Back to America

I've Moved!

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Tue, 01 Jun 2010 05:39:00 +0000

I'm very sorry for the inconvenience and the for the lack of posts in the last couple of weeks. I've been simply buried with work, which I will not complain about.

Please check out my new site at:

http://www.rich-nelson.com

Be sure to bookmark the new site. I'll get back on the ball, I promise.

Best,

Rich

Illegal Immigration - Three Step Solution

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sat, 08 May 2010 18:54:00 +0000

Illegal immigration is just that, Illegal. Let us be clear, legal immigration is a good thing and should be encouraged. America was founded on the backs of hard working immigrants from every corner of the world. America must find a way that eases and encourages legal immigration.

Politicians on both sides of the isle continue to pander to both sides of the argument. Politicians on the left and right are attempting to appear tough on crime while simultaneously sympathetic to this particular crime. Politicians on both side of the isle are desperate to grab the potential in votes once illegal immigrants are somehow able to vote.

Let’s get right to the three-step solution that solves all of the major issues surrounding illegal immigration.

Step One – Completely revamp the immigration process. The entire process should not take longer than six months. Applicants should:

• Demonstrate a minimal ability to speak English

• Demonstrate the ability to answer some very basic questions about U.S. Law and the Constitution and swear allegiance to this Nation

• Have no criminal background in home country

• Meet a minimum health screening to ensure that they are not bringing diseases that have previously been eradicated from the U.S.

• Pay a minimum fee to cover the administrative costs of the above

Enacting step one will ease and expedite the legal process for becoming and American citizen. Easing and expediting the process will reduce the need to cross illegally because there is a viable path to citizenship. Step one will also reduce the financial burden now paid by taxpayers.

Step Two - Enact harsh fines and punishments for those who willfully employ illegal immigrants. The IRS is the best suited for this process. Well-trained IRS agents can quickly spot irregularities in production levels and profits versus payroll taxes.

Enacting and enforcing step two will eradicate the jobs that attract and keep illegal immigrants in (and coming to) this country. Step two will also serve to force employers to pay their share in payroll taxes, Social Security, and Medicare.

Step Three – Enact a one-year amnesty program whereby illegal immigrants may come forward, meet the standards outlined in Step One and become a citizen. By coming forward under the amnesty program immigrants are formally confessing to the crime of entering the United States illegally and will immediately be classed as a felon. Under this amnesty/felony act, there will be NO jail sentence or fines.

Enacting and enforcing step three will provide a means for those (estimated around 20 million) who are already here to become a citizen. This mitigates the insurmountable task of “deporting” twenty million human beings. Step three preserves and respects the rule of law by punishing those who broke U.S. Law. For example, these people will not be able to own a firearm or to vote.

Failing to act only continues to oppress these immigrants by forcing good, hard-working people to live under the system rather than participating in it. Failing to act forces these people to live in poverty and without basic human rights. Failing to act allows employers to take advantage of what is now a sub-class of our society.

This plan addresses the problems causing illegal immigration without giving a “free” pass to the front of the line. These steps protect immigrants from harsh labor conditions, from the potential for sexual harassment and/or abuse, as well as bring them under the safety protections of labor safety standards. These steps protect immigrants by ensuring that they will now be paid a minimum wage. By enacting these steps, the U.S. Border Patrol will spend little to no time and energy securing the border. The Border Patrol can now focus all resources on drug trafficking and criminal crossings. The human trafficking industry will literally disappear.

Terrorists Win One More

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Wed, 05 May 2010 04:23:00 +0000

The attempted car-bombing in New York on May 2nd, 2010 was yet another reason for our leaders to call for more surveillance.

Stop and think about this for a minute. What exactly is the definition of terrorism?

ter·ror·ism (těr'ə-rĭz'əm)
n. The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

"…with the intention of intimidating or coercing…"

There it is. Now watch as we see the government begin to spy on American's more. Watch as we see cities (especially New York) put more and more surveillance in place. Looks like the terrorists are winning.

With every new strike (including failed attempts) we lose more freedom or gain more government intrusion into our daily lives.

I don't have the answer to stopping terrorism; there may not be one. However, when the terrorists see how we react to every attempt, they clearly see that they are winning. The Fear is driving us to take away our own freedom under the guise of security.

The man who would choose security over freedom deserves neither.
Thomas Jefferson

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.
Thomas Jefferson

Please, write to your representatives, local officials, and vote. You must let them know that we will not allow ourselves to be "coerced" by terrorists. No matter what action(s) we take to deter and/or stop terrorism, the one thing that we must never do is acquiesce.

A Word to Seditious Conservatives

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Wed, 21 Apr 2010 02:01:00 +0000

I cannot stress enough how important it is at this point to remain vigilant. Stay persistent. Refuse to accept the labels. Refuse to be dismissed. This is a long haul. This fight will not be over in November or even in 2012. This is a fight that is at least a twenty year battle to bring America back to the original values and intent of Its founding fathers.

