of using that authority. Boy, when I read that I said (INAUDIBLE)

WALLISON: Yes. That was the same thing that …

LAMB: Well, let me read some more.

WALLISON: Yes. Go on. I …

LAMB: I asked Dodd on the record you know why would you get an authority if you weren’t going to use it, quote, ”We accepted him at his word that all he needed was the authority and that he wasn’t going to exercise it, then he used this authority very aggressively. An angry-sounding Mr. Dodd said in the telephone conference call with reporters, he indicated that he would approach any future commitments by outgoing administration more skeptically, quote, ’Fool me once, your fault, fool me twice, my fault.’ Asked whether he felt duped, Mr. Dodd said, ’I was born at night but not last night. I heard experts over the last few days predicting this outcome, but I responded that I take the administration at their word to find out late Friday afternoon that it was going in this direction. It was hard to believe’.”

WALLISON: There’s a person who is attempting to fool everybody. I think he understood what was happening here. Though he wasn’t being lied to or misled by the Secretary of the Treasury. What Paulson was saying, and I thought actually what Paulson said was the truth at the time, and that is I think we thought, Paulson thought, that with the backing of the U.S. government made explicit through what Congress had authorized in July, there wouldn’t be any need to back—to come in specifically and take over Fannie and Freddie. But what they found was that the markets didn’t quite believe that Fannie and Freddie were going to pay all of their obligations, and what they found as the days went on was that the spread of interest rates that Fannie and Freddie were paying over treasury rates was gradually growing, and as it grew, it meant that mortgages in the United States would become more expensive because if Fannie has to pay more for its money, then the banks that they lend to will have to pay more for their money, and people will have to pay more for money when they buy homes. So what I think Paulson saw happening was that he had to reassure the markets that the government was actually behind these institutions, and the only way to do it was to actually take them over, and I think he also knew from the investigations that they did of Fannie and Freddie’s financial condition that they were close to if not insolvent. So I don’t think Paulson misled anyone in the Senate. I think what he said was you give me this authority, I probably won’t have to use it because the markets will believe that I could come in at any time and take over these companies, and therefore they will know that their loans will be repaid. Well, they didn’t quite believe it, and we have read during the recent weeks that the Bank of China was beginning to sell off part of its portfolio of Fannie and Freddie’s. Fewer people were showing up at the auctions for Fannie and Freddie securities. They were bidding—they weren’t bidding as aggressively, so Fannie and Freddie were beginning to have to pay more and more for the money they were borrowing, and the pattern was becoming very clear, so treasury really had to act. Now, I happen to believe they did the wrong thing. He should not have appointed a conservator for Fannie and Freddie. He should have appointed a receiver for Fannie and Freddie. A receiver would be able to modify their business model substantially, and even in his statement Paulson said that they have flawed business models. You, I think, read part of that. They have flawed business models. That is true. That’s why I thought from the beginning that they were going to be causing trouble for everyone because they are partly profit-making companies and partly companies with a government mission with government backing. Those two things can’t go together in the same institution. So, Paulson should have moved in and taken them over with a receiver so he could have changed that business model. He didn’t do that.

LAMB: Let me show you and the audience places you’ve seen …

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: … we have video of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Their institutions are both here in Washington. One of them’s out in the plain …

WALLISON: Right.

LAMB: … one of them’s in—out on—what is it, Wisconsin Avenue.

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: So Freddie Mac’s on the screen right now, and that’s the one out in the …

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: … plain in Virginia in the suburbs. Do you have any idea how many people work there?

WALLISON: No, I don’t.

LAMB: They also had …

WALLISON: The reason this may …

LAMB: … they had a foundation and you know it’s a bipartisan kind of thing.

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: Dennis Deacon, senior former Senator, was a former board member, David Gribben , who was a Richard—a Dick Cheney aid, was a former board member and George Herbert Walker Bush aid, Harold Ickes was a former board member, Clinton advisor, Ron Emmanuel, former board member, Clinton senior advisor, and then he—Ron Emmanuel received contributions when he got into the House …

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: … from the lobbyists, and Susan Molinari, former Congresswoman, Republican, was an outside lobbyist for Freddie Mac. Here’s Fannie Mae, and as we look at Fannie Mae, which is …

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: … quite a building you can see when you drive up Wisconsin Avenue. What is the difference between Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae? We’ve been talking a lot about Fannie Mae.

WALLISON: Well, I would say there isn’t any substantial difference at all between them. Fannie is the larger, the more politically active of the two, but as between them, they have exactly the same charters and they’ve done exactly the same thing, and to some extent, they are in competition with one another.

LAMB: Why do we need two?

WALLISON: Well, I think it was good to have two because they were in some competition. If we only had one, that would be a monopoly. We have had two. Some argue that they were in monopoly pricing anyway, but that’s not been established yet. In any event, two is always better than one because it does produce a certain degree of competition between these two government-backed organizations.

LAMB: Another article this morning from ”The Wall Street Journal.” Home loan banks draw focus or made rescue plan.

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: Now, it starts out by James Haggerty writing the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac takeover raises questions about another set of institutions started by Congress to help finance housing. There are 12 regional federal home loan banks. You know a generalist, and I am a generalist, drowns in all this language …

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: … and all these institutions, and you get on, there are 12 of those federal home-owned banks across the country. They often have local board members, bankers, in many cases.

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: GSEs?

WALLISON: Yes, of course. The government sponsored …

LAMB: Government service—government sponsored enterprises.

WALLISON: Right.

LAMB: And also you add Jenny Mae into that, which …

WALLISON: Well, now that is a government agency. That’s not a government sponsored …

LAMB: That replaced what Fred—what Fannie …

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: … was in the beginning.

WALLISON: Right.

LAMB: Under HUD.

WALLISON: Right.

LAMB: What about these federal—no, I mean, you know …

WALLISON: (INAUDIBLE)

LAMB: (INAUDIBLE) no idea.

WALLISON: Look, Ronald Reagan said the closest we’ll ever come to immortality in this life is a government agency, and the federal home loan banks are a perfect example of that because they were established in the depression era to assist the development of a mortgage market and to help people get mortgages, but since then we have developed a very sophisticated mortgage system here in this country, and we don’t need the federal home loan banks. But they provide subsidized financing to banks, and the banks don’t want to give up this subsidized money that they received from this government-sponsored enterprise.

LAMB: Do you have any idea how much money these individual board members make on these banks and on those …

WALLISON: No.

LAMB: … on the …

WALLISON: No.

LAMB: … Fannie Mae, do they get paid?

WALLISON: Sure. In Fannie and Freddie they get paid, and it’s true also in the federal home loan banks. I just don’t know how much that is.

LAMB: When the stock has fallen at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae from 65 roughly, $70 down to below a dollar …

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: … in less than a year …

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: … did the board members protect themselves?

WALLISON: I have no idea, but if they—I don’t know whether they got stock compensation. I don’t know whether they got stock options or anything of that kind …

LAMB: What would you to protect yourself …

WALLISON: (INAUDIBLE) major cash.

LAMB: … to make sure that if all that is going on right now happened that you got your money?

WALLISON: Well, I—if they had stock, if they were given stock or they had bought stock when they became directors, they probably should not have sold that stock while the stock was going down. I don’t know, as a matter of fact, whether they have. I haven’t ever looked into that, but one way to protect yourself is if you see a disaster looming in the future and you’ve got a substantial amount of that stock, you would sell it off. But I have no idea whether they did that.

LAMB: You’ve been around this town for a long time.

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: How much time do you spend in the town now?

WALLISON: About half the year.

LAMB: What do you do for AEI?

WALLISON: I write. I organize conferences. I speak from time to time. When I say half the year, I’m here half the year. I work 100 percent of the year, but in Colorado where I live the rest of the time, and I’m doing all of this work for the American Enterprise Institute.

LAMB: Now, people on the other side of politics would say AEI is funded by American industry, has its own …

WALLISON: Not quite. N ot quite. It’s got a third of its funding comes from corporations, a third comes from individuals, and a third comes from foundations. So it is not in any sense connected with corporations, and in fact, if anything, if there’s any group that you would identify as connected with AEI, it would be entrepreneurs. This is a free market organization.

LAMB: How would you explain people looking in from the outside to Washington, D.C. right now, seeing these stories, and we have just skimmed the surface.

WALLISON: Right.

LAMB: One word you could apply to our summer is just greed.

WALLISON: Yes.

LAMB: Where is it coming from in this society? Why is this happening in this town now?

WALLISON: Well, I’m not sure it’s only now, but it’s certainly become more prominent now. I’ve never understood this myself, frankly. I mean, there are—there seem to be two classes of people. There are people who keep score based on money, and there are people who keep score based on success in some other areas like academic success and so forth. I deal a lot with academics. I hope to rise to the level of an academic some day in my time. And those are not people who are motivated by money. Those are people who are interested in learning, in producing things that are useful. But other people keep track according to money, and I’m afraid that’s why we have so much, I would call it greed, going on here in Washington when people are trying to use their positions to enrich themselves.

LAMB: Why hasn’t the Congress done more than it has?

WALLISON: Because the Congress is part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

LAMB: Let me read the last paragraph of today’s editorial in ”The Wall Street Journal,” this being Tuesday.

”Mr. Frankn it turned out”… Barney Frank is their Chairman of the Financial Services Committee in the House, ”has had many accomplices from both parties in his protection of Fan and Fred, but he was and is among the most vociferous and powerful. In any other area of American life this track record would get a man run out of town. In Washington he’s hailed as a sage and his history of willful error will be forgotten faster than taxpayers can write a check for $200 billion dollars.”

WALLISON: That’s powerful language.

LAMB: Not to single out Barney Frank, and listen, he’s had many hours on this network so he’s had his time to talk. He—there were journalists saying both Republicans and Democrats.

WALLISON: Yes. And it’s true. It’s true. This could not have happened if both parties weren’t implicated, and I think that raises a lot of questions about our campaign finance system in this country. I think there are ways we could address this problem through the campaign finance system. In fact, I’ve written a book about the subject that’ll be out in April. Maybe we’ll have a chance to talk about it then. But the Congress is part of the problem here. They are implicated in creating Fannie and Freddie, keeping it alive, protecting those two companies against attack from any side within the political process and in the private sector, and they get benefits from Fannie and Freddie. You’ve mentioned many of them. They get campaign finance reform. How they get campaign finances, they hire the staff of these people, they hire the lobbyists who are the friends of congressmen and senators, they give out money to community groups who then in turn support those congressmen and senators who are their friends. It is a very unpleasant thing to watch, and ultimately, it is a way for Congress, without actually appropriating any money, to direct money to their friends, and that’s why I mentioned this thing that Barney Frank was so anxious to get into his bill, this idea of a slush fund that would be available to pay to community groups to support housing, maybe. We hope its housing and not other things, but ultimately it is a way for the Democrats, at least in this case the Democrats, to direct the funds to the groups that support them, and it’s not even appropriated funds. It’s not anywhere.

LAMB: Peter Wallison, thank you very much for your time.

WALLISON: Thank you.

END

Hat tip:
Jim Dillian,
Boone, NC

« Close It

Mr. Obama reiterated this view earlier in the week while traveling in the Middle East, in an interview with ABC's Terry Moran. Mr. Moran asked the Illinois Democrat whether -- "knowing what you know now" -- he would reconsider his opposition to last year's surge of U.S. troops in Iraq. "Well, no," Mr. Obama replied.

What Mr. Obama "knows now" is that the surge he opposed has saved Iraq, much as Harry Truman's airlift saved Berlin and underlined America's intention to defend Europe throughout the Cold War. The surge has also saved American lives in Iraq, with combat-related deaths (so far, there have been seven this month) at an all time low.

Mr. Obama offered his own unwitting testimony to this fact by not donning body armor upon his arrival in Baghdad and during a helicopter tour with Gen. David Petraeus.

"There have been few if any attacks of late on our aircraft, and the situation did not require them to be wearing body armor," explained Gen. Petraeus' spokesman.

Mr. Obama also knows that Gen. Petraeus opposes setting a fixed timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq. This military judgment ought to count for something, particularly since Congressional Democrats have long scolded President Bush for failing to pay sufficient heed to the advice of generals such as former Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki. Yet Mr. Obama, who has always been careful to cite the views of military commanders to justify his 16 month withdrawal schedule, now says that heeding less congenial military advice would mean an abdication of his responsibilities as a prospective commander in chief.

The Obama campaign now makes much of the fact that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki seems to have endorsed the idea of a timetable for withdrawal, with 2010 as the approximate date. This is being played as a great political coup for Mr. Obama -- which, we suppose, it is, if only because the media plays it that way.

But the significant debate is not over whether and when the U.S. will withdraw. It's over whether the U.S. will win. In his Berlin speech, Mr. Obama was at his most forceful when he insisted that "this is the moment when we must defeat terror," adding that "the threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it." This is well-said and true.

But it squares oddly with a political campaign whose central premise is that losing in Iraq -- and whatever calamities may follow -- is a matter of little consequence to U.S. or European interests. It squares oddly, too, with Mr. Obama's broader promise to "stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, the voter in Zimbabwe" and virtually every other global cause.

It is hard not to be moved by the sight during the speech of hundreds of American flags being waved, rather than burned. Then again, the last time a major American political figure delivered an open-air speech in Berlin, 10,000 riot police had to use tear gas and water cannons to repel violent demonstrators. It was June 1987, the speaker was Ronald Reagan, and his message was: "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." Press accounts characterized the line as "provocative"; the Soviets called it "war-mongering"; 100,000 protesters marched against Reagan in the old German capital of Bonn. Two years later, the Berlin Wall fell.

Reagan's speech is a lesson in the difference between popularity and statesmanship. Watching Mr. Obama yesterday in Berlin, and throughout his foreign tour, was a reminder of how far the presumptive Democratic nominee has to go to reassure people he is capable of the latter -- "people," that is, who will actually get to cast a ballot in November.

Wall Street Journal
July 25, 2008; Page A14

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).
----------------------

Response by Len Salonsky:

The Europeans have a long history OF BEING WRONG: geopolitically, socially, economically, and immigration-wise. Many Americans, nevertheless, continue to incorrectly believe that European socialism and pacifism are where America should go.

Most of these Americans are collectivists ("From each according to his ability to each according to his need."- Karl Marx)

What are they smoking? Ironically, as Europe is finally moving away from their FAILED socialist programs, foolish American collectivists are insisting that we EMBRACE socialist policies despite their virtually universal failure, and the resultant human misery that they have caused throughout history.

Without American intervention there would have been no speech in Germany by Obama, whose ancestors would have been executed or enslaved by the Third Reich. Such nuances are LOST on those Euro-sycophants who amazingly feel that America can do no right and that the Europeans can do no wrong. IS that why the Europeans BEGGED America to intervene in Bosnia to end the conflict there, with FORCE?

A force that the Europeans are INCAPABLE of delivering? How convenient to depend on America for a bailout (without ever offering America any compensation for the (lives or the) expense of such military "insurance." Europe never paid America back for World War II, but they'll gladly burn the American flag.

For now, if the Europeans are waving American flags for some cause, I'll probably be opposed to it. If they are burning American flags for some cause, I'll assume that cause is just. History will bear me out.

There will come a time when the Muslim demographic burden in many European countries, because of the European welfare state mentality, will threaten to overwhelm those nations who have foolishly allowed Muslim immigrants to become a substantial portion of their population. Many pundits expect that Europe will be renamed "Eurabia" in the foreseeable future. This time an American "rescue" is not in the cards, and Europe will suffer the horrific consequences of its stupidity.

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

This trait of being more in love with consumption than production is one shared by most of my socialist colleagues in academia. They base their lives on the idea of taking "from each according to his ability" and giving "to each according to his need." The problem is that they do a better job of articulating their needs than promoting their abilities. This is, of course, because socialists are generally short on abilities. They seek socialism because they think being guaranteed an average outcome is safer than trying to beat the average in a system based on merit, which is otherwise known as ability.

Anyone watching the 2008 presidential race has doubtless seen a similar dynamic among supporters of Barack H. Obama. Most of his supporters have been talking about rights without any mention of the notion of responsibilities. Like supply and demand, and need and ability, the terms rights and responsibilities are best understood in relation to one another. For example, I have a 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms that the government cannot simply take away from me on a whim. But I also have a responsibility for everything that occurs between the time I discharge a bullet and the time the bullet comes to its final stopping point. But consider the following list of "rights" that supporters of Obama have recently told me that we all have: Everyone has the right to a college education. I can't imagine what it will be like as a college professor once Obama implements this one. I've been teaching to the occasional unqualified black and the occasional unqualified athlete for years. But now that everyone, including, presumably, the mentally retarded, has a right to a college degree, I might just retire and become a firearms instructor. Hopefully, Obama will not grant a Right to Firearms Education to both idiots and the insane.

(Author's Note: This one came from Obama himself). Everyone has a right to breathe clean air. This is a really bad idea for the Obama campaign. If everyone starts to enforce his right to breathe clean air in the presence of swarthy young Muslims, Obama might lose an important part of his electoral base. Everyone has a right to free health care. I recently learned this from an incoming Drexel law student appearing on The O'Reilly Factor. Bill did a great job by asking her whether this right is in the constitution or whether it just comes from the fact that she is a really nice person. She was forced to admit that it was not in the constitution. She should do really well in law school because she's a really nice person.

Everyone has a right to demand that the rich pay taxes in proportion to their ability to pay taxes. I recently learned this from an incoming Yale law student on the same segment of The Factor. Everyone agrees that the rich should pay more taxes than the poor. What is controversial is the notion that they should also pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. But that was not the issue in this segment. The issue was whether the existing gap in the proportion of taxes paid by the poor and the rich should be widened and, if so, by how much. When someone says we have a right to tax the rich "in proportion to their ability to pay" they mean "tax them until they can no longer pay" or "tax them until they are bankrupt." Many people who hold this view were not actually alive during the Carter Administration. But they have taken history classes from people who assure us that he was really not such a bad president.

Every gay man has a right to feel comfortable. I heard this one from a first-year law student at Yale. He actually informed me thrice that his right to be comfortable as a gay man trumps the First Amendment. I guess they don't teach constitutional law until the second year of the Yale law program. But the question is: How did this sissy get into Yale Law School?

After spending only a little time listening to followers of the Dali Bama I have concluded that, in Obama's America, everyone gets to declare at least one new fundamental right regardless of whether it is written into the constitution. And so, naturally, I am going to declare first that I have a right to unlimited rights. (This is sort of like making one's only wish a request for unlimited wishes). My second declaration of a new right is a little more complicated. First, I believe that I have a right to demand that you show me a copy of the U.S. Constitution every time you demand a new right. And if you cannot identify the constitutional basis of your proposed right, you forfeit that right as well as your right to vote in 2008. And, of course, I get to cast the vote you forfeited. So, those of you prone to simply announce fundamental rights without any constitutional basis should beware that this could soon deprive you of the right to vote. Until now, it's only deprived of you the right to sound intelligent.

Mike S. Adams
July 07, 2008
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MikeSAdams/2008/07/07/my_right_to_unlimited_rights

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades. In May, German climate modelers reported in the journal Nature that global warming is due for a decade-long vacation. But be not not-afraid, added the modelers: The inexorable march to apocalypse resumes in 2020.

This last item is, of course, a forecast, not an empirical observation. But it raises a useful question: If even slight global cooling remains evidence of global warming, what isn't evidence of global warming? What we have here is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, logically indistinguishable from claims for the existence of God. This doesn't mean God doesn't exist, or that global warming isn't happening. It does mean it isn't science.

So let's stop fussing about the interpretation of ice core samples from the South Pole and temperature readings in the troposphere. The real place where discussions of global warming belong is in the realm of belief, and particularly the motives for belief. I see three mutually compatible explanations.

The first is as a vehicle of ideological convenience. Socialism may have failed as an economic theory, but global warming alarmism, with its dire warnings about the consequences of industry and consumerism, is equally a rebuke to capitalism. Take just about any other discredited leftist nostrum of yore – population control, higher taxes, a vast new regulatory regime, global economic redistribution, an enhanced role for the United Nations – and global warming provides a justification. One wonders what the left would make of a scientific "consensus" warning that some looming environmental crisis could only be averted if every college-educated woman bore six children: Thumbs to "patriarchal" science; curtains to the species.

A second explanation is theological. Surely it is no accident that the principal catastrophe predicted by global warming alarmists is diluvian in nature. Surely it is not a coincidence that modern-day environmentalists are awfully biblical in their critique of the depredations of modern society: "And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." That's Genesis, but it sounds like Jim Hansen.

And surely it is in keeping with this essentially religious outlook that the "solutions" chiefly offered to global warming involve radical changes to personal behavior, all of them with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent: drive less, buy less, walk lightly upon the earth and so on. A light carbon footprint has become the 21st-century equivalent of sexual abstinence.

Finally, there is a psychological explanation. Listen carefully to the global warming alarmists, and the main theme that emerges is that what the developed world needs is a large dose of penance. What's remarkable is the extent to which penance sells among a mostly secular audience. What is there to be penitent about?

As it turns out, a lot, at least if you're inclined to believe that our successes are undeserved and that prosperity is morally suspect. In this view, global warming is nature's great comeuppance, affirming as nothing else our guilty conscience for our worldly success.

In "The Varieties of Religious Experience," William James distinguishes between healthy, life-affirming religion and the monastically inclined, "morbid-minded" religion of the sick-souled. Global warming is sick-souled religion.

By Bret Stephens
Wall Street Journal Online
July 1, 2008; Page A15

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121486841811817591.html?mod=todays_columnists

Hat tip: Len Salonsky

---------------------
Psychiatric Linkages to Global Warming:

As an illness, neurosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neurosis) represents a variety of psychiatric conditions in which emotional distress or unconscious conflict is expressed through various physical, physiological, and mental disturbances, which may include physical symptoms (e.g., hysteria). The definitive symptom is anxieties. Neurotic tendencies are common and may manifest themselves as depression, acute or chronic anxiety, obsessive-compulsive tendencies, phobias, and even personality disorders, such as borderline personality disorder or obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. It has perhaps been most simply defined as a "poor ability to adapt to one's environment, an inability to change one's life patterns, and the inability to develop a richer, more complex, more satisfying personality." Neurosis should not be mistaken for psychosis.

A psychosis, on the other hand, is a generic psychiatric term for a mental state often described as involving a "loss of contact with reality" and deterioration of normal social functioning. People experiencing psychosis are said to be psychotic and may report hallucinations (the end of the world) or delusional beliefs (carbon dioxide is a life-threatening pollutant in the earth’s atmosphere), and may exhibit personality changes and disorganized thinking. This may be accompanied by unusual or bizarre behavior (consuming scarce food supplies in combustion engines), as well as difficulty with social interaction and impairment in carrying out the activities of daily living.

Who said the inmates are not running the asylum?

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

I have been made aware of two pieces of legislation, thanks to the constant vigilance of the patriots at SOSUSA.US. I send my most sincere thanks to them, for bringing it to my attention, so that I might bring it to yours. This legislation has just confirmed the opinion I have long held that members of our congress have either lost their damn minds, are complete incompetents, or are intentionally complicit in the destruction of our national sovereignty. Either way, I am tired of being the hog tied, blindfolded, gagged passenger in a vehicle driven by suicidal maniacs.

Yet another piece is being added to the framework, set in place for the demise of our national sovereignty. I hope, by now, you have read my past article The Demise Of Our American Identity, which exposes and explains that a deeply embedded program is already in place to move our nation into a fully integrated Western Hemisphere.

This framework strives to harmonize our nation with international law through the United Nations, the Summit of the Americas, The Organization of American States (OAS) and the Inter-American System and has been moved progressively forward by way of NAFTA, the SPP and the soon to come NAU which will finally complete the permanent dissolution of our nation into a hemispheric conglomerate where all knees shall bend to the Gods of Globalism and a new social order shall reign supreme. God help us all.

The following are just a few excerpts from one more piece of the integration puzzle. As you are reading what is obviously the bankrupting of our nation, think of the lives that have been lost for the cause of our liberty. Think of the past generations who suffered and struggled to bring us to the comfort, security and national wealth we have all enjoyed and often taken for granted. Think of our soldiers fighting and dying, even now, in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Then, think of your children and grandchildren. Read the words that will enslave and impoverish them. Our children will not be free as we have been. They will never know the liberty we have known. They will never know the prosperity that was possible for us, if we worked hard and studied and applied ourselves to our successful endeavors. They will not be Americans, as we perceive America, unless this generation wakes up, pays attention and makes significant changes, quickly. Time is short.

If you are waiting for someone else to rush in and save the day, stop waiting. This is your country, your sovereignty, your freedom, you home, your family and your future. This is your problem. You must be a part of the solution or you have no one to blame but yourself.

The move to Progressive socialism marches on and we are woefully behind is stamping it down. To make changes, you must understand the plan. Remember; this is just ONE piece of the puzzle.

(Excerpts)
Social Investment and Economic Development for the Americas Act of 2007
Senate Bill 2120
OCTOBER 1, 2007

Mr. MENENDEZ (for himself, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. BIDEN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. DODD, Mr. COLEMAN, Mr. SALAZAR, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. CLINTON, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. NELSON of Florida, and Mr. CARDIN) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

A BILL
To authorize the establishment of a Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas to provide assistance to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere, and for other purposes.

(3) The United States contributes, on average, $820,000,000 in bilateral development assistance to Latin America and the Caribbean each year and has continued to strengthen its commitment to promoting our shared values, heritage, and culture while confronting the common challenges we face.

(4) The United States has also contributed through the Millennium Challenge Account more than $269,000,000 in development assistance.

(5) Poverty and inequality remain historic and persistent problems in the region, which undermine progress on social and economic development. These problems contribute to the rise of populist ideas and add to inequality.

The President, acting through the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development and working with foreign governments and civil society, shall provide increased and sustained assistance to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere by helping to—

(1) Improve the quality of life and invest in human capital, specifically by promoting education, improving health and disease prevention, and increasing the access to and quality of housing;

There is established within the United States Agency for International Development an advisory committee to be known as the Western Hemisphere Economic Investment and Development Advisory

They are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this chapter, including for purposes of reducing poverty, expanding the middle class, and fostering increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere, in addition to amounts of United States Foreign Assistance Funds (Function 150) otherwise authorized and appropriated and the $820,000,000 in bilateral development assistance provided by the United States, on average, to Latin America and the Caribbean each year, the following amounts:

$50,000,000 for fiscal year 2008.
$75,000,000 for fiscal year 2009.
$100,000,000 for fiscal year 2010.
$125,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2012.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2013.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2014.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2015.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2016.
$150,000,000 for fiscal year 2017.

The Inter-American Development Bank Act

The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United States Executive Director at the Bank to use the voice, vote, and influence of the United States to urge the Bank to establish an account to be known as the ‘Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas.

The Fund shall be used to provide assistance to reduce poverty, expand the size of the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere by helping to:

(3) leverage personal remittances and reduce the cost of remittances sent to Latin America and the Caribbean, for the purpose of advancing economic and social development by

(A) increasing access to financial institutions for the poor, and working with local financial institutions to reduce fees and other costs associated with sending or receiving remittances;

(B) working with local financial institutions to develop programs whereby personal remittances can be used as the basis for credit for mortgages and loans for small business, microenterprises, housing, and other enterprises;

(C) providing matching funds for private entities in the United States that send donations for development projects in Latin America and the Caribbean; and

It is the sense of Congress that—

(1) the amounts authorized to be appropriated to carry out this Act and the amendments made by this Act should be used to help countries in Latin America and the Caribbean focus on improving indicators in the area of investing in people, as that term is used in section 607(b)(3) of the Millennium Challenge Act of 2003 (22 U.S.C. 7706(b)(3)), and consistent with the transformational development program of the Department of State; [Read]

(1) the Multilateral Investment Fund, which was fully established in 1993 as part of President George H.W. Bush’s Enterprise for the Americas Initiative, has been successful in promoting inclusive economic growth in Latin America and the Caribbean;

(4) as stated in section 499L of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as added by section 3, amounts authorized to be appropriated pursuant to the amendments made by this Act for a fiscal year for initiatives to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere are in addition to amounts that would be allocated or projected in the President’s budget request for Latin America and Caribbean for such fiscal year. [Read] [Read]

There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of the Treasury $51,000,000 for payment to the Inter-American Development Bank of arrears owed by the United States to the Multilateral Investment Fund. [Read]

You might wonder if the members of the House will save us from the insanity of the members of the Senate sponsoring this legislation. It will not be reassuring to learn that the House has its own version of this monstrosity.

HOUSE VERSION
H.R.3692 (introduced 9/27/2007)
Sponsor Rep Eliot Engel and thirty co-sponsors

Title: To authorize the establishment of a Social Investment and Economic Development Fund for the Americas to provide assistance to reduce poverty, expand the middle class, and foster increased economic opportunity in the countries of the Western Hemisphere, and for other purposes.

Citizens of the United States of America, we can no longer entrust the sovereignty of this nation to most of those who are now in positions of power in our government. Our best interests are not being served. I pray that Americans will finally understand the consequences of our apathy or lack of understanding and will begin to step forward into the political arena and replace those disgraces that now hold our national sovereignty by the throat.

Until we see the truth and understand it, until we vote these scoundrels out of office and replace them with constitutionally directed candidates, we are on a collision course with disaster. Our future leaders are out there somewhere, maybe even reading this now. If so, I am asking that they step forward, trust in the citizen of this nation to see their value, and begin to bring our nation back towards a sound, sane foreign policy.

We can defeat this insanity and we must. The very survival of our nation now depends on all of us. Do all that you can to support candidates who will defend our constitution? Send the rest of them back to the obscurity they so deserve. They should hang their heads in shame for the disservice they have done this nation and our citizens.

Unfortunately; I don’t believe shame is a part of their DNA.

It is time for the awakening of our citizens. Do your part.

Godspeed and God Bless the USA

By CJ Graham
June 28, 2008

http://www.newswithviews.com/Graham/cj2.htm

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

When Allen Keyes was running for president, as probably one of the most brilliant candidates we have ever seen, he was ignored by the liberal media and the black community because, as a black Republican, he was deemed either irrelevant or out of touch. I often wondered if he had been the first black Democrat running for office if he would have been treated better, and then I had my answer in Barack Obama.

What is it about this man that has thoughtful, conservative blacks like Armstrong Williams and JC Watts saying they might vote for him? It can't be his left of left politics that makes even Ted Kennedy look conservative. What thinking conservative could actually support a man who is going to raise taxes, increase the size of government, redistribute wealth, burden small businesses and the working class, and play nice with people who want to destroy us? (emphasis added) It can't just be about his skin color otherwise they would have been huge supporters of Allen Keyes when he ran for president, and as I recall, neither were.

Armstrong explains his position by saying, ''I don't necessarily like his [Barack's] policies; I don't like much of what he advocates, but for thefirst time in my life, history thrusts me to really seriously think about it.'' JC Watts, former Republican congressman from Oklahoma, who is obviously more blinded by the light of Obama, says he expects Obama to take on issues such as poverty and urban policy, adding ''Republicans often seem indifferent to those things.''

No, JC, Republicans try and deal with these issues in a logical, private sector, community involvement way and they are shut down and called racists. Unless a huge tax bill is attached to every single social ill in this country, liberals think a solution is impossible. When Bush instituted faith-based initiatives to allow the private sector religious and community groups to do what they do best, and partner with them instead of letting bloated bureaucracies handle personal and community problems, they were vilified for not sufficiently extricating church from state.

When welfare reform bills were passed over the vehement objections of Democrats, and then actually worked, guess who stood up and took credit for them . . . Bill Clinton. Of all the billions and billions of dollars through the years that have been thrown at poverty, each person living in poverty today would be a multi-millionaire if the money had just gone directly to them along with a financial advisor to help them keep it growing. But if the government had done that, there would be no need for the huge, bloated, out-of-control leviathan called "government" that is never sated.

And that is the big distinction in this race; those who think higher taxes and bigger governmentare the answer, like Barack Obama, and those who want their liberties back. Unfortunately, the later group has no candidate this term. If they did, I am sure people like Armstrong Williams and JC Watts would not be doing the two-step with Barack because they would see a clear distinction in the candidates, beyond race, and vote accordingly.

This news should be a shot across the bow to the tone deaf McCain campaign that has adopted a fortress mentality while killing the peasants inside the walls. They still believe they can win without their base, and think their base is a handful of disgruntled Hillary voters and disillusioned moderates who are dissatisfied with the lack of leadership from both parties. Why would they vote for (either of these) two candidates who represent exactly why they are disgruntled and dissatisfied with politics in general?

It is too bad that neither Armstrong nor JC saw our movie, "Emancipation Revelation Revolution," even though Armstrong is actually in it. They would understand that this "historic" thing that they are expecting to happen was actually prevented from happening over 100 years ago by the very party that Barack so proudly hails from. This is not a white vs. black issue that has its roots in slavery, because there were too many white men and women who gave their lives trying to end the practice of slavery and Jim Crow.

It is time to transcend past injustices, stop wearing counterfeit grievances on our sleeves, and work to fulfill the simplicity and sincerity of the American creed. The battle to end slavery was fought by whites, against whites. It was not black vs. white. The battle to keep blacks from integrating fully into society, have a place at the economic and political tables, were battles that pitted the racist white society against huge segments of the white population who supported equal rights, and many gave their lives in that battle.

The Republican Party was actually founded by white abolitionists who were reviled and ridiculed, much like pro-life advocates are today. But thankfully they clung to their principles and ended slavery at great personal cost including for many, the loss of life. Republicans today are clueless about their history; they don't think it matters, or they have taken a permanent powder.

Who are these people anyway? I used to think I knew. I switched parties years ago when I became ashamed to be a part of a political party that elected racist governors who would keep young black kids from attending white schools. I was ashamed of a party where all the Democrats were happy racists and to oppose them was dangerous. I now find myself ashamed of the Republican Party for a myriad of reasons, but unlike 30 years ago, I have no party to turn to now. And neither do millions and millions of disgruntled, disenfranchised, marginalized conservatives who see two giant parties pressing in on them from both sides.

The Republican Party today is "Democrat-lite," and reminds you of the nerd in school who wants so desperately to be cool and does all the cool things that are so pitiful it actually pains you to see how ridiculous he looks. That is this party today. They want so much to be hip and cool, and with it, and tolerant and popular and generous with your money, and accommodating to every stupid, costly idea that comes down the pike. There is no leadership in the party and it is a very pale, faded image of a party that was formed to champion the cause of freedom and liberty for those enslaved.

That entire conflict and portion of our history is written in the blood of innocent victims, by the hand of a small group of power hungry people who are motivated by greed and control of others. They are the very same people who today, have elevated a man who talks in the grand sweeping phrases of third world dictators who rise out of the dust to throw pedals of empty platitudes at the feet of the adoring crowds.

To see men of the stature of Armstrong Williams and JC Watts, fall for the con of a party using a divisive symbol to intimidate the country into following a path of virtual slavery to government is appalling and quite sad. If more women in 1984 were as gullible and easily swayed as these two male leaders are, Geraldine Ferraro would have easily become the first woman vice president. But we resisted the temptation to indulge our fantasies of feigned oppression. She would have only been a symbolic success to those who agreed with her policies and would have been a dismal failure for everyonewho opposed them. Would that have been a reflection on her ability to lead as a woman? No, no more than Margaret Thatcher was a raging success by those who approved of her every policy.

If Armstrong and JC want true leadership and pigment is that important, and like millions, are totally dissatisfied with the idea of a McCain presidency, then I challenge them to do something really courageous without selling their souls. They can write-in someone like Michael Steel as an alternative choice who, in my opinion is better than both the choices we have now. If color is what they want great . . . let's do it. If conservative is what they claim they want, then, he's the person for that too.

I challenge the country to stop whining and take control of this situation before it totally controls them and they wake up one day without choices. If you don't like either candidate, settle on a write-in and just do it. That actually might be the only way to get McCain's attention, and the only way to break this Obama spell off of people who usually have more sense than this.

Hey JC, Armstrong, and others who are being seduced by pigment; if young women, 20 years ago, could resist the feminist seduction of Gloria, Phil and Geraldine, then surely, you can resist the siren's call to socialism.

By Nina May
June 22,2008

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/NinaMay/2008/06/22/conservative_blacks_choose_pigment_over_principle

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

"The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming -- infinitely more untested, complex and speculative -- is a closed issue.

But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class -- social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies -- arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but -- even better -- in the name of Earth itself.

Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment -- carbon chastity -- they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research -- untainted and reliable -- to determine:

(a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and
(b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.

Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean.

But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo.

Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table, and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing.

By Charles Krauthammer
Washington Post
Friday, May 30, 2008; Page A13

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/29/AR2008052903266.html
(registration may be required for access)

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

These are real problems facing every American, yet it is apparently politically incorrect to discuss them. There are no questions concerning these issues during debates, on Sunday morning political talk shows, or anywhere in the news media in relationship to the candidates. It’s not there. Not to be discussed. The powers in charge are picking the issues – no matter how frustrated the electorate is.

Is it any wonder that there are millions of Americans who don’t vote or participate in our nation’s debate because they think it doesn’t matter anyway. The “average voter” increasingly feels that the decisions have been made for them.

College students, just starting out in the world, wide eyed and ready to make a difference, end up just shrugging their shoulders at the selection of candidates and stay home.

Those who hold conservative points of view that our nation should live within the Constitution now believe socialism is inevitable, so why bother going to the polls.

And the poor think they are simply pawns in a vice grip between big money and special interests which control the elections. Why bother? Helplessness now rules the world’s greatest representative democracy. As people stay home or trudge to the polls to unenthusiastically vote to the next lesser of two evils, 93% of incumbents are routinely returned to office – year after year after year.

The instant a candidate is elected and joins the ranks of the incumbents he/she begins the dance. Get the money for the next campaign. How? Special interests groups, corporations and foreign interests flood into their offices to make deals, promote their personal agendas and show the way to fame, fortune and perpetual office – if only the incumbents go along. They have the whole process well in hand. Campaigns become little more than big PR projects, promoted in positive platitudes, specifically designed to assure nothing negative sticks. Just get through it and keep the gravy train running.

Above all, do not talk about controversial subjects like dollar values, global trade or immigration; just stick to issues like health care and the environment – coincidentally, two issues bought and paid for by the special interests. See how it works?

So year after year we officially hold elections and politicians pontificate about how our going to the polls is a revered right; a valued tradition; the underpinning of a free society. And they wonder why there is such division in the nation. How did we end up in such a mess? We voted for these guys. But did we enjoy it? Are we satisfied with the results? Would we like to demand a do over?

Don’t despair. Don’t give up. There is a logical, effective way out of this. But it won’t happen by depending on political parties to lead the way. We have to take things into our own hands. We need an effective, binding form of protest to say NO to bad candidates. There is such a way.

Imagine going into the voting booth and looking down the list of candidates offered. None really appeal. None seem to offer satisfaction as an answer to the issues that concern you. If only there was something else you could do. A write in won’t help. It would take such a difficult, expensive effort. It rarely works.

Then you look further down the ballot. Something new. It says “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” It’s a final choice after the candidates – after the candidates in every category, from president, to congress to city council. What does it mean?

It means you have the power to decide who will hold office – not the power brokers. When the votes are tallied, if “NONE OF THE ABOVE” gets a majority of votes over any of the candidates listed, then “NONE OF THE ABOVE” wins. And that means none of those candidates will win the office. The election will have to be held again and new candidates will have to try to win the public’s support.

Fixing the election process could be that simple. You, the voter, would be completely in the driver’s seat with the power to reject candidates, forcing a new election with new choices. The political parties would be forced to provide candidates the people want -- or face being rejected. They would have to talk about real issues – or face being rejected. Incumbents would have to answer for their actions in office – or face being rejected.

“NONE OF THE ABOVE.” Period. The power of labor unions and international corporations would be broken.

Think of the consequences. No longer would voters have to settle for the lesser of two evils. If all the candidates are bad – none would be able to force their way into office. It would mean that powerful special interests could no longer rely on their money to buy elections. They could buy all the ads they wanted, spend millions on “volunteers” going door to door, and sling their dirt, but if the voters aren’t buying, none of it will save their candidate from being rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”

Moreover, the power of entrenched incumbents who have been unbeatable because of their massive war chests and party ties would be broken. Picture Ted Kennedy unable to run for office because he was rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”

However, in order to work, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” would have to be binding. It would have to have the power of law behind it. It cannot be just a “protest” vote that has no other meaning.

“NONE OF THE ABOVE” is completely non-partisan. There is no way to control its outcome. There is no need for a massive campaign chest to support “NONE OF THE ABOVE,” although it could certainly be done. But the option, once permanently placed on the ballot, would always be there. America’s representative system would be restored.

To get the job done, activists in every state would have to begin a campaign to demand that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” be given a permanent spot on the ballot. It would have to be done state by state. Some states have ballot referendums and initiatives using petition drives to get an issue on the ballot so the people can decide. It’s difficult and expensive to do, but popular ideas have a chance.

In other states, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” advocates would have to find a friendly state representative or senator to introduce the idea before the state legislature and then get enough votes to pass it in both houses and then signed by the governor. And if the effort is successful then every one of those legislators is an incumbent who will have to face “NONE OF THE ABOVE” or the ballot for their re-election. They probably won’t be too excited about the idea.

Of course, one of their main objections to the “NONE OF THE ABOVE” idea would be the requirement for holding a new election should it win. Too expensive, our responsible public servants would say as they dismissed the idea. The fact is, such a need would probably not arise often once political power brokers began to understand that they must offer candidates acceptable to the people rather than to the special interests. That’s all they really have to do. It’s all we want.

The fact is, the idea of “NONE OF THE ABOVE” has been around for a long time. Over the years, most states have had some kind of legislation introduced supporting the concept. Nevada actually has it on the ballot – but it is not binding. It doesn’t force a new election. It is just a measure of protest. That’s not good enough to make it effective.

One of the reasons it has not been successful is because there has never been a serious national drive to promote the idea. However, with the growing dissatisfaction voters are feeling with the quality of candidates running for public office, particularly in the presidential campaign, perhaps there has never been a better time to start a national discussion on the issue.

The best part is that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” isn’t a conservative or liberal idea. It’s not a Republican of Democrat proposal. In fact, Republican leadership might see it as a good way to break the back of big labor’s influence over elections. Equally, Democrats could see it as a way to stop the power and influence of the Republican’s big business money. However they want to look at it, the bottom line is that the voters win.

So as we sigh and moan over the choices of Obama, Hillary and McCain, let’s start the debate and as Larry the Cable Guy says, “let’s get ‘er done.” Perhaps by the next election cycle we won’t have to take it anymore!

Tom DeWeese
May 30, 2008
NewsWithViews.com
http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom111.htm

Tom DeWeese is president of the American Policy Center

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Her father responded by asking how she was doing in school. She was taken aback by the question. Her father already knew the answer. She responded rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA. She went on to stress the obvious, that a 4.0 GPA was tough to maintain. She informed her father that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying. Her studies left her no time to go out and party like the other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, she complained, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened patiently and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?”

His daughter replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. She takes all the easy classes. She never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. But she is so popular on campus. College for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.”

Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don't you go to the Dean's Office at the end of this semester and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend Audrey who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA.”

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, resentfully fired back, “That wouldn't be fair! I’ve worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time and a lot of hard work! Audrey’s done next to nothing. She played while I worked my tail off!”

The father slowly smiled, and said gently, “Welcome to conservatism. Your friend Audrey is really no different than many others. It has nothing to do with race, gender, religion or economic circumstances. Your liberal friends in academia, plus many Republicans and most Democrats, will soon be demanding that you relinquish a portion of your GPA. They, knowing better than you, will redistribute your hard work to one of your classmates, or maybe give it to the child of an illegal alien migrant who is heavily taxpayer subsidized. If you should object, you will likely be denounced as a selfish right-wing racist and treated with contempt.”

“Yes, you should understand that if nothing changes in America very soon, you will be expected to subsidize the good times of many others, most of whom are unwilling, either through conscious choice or because of flawed decision making, to provide for themselves beyond a meager subsistence. They will expect this of you throughout the rest of your life.”

The daughter, angry and shocked at the thought, countered emotionally. “But that’s like slavery, like me being a slave to them.”

“Yes dear, that’s right.” her father lamented. “For all practical purposes, it is slavery for those who work hard at everything they do, from the beginning of their education through the rest of their working life. However, your social status of serfdom is necessary for others to achieve their egalitarian idealism. It is important to many people that you not have more than them. It is even more important to those who seek to rule that your situation is so desperate that you will vote for them and their promises. They’ll keep you and me, and the rest of the country, in desperate straits to insure their continued dominion at the ballot box.”

“Then, we have to consider those people who have exchanged their votes, traded them, in order to be arbitrarily classified as somehow disadvantaged. From their point of view, what you have and they do not have is neither fair nor is it their fault. They expect the government will force you and me to support them. They want their circumstances and consummate personal neglect to be your responsibility. They want you and everyone else to believe the fantasy that the victims of income confiscation (the taxpayers) are somehow evil, and the thieves (the recipients of income redistribution) miraculously have an entitlement to that which for them is unearned.”

“Politicians have come to think that people like you and me, and millions of other hard-working citizens, literally belong to the government. That’s the way of Socialism. They assume they can arbitrarily take from us as much as they want, even what we think of as our private property, even our children.”

Her father continued in a sad voice, “An incredible number of people, across this nation and around the world, live very well with the money taken from our family’s income. It all comes down to who works and who enjoys the fruits of the labor. If the government, any government, forces you to work to support other citizens, illegal aliens, and foreign nations, i.e., people other than your own family, it’s hard to think of it any other way than a form of slavery.”

“It should not make any United States citizen proud --- to ask their own family to sacrifice in order to serve a master class of indolent Americans and non-citizens in a land of ethical and moral anarchy.”

The daughter, disillusioned and with tears in her eyes said, “Like, that’s really wrong. I don’t want to be a slave.”

Lifting his book to continue reading, her father said, “Slavery has not been abolished as long as one man is involuntarily forced to serve another.”

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

The following is a verbatim sampling of the survey questions, (with emphasis added). Read each question and contemplate the grammatical construction and precise wording of the sentence. Reflect on what was being asked. Think of the myriad aspects of each issue that were carefully not asked. Nowhere in the survey document was it explained how the information from the survey responses would be used - or if it would be used at all. Unfortunately, space does not permit reproducing all 55 questions.

Questions:
6. How concerned are you that we potentially face more terrorism within the United States and that it will directly impact your family? (There have been hundreds of terrorist incidents in the United States since 2001, all of Islamic origins, few of which have been reported by the media. What American is not concerned? Only an enemy of the United States would not be concerned. Who in the state or federal government should be on that list?)

9. Do you think our government is doing enough to secure America's borders against foreign terrorists? (Doing "enough." The RNC is kidding, right? Is the risk to the United States at the borders only from foreign terrorists? What about national sovereignty, drugs, human trafficking, disease, violent crime, etc.? The question might have been more relevant if the word "anything" been substituted for the word "enough.")

10. Do you believe that all foreigners within the United States whose visas have expired should be tracked down and deported? (And the alternate choice is what?)

16. Is President Bush right in standing up to the Democrats as they try to expand the size, scope and costs of the federal government? (Are there any indications that President Bush is "standing up," or has ever "stood up?")

20. Do you favor a major overhaul of the current Federal Tax Code that would replace today's burdensome tax collection system with one that is simpler and fairer? (Does simpler mean you can do it yourself? Will the IRS be abolished? Will more than only the top 50% of wage earners pay a fair share of taxes? Will liberal Republicans and Democrats use this as an opportunity to do what they have been promising, increase taxes under the guise of tax simplification?)

23. Do you believe that it is imperative to modernize and restore fiscal soundness to Social Security? (Assuming the political reality of a Social Security system, why do liberals believe a bankrupt system would be the preferred choice? United States citizens don't. Why do congressmen prefer that Americans should have to make do with less latter in life as a result of higher taxes, lower Social Security benefits and a devalued dollar? The inescapable reality will only exacerbate as Congress fiddles.)

29. How much of a role should the federal government have in an individual's health care? (Government already decides who lives and who dies. How much more control do liberals need?)

40. Are you in favor of establishing a guest worker program that will allow people to enter the United States temporarily to fill jobs that Americans do not take? (Are you in favor of outsourcing all of America, everything from street maintenance to airports to teachers? Whether we send the jobs overseas or bring in illegal aliens as labor, it amounts to outsourcing American jobs. Why not outsource our nation's government in hopes we can find someone who will get their job done? Arguably outsourcing would decrease corruption.)

41. Do you support increased funding for border control operations? (Why should we increase funding of border control operations, particularly when we could save money (billions of dollars) and save lives (thousands each year) by building the border fence? The border fence would cost a fraction of the annual budget of the Border Patrol. It was noteworthy that no survey question was asked about the advisability of decreasing taxpayer-funded social services extended to illegal aliens. The RNC agenda on immigration is painfully clear.)

45. Does the national news media accurately report the news without liberal bias? (While reporting accurately is only one of a host of serious issues associated with liberal media bias, who cares? Accurate information is available from alternate sources. The main-stream-media, flying in ever decreasing concentric circles, has reduced itself to being their own audience and their only audience.)

51. How do you rate President Bush's job performance? (The five survey choices ranged from excellent to poor, which arbitrarily prevented selecting a choice outside the range of positive numbers. I had in mind "i," the square root of -1, an imaginary number to represent an imaginary performance.)

55. What do you consider the most important steps the Republican Party can take in the coming months to help advance President Bush's agenda and win back a majority in Congress? (Why is the focus solely on the welfare of the Republican Party, and not on the economic and cultural vitality of the United States of America and the welfare of hard-working citizens? Even if the RNC were to change their words and the color of their stripes, pretending to be conservative just as Democrats pretend a faith, they would not be changing their compost pile of people. They remain liberals. President Bush's liberal agenda has been widely repudiated by those who vote. It is incredibly unlikely that conservative voters will knowingly advance President Bush's agenda. And yet, that is the singular premise of the RNC survey and solicitation. The Republican Party, far more liberal than conservative, is clearly in disarray having been overrun by liberal ideologues. Without conservative candidates and conservative principles, the Republican Party will fail again in 2008.)

The rest of the survey questions were equally inane.

Also relevant is that the survey was at least the sixth such survey (and possibly more than the tenth - I've lost count), all of which were the same survey sent out by the RNC in the last couple years - with exactly the same questions. How relevant can the questions be if they never change? What have liberal Republicans accomplished in all these years if the questions never change? When we stop long enough to comtemplate the real purpose of a survey, the RNC surveys begin to have a purpose. Rather than seek the opinions of survey recipients, a survey is better used - intended - to measure whether or not the propaganda is working, and to solicit donations. So much for our opinions, which should not come as a surprise.

As an aside, who do you think was going to score and correlate the hundred of thousands of responses to each of 55 questions? Processing donations in the form of personal checks or credit cards will consume most of the time of staff and volunteers. The money will make it into the RNC financial accounts, and the donor's name and address will be added to a database of easy marks for future solicitations. Apparently we can receive the results of the survey if requested, but why would you want to - ten times? My name and personal information is also in the database. However, I have a difficult time envisioning any candidate articulating their campaign position in a public policy address by actually saying, "According to the 'Ask America, 2007 Nationwide Policy Survey', Question number 50, a huge majority of the respondents believe there should be a consititutional amendment banning gay marriage, therefore if elected I will oppose gay marriage."

Reading the entire "survey" evoked a response comparable to experiencing cruel and unusual punishment. The survey was probably more unpleasant to a conservative than anything the detainees at Abu Ghraib were ever subjected to. Since I read the survey voluntarily, Senator John McCain would probably say my discomfort was self-inflicted and while painful, it was not inhumane or torture. Well, I beg to differ. The survey, as constructed, and repeatedly inflicted every month or two on an unwilling participant, was surely designed to be an instrument of slow political torture. When I had finished the survey, I was left with a mental image of being escorted by two burly political operatives into a voting booth, restrained at the hands and feet, wearing bright orange garb and provided an "opportunity" to vote on issues already decided years ago by political hacks behind closed doors - a vote limited to two choices, neither of which were in the nation's best interests.

Conservative philosophy suggests that what is in the best interests of the individual citizen and individual liberty is also, by definition, in the best interests of the United States of America. Ever-increasing socialism is not in the best interests of individual American citizens, unless one's goal is shared misery and the voter has a self-destructive desire to serve those who seek to rule rather than govern. Maybe there is some truth to the suggestion that Washington, D.C. in general, and the United States Congress in particular, have become the insane asylum of the universe.

What then is the bottom line? Conservatives will vote for their principles, but not for any candidate or politicial party that abandons their conservative principles.

It appears that the Republican National Committee (RNC) does not understand conservative philosophy or share conservative principles. The survey questions would seem to indicate that the RNC does not know, which every conservative knows either intuitively or by faith, the difference between "right and wrong."

Can you name and discuss with some reasonable semblence of insight one domestic or foreign policy decision of the current administration that disproves the assertion that, "If you don't know where you are going, any direction you take will get you there?" The RNC, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity want Republican and Independent voters to elect or re-elect the same or like-minded people as those currently in office. It will be a cold day. Our only alternative may well be an ugly choice, Comrade Clinton. Either way, historians will clinically document 2008 as the year of national suicide. In the aftermath, everybody will point fingers at their friends and neighbors attempting to shift responsibility.

Democraks are correct about at least one thing - a conservative GOP was once-upon-a-time the party of wealthy, successful, and ambitious Americans. Conservative Republicans thrived instead of survived, educated instead of failed, won instead of lost, cherished family instead of a village, achieved instead of blamed, lead and innovated instead of complained and sued, and worshiped freely. Today, liberal Republicans differ little from Democrats. They share a desire to emulate Soviet- and Cuban-style socialism and accummulate power and wealth at the expense of taxpayers, while being inappropriately subsidized by the votes of non-taxpayers, felons and illegal aliens.

Just as illegal aliens flooded across America’s borders in search of opportunity without cultural allegiance, liberals have flooded across the borders of the Republican Party for more than a decade seeking "easy money," i.e., political opportunity without any commitment to conservatism, and laying waste to the U.S. Constitution in the process. The Republican Party and America have both suffered the same tragic fate – an invasion by illegal aliens (liberals politicians and Mexican nationals) who care little about anything but themselves – in both cases led by none less than Senator John McCain. Faux conservatives in the Republican Party did nothing to control their Party borders or national borders and the rest is history.

Do you remember? In 2004, the nation truly belonged to Republicans. Their leadership would have lasted for decades into the future if the GOP had remained true to principles of conservatism, national security, faith, freedom, sanctity of life and the American family. Historians will say that the ascendancy of Republicans didn’t last long, which will be the sorry legacy of President George W. Bush and an exceptionally weak Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. There were numerous advance clues to George W. Bush, beginning in Texas, with his “compassionate conservatism,” a cleverly packaged virulent strain of socialism, and his open advocacy for all forms of social services for illegal aliens.

In hindsight, “compassionate” was a code word for “liberalism,” and Americans were asked to believe that the oxymoron of liberal conservatism was somehow feasible if only administered by George W. Bush. The political dynamics in 2004 were such that a majority of American citizens were genuinely desperate not to elect as President of the United States a national traitor. If only the Republican National Committee (RNC) understood (or cared) that conservatives, registered Republicans or Independents, did not vote for Governor George W. Bush, but voted against Vice President Al Gore in 2000, voted against Senator John F. Kerry in 2004, and voted against liberal Republicans in 2006. The choice facing the electorate in recent decades, in almost every political jurisdiction, has not been one of eagerly voting for the best of two candidates, but going to the polls and voting against the worst of the two candidates. Will history repeat itself in 2008?

The choice is simple and Americans need to choose. Will it be personal freedom, education instead of indoctrination, less government, less regulation and lower taxes, ownership of private property and financial success, the by-products of a philosophy of personal excellence, integrity, initiative and patriotism? Or, will it be the liberal alternative, a life in the shackles of state-dependency and citizen subservience, without anything but temporary jobs and a dismal national future? Your children's future under the auspices of liberal democratic socialism is well documented, i.e., a state of equalized poverty, shared misery, bussed to the next election machine and told how to vote.

We can choose to work on the plantation picking cotton for those politicians who compete to live in the "big house," or we can be well-educated, prosperous, free men and women. The only limits to our success and our freedom are those we impose on ourselves by failing in our first responsibility in life, i.e., to educate ourselves. If education was what it once was, what it should be, without government interference, Americans would know that the bleached bones of millions of unfortunate people, victims of every socialist-style government in the history of the world - no exceptions - litter the roadside of human evolution.

Having failed to educate ourselves and our youth early and so completely, there are few employment opportunities remaining in life except to pick another man's cotton. The RNC survey, "Ask America, 2007 Nationwide Policy Survey," sixth iteration, goes a long way to confirm that assessment.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Assuming an 8% annual economic rate of growth, it will take China about 30 years, assuming 4% annual productivity growth, before it would exhaust this huge pool of unemployed. Can the United States compete with those labor costs for the next 30 years? Not in our wildest dreams! Where do you think the “jobs” will be - where will consumer goods and weaponry be manufactured over the next 30 years? Where will your waffle maker and toaster be manufactured? China and India, of course! If you doubt even for a minute, visit any retail merchandiser in the United States and check each appliance and article of clothing for their origin of manufacture.

Politicians tell you not to be concerned! The United States will still have many jobs. What they don't tell you, either out of ignorance or malice, is that those jobs will be temporary positions. The future holds far fewer jobs for Americans, regardless of individual educational achievement. Predictably, the only real jobs that can lead to measurable wealth will become the province of the elite, and they will be intensely coveted, particularly those with tenure such as "professor" or "congressman." Significant barriers to entry are being erected by the incumbents in those "jobs" as you read this article.

Those among us who are considered less qualified by the elite will predictably clamor for even more income and wealth redistribution. The government’s roster of Americans dependent on income redistribution will continue to grow exponentially. Government dependency has already become typical rather than the exception. More and larger definable groups have begun competing openly and ruthlessly for available taxpayer-subsidized handouts.

Congressmen, consumed absolutely with self-indulgence, self-aggrandizement and power over their fellow citizens, continue to demonstrate they do not have the vision, intellect, ethics, statesmanship, or the will to redirect a nation careening out of economic and social control. From their point of view, everything is as it should be. They rule, we serve. The reality is simple and painfully brutal: your education, your employability and your standard of living in coming years is solely your responsibility, unless you are willing to clean swimming pools or flip burgers while the government augments your meager existence. It would be incredibly wise, but uncharacteristic, for our nation's youth to wake up while the coffee is still warm enough to smell it.

In our modern “global economy,” Americans must quickly come to understand that have to compete with every other nation’s labor as a cost of doing business, from Mexico to China. If an American citizen hopes to earn 10 times as much as an Indian and 50 times as much as a Chinese, he is going to have to produce 10 times or 50 times as much as his competitors in India and China, of equal or better quality, or his job is going to move offshore. Only Rip Van Winkle is unaware that millions of jobs have already fled America to foreign shores as a result of excessive federal and state taxation, burdensome regulation by government administrative agencies (e.g., OSHA, EPA), runaway litigation, personnel benefits which include the cost of healthcare, and employee unions.

Is there one industry in the United States today that can leverage the needed productivity in the coming years? Not likely. Even the U.S. airline industry is on the verge of widespread bankruptcy. The automotive industry, led by Ford Motor Company is in close pursuit. Ford executives are arguably engaged in a form of intentional and self-inflicted corporate suicide, not unlike Jonestown.

What would be necessary to revitalize the American economy quickly enough that it will matter?

Congressmen, those who have the temerity to call themselves our elected representatives, but have forgotten that they are Americans first and foremost, would have to join the team. All employers, with the support of the nation’s citizenry, would have to create a “Team America” initiative not unlike the Kennedy space initiatives and NASA of the 1960’s. All Americans would have to commit to invest massive sums into new equipment (capital investment), vocational and technical training, and invigorate retro-style education solely grounded in mathematics, sciences and focused solely on student excellence. In the interim, free-loaders and race-baiters would have to forego hundreds of billions of dollars of taxation destined for pork projects and income redistribution for political purposes. Not likely ....

What is more likely is that Congress will employ their only other (three-phase) alternative available, (1) cutting your benefits, (2) dramatically increasing your taxes, and (3) undertaking intense social engineering. Their intent would be even more redistribution of power, influence, jobs, education, income, housing, transportation, private property and health care by accelerating socialism and redistributing what wealth still remains. All this will be necessary in order to support those citizens who long ago stopped working with the permission of Congress and state legislatures, and illegal aliens who are willing to work but contribute nothing.

Congress’ choice of the redistribution alternative, in lieu of the “Team America” approach, will cynically be calculated to ensure that politicians, at every level of government, protect and expand their own financial security in the lifestyle of a Hollywood movie star, rock or sports superstar. This they will accomplish by first legislating themselves a special elite status that no other American enjoys, including specialized medical care and exclusive retirement provisions. If that were not enough, Congress has already enacted their own unique ability to solicit, accumulate and keep massive amounts of personal wealth from campaign contributions upon their retirement. The provisions of Congressional retirement, were they to become widely known, would gag most Americans.

There is always a point of peak efficiency given existing technology. Just as there is elasticity in maximizing total revenue, so too is there elasticity in both taxation and income redistribution, which is why, when marginal tax rates are lowered, tax revenues increase. The same concept applies inversely to redistribution entitlements. At some point, excessive prices, taxes, and entitlements all become destructive to maximizing national ‘total GNP’ and economic growth.

Until decision makers are reigned in, and Congressmen once again become citizen legislators who are limited in tenure and not permitted to profit from elected office, decisions from Congress (and courts) will continue to focus on protecting their own self-interests, as a ruling elite class, at the sacrifice of all other Americans. If the economic engine in America is running low on fuel, clearly Congress isn't focused on filling the fuel tank, i.e., making any more fuel (real jobs) or creating better fuel (job training and new technologies). They demonstrate on a daily basis that the only fuel tank that matters is their own.

Red State Patriot would suggest that all Americans get out of debt as soon as possible and be very grateful if you still have a “job.” Be even more grateful if you still have a job two years from now. Hopefully the graphic accompanying this article, as you study it, will become self-explanatory.

Red State Patriot

Comments are welcome at redstatepatriot@hughes.net. Please include the title of the article as your subject line. Selected responses, in whole or part, may be published (appended to the article).

« Close It

Later on Wednesday, a prominent and very successful businessman came in for a haircut. When he attempted to pay, the barber again replied: "I'm sorry, I cannot accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The businessman was pleased and left the shop. On Thursday morning when the barber opened, there was a thank you card and four new books with titles such as, "How to Improve Your Business" and "Becoming More Successful."

Late in the morning on Thursday, a well-known Democratic Party politician came in for a haircut. When he tried to pay his bill the barber again replied: "I'm sorry, I can’t accept money from you; I'm doing community service this week." The Democrat smiled, shook his hand, asked the barber for his support in the upcoming election, and left the shop.

On Friday morning when the barber opened up, there was nothing waiting at the door except six more Democrats, two liberal Republicans, and nine illegal aliens – all lined up for a free haircut - which illustrates the fundamental difference between left and right, liberal and conservative, illegal alien migrant and citizen.

A conservative always pays his own way, never asking for something unearned.

The moral of this story: If you do something for just one liberal out of kindness or charity, the rest will invariably want something (everything) for nothing. How many people in American society, citizens and illegal aliens, are looking for (expecting) a free haircut every day of their life (on your dime)? Do they expect the free ride to continue? Democrats have offered them a free ride forever in return for their votes. What was known as "black box socialism" has been expanded to embrace "brown box socialism." (Search the archives for an explanation.)

Do you remember the Kevin Costner movie, "Field of Dreams" in which the central premise was, "Build it and they will come." Congress and state legislatures have successfully built the illegal alien "Field of Dreams," a system of unearned social benefits for illegal aliens that is so incredible illegal aliens are willing to endure remarkable hardship and even risk death to obtain it.

Is there any doubt why we have the numbers of illegal aliens we have today, with millions more on the way? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that illegal aliens are coming here for the free haircuts. If you want the illegal alien migration to stop, the free haircuts have to stop.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Now, appearing in the current issue of the typically ultra-liberal Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy (pages 649-694), is the Kates/Mauser report entitled “Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International Evidence.” It is a detailed look at gun ownership and how it does not relate to the incidence of murder and violence. It would appear the facts show just the opposite. The researchers predictably conclude, just as every previous study has concluded, that “nations with very stringent anti-gun laws generally have substantially higher murder rates as those which allow guns.” (Emphasis added)

The Kates/Mauser research strips bare the time-worn claims by gun control proponents that America is more dangerous than other countries because of our “Right” to keep and bear arms. What these two seasoned researchers reveal is that some of the most violent countries in Europe are those with the most stringent gun control laws. Logically, one could extrapolate that in America, the highest crime rates should be in places with strictest gun control policies, such as Chicago and Washington, D.C. And unremarkably, facts bear out that reality. However, in areas both here and abroad with high rates of gun ownership, violent crime rates are much lower.

Kates documented (in an earlier study) a declining murder rate over the 25-year period from 1973 to 1997, during a period when overall gun ownership increased 103 percent, and handgun ownership went up 163 percent. Yet during that same period, the murder rate dropped 27.7 percent.

Due to the renewal of the gun control debate in the main stream media following the recent events at Virginia Tech, researchers Kates and Mauser make a solid factual case against the emotion-laden rhetoric from the gun control crowd who choose to dispense seemingly endless misinformation to the uninformed public. While the latest research study will obviously not close the debate, any more than a dozen more studies that reach the same conclusion will close the debate, Kates and Mauser make a strong case against the anti-gun mantra. Their conclusion is that gun ownership is factually not the problem – gun ownership is not the cause of violent crime. There are other critical societal issues at play and the violence would likely be far, far worse were it not for gun ownership.

The inescapable conclusion from multiple studies is that ‘Gun Control’ is nothing but ‘Victim Disarmament,’ a central provision in every piece of gun control legislation. Ask yourself thoughtfully; how many armed citizens become the victims of a crime? In contrast, how may unarmed citizens do you suppose become the victims of a crime? Arguably, the unarmed citizens have a huge propensity to become crime victims.

Reality begs the question, why would any politician want to disarm his own nation’s citizens in the face of rampant international Islamic terrorism, and particularly if strict gun control laws have been irrefutably shown to increase the incidence of both international and domestic violent crime? Why would any politician knowing these facts want to create more victims? An informed politician serving our national interest would not make that choice. But then, why would any politician advocate open borders at the expense of American citizens except in their own self-interest?

What then is the ulterior motive of gun control advocates and most entrenched politicians? Clearly, their intent is not to reduce the number of crime victims. Their only other imaginable agenda is one of self-interest. Ultimately, could it be their intent to pave the way for our forcible submission to government policies repugnant to the majority of Americans? The incremental erosion and eventual loss of individual liberties contained in the Bill of Rights is unrelenting, which by itself is a recipe for national repression. Private property is all but gone; freedom of speech has become a historical footnote; freedom of religion has mutated into freedom from the Christian religion; socialism has been instituted as the national religion; and the right to bear arms is diminishing under constant attack. Only the most naive of American citizens still entertain the delusion that Congress is serving their national interest and not attempting to rule in their own self-interest.

For numerous citations, search the internet for the listed authors of the study. To save time, a very informative and substantive article can be found at: http://www.guncite.com/journals/tennmed.html

Red State Patriot

« Close It

These are but a few examples and there are many more. All of them have two things in common: (1) an adamant desire by adherents of liberalism to dictate and control the behavior of others (as opposed to the desire of conservatives and libertarians who do not want to give up their liberties and be controlled), and (2) the desire of liberals to take from the producers and redistribute what was unearned by them to the non-producers - egalitarianism.

The basis of a culture war is nothing less than trying to: (1) imposing your value systems, or lack of them, on others and (2), taking (seizing) wealth and comfort from others against their will to redistribute as you see fit – often in self-interest. If you advocate redistribution in any form, for any reason what-so-ever, then this is your shameful frame of reference. Now that most socialists (communists) have departed these pages, let’s continue.

The only issue among and between liberals (and neo- or paleo-conservatives) is the degree of control sought. A libertarian would make a conscious choice to exercise the least amount of control over society. A conservative espouses a small government, minimal laws, self-reliance, low taxes and a few local ordinances – just enough to keep society orderly. To the left of conservatives, in the ideological spectrum between conservative philosophy and liberal ideology, are several cleverly disguised life forms of liberalism identified by deceptive and misleading labels. These are the so-called neo-conservatives and paleo-conservatives found pervasively in today’s Republican Party. The main stream media laughably describes these pretenders as “moderates,” trying to obscure their profoundly liberal agenda. Neo- and paleo-conservatives embrace many aspects of a distinctly liberal ideology that is light years distant from conservatism and individualism, but arguably it is not liberalism in its most extreme form (Democratic Party) and therefore somehow portrayed by the media as moderate. Neo-conservatives (which include George W. Bush) have a plan for ruling (not governing) America, just as do all liberals at every incremental level of society, from your home-owners association to Congress. With a little effort, you can trace the evolution of their thought from their youthful Trotskyism in the 1930s to their anti-communist liberalism in the 1940s and '50s, and finally to their development of a new kind of culture in the 1960s and 1970s. Neo-conservatives have in common that they regard themselves as the most intellectually impressive faction of the post-war intellectual Right, which is only slightly right of far Left. To a casual observer, they seem to take ideas seriously; they seem to be principled; they seem to support the principles of the American founding; and they seem to support capitalism. But, behind their rhetorical façade, "Neocons" scorn principles, scorn morality, scorn the rule of law, scorn capitalism and most of all, they scorn America. Despite their pro-American rhetoric and their appeals to, and defense of, America's ideals and institutions, neo-conservatives advocate singularly un-American principles: mysticism over reason, altruism over egoism, duty over rights, collectivism over individualism, socialism over capitalism, war and empire over peace and trade, individual power and self interest over the voice of the people, and possibly the most egregious, union over nationalism.

Neo-conservatives gained control of the Republican Party and the conservative intellectual movement in 1994 led by Newt Gingrich and transformed their gains into a permanent ruling majority (until 2006). Neo-conservatives have a pragmatic method which includes advocacy of a less extreme social welfare state and the intent to turn America toward a form of Platonic republicanism that includes Canada and Mexico in a North American Union. Ultimately, the neo-conservatives are as much - or more - of a threat to a free society as the devout Socialists in the fundamentalist Democratic Party.

Neo- and paleo-conservatives are the “compassionate” conservatives, the “swing voters” you often hear about. More aptly, these are the nation’s “swing socialists” and ever-changing political chameleons.

At the very left end of the ideological spectrum in the 21st Century is liberalism itself and the Democratic Party. They represent the strongest and most unrelenting proponents of the Religion of Socialism and with it, omnipotent government devoid of religion, devoid of individual rights, and devoid of private property ownership - privileges only for the elite. There is one common denominator among liberals. To the man and woman, liberals advocate their own social privileges as members of an unaccountable elite class. As individuals, liberals tend to avoid becoming involved in competition at all costs, seeing competition as evil - but seeing your earned wealth as their entitlement, not unlike the plantation owners of old. The only thing more repulsive than competition to a liberal is personal responsibility, i.e., accountability that cannot be shifted to someone else.

Possibly you remember from your studies many years ago that light through a prism reveals itself in a visible spectrum (red, orange, yellow, green blue, indigo and violet), with white light being the combined presence of all colors. How beautiful is a rainbow? Try to imagine that each one of those individual colors is one of your individual freedoms. Each is the component color of a beautiful rainbow. You have many of them, ostensibly protected by the Bill of Rights. In contrast, what you see as black, the “color” black is the absence of all light (and the absence of individual freedoms). Liberalism (which includes neo-conservatives) is at the black end of the spectrum of liberty. Closer inspection will reveal to anyone who is willing to look out of one eye and see out of the other that liberalism is that hard nucleus about which all variants of Socialism form, including Fascism and Communism. Each “Right” of any American that we permit to be marginally diminished or extinguished, whether your own or you neighbor’s, regardless of its application at the moment to you personally, whether it is gun ownership, free (not politically correct) speech, freedom to pursue your chosen religion without interference from others, etc., you lose one more color that comprises the spectrum of liberty. With one color missing, such as freedom of speech, can you still have a rainbow? The rainbow of liberty has been under assault for a long time. Does it still exist?

By our apathetic acquiescence, or surrendering our rights out of tired disillusionment, or abandoning our rights through ill-informed advocacy of removing colors from what once was a beautiful rainbow, you facilitate the high priests of the religion of Socialism to incrementally move all of us toward the “black” (the absence of all individual freedoms and property rights).

Think of it this way. By allowing or facilitating the loss of any constitutional “Right” is to permit others with dubious motivation to be the pilot in control of a large airplane that is intentionally flown into the “tower of liberty,” in order to bring down the entire building. Just as the WTC came down, so will our Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights can no more stand without several of its component colors any more than the WTC can stand without several of its component floors. Those organizations and individuals who assail our individual rights, which collectively form the basis for our liberty, or attempt to marginalize, limit or tax them in any way, are no less culpable than the terrorists in control of the aircraft who brought down the WTC.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation of the United States of America. They stand as our only defense of those who would rule. Those who attack our individual rights, whether Senator John McCain or adherents of Islam, deserve relentless rebuke, and certainly not the free ride they’re getting today. They know exactly what they’re doing and they intend that we will be the victims. If any American could manage to get a comment from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, she would say, “I laugh because there is nothing you can do about it.”

How important is it that we educate ourselves, and particularly our children and our neighbors? Could there be anything more important at this point in history? Ignorance of socialism and fascism, the form of government being imposed upon us by the most corrupt members of our own society (Democrat and Republican politicians), in rejection of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, in exchange for our votes that guarantees to them permanent power, will ultimately result in the death of liberty for all of us. Any step by a government entity that would diminish even one Amendment in the Bill of Rights, e.g., freedom of speech, assaults your liberty. Has your freedom of speech been restricted in recent years – in how many ways? That realization that our liberties are circling the drain of history should cause every American citizen to reflect long and hard on what it means to have liberty, and who would take it from us. If you have any doubt, consider what passes for education (indoctrination) our young Americans are receiving and question why it is happening.

Just maybe the movie, “Planet of the Apes” was less science fiction than profound insight on what will come to pass if we squander our cultural heritage and liberty.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Part of this insatiable demand for highly motivated (but minimally skilled) workers was solved by outsourcing manufacturing jobs and entire industries overseas. The seeds of this transition began cynically as politicians in the United States offered minimally skilled American workers a pernament economic subsidy in return for their votes. As a result, year after year minimally skilled workers in the United States became increasingly scarce as a result of large numbers leaving the labor market (no longer looking for jobs). Politicians had offered them a life on permanent income redistribution (employment in the welfare industry) and free medical care which provided them higher standard of living than their prior life as a minimally skilled worker without benefits. In most cases, it was a logical economic decision.

At the same time, workers in India and China were becomming plentiful and willing to work at a fraction of the cost of labor in the United States. There are still large numbers of minimally skilled indigenous workers in the United States, and arguably that number has gown exponentially with the disintegration of education in the government public school system. Two highly correlated factors are at work at the same time. While the American society and economy was devolving as a result of government interference with the labor market, major segments of our population were becoming less skilled (poor education) and less motivated (income redistribution).

Regardless of skill or education considerations, the labor pool in the United States is three-tiered, those who are highly motivated, those who are minimally motivated, and those who are unmotivated. Minimally motivated and unmotivated workers have come to expect (demand) so much in the form of total compensation that they cannot compete in a world labor market. It is difficult to entice them to work at all, particularly after Congress chose to provide the social alternative of relying on income redistribution as a respectable livelihood. Imagine, choosing not to work and still being subsidized by taxpayers in every imaginable way (health care, housing, no taxes, cash subsidy, transportation, education, food stamps, utility bills, etc.). What is the incentive for any minimally motivated and unmotivated worker to seek employment? Constructive employment (real jobs) for these individuals, in most cases, is a net financial and healthcare loss. Clearly pride is not a factor, nor ethnicity or self-respect, as large numbers of various demographic groups consciously seek, through sociopathic behavior and wilfull ignorance, to make themselves unemployable.

It should go without saying that manufacturing is the foundation of any economy, and particularly a global economy. Workers in India or China or Mexico can produce, for a labor cost of $1.00, the same product of the same quality as a worker in the United States for a labor cost of $30.00. In order to compete, the United States’ worker had better be able to produce 30 times as much, or substantially higher quality, in the same amount of time.

Meanwhile, the manufacturer has the objective, as does any business enterprise, to produce their product with the least consumption of scarce natural resources, including labor, in order to maximize profit. Even though the basic concepts are economic in origin, for a moment think of labor in environmental terms. In the course of all human activity, we should try to consume the least quantity of all natural resources whenever possible, including labor. Most people of liberal orientation understand that it is far more efficient and humanitarian to hire 30 Indians than one American (for the same labor cost) – unless there are overriding economic, nationalistic or ideological considerations.

At the same time that labor costs were becoming prohibitively uncompetitive during the 1990's, with lesser-skilled labor demanding too much to get of their sofa, government was simultaneously imposing too much regulatory overhead for any business in the United States to profitably function as a domestic corporation. The situation has grown worse each year without any sign of comprehension by lawmakers. The economic fires are raging, consuming the United States economy, and Congress is throwing combustible fuel on the fire as a solution. The absence of inexpensive labor in the United States, combined with oppressive government administrative agency interference and congressional malfeasance, continue to be important factors that weigh very heavily in corporate outsourcing decisions.

A wise man once remarked a long time ago, that it was a little late to close the barn door after the horses were gone. It isn’t always that easy to get them back. Yet in the case of many important United States’ industries, we must try.

We should pause for a well-deserved moment of silence in tribute to past and current Congressmen who have collectively engineered this debacle. The consequence of their ineptitude is that every manufacturing industry still remaining in the United States is facing increasingly stiff competition from overseas, forcing them to cut costs deeply, including wages and benefits, in order to compete with foreign rivals. So severe is the problem that since 1993, U.S. production has only met half of the increase in American demand for durable goods; the other half has come from overseas. So when you hear the President say that Americans are “addicted” to foreign goods, that claim is patently false. Americans want quality manufactured goods, and are more than capable of producing quality manufactured goods themselves, but they are just not made in the United States anymore.

Why not? In the fewest possible words, American manufacturing and its associated jobs are gone, courtesy of failed domestic socialism, regulatory programs and foreign trade policies enacted by Congress and successive American administrations. The United States Congress, state legislatures and courts have literally and unwittingly undermined the profitability of American industry until most fled overseas for survival. Halliburton is only the most recent to flee. Those that remain are circling the drain in ever-decreasing concentric circles. Keep an close eye on Ford Motor Company and U.S. Air, the two corporations voted the most likely to succumb and submerge in the near future.

The root causes of the scarcity of inexpensive labor include such factors as federal and state legislation and local ordinances, administrative agency regulations to implement ill-advised legislation, litigation, equal opportunity, environmental restrictions, poor education and work ethic, union interference, worker’s compensation, mindless taxation, double taxation, political corruption, earmarks, occupational safety extremes, demographics, product liability, crime, etc. Far from last or least on the list of causes of labor scarcity are schemes intended to benefit special interest groups in return for their votes, i.e., income redistribution. The clearly visible but ignored effect of our national welfare state is to dramatically shrink the willing labor pool year after year. In fact, real incomes for middle-class taxpaying households were lower in 2005 than in the recession year of 2001. Democrat Jim Webb, who just won election in normally Republican Virginia, warned, “In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future.”

Why has the United States’ Congress, in their collective incompetence and Nero Syndrome, allowed America to become short the 20-40 million employees, educated or not, skilled or not, motivated or not, needed to sustain industrial manufacturing in the United States? That is a matter best left to ideologues. A lifetime could be spent analyzing past Congressional legislation and Supreme Court decisions that resulted in subsidizing whole groups of people, effectively removing them from the need to work, institutionalizing discrimination and disenfranchising American industry. It would be easier to understand if social engineering was being used by the courts and legislatures to advance the cause of socialism. What logical explanation could there be for Congress to have created a permanent and expanding underclass whose literal survival today depends on income redistribution through entitlement programs (in exchange for votes)? Did we answer the question inadvertently? Sorry.

If that were not enough, and regardless of ideology, there is still another factor that exacerbates the huge unfilled demand for workers, i.e., American citizens who would have entered the workforce by the millions, between twenty and forty million, but were not born. The relevant point now is that demand for labor in the United States is far greater than the ‘willing’ supply. The shortfall in the willing labor supply, even after outsourcing, is being met by vast numbers of illegal alien migrants. The behavior of the unwilling indigenous labor supply, i.e., sloth, ignorance and degeneracy, is being subsidized by taxes extracted from the top 50% of wage earners at the forceful behest of the United States government.

In the fewest words possible, it has been the unrelenting, broad and pervasive government interference with free markets, and abandoning long established cultural norms, that has caused a loss of manufacturing jobs and a severe labor shortage in the United States.

An abundance of skilled tradesmen and service jobs requiring lesser skills have replaced the manufacturing jobs. We have a knowledge and skill economy at the top, a tradesman and service economy at the bottom. The “Middle Class” who used to make widgets have become an endangered species. While it is true that both the population of the United States and the number of people employed has increased dramatically, constant-dollar real wages of the average American citizen has been decreasing for decades. With the Fed’s engineered devaluation of the U.S. dollar, with the worst yet to come, the standard of living of all but the wealthiest Americans is declining. That is not the fault of American citizens – talk to Congress. As for what remains of the Middle Class, they struggle to maintain their standard of living. Consumption expenditures of the Middle Class, which once came from discretionary income and savings, have all but been replaced by consumption spending using debt as a funding mechanism, i.e., refinancing their home and buying what they cannot afford.

Instead of Upper, Middle and Lower classes in society, two new classes have emerged – those few who are debt-free and the debtors. As the ranks of the debtors grow, and consumables continue to increase in price due to a combination of foreign manufacture and the devaluation of the Unites States' currency, consumption of durable goods will ultimately diminish.

Regardless of conservative philosophy or liberal ideology, illegal alien migration is factually and simply the “market” supplying a “demand.” Any market demand will be met by human beings seeking to profit by providing a supply – in this case, labor. The demand is so strong that millions of human beings, many of whom believe they have few or no viable economic alternatives in other parts of the world, are willing to risk their lives to meet the labor demand in the United States. Make no mistake. They’re not coming to the United States to become loyal citizens – that ended with the Era of Conservatism. They have no knowledge or respect for the borders of the United States or any of its laws. They’re coming solely to work and to avail themselves of an economic paradise on earth, a well-spring in social services and taxpayer funded benefits with absolutely nothing expected from them in return. Think of it as the illegal alien’s modern day California Gold Rush, but for social services and taxpayer funded benefits.

When viewed as a labor demand being met and satisfied, from an economic perspective, illegal migration is not a problem. This is a triumph of market forces. There are two really big problems, however. The first one is that the triumph belongs to the “black market.” The triumph of the “black market” in labor is in stark contravention of United States law – just as is the black market in drugs. The second problem is the apparent illicit and prescription drug-induced psychosis to simply give away boundless American wealth and jobs to illegal aliens – to forcibly take hard-earned wealth from Americans and give it away, without any commensurate obligation from non-citizens. Those who support amnesty for illegal aliens, or their continued access to social services, are advocating nothing less than the wholesale transfer of American wealth to illegal aliens - and still more to subsequent generations of illegal aliens.

Either the black market or the rule of law will ultimately prevail, but not both. In the “war on drugs,” which economic force has prevailed? Was it the black market in drugs or United States’ laws? Where incredible demand exists, human beings will supply the commodity in their own self interest. There are no exceptions. You may say, “I wouldn’t,” but the fact is that someone will and that person may not speak English or be a United States citizen. Embedded among them may be some (or many) of our nation’s most deadly enemies.

Extending the analysis further, why does a black market in labor exist? Very simply, the black market exists because of government intervention. The United States’ government has been trying to circumvent natural market forces by regulating (imposing) wage scales and labor eligibility by every artifice imaginable. They have gone to the extremes of favoring one ethnic group over others, all of whom are in competition to be part of the labor supply.

The black market in labor has become a big problem for two primary reasons – (1) illegal alien migrants have been led by our elected politicians to expect goods, benefits and services from the different levels of government that only those citizens in the top 50% of wage earners must pay for, and (2), the actual overhead costs of the illegal alien labor pool far exceeds the perceived national benefits, particularly in crime and cultural degradation.

The most significant goods and services that illegal aliens have come to expect include: medical care, citizenship for children born in the USA, chain migration, and welfare in numerous forms, public school education of their children, in-state tuition, voting rights, affirmative action privileges, and preferential language consideration.

Overhead costs include a range of political demands by illegal aliens that impinge on people's expectations concerning the English language (such as ballots printed in multiple languages), security, property ownership, conferring civil rights without citizenship, repeated criminal victimization of American citizens, criminal injustice toward Americans, disproportionate numbers of illegal aliens who must be incarcerated at taxpayer expense, the economic failure and closing of hundreds of hospitals, and fading political and cultural cohesion. (As an aside, if you think illegal alien migration is a social and fiscal crisis, it is only the opening gambit. Next will come the Muslim demands and the associated civil unrest widely seen in Europe. By that time it will be too late.)

Statistically, 25 Americans die every day at the hands of illegal aliens. In one year, 9125 people die at the hands of illegal aliens; more than the combined total of our military losses and civilian casualties since the Marine Barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983. In one year, more Americans die at home from the criminal actions of illegal aliens than the nation has experienced from a total of 23 years of foreign military adventures. You might want to re-read those last two sentences to realize the enormity of the overhead costs to society. Think of their families whose lives have been devistated. Where does it end?

There is also the “small nagging detail” that illegal alien’s pay no taxes (except after engaging in document fraud in conjunction with identity theft) and contribute little to America except their labor, yet derive/demand a vast majority of the benefits.

There is also the 'not-so-small problem' of the justice (courts) and security (police) systems in this country, which don't work particularly well for citizens, much less for illegal alien migrants. And because politicians and judges have worked to the advantage of illegal aliens and disadvantage of citizens, more often than not, a citizen revolt such as the 2006 Mid-term elections was all but predictable. Add to the demographic equation the size and density of the illegal alien population, their distribution, vital statistics and capacity for expansion. Then factor in the dynamic balance with, or disruption of, the existing culture that is being displaced. Houston, we have a problem.

Rather than fostering free and open markets, the most serious problems (resource dislocations) have been caused by our own government’s attempting market manipulation and outright intervention, trying to artificially regulate the laws of economic exchange between rational human beings. Without our government’s intervention, everything could otherwise be a peaceful trading environment – in theory. The liberal mindset has prevailed for so long that it has become a pathological obsession to regulate everything, even human nature itself. By making the same mistakes over and over and over, Congress responds to crime by banning guns, Congress responds to bigotry by banning speech, Congress responds to terrorism by banning profiling and opening the borders, Congress responds to illegal aliens running wild within United States’ borders by discouraging enforcement of existing law, Courts respond to homosexuality by banning the Boy Scouts, Courts respond to secularism and immorality by banning Christianity, and Congress responds to child abuse by banning pornography. You can easily think of a dozen more examples. In every case, the programmed liberal mindset refuses to hold the individual responsible for the crime, including the illegal alien, and instead casts the crime perpetrator or illegal alien invader as the victim of an evil racist society or child abuse. Is it possible that there is more sanity and fewer drugs in the story of Alice in Wonderland?

There are still more issues, and one that is huge – multiculturalism. Federal, state and local governments are now presiding over a multi-cultural and multi-lingual land, that they created, that is incrementally becoming unstable. All levels of government are vainly attempting to “rule” using government-institutionalized discrimination augmented with force, suppressing the majority will of Americans in order to make room for illegal aliens and facilitate what appears to be the inevitable advent of the North American Union.

The United States, with its rapidly decreasing cultural homogeneity, is becoming less and less politically and socially stable with each passing year. To better appreciate the future of America, think of the Jews and Arab Palestinians who occupy and claim the same “holy ground” in Israel. Now add to their mix a vast welfare and regulatory state, layered with multiple religions, disparate cultures and languages, and you can see why Israel has such an explosive situation on their hands. Israel’s national stability is inversely correlated with multiple cultures and beset with institutionalized government and religious discrimination. And we are not? Unless politicians change course soon, Israel’s present situation is a glimpse into America’s future, but ours will be on a much larger scale.

Before the November 2006 election, United States’ citizens were already taking to the streets and the internet in protest because the sources of their angst were not being addressed by politicians. Most people have come to realize that there is less than 15 cents in difference between Democrats and liberal Republicans. Most relevant is a single fact: Democrats are now in control of Congress. The problems, from the viewpoint of border control advocates, and conservatives in general will grow worse – much worse. More citizens will probably join the anti-illegal migration protest incrementally. Most will not realize the issues are wrapped around an axle called market forces, i.e., supply and demand – and nobody is addressing market forces. To do so would require Congress to increase the supply of cheap labor (workers) inside the United States from among American citizens by providing fewer unearned subsistence alternatives to working. There is no workable solution that does not include significantly increasing the supply of American “cheap labor.” Reducing income redistribution will not be a political Happy Meal among Congressmen. Odds-makers would probably give a 60-year old disabled veteran better odds of winning the Boston Marathon.

As long as the over-supply of jobs goes unfilled by American workers, it will be filled by foreign workers, and they will continue to flood into the United States just as a tide floods the lowlands. The only changes possible are to alter the natural geography (increase the cheap labor pool from American sources) or build a dam (wall) to keep the water out. As long as industry can be more profitable using less expensive foreign labor, vital industries that were once the cornerstone of the United States’ economy will not return to the United States. Congress has indeed squandered our industrial base and national heritage.

One more example will suffice. Democrats coming into office have voiced concern about the plight of industry and loudly criticized the Bush Administration’s policies; but they don’t have anything that remotely resembles an alternative model that will meet the challenge. Democrats and liberal Republicans refuse to recognize that their role is twofold, (1) to increase the supply of manufactured goods “made in America,” which is the only solution to reducing the demand for goods from India, China, Mexico, Peru and Columbia, and to increase the supply of willing cheap labor from internal sources comprised of United States citizens and “legal” aliens.

While legalizing the “illegals” is the easiest political solution, it is by far the most damaging to national sovereignty and dangerous to the American culture. Just as France is rapidly becoming a Muslim nation, the United States is arguably becoming a Hispanic nation. If the plight of Mexico and its citizens is what we want for ourselves, Mexico being our national role model, then we should make every effort to adopt their culture (or permit it to be forced on us with amnesty for illegal aliens).

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that no child labor laws, organized unions or environmental standards will do anything to reduce the demand from the United States for manufactured goods. Instead, the measures championed by the Democratic Party as economic reform will only increase the cost of everything manufactured in any country which will then be passed on to the consumer in the United States - once again reducing the Middle Class' standard of living.

What about a citizen protest? Will it do any good? Are the Minutemen effective? Yes, they have been effective in raising awareness and politicizing the issue. It is also relatively easy to predict that any attempt by individual American citizens to stem the tide of illegal aliens into the United States will be met with severe government retalliation. At some point, American citizens have only two alternatives, i.e., turn into civil unrest or abdicate and flee. There is the distinct possibility that illegal alien migration will someday become an explosive social issue.

Ask yourself, if the Democrats who now control Congress fail to stem the tide of illegal aliens, will they have succeeded or failed? The more astute members of the Democratic Party know it has fallen to them to deal with illegal alien migration or be swept aside in the 2008 election. Regardless of political and media rhetoric, illegal alien migration will still be an issue in 2008 because it will still be an unresolved matter of supply and demand. All of the politician’s made-for-TV hand-wringing changes nothing, but then it was never intended to change anything.

The Democratic Party leadership (and liberal Republicans) has a preferred solution. They wish to legalize every living creature within the United States’ borders, plus any other life-form in our solar system, and make them all the responsibility of U.S. taxpayers in exchange for their votes. The tax responsibility to subsidize this mass of humanity and alternate life forms will fall squarely on corporations (small businesses) who will then pass on the costs to the consumer. The tax burden will fall especially heavily on the top 50% of citizens who are the only wage earners currently paying taxes. None of the bottom 50% of wage earners (who vote), and all non-citizens who reside within the borders of the United States, will have to pay a dime to subsidize the social services of the growing numbers of illegal aliens.

There is a finite limit and there is a long-term price to be paid. Total government dependency can finally be yours with a vote for any Congressional candidate that is neither a conservative nor a libertarian. Why are conservatives and libertarians more desirable – and only them, and not liberals, neo-conservatives or paleo-conservatives? True Conservatives and Libertarians, not some hyphenated alphabet soup, are the only Americans who are espousing a very limited government, the rule of law, personal responsibility, low taxes, self-reliance and a military whose sole responsibility is to defend the United States.

What the end result will be? If we continue to elect advocates of liberalism, we will receive in return a vastly larger government driven by ever more income redistribution. As socialism becomes more and more pervasive, existing problems of civil liberties and private property that rile American sensibilities today will become much, much worse. Civil liberties and private property DO NOT EXIST under socialism (liberalism) - nor does class mobility, personal wealth, small business or private enterprise. How could anyone but the most ignorant among us wish that on themselves?

The political competition in 2008 is not be to become the President of the United States. Nor is it between elected representatives who desperately want to improve the lot of all Americans. No, in most cases, theirs is a quest to rule, to become Caesar.

Hopefully you consider yourself to be one of the proud indomitable Americans who were born free and intend to remain free, defiantly refusing to live under the yoke of any religion, particularly Socialism or Islam.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

The course catalog should contain an accurate description of the course, which it does not; otherwise students would not be caught unawares. The course catalog should also include a statement regarding how the student’s performance will be measured. For example, will it be measured objectively (based on facts/objective testing) or subjectively (based on opinion).

Secondly, most courses at accredited educational institutions have something called “terminal performance, skill and knowledge objectives.” The name may have changed in recent years, however there is such a document behind every single course of instruction at an accredited institution. This document describes the specific content of the course and what the student is expected to learn during the process of instruction - precisely. If properly written it even includes the testing methodology - an example of which would be “criterion reference testing.”

If there is subject material that is being presented in the classroom that is not contained in the TPSKO’s, and clearly unrelated to the advertised course content, then it is readily evident to even the most casual observer that a teacher is shoveling onto the students what we shall call politely a personal agenda. In fact, if the courses are not being taught in accordance with the TPSKO’s, the school should loose its accreditation and the teacher should lose his or her state certification. Why, because it is the institution’s responsibility to know what is being taught in their classrooms. What teachers are doing when they ignore the TPSKO’s and engage in unsupervised aberrant behavior is arguably willful malpractice in their trade. As an aside, teaching it is not a profession.

If the student signed up for a chemistry class, then the subject material should be chemistry; not politics. If it is supposed to be an algebra class, then no politics. If it is an under-graduate accounting class, then no politics. However, if a student were to sign up for some soft subject like "contemporary viewpoints in political science," a student should reasonably expect exceptionally divergent views.

Additionally, all students have core courses that are required of them, like them or not. Those should not be a hidden trap-door or rabbit hole to a liberal socialist hiding in the darkness like a predator. Core courses are supposed to be a foundation for future studies, not a political indoctrination which contains severe penalties if you hold or express differing views.

There is a significant difference in a course of instruction and a course of indoctrination, just as there is between an instructor and an ideologue. The former is more often than not grounded in facts and history and the latter in opinions. If it is supposed to be a fact-based classroom, then it should remain so. Save the opinions for a cold beer enjoyed with associates outside the academic environment.

Additionally, courses in education, particularly in earlier stages such as K-12, are FACT courses, not opinion courses – whether multiplication tables or state capitals. There is no basis for deviation from facts except and unless it is the teacher’s insidious intent to indoctrinate a particular racial, moral, political or sexual agenda - since opinions cannot be fact by definition.

Those teachers who would object to being denied a podium for their opinions are trumpeting from the rafters that they want unfettered latitude to indoctrinate and spew views that cannot be challenged either by students themselves or by citizens outside the educational establishment.

Putting one's head in the ground, ostrich-style is no different whether it regards the threat of Islam, whether it applies to enforcing existing laws on immigration, or whether it applies to classroom education vs. indoctrination. Teachers/professors and the education industry may want YOU and me to ignore the threat, but make no mistake, we have for too long and the results are evident. All of these aforementioned cultural issues, and many others, are strongly correlated in the tactics being employed and are the subject of relentless daily indoctrination in every imaginable academic setting.

Please take note that by our merely challenging the agenda of university professors and K-12 teachers, it has abruptly and dramatically changed the debate. Suddenly, if you are critical from outside the classroom, you are accused of limiting free speech and the open exchange of ideas (often ideas and opinions not relevant to the particular class in the first place). Soon there will be a suitable label such as "racist" for those who are critical of trap-door ideologues at universities.

Even worse, if you have the temerity to be critical as a student from inside the classroom, you will be unceremoniously caused to fail, regardless of your invested effort and displayed excellence. Any artificially diminished grade is a failure. Or, you will be brought up on academic ethics charges, or both. As a student, you shall absolutely comport yourself in the style of political correctness that the teacher and the university ruthlessly dictates, and you shall regurgitate the egalitarian party line, or else you can forget your entire future. This is less an exaggeration than you might imagine and prevalent nationwide.

Joe, are you old enough to remember what was done to members of the U.S. Armed Forces who were unfortunate enough to become prisoners of war in North Korea? They were subjected to years of intense indoctrination. It was called “brain washing” in those days, but it was nothing more than sophisticated indoctrination. Brain washing became the basis for the original version of the movie, “The Manchurian Candidate.” And now, pure and unadulterated indoctrination has been institutionalized in American classrooms. Americans have been made afraid to confront it, just as we have been made afraid to offend an American of African descent or a homosexual. Joe, does that Politically Correct-ness fear envelop you as it does most Americans? Remember, a man that must be politically correct, cannot by definition tell the truth. Is that what you want for yourself and the rest of us? Of course not.

Joe, you see other issues clearly for what they are. Possibly you don’t realize how many people are trembling in fear because their freedom of speech has been taken away. The AZ legislator who put forward the bill you were discussing is among the most courageous politicians you can imagine. The personal risks in trying to do the right thing for AZ and the United States are huge. This man is a leader. This man is to be commended and celebrated, not reviled.

You seemed to be saying on the radio (if I didn't misunderstand you) that it would not be Politically Correct for us to try to restrict a teacher’s opinion-based-rants from outside the classroom, even if they are unrelated to the course of instruction. At the same time, you seem to be suggesting we should allow professors to continue to restrict and unilaterally control all thought and analysis inside the classroom - and allow them to severely punish students for divergent viewpoints. That kind of thought process is dangerously PC and nonsensical. Remember Joe, the national culture ten years from now begins in our classrooms today. Do you want the whole nation to go this way, or in your opinion is it already too late to stop it? Even if it is your opinion that it is already too late, please don't enforce your opinion on me (or your listeners) and call me names and disadvantage me if I choose to disagree and stand in opposition to mentally defective ideologues. If you care about our children, and I know you do, and believe that they are the future of our country, and I know you do, then education must be seen differently than indoctrination and alternatives sought quickly. We must find (demand) a creditable alternative to our having to blindly feed our youth to the government’s indoctrination centers.

Joe, let's try it your way. Consider the following as a possible solution. The first premise is: No restrictions in the classroom. The second premise is: Let's empower the free market. Are you ready? In the future, there will be two categories of courses, opinion and factual - or if you will, fiction and non-fiction. In those classes that are factual, there will be no opinions. In those courses that are opinions, no facts are needed. Extraneous opinions are hardly needed in any form of chemistry, physics, mathematics, accounting, etc. Teaching "what is" should suffice. The course catalog should indicate if a course, supported by TPSKO’s, is based on opinion or facts. No such limits will be applied to other courses unless they are the “core courses” required of every student in the pursuit of a major. No opinions should be allowed in core courses. If the course content is opinion, by definition it should not be a core course.

Secondly, the instructors who are giving the courses should be required to annotate next to their name in the course catalog, "conservative" or "liberal," which are code words for liberty or socialism. Think of it as part of the instructor’s curriculum vitae. Let the students and their parents choose which courses they want to subsidize and which to avoid. The free market will quickly resolve the problem and these ideologue professors and faculty members will quickly go the way of Air America. The only answer is to open competitive avenues to an education rather than submit our youth to indoctrination.

There will be a mushroom cloud of response to such proposals because liberals, by definition, have never had to compete for anything in their life and competition is an anathema to everything they believe. Occasionally, as I drive by ASU, I think I can hear chanting of something that sounds very much like, “Egalitarianism, uber alles.” You would be well served to listen closely and react accordingly. We all should.

After this letter is cleaned up, it will be published on a conservative website. I would be pleased to include your response – whether in agreement or disagreement.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

When I first had this intuitive grasp of reality, this epiphany, my reaction was, "It couldn't be." However, Democrats, in their contemporary view, clearly consider the courts to be the legislative branch of the federal government. They see the Democratic Party's role being, not to attempt to legislate their agenda in Congress using a procedure constitutionally and historically based on a representative plurality of Americans, but instead to install activist jurists in State and Federal courts (with life tenure) who will legislate according to a Democratic Party agenda of advancing socialism. Who needs elections?

But the more I considered it, this truly is the understanding of the three branches of government that most liberals have. More importantly, it explains a great deal about the behavior of Democrats and liberal Republicans for the last 60 years. Today Democrats are obstructing all legislation (and all but the most liberal court nominees to a Judiciary out of constitutional control). The American Judiciary has become that hard nucleus about which liberals have formed in their quest for power. Emboldened by the Judiciary’s defiance of Congress and every legislature across the country, and most recently in KELO V. NEW LONDON (04-108) 268 Conn. 1, 843 A. 2d 500, affirmed., there is no doubt about what Americans can expect in the future. One can only hope liberals, misguided and ignorant of history, are going to like what they are going to get.

The focus of liberal socialism is nothing less than power and control, whereas the focus of conservatives is liberty with all its commensurate freedoms, i.e., freedom in each and every aspect of life. God, family and country are frequent references to a conservative’s core values. The one and only core value of liberals is “self.” Liberals state that ‘truth’ is relative and that each man and woman must decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Conservatives on the other hand see nothing relative in the concept of truth.

Yes, each man and woman must decide to do what is right and avoid doing what is wrong, and there are finite consequences to every decision we make. At issue is the foundation for each individual choice. If there are no rules that govern individual behavior that society will respect, that minorities of the population will accept when decided by the majority, then by definition there can be no laws. At that point, any laws take on a different intent, i.e., to passify and control a submissive population, advance an agenda, and maintain control. Why is that? Would you be surprised to learn that the basic tenet of atheism, secularism, and even Satanism are identical – that each individual should do as he or she pleases? The ultimate result of this philosophy is first anarchy and later totalitarianism in an effort to regain control of a society without rules. It would be easy to argue that we are very close to anarchy in every aspect and at every level of society, from border to border and sea to shinning sea.

Why are liberals and particularly Hillary Rodham Clinton, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer and the likes of John Kerry still proudly proclaiming their socialist ideals and egalitarian objectives? It is a fact that centuries of socialists' experiments, whether by utopians, Marxists, or Fabians, have always (without exception)ended in economic failure, destitution and a loss of personal liberty. More than a fact, since there are no exceptions, it is a universal truth. Another universal truth is the unchanging motivation of liberalism, i.e., self interest of the political elite, which increases exponentially in the form of power with each incremental loss of our personal liberty.

What then is the solution? Here is a hint: Without private property, which is the legal, moral and intellectual concept behind every one of the Bill of Rights, liberty cannot exist. Each and every "right" protected in the Bill of Rights is a form of private property.

You may think because you are an American, you are free, but you would be wrong. You may think you have freedom, but freedom is relative because without private property, you only have as much freedom as the government decides to let you have - and that is not liberty. Private property ended in the United States with the passage of the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and with it our freedoms began to erode with each and every small step toward socialism.

Sadly, Americans have choosen to listen to the sirens of liberalism whose sweet song lures them to their doom - rather than heed centuries of warnings by failed example. Americans are steering their own ship of state onto the rocks. The few who have stopped up their ears with wax remain conservative (with value systems still intact and a healthy respect for the original U.S. Constitution) and can only watch in disbelief as the shoals draw visibly closer.

Red State Patriot

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” —Patrick Henry

« Close It

Colorado 1876, Preamble.
We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe …

Connecticut 1818, Preamble.
The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to enjoy .

Delaware 1897, Preamble.
Through Divine Goodness all men have, by nature, the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences ..

Florida 1885, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty …establish this Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble.
We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution ...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble.
We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance ... establish this Constitution.

Idaho 1889, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings …

Illinois 1870, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors …

Indiana 1851, Preamble.
We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government.

Iowa 1857, Preamble.
We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings establish this Constitution …

Kansas 1859, Preamble.
We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges … establish this Constitution.

Kentucky 1891, Preamble.
We, the people of the Commonwealth of grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy.

Maine 1820, Preamble.
We the People of Maine ... acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and direction.

Maryland 1776, Preamble.
We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble.
We...the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe ... in the course of His Providence, an opportunity .and devoutly imploring His direction ..

Michigan 1908, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom … establish this Constitution

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings

Mississippi 1890, Preamble.
We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work.

Missouri 1845, Preamble.
We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness ... establish this Constitution ...

Montana 1889, Preamble.
We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty, establish this Constitution ...

Nebraska 1875, Preamble.
We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom … establish this Constitution …

Nevada 1864, Preamble.
We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom establish this Constitution ...

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V.
Every individual has a natural and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.

New Jersey 1844, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors .

New Mexico 1911, Preamble.
We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty …

New York 1846, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings …

North Carolina 1868, Preamble.
We the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those …

North Dakota 1889, Preamble.
We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain ...

Ohio 1852, Preamble.
We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to promote our common …

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble.
Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ...

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2.
All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences..

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble.
We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance …

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble.
We the People of the State of Rhode Island grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing …

South Carolina 1778, Preamble.
We, the people of he State of South Carolina, grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

South Dakota 1889, Preamble.
We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties ... establish this

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III.
That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble.
We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging, with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.

Utah 1896, Preamble.
Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we establish this Constitution …

Vermont 1777, Preamble.
Whereas all government ought to ... enable the individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and other blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man..

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI .
Religion, or the Duty which we owe our Creator … can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity towards each other ...

Washington 1889, Preamble.
We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution ...

West Virginia 1872, Preamble.
Since through Divine Providence we enjoy the blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people of West Virginia, reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God ...

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble.
We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, domestic tranquility …

Wyoming 1890, Preamble.
We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties … establish this Constitution ...

There are no exceptions. Every state has consciously chosen to express their citizen’s faith in God. Somewhere along the way, the Federal Courts and the Supreme Court have consciously chosen to ignore the acknowledgments of God from all 50 state constitutions – and systematically misinterpret the United States Constitution. How could 50 states be wrong? Quite obviously, 50 states are not wrong. It is the Supreme Court that is terribly wrong. So ask yourself, how could the Supreme Court be so clueless in the face of such overwhelming precedent? If not clueless, what then, ideological intent?

Christian or Jewish values, or ethical commandments if you prefer, are not a matter of what any one person wants them to be; it is a matter of what is! Profoundly, America was founded on Christian principles and a concurrent belief in God. Only the latter we are free to ignore by choice. But coercing, or attempting to force all Americans to ignore their Christian or Jewish faiths, to abandon their Christian and Jewish values and forsake their American 1st Amendment birthright, will only unravel the very threads of fabric that birthed and bound this nation into a civilized society. We have allowed our nation to become threadbare as it is.

How far will liberals, consumed with secular socialism, push this agenda of trivializing faith and marginalizing Christians in American society before Americans will say, “Enough; back off!?” Or are American Christians willing to go the way of European Jews?

"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by tyrants." - William Penn

Red State Patriot

« Close It

"Some of our cleverest leaders solved that. First, we passed a law requiring that everyone care for their guns and store them properly. We instituted a massive educational campaign to stress the importance of this.

"That helped, but of course there were still people who didn’t comply.

"The way we ultimately solved the problem was for the government to provide citizens with the service of taking care of their guns for them.

"We built huge buildings in every community and hired firearm experts to work there. We passed a new law requiring everyone to drop off their guns at the building closest to them every morning, and then pick them up in the early evening. Some complained this was inconvenient for them, so we created a system to pick the guns up at each home every morning and return them to the owners in the evenings.

"Having the guns all day gives our government-trained firearms experts a chance to modify those that don’t comply with gun regulations, in addition to making sure they are cleaned and stored safely.

"It’s a win-win. Folks really appreciate this service!

"A great side effect that we didn’t anticipate was that it gives more freedom to everyone! No longer do citizens worry about what might happen to their guns if they left them at home during the day, so they can go to work or run their errands in peace.

"They know their guns are safe and well-cared-for. And of course they appreciate not having to do the hard work of taking care of their guns themselves."

Councilman Brown interrupts with a question: "Have you encountered any problems with this system?"
"Not really." Ms. Smith pauses. "Well, some people complain that the government experts don’t do a good job. Some say that their guns don’t work as well as they used to, or that they prefer to take care of them themselves, for whatever reasons.

"No problem. To appease these complainers, we allow them to take their guns to private, licensed companies that provide the same service. Of course, not many people take advantage of these private services, because after all they have to PAY for them, whereas the tax-funded government service is free.

Councilman Jones: "Sounds great! This is something I think we should consider here."

I look around at the mostly conservative and libertarian crowd – who, predictably go ballistic.

"You’ve got to be kidding!" says a man on the front row. "You’ll never see that here!" says another.

"You’ll take my guns when you pry them from my cold dead fingers!" shouts a man in the back row, and soon the crowd is on its feet – echoing his statement and booing the politicians.

Whew! It’s clear we won’t see this sort of thing in my community any time soon.

As I nod in agreement with the crowd, I notice an image out of the corner of my eye – a bright yellow school bus is passing by the window.

And suddenly I realize that just about everyone in the room allows government workers to come every day and take away something – something far more precious than any piece of metal.

That big yellow school bus takes our children to huge government buildings where most of their waking hours are spent. Where each day begins with an invocation of loyalty to the state. Where their most treasured spiritual values and symbols are banished. Where peer pressure replaces family values. Where the truly important questions of life can’t be asked, much less answered. Where pop culture surpasses the classics. Where socialism is taught – both in theory and by example. Where conformity and indoctrination are far more important than thinking or reading…

Libertarians and most conservatives boldly and nobly take a stand for our right to keep and bear arms. Not so we can go duck hunting, but so we can defend ourselves and our families from invasion. And so we can, if necessary, defend our liberty from the possibility of a tyrannical state.

But what if the tyranny we fear comes to pass – grown and nurtured in our very homes?

Until we have equal passion for defending our children from the invasion of their MINDS – unless we take a bold and noble stand for the separation of SCHOOL and state – we will continue to allow our children to be taken from our warm, loving arms.

by Sharon Harris

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/harris-sharon1.html

« Close It

Would John Danforth or his successors—and for that matter, any and all of our elected representatives—have to defend our Constitution against enemies within our own country? Yes, they will—or they had better—because the enemy is upon us already.

In 2006, our country is again gripped and increasingly bound by tyrants—not regents and despots from afar, but by cancerous growths from within. Long ago it was prophesied by objective observers that America was too strong to be defeated by outside forces, but it could someday rot and crumble from within and go the way of all the other great nation-states, succumbing in the slime of selfishness, greed, immorality, and abuse of its own freedoms.

It’s happening all around us. Our valiant ship of state is listing, springing dangerous leaks in vital places, threatening after only 230 years to sink into the abyss of history. Fellow citizens, we won our first revolution under God; now, because of the inroads that have been made already against many of the values we hold dear, I call for a new revolution!

What are the powerful forces steadily binding us all around, like a sleeping Gulliver in Lilliput Land, robbing us of the very liberty to perpetuate the vision of our Founding Fathers? There are several, and they are pernicious, relentless, and eventually fatal. I’ll list the most obvious:

Ignorance, which is appalling, pervasive, and increasing daily. Basic literary and math skills diminish. Newspapers choose 4th grade vocabulary and short, shallow stories to cater to the lowest possible denominator. They’ve discovered that the median reading comprehension level in America today is at the 4th grade level. American history is abbreviated and given short shift, taught very selectively according to prevailing “political correctness” and intellectual bias. Left-leaning media and even liberal church groups abandon “first principles” and historic guidelines, constantly brainwashing the masses, cutting them adrift from ancient moorings into a sea of aimless relativism.

Apathy. America grew huge and strong on the near-unanimous involvement of its citizens. In war or peace, every vote counted and every voice could be heard. From each ward to each city hall to each county board to each state house and to each legislature to the very halls of Congress, the citizens took part, debated, came to majority agreements, and moved forward. Today, too often half or more of our citizens who are eligible don’t even vote! They feel left out, unnecessary, distracted, cynical, and alienated—and, of course, ignorant of the issues—so they stay home and grouse. This has to stop! Citizens, this new revolution must overthrow the bonds and blindness of ignorance and disinvolvement. Our country must be stirred and called to action!

Materialism/Need. I’m combining these two because I believe they are related. Greed, corporate and personal, combined with inevitable dishonesty (the Bible says “the love of money is the root of all evil”) widen the gap between multimillionaires and the multi-millions of hard-working families and retired seniors—not to mention the physically and emotionally handicapped and ill—who can’t pay all their bills or even afford their medicines, even if they work two or three jobs. Well-intentioned politicians keep calling on Big Brother government (the groaning taxpayers, namely, us) to solve the problems with bureaucracy.

Citizens, socialism is not the answer! Social responsibility is—individual, local, and active response to our brother’s needs. And the new revolution must have the sensitivity and heart and will to voluntarily use our vast resources to meet our human needs. The early colonists who gave us this nation knew how to do that; we’ve got to learn how all over again.

Humanism, Immorality, and Godlessness—an unholy trinity. Most Christians believe in a triune God: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. Many Old Testament scriptures foreshadow each of these three distinct persons in the same Godhead. But today in America, we are confronted and threatened by an unholy trinity that has sunk its roots deep down into our society: godlessness, immorality, and humanism.

Remove God from public life (as a number of perverse, determined, and well-funded activist groups are doing very effectively), and a cancerous spirit of immorality seeps relentlessly across the land like a poison gas, corrupting all forms of entertainment, encouraging drugs and violence and rampant promiscuity in the streets, in schools, homes, businesses, politics, and even some churches, with the inevitable surrender to humanism. Man rules his own destiny, God is dead, and “if it feels good, do it!” Radio personalities wince when they’re fined for obscenity and sacrilege by the Federal Communications Commission and rail at the President demanding their “First Amendment rights.” But they’re not seeking “free speech”; they’ve had that their whole lives and careers. No, they want “freedom of filth.” Our Founding Fathers would have had them tarred and feathered and whipped in the public square.

In 1952, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Douglas declared, “The First Amendment does not say that in every respect there shall be a separation of church and state. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise, the state and religion would be aliens to each other-hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly. We are a religious people and our institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. We cannot read into the Bill of Rights such a philosophy of hostility to religion.”

Wise old Ben Franklin, certainly no religious fanatic, said “only a moral and virtuous people are capable of freedom; the more corrupt and vicious a society becomes, the more it has need of masters.”

George Washington clearly and bluntly stated, “religion and morality are the twin pillars of freedom!” And our fourth president, James Madison, to whom many refer as the “father of the Constitution,” said this, “We have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of the government, far from it. We have staked the future of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us…to govern ourselves according to the commandments of God. The future of America is not in the Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this constitution is founded.”

Citizens, the enemy within has already subverted the Constitution and bound us with ever strengthened cords of immorality and indecency and godlessness. We must mount a new revolution and throw them into the sea! Judicial Activism—lawmaking judges, Wyatt Earps who shoot not from the hip but from the bench.

Thomas Jefferson warned us: “Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” Jefferson didn’t fear the executive or legislative branches of government; he knew they would obey the citizens who elected them. But we would have to be very watchful lest unelected jurists bind upon us their views, not the expressed will of the people. And look: In just two or three decades, renegades in black robes, ignoring or perverting the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, have been responsible for taking prayer from school children, taking every mention of God from the public square, authorizing 40 million abortions, dictating severe reversals of states’ rights and individual freedoms, and even now they are redefining the institution of “marriage,” flying in the face of all recorded history and the very foundations of society.

Citizens, we need a new Boston Tea Party. Only this time, let’s not waste perfectly good tea. Let’s heave a bunch of black robes into the harbor with some of those vigilante judges in them. It won’t hurt the robes, and the defrocked jurists can swim out and reenroll in Constitution 101!

Fellow citizens, fellow Americans: Our forefathers, the early colonists, were decent, hardworking, ordinary people who rose to the challenge that confronted them, threw off the yoke of British bondage and unfair taxation, and established a new republic. Like trichinosis in pork, our muscles and our will have been sapped and weakened by insidious forces from within. Do we still have the will, the vision, the zeal—and the plain old gumption— to stand up to these invaders, root them out, overturn their unconstitutional rulings, and reestablish our republic that represents not just all its citizens, but our traditional morals and guidelines? If we do, let the revolution begin! And God bless America one more time!

Delivered at the Heritage Foundation, November 29, 2006 by Pat Boone.

Pat Boone is a recording artist, entertainer, bestselling author, and a national spokesman for the 60 Plus Association (www.60plus.org).

« Close It

Had Republicans been conservatives, there would be no need today for them to get back to their roots, to reinvent themselves, to adhere more closely to their core beliefs. You can’t lose something you never had. Had Congressional Republicans been conservatives, they would never have lost sight of their constituency – which is first and foremost, the United States of America and not the Republican Party.

Yes, Republicans were intensely targeted by MoveOn.Org and the Democratic Party. Yes, 3.6 billion dollars was spent nationwide in 2006, much of it orchestrating the defeat of Republicans in general and the few remaining Congressional quasi-conservatives in particular. Yes there was widespread voter fraud. Some things we cannot change and some things politicians clearly don’t want to change. Those Democrats whose vote was motivated by a desire for more socialism, assuming they understood the difference, will deserve what they’re going to get, but in hindsight their children won’t.

How many times have you heard honest, trustworthy, patriotic Democrats (a rare multiple oxymoron) in Congress assert that they “support our troops?” After first voting to go to war ONLY as a political expediency immediately after the carnage of September 11, the Democratic Party’s policies, strategies and tactics have been, from the beginning of the War on Terror, a conscious effort to undermine the Administration’s ability to wage the war and to defend America. Democrats are not so obtuse that they don’t understand exactly what they are doing. They know full well that their behavior ONLY benefits the Islamic terrorists. Incredible as it is, that’s reality. There is nothing naive about a cunning liberal politician.

You would be surprised to learn how many Americans see clearly that the main stream media led by the New York Times (the propaganda arm of the socialist movement) either adopted or originated the anti-war strategy of the Democratic Party. In close concert with Democrats, the print, visual and entertainment media has willfully and recklessly spent (denigrated, demeaned, openly discarded as worthless, wasted) the lives of many young servicemen and women in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention countless non-combatant civilians, with their intentionally biased and inaccurate reporting, incessant public criticisms of the President, revelations of classified information and open celebration of America’s war dead.

Why, (1) Americans have not risen up in moral outrage, and why (2), Democrats who live only in service to themselves in an intellectual and moral vacuum, have not been tarred and feathered as human defects, is beyond rational comprehension - unless one takes into consideration that liberal (neocon and paleocon) Republicans have behave no differently. Even the Japanese during World War II, renowned for their brutality and inhumanity, didn’t orgasm over the death of every American soldier as do members of the Democratic Party leadership and the United States main stream media. History will someday show, if written by a conservative, that the United States 2006 mid-term Congressional elections were not a competition between moral, ethical and philosophical agendas, but a crass amoral competition for power at the expense of the lives of U.S. servicemen and women.

The inescapable conclusion is that the combination of the American main stream media, the Democratic Party and the Islamic terrorists really did materially influence the outcome of the United States 2006 mid-term elections, just as they did in Spain. Instead of a national outpouring of patriotism and a mandate to President Bush to take it to the bad guys, and in doing so, to orchestrate a quick, decisive and severe end to the madness in the Middle East, the United States electorate instead voted into political office the nation’s most accomplished appeasers, moral and ethical degenerates, and experts on defeat. The United States sent to the world an undeniable and searing message of cowardice with our votes. Thank-you notes from Islamic regimes to the New York and LA Times have likely been mailed, received, framed and displayed in a trophy room with the names of the war dead.

Do Democrats or the main-stream-media really support our troops? In a few words, Democrats and liberal Republicans don’t even support this nation! A conservative’s philosophy is “God, country, and family.” A liberal’s philosophy begins at “self” and it abruptly ends there. Is the Democratic Party dangerous - only in the view of those who were not born brain dead at birth.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

The only possible answers are left or right. Look carefully at the picture. Do you know the answer? The Republican leadership (the oxymoron of the decade) should have figured it out – except that they were not conservatives.

Pre-school children were asked the same question and they all answered "left."

They were then asked, "Why do you think the bus is traveling in the left direction?"

They answered, "Because you can't see the door."

Liberal Republicans couldn’t figure it out and never turned the bus around. "Left" was a suitable direction to liberal Republicans. For six years, the nation and courts have been going further and further "Left." Democrats loved every minute of it. They unexpectedly found they had willing accomplices in their socialist agenda. All that was left for them to do was re-take control of the bus, which they accomplished on November 7, 2006.

It’s philosophically safe to say that if you don’t know what your destination is, any direction you travel will get you there. If you don’t know what direction you are going, then you have no compass. If you don’t have a compass, then you don’t have God, country and family, the source of every man and woman’s compass. Without God, country and family, you don’t have morality, ethics or a sense of purpose; all you have is self. If all you have is self, you may be able to rule or administer, but not to lead or govern, because the latter requires a profound degree of selflessness.

Republicans floundered for years and foundered in 2006. Now Democrats have a choice, but their only choice will be to rule since they too have no core values or destination. It is a universal truth that liberals, because of their ideology, are unable to lead or govern. To lead and govern requires striving for individual liberty in a selfless fashion instead of adherence to a national religion of government-imposed socialism and focused self-interest. Until the national electorate understands that national and individual excellence is the antithesis of the Democratic Party's egalitarianism, nothing will change in American politics and culture, and any direction will get us there.

It's hard not to feel sorry for everyone who got on the wrong bus.

Remember, if you don’t have a destination in your own life or business, how can you set goals? How can you govern or lead others? When you go on a vacation, you know well in advance exactly where you are going, how long you will be gone, what mode of travel you will use, who will be with you, what you will see and do, what day you will leave and what day you will return, how much money you will spend, what presents you will bring home, how you will pay your bills while you are gone and after your return home, what clothes you will pack and which luggage you will use for the trip, etc. If we can plan a simple vacation to that level of detail, surely Congess can do more for the nation in six years than simply enrich themselves at taxpayer expense. What about planning the nation's future? Can you articulate one single, specific national goal - except to spend more money on problems that can't be solved with more money?

Now you understand how and why Republicans failed in 2006 - liberalism.

In our November, 2006 trip to the polls, we elected a group of Senators and Representatives whose leadership wants the bus to continue farther and farther to the "Left," i.e., more liberalism (collectivism) for us and more power for themselves. At every opportunnity, let's be sure to ask (demand) from Democrats, who have finally achieved their unhealthy liberal goal to rule the lives of others, to tell us their intended destination and how they propose to get us there. If they have no specific destination (goals to improve the United States within the first 100 days) except to denigrate Republicans, as it currently appears, that speaks for itself. However, if their specific goals (e.g., raise taxes or lower taxes, or amnesty for illegal aliens or enforcement only) turn out to be worthy goals, they will continue to have our votes. If their goals are unworthy, or if the Democrats have no specific goals beyond accummulating power and personal wealth, we need to get off this bus at the very first opportunity.

Perhaps the best definition of 'success' was penned by Earl Nightingale: "Success is the progressive realization of a worthy goal," which is as good an explanation as any for the perpetual failure of the Democratic Party's grand entitlement society. Let's hear the Democratic Party's (1), worthy goals with some specificity, and see (2), their realization in a democratic process without resorting to activist courts. Americans are fully capable of judging if the goals are worthy and in their best interests. Nothing else matters.

Many Americans are going to be wishing for a bus stop very soon.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Within minutes of the election returns, and still somewhat in total denial, their tune began to change and became more introspective. The realization began to set in that control of the House and the Senate was irrevocably gone and Republicans had squandered their one chance in a generation. The 2006 mid-term elections will probably become a dramatic example in future political science studies of what can happen when politicians (who have been seeking their own agenda) are thoroughly chastened by the voters.

Defiantly, Republicans refused through the night of the election to acknowledge that their own miserable performance for six years during their majority role in Congress was in any way responsible for the predictable outcome – an outcome for which John McCain personally bears a heavy responsibility. Finally, Rush Limbaugh brought some talk-radio clarity the next day when he said he felt “relieved” that he would no longer be expected to carry the Republican’s water – which is what the conservatives have said for a long time before the election and voters en masse said at the polls.

Try to imagine the pilot of an aircraft that crashes (hopefully injuring no one) that attempts to blame bystanders on the ground for his inept piloting skills. Imagine the student who blames his failure on his teacher. Imagine the wing-nut who blames the 9/11 attack that destroyed the World Trade Center on Americans instead of Islam. Imagine the media who blames a brutal homicide on the past molestation of the suspect when she was a child. Imagine the ignorance and racial hatred embedded in the claim that New Orleans was destroyed because the President blew up the levees. Imagine the Republican Party who blames their defeat at the polls on the ignorance of the electorate. You have to wonder who Republicans would blame for the ignorance of the electorate – the Democrats?

One could reasonably argue that Republicans deserved their inglorious defeat. However, a similar argument can be made that conservative Americans really don’t deserve the Democratic Party’s upcoming socialist agenda, an agenda that will entail cultural and economic havoc rendered by Nancy Pelosi with shock and awe, maybe not immediately if she is smart, but certainly after the 2008 national elections when a Democrat will likely to prevail in the ultimate political quest for the Office of the Presidency.

It is hard to envision, stretching the imagination to the limits, that Republicans will be able to reconstitute a creditable image of competency and ethics, and particularly conservatism, by November 2008. Political observers might begrudgingly concede that there are less than five conservatives remaining in all of Congress. What is most impressive is that there will be more conservatives in the freshman class of the Democratic Party than the entire Republican Party. The Democratic Party strategy will be to continue their assault on Republicans alleging political malfeasance, without relenting for a minute, right on through the 2008 elections. While there are viable Republican candidates in 2008, e.g., John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani and Tom Tancredo, only Tancredo is both socially and fiscally conservative. While a genuine long-shot, don’t rule out the Libertarian Ron Paul from Texas.

Democrats have been waiting a long time for such an opportunity, and if history is a valid predictor, you have never seen a train wreck like this one is going to be. President Bush had better begin sleeping with his “veto pen.” Make no mistake - President Bush's use of the “veto pen” for the next two years will be used by the Democrats to bludgeon Republican candidates in the 2008 elections.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

I admire you … Ok, I revere your talent … and for once in your esteemed life, I believe you are grotesquely on the wrong side of history. This all involves your rant last week regarding voting choices of conservatives in the 2006 mid-term November elections. Friday, October 20th was a tipping point.

Mr. Limbaugh, you seem to want to divide the known universe between Republicans and Democrats, when in fact the political debate should be about Liberals in the Republican Party and Extreme Liberals in the Democratic Party. There are not five conservatives in all of Congress and only one libertarian. Left wing America is the Republican Party. Conservatives do not share their liberal ideology.

Mr. Limbaugh, I believe we jointly hold the view that the predominant orientation of politicians and the main stream media is wildly liberal. The left-wing bent that conservatives complain about not only encompasses federal and state governments, city councils, and primary and secondary school systems, but attorneys, court systems, doctors, police departments, even the leadership of the U.S. Armed Forces. Left-wing ideology pervades the CIA, FBI, and State Department through all grades of the Federal Civil Service.

Legislation at all levels of government reflects the multi-decade cultural shift in America - which conservatives view as a downhill slide from greatness on a trajectory resembling a gliding anvil. There are a number of symptoms. Just to mention a few, (1) political correctness, which by definition means that people cannot be honest and freedom of speech has been extinguished, (2) refusal by governmental entities to enforce existing laws, (3) a judicial system that seeks to punish the ‘person’ rather than the ‘crime’, assuming a crime occurred and prosecution isn’t simply to achieve an intended social or political outcome, (4) a judicial system that has become an insidious oligarchy, (5) institutionalized discrimination of one citizen over another, and (6), a secular rejection of all faith and an intense attempt to prohibit any visible or audible vestiges of the Christian or Jewish faith in public discourse. There are thousands more. These few make the point that conservatism is but a faint memory in America and that our disintegrating “culture” is what the November mid-term elections are all about.

The critical issue in American politics is a lack of conservatives in broad segments of society, particularly in coastal areas where income redistribution dominates. I have watched with a heavy heart as liberalism, a debilitating disease borne of ignorance and self-interest, has assimilated entire minority cultures in my lifetime.

You impress me as being too astute not to have figured it out. Assailed from every direction, you’re telling your daily radio audience how much worse it will be if we conservatives vote for an extreme liberal in the Democratic Party or intentionally fail to vote. History supports your thesis. We all know you’re right. There is not one conservative who disagrees with you – not one.

Where we profoundly differ is that you want conservatives, lifetime members of the Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies, to ‘settle for’ what we are being told is all we can expect, all we can achieve, lower our standards, expect less and to vote for corrupt liberal Congressmen who have dealt us this national travesty of a losing hand. We’re simply not going to do it. As a nation, we are better; we deserve better; and we will not quit until we receive better. No conservative is going to buy bologna sliced that thin. No real conservative is going to accept governmental redistribution knowing other Americans were skinned alive to provide it. Somebody in America has to be a patriot. The question is: Who will rise to the challenge and who will be but a lemming? Conservatives will not be lemmings; nor will conservatives agree with you that the king (Congress or the President) is wearing clothes. No conservative will vote for someone willfully doing harm to the United States of America.

Furthermore, the mere fact that our choices on the November ballet are between open-borders liberals in the Republican Party (Jon Kyl, * apprentice to John McCain) and god-forsaken extreme liberals in the Democratic Party is partially your fault.

That’s right; follow this closely please. If you had concentrated on conservatism, individualism and liberty instead of simply Republican vs. Democrat, and had focused the debate more on excellence, initiative and integrity, pointing out the inherent fallacy of choosing between a liberal and an extreme liberal, some of what is happening might not have gained traction. If you had been advocating self reliance instead of income redistribution, truth instead of political correctness, ethics and morality instead of corruption and sexual perversion, the outcome might have been somewhat different. Now, with your voting recommendations to conservatives, you give every indication of directly or indirectly endorsing liberal fascism espoused by President Bush and liberal Republicans in Congress.

“No,” you adamantly say, “It’s not my fault.” While absolutely true that it is not your fault, you are undeniably among the ruling media elite, even a Pied Piper. You know this to be a fact. You are ever so quick to take credit for reason, infallible logic and highly accurate judgment. Whether you care to admit it or not, you are partially responsible for having led us to where America is today - where “we” are today. Otherwise, if this location was not your intended destination, then you, as “The True Majarashii,” would have, could have, and should have led us in a different direction.

But fear not for us. Ultimately you will be proud of your conservative graduates. We are proud conservative Americans. We are not among the mindless, liberal, uneducated, media-indoctrinated, government-sustained, and consumed with self-interest politicians or rank and file. We are not content to accept liberal admonitions, from either Hillary Clinton or Karl Rove that we can never be expected to know or understand the inner workings and hidden mechanisms of that great sidereal movement called self-government. Most conservatives are the original boy scouts (trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent). It would be hard for anyone but liberals and the ACLU to demean that value system and even harder to find a better value system outside a church.

Yes, Rush, I genuinely hold you personally responsible. It is my opinion that somewhere along the way you may have lost sight of what is precious in America (clue: liberty). Your own experiences in Florida should have opened your eyes to see what is being done to all Americans in countless different ways and in innumerable jurisdictions. But your concern was your own ox because it was the one being gored. Do you think you are somehow unique except in God-given talent? Like a 2x4 across your skull, your experiences with the NFL should have given you a clue, a hint to help you realize that everyday people are being hammered for politically correct motives if for no other reason than to extend liberal control.

Yet you refuse stubbornly to look out of one eye or see out of the other. Is it unfair to speculate or to ask if you've been tactically outmaneuvered in your efforts to prevent Congress from metastasizing even further to the left?

Last week you began chiding American conservatives to vote for liberal Republicans as we approach the November 2006 mid-term elections. In doing so, you have now asked conservatives to accept mediocrity, abject dependency and socialism - because you obviously think we deserve no better. You must be the only one who doesn't understand that conservatives are not going to vote to continue the policies of liberal, socially and fiscally irresponsible Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and conservatives will not support the one-world-order, borderless America of the Democratic Party and President George W. Bush.

You cannot even begin to imagine the contempt conservatives hold for national leaders in the current Administration and this liberal Congress who would start a war, any war, without the will to win. Why would Congress start a war without the will to win!? Liberals may not like the battle methods, girlie men that they are, and that’s too bad, but winning decisively always saves lives, both American and non-combatant lives. Winning decisively happens in months, not years. You may quote me: Win decisively, or lose inevitably and live in infamy. And, if I understand you correctly, you now ask us to vote for liberal Republicans who are more consumed with self-interest than winning a war in which Americans are dying? May God have mercy on us all, because Islam, the Democratic Party and their brand of socialism will not!

Conservatives seem to me to be America’s political incarnation of the few, the proud and the brave, and we will not surrender, not to liberalism, not to socialism, not to Islam, not to defeatism, not to appeasement, and not to the Democratic Socialist Party of America. Conservatives will never submit to 20-30 million illegal aliens marching in the streets dictating the terms of surrender and politicians who refuse to do anything about it.

Unquestionably, the Democratic Party has given new meaning to the term “evil,” both in Congress and America’s judicial venues. However, many citizens from both sides of the aisle view Republicans in general as a national disgrace. Republicans (faux conservatives) have given new meaning to the characterization of “irresponsible incompetence,” which some see as the predictable end result of “compassionate conservatism.”

Mr. Limbaugh, you simply have no idea how badly you have underestimated conservative America. You seem to think conservative disaffection in the November election is solely the by-product of media distortion of the state of the economy to influence votes, or the certified cut and run cowardice of liberals in both parties, or inflation rates, unemployment, absence of terrorist attacks, the Patriot Act and civil liberties, and other equally important but irrelevant national issues. In one word, the November elections swing on the American "culture," and conservative American’s are angry.

Generally speaking, the sum total of today's judicial activism and Congressional legislation creates tomorrow's national culture, always in less than ten years. Conservatives, when they go to their polling places in November, will do nothing less than repudiate the culture forcibly imposed upon them by Congress (Democrats and liberal Republicans) and by the judicial system.

Yes, the issues include illegal immigration, in-state tuition, illegal voting, identification not required to vote, refusal to enforce both national and state laws, welfare fraud, drugs and violent crime, human smuggling, document fraud, sanctuary cities, chain migration, anchor babies, free medical care, and on and on. Yes, conservatives are fed up with institutionalized discrimination in education and the workplace. Conservatives are angry over ever-growing irresponsible taxation and income redistribution. If all Americans were truly born “equal,” why are so many still on welfare?

Yes, one of the issues is the abysmal state of education in the United States since the federal government unconstitutionally seized the education system. With absolute certainty, the issues include the loss of free speech, loss of domestic corporate manufacturing and millions of associated jobs, political correctness, Pledge of Allegiance, Ten Commandments, Medicare reform legislation, earmarks, reluctance to abolish the estate tax or adopt some form of flat or consumption tax, refusal to abolish the 16th Amendment, and unwillingness to reform Social Security (Americans be damned).

Without a doubt, the issues include eminent domain, TSA absurdities, attempts to seize, regulate and tax the internet, unwillingness to safeguard classified material, willingness to sell national secrets and WMD technology for campaign funding, willingness to sell American harbors, airports, and highways to foreign interests, socialized medicine, trade agreements that sacrifice United States sovereignty and permit United States citizens to be sued by foreign interests, voting to construct the border wall only under the most intense public pressure and then refusing to fund it, and finally abdicating the entire border wall project to the whims of the pro-illegal alien Bush Administration. The end result is that United States national security is orbiting in ever decreasing concentric circles until someday it will fly up its own terrorist attack. What will Congressional and Gubernatorial liberals have traded for the lives of those who will die? How many votes will make it worth it?

Most egregious was not Congress’ voting to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq, but trying to deceitfully shift the responsibility for their own decisions to the Administration and intelligence agencies; and after voting nearly unanimously to go to war, undermining the Commander-in-Chief at every turn. Most Democrats and liberal Republicans do not want to be seen as weak and unwilling to defend the United States of America. But the fact is, liberals don't believe in war of any kind for any motive, even self-defense, and Congress would unilaterally disarm both the military and all citizens if given the chance. The reality is: liberals voted for something very abhorrent to them and did so only in political self-interest. Predictably, ever since, Congressional liberals have evaded any responsibility for their votes in a manner similar to their unwillingness to accept responsibility for anything else in history.

'Despicable' is the word that best describes Congress’ refusing to give judicial appointments an up or down vote, the McCain/Feingold legislation, tobacco litigation, refusal to permit school choice, refusal to permit importation of prescription drugs, wholesale usurping of state’s rights by the federal government and administrative agencies, unrelenting judicial activism without permitting a democratic vote, domestic and foreign abortion at U.S. taxpayer expense, embryonic stem cell research at taxpayer expense, Social Security benefits for illegal aliens, prohibition of public prayer and displays of faith, ignoring constitutional limitations of power and jurisdiction, and on and on and on for another ten single-spaced pages.

What has Congress done to stop it? NAFT, except to gleefully enable our continued cultural demise, as each Congressman individually accumulates personal wealth by selling votes and influence for campaign contributions.

The aforementioned constitutes nothing less than national socialist insanity to a conservative, a cultural meltdown, and Mr. Limbaugh, you want conservatives to vote for more of the same? Anyone who would ask conservatives to vote for their own cultural demise brings back memories of atrocities from the last century in foreign lands. No conservative will ever accept dhimmis status, whether imposed by American liberals in this Congress, by black liberation theology, or as will be imposed someday by Islam. There appears to be very little difference in reality – if any, between the Democratic Party and Islam when it comes to their tolerance of divergent faiths, their tactics toward political opponents, or the issues of social inequality, oppressive taxation, protection of children, and reverence for life.

I lament. If only you were still one of us and less of an advocate of egalitarian ideals. Hopefully, you’ve only strayed due to distraction or fatigue. It is important that when you look, that you are able to see. Mr. Limbaugh, would you please let me clean your glasses? With this letter, I am respectfully trying to do just that, and no more.

You currently face the biggest questions of your professional life. The first question is: “Are you going to be an entertainer or a leader?” To be a leader would require some personal sacrifice on your part which is the hallmark of all great Americans and every active duty and retired member of the United States Armed Forces and National Guard. My family and I sacrificed for this nation for almost a century, multiple lifetimes spent serving and preserving our American birthright – at the daily risk of our mortal existence. Now, for all that is precious in America, it’s your turn. The second question is: “Is it too late?”

This isn’t an election. November begins a cultural and economic tsunami. The outcome may not be to my liking or to yours, but I voted democratically, and legally, and only once, and I will live by the decisions of my fellow American citizens, even if I don’t deserve it – which every liberal throughout American history has refused to do – i.e., accept the will of the people. But be very, very careful however, because conservatives were not bred to carry water and will not serve others for long, particularly the self-anointed.

Mr. Limbaugh, when you get a chance and if you have the opportunity, please extend to me the personal kindness of forwarding this letter and my strong sentiments to another well-intentioned public figure, Mr. John O’Neill, author of “Unfit For Command.” I sincerely hope he can find where he misplaced his conservative philosophy and American citizenship.

John O'Neill: Don't Repeat The Mistake of 1974
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=17635

Red State Patriot

* See archives of www.redstatepatriot.com, “Jon Kyl is an Open-Borders Advocate”

« Close It

"The average age of the worlds greatest civilizations from the beginning of history, has been about 200 years. During those 200 years, these nations always progressed through the following sequence:

1. From bondage to spiritual faith;
2. From spiritual faith to great courage;
3. From courage to liberty;
4. From liberty to abundance;
5. From abundance to complacency;
6. From complacency to apathy;
7. From apathy to dependence;
8. From dependence back into bondage.

Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2000 Presidential election:

Population of counties won by: Gore: 127 million; Bush: 143 million
Square miles of land won by: Gore: 580,000; Bush: 2,427,000
States won by: Gore: 19; Bush: 29
Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Gore: 13.2; Bush: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: "In aggregate, the map of the territory Bush won was mostly the land owned by the tax-paying citizens of this great country. Gore's territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in government-owned tenements living off government welfare..." Unfortunately, President Bush appears to have betrayed his conservative fiscal and social base and joined with Congress in mindlessly expanding socialism and abandoning any pretense of national sovereignty.

Alexander Tyler warned us of the predictable cycle of never-ending greed and re-election self-interests of individual U.S. Congressmen. Today we watch in prophetic amazement as Congress votes to enshrine themselves, loot the U.S. Treasury in self-interest spending, and defraud fellow Americans of their earnings. Arguably, there is no spending by Congress – none - that is not now motivated by self-interest instead of national interest.

Professor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the "complacency & apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's definition of democracy, with some 40 percent of the nation's population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase – no doubt a conservative estimate.

Some have argued that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom. In a contrary viewpoint, have we not passed the point of apathy? Freedoms are becoming, if not scarce, at least less abundant. Our primary concern should be one of liberty.

Today’s governmental dependence is more likely a reliable indicator of the beginning of this nation’s “end times.”

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Only if you knew you had no chance to be one of the winners, or refused to try, relying instead on government for a pathetic 'mere existence,' could an American possibly prefer socialism. The losers are most often those who are uneducated, shiftless, lazy, drug and alcohol impaired, imprudent, extravagant, negligent, impractical, indolent, and inefficient, typically constituents of the Democratic Party. Those few Democrats who do not fit the above description aspire to be the elites, the ruling class who regulate the lives of all others, living off the labors of those they seek to rule, believing with arrogant certainty they know better how you as an American should live your life and raise your children.

Capitalism is the only social system that rewards virtue and punishes vice. This applies to business executives and the carpenter, lawyers and the factory worker. Capitalism requires human beings to deal with one another as traders, i.e., as free agents trading and selling goods and services on the basis of mutual consent, because the sole criterion that determines the value of anything exchanged in a free economy is the unfettered judgment and voluntary choices of the seller and buyer.

Capitalism is superior to socialism in two critical aspects, morality and justice. If you acknowledge the concept that “envy” is both the desire to possess another’s wealth and failing that, the desire to see another’s wealth lowered to the level of one’s own, then socialism is the system which institutionalizes the morality of envy.

Residents of large “inner cities,” and New Orleans in particular, come to mind. Is that what you wish for yourself or the entire nation?

Consider for a moment professional sports, any one of them. Society too is like a team sport in that everyone must perform at very high levels for the team to be successful. A professional football team “hires” only the best athletes regardless of other social criteria. The goal is to win and that wouldn’t be possible if the team were required to employ people of my athletic skills. While I was personally recruited by Otto Graham for college football, by the time I got there, my physical stature and abilities had been far surpassed by my peers on the football field. (Otto Graham graciously suggested I try a different sport.) A professional football team has no obligation to hire and compensate a person of my comparitively minimal athletic skills.

Nor does society have an obligation to hire, compensate or carry on the national payroll in the form of welfare those who refuse to educate themselves and obtain gainful employment. You can’t run a professional sports team with socialism, where everyone claims a right to play and expects to be compensated by the team if they are incapable of performing at a productive level. And you can’t run society with socialism either. America cannot afford to keep on the team payroll non-productive Americans who contribute nothing to the team, regardless of liberal emotionalism and claims of racism and disenfranchisement. The "free ride" entitlement mentality is not compatible with Team America if America is expected to be competitive in the world arena. The team is more important than any one player (patriotism). Members of the U.S. Armed Forces understand the concept, as do most professional athletes. Liberals, by contrast, serve only their own self interests - hardly a model for team success.

Furthermore, capitalism acknowledges that the degree to which man rises or falls in society (class mobility) is determined by the degree to which he uses his mind and his work ethic. Capitalism is the only system that rewards education, merit, innate ability, achievement, excellence, initiative and integrity regardless of the location of one’s birth, racial heritage or station in life.

In addition to an endless list of otherwise questionable virtues, socialism is also the system which uses compulsion and the organized violence of the State to expropriate wealth from its productive citizens. The confiscated income is then redistributed in exchange for votes to the parasites (those who refuse to work) and cockroaches (uneducated and ill-equipped, by choice and personal neglect), in addition to those determined by communities to be needing assistance beyond what can be provided by charitable organizations, churches and families.

Central control and shared misery, or individual freedom and responsibility, which will it be? Social mobility or class boundaries, which will it be? Income redistribution and entitlement mentality, or self-government, self-discipline, excellence, initiative and integrity, which will it be? It really is our choice - your choice. You make that choice each and every time you vote. If you think the choice should not be difficult, reflect on the relative closeness of the last two presidential elections and recognize the importance of your vote. Recognize also value systems and the motivation of those who choose socialism, i.e., to rule rather than govern, a quest in which you and I are expendable.

Red State Patriot

« Close It

Socialism is a direct and predictable result of the current system of government public education.

What else is a nation to do with a generation of unprepared youth, uneducated to the extreme, unable to compete, unable to communicate or comprehend in writing, unable to read instructions or perform the simplest vocational task, let alone make change. Underlying the ugly surface deficiencies, our youth are unable to reason, be self-reliant, display integrity when challenged, and a great preponderance are unreliable, unmotivated, and unable to speak a recognizable form of business English.

What is a good socialist to do? Add them to the welfare roles of course, or give them government or corporate jobs under the guise of equal opportunity. Call it what you want, it’s still a form of welfare and institutionalized prejudice. Clearly more qualified individuals applied for those jobs and did not get the job, or the seat in a college or university.

And by all means, we must reward the most ignorant of our youth with the right to vote. Now sit back and watch the perfect political example of GIGO (garbage in, garbage out).

Our system of education is both grounded in and advocates socialism in its purest sense. How could that be?

Education in America today, little better than a human “puppy mill” and juvenile day care center, is government subsidized, regulated and void internally of meaningful competition. Rather than emphasize initiative, excellence, integrity, achievement, character and citizenship, public schools encourage conformity to substandard mediocrity. What is lacking is the societal premise that "Good enough, isn't." Our education system lacks criterion reference testing, terminal performance skill and knowledge objectives in any variation, and functions without standardized student accountability. Needs analysis are non-existent except to justify next year’s budget. Admissions are dictated by anything but merit. Centers for education are staffed by large (huge) numbers of people who have done nothing in life except read a book and express their opinions, people who never served their country, people who refuse to tolerate free speech, people unaccountable for their competence, people who refuse intellectual exchange of ideas, people who endorse secularism as the “state religion” while demonstrating no tolerance for any other, people who ostracize and demean faculty members and the public with divergent views, people who condone aberrant behavior, people who serve only their own self interests and narcissism, people who coerce their students under the veiled threat of failing grades, people who have institutionalized lifetime welfare in the guise of tenure, people who coddle terrorism, people who repudiate patriotism and demean military service, people who scorn free markets and capitalism, and people who even advocate undermining of the American democratic process. Did I leave anything out? And not a word was exaggeration.

Do you remember when teachers were underpaid? Today, the average annual teacher’s salary is $46,752, more that the average enlisted man’s salary in Iraq or the police officer on the front lines in our cities. And you thought “expected return” was based on risk analysis.

In fact, educators wrongfully refer to their occupation as a profession. At a minimum you'd think they would know the difference. If education were a profession, it would be exclusive which it is not. People routinely teach others outside a traditional school environment. Entrance to the occupation would be competitive and educators and the system of education would be self-regulating, neither of which it is the case. Laypeople in state legislatures and unions, or those on boards of education typically set the rules for and regulate teachers. Teaching is an occupation, i.e., a group of people with a vocational expertise that in many states is less difficult to obtain than a real estate license.

It is unusual to find a single person in the education industry who understands the simple postulation that we are all the end result of the sum of our economic, behavioral and political decisions, both as a nation and as individuals, each and every minute of every day. And the decisions we make are both cumulative and more often than not, irrevocable!

Meanwhile, our lack of individual education is manifested in our collective voting decisions. Whether voters are informed or not, their votes still result in choosing our elected representatives. The pathetic state of affairs in the United States Senate makes the point.

Consequently, one could cynically suggest that America deserves what Congress and State Legislatures vote for. We would argue that American citizens don’t deserve what is happening to their culture at the hands of an ignorant and self-serving Congress, anti-American media, activist Judiciary and Marxist system of youth indoctrination in government-controlled public schools.

At the end of the day, liberals won’t like it either; but true to form, it will be someone else’s fault and they will once again portray themselves to be the victims.

Red State Patriot

« Close It