What we are seeing in the liberal media now is fear. Because of the grass-roots, ground-up movement that is the Tea Party movement, those in power are fearful. That fear is not because of threats of violence because those haven't happened. The fear comes because they know that they are wrong and they know that their control is short lived. The liberal leadership in power today is very close to realizing the change that comes from the voters not from an elite ruling class.

I've watched as former President Clinton loosely equated the tea party movement to the Oklahoma bombing. I watched as liberal pundits tried to use the word "Sedition" and associate it to the likes of Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin. I've watched as the the Department of Homeland Security Office declared that Christian conservative military vets should be watched. I've watched as the left has loosely aligned the pilot who flew the plane in the IRS building to these "grass roots" movements. I've watched as Joe the plumber was investigated by a government agency because he spoke in opposition of the President's policies. I've watched as the liberal media interviewed an African-American tea-party attendee, asking if they felt "uncomfortable" at the event. I've read liberal bloggers calling names, and spewing hate.

When the Tea Party was just starting to grab some real media attention during the beginnings of the health care debate, the left called them "Astro-turf." The left dismissed them as fringe and having no real traction.

Now they are labeling and demonizing. Now they are compartmentalizing. These are the tried and true tactics from the left. If they can label the tea party as racist (Klansmen), as violent (Hate group or militia), or radical by any means, they can then begin to drum up support for legislation to control. This has already been proven by the White House's attempt at black-listing Fox News.

The liberal leadership would not exert this much effort if they did not realize the political peril that they find themselves in. Do not be over confident either. This is not a movement that will solve America's problems over the course of this year or next. This movement is generational. The problems we face today are real because of the multi-generational progressive movement. The intensity of today must remain resilient for an unforeseeable amount of time. The tea party movement must be able to absorb these attacks and rebound with even more enthusiasm.

Who Really Pays Taxes

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Fri, 16 Apr 2010 02:01:00 +0000

It doesn't really matter which side of the political fight that you're on, the taxes (all taxes) flow down to the little guy. No one can deny that wealthy people pay taxes. The IRS numbers show it. There are many reports that show that the greatest burden of income taxes (not payroll) are borne by the smallest minority of the wealthiest individuals. So you might say, "Yeah! stick it to the evil rich guy!" I'm here to tell you, "WRONG." No matter how you break down the numbers, the only guy who pays all the taxes is the guy who works for a wage and consumes a product or service.

The rich get rich by the manner with which they live and the financial decisions that they make. The rich also have the means to find deductions and shelters. I know that they pay taxes but if they paid so many taxes as a percentage of their income, how are they still wealthy? The rich always bring in more revenue (note I didn't say income) than they expend. More in, less out. How do they do that? There are many ways to invest money tax free. When the tax burden is too much, the rich stop (or slow down) "earning" money. The rich also reduce expenses to live under the investments and other non-taxable revenues reducing the need to "earn" money. This also happens in economic recessions. The key is that although the numbers show that the rich pay taxes, they also have more control over what their respective tax burden will be.

Many say, tax the big companies. Again, I tell you, "WRONG." No company pays taxes. No company will pay for the carbon offsets under a "Cap-n-Trade" program. Companies figure out what their operating expenses are (overhead). Businesses then calculate based on market factors what's the maximum that they can charge for a product and still maximize sales. The maximum amount that can be charged must cover the operating expenses and provide for profit or they go out of business. What does this mean? You pay the tax when you purchase the product or service.

The rich man is also the business owner. Don't you think that he understands what his personal tax burdens are therefore understands how much profit that business must make? He must charge more, produce more, or cut expenses when the tax burden goes up. Rest assured that he will do this.

Recent reports are showing that 47% of Americans' tax bill will be zero. That may be exactly what the 1040 form shows in the end but this is where the system is deceptive. The average "Joe" wage earner pays all of the taxes no matter how you slice it. When "Joe" works for a living, he only makes "earned income" which is taxed. When "Joe" spends his money he pays sales tax. When "Joe" consumes a product he pays all the evil businesses' taxes and the business owners' taxes.

The main point here is that it doesn't matter if you're a "progressive" who believes that the wealthy and the businesses should pay all the taxes or if you're a "conservative" who thinks that businesses should get a tax break. All taxes trickle down to those who earn income and who consume products and services. Taxing the wealthy and business only serve to hurt the economy by slowing the flow of revenue within the economy. Taxing the wealthy and business only causes them to retract which negatively affects employment.

There is no "fair" tax, there is only tax. When the government is too big and attempts to do the things that it was not intended to do, all elements of the economy suffer. The government does not adequately care for the elderly, the sick, or the poor. The government's feeble attempt only hurts the economy thereby increasing the need for more government services and more taxes. This is the vicious cycle that must be stopped and reversed immediately.

Take the housing boom for instance. The "Government" mandated that lenders lend to people who could not afford to pay. The "Government" did not regulate the way that the financial industry packaged bad loans to hide them from the investment community. Although this is a long debatable story, the fact remains that the government failed. The government over stepped its boundaries with regard to social engineering and under stepped with regard to regulating commerce. You see government messed around where it should stay out of and failed to get involved where it actually has authority.

So what's the solution? Simple, reduce the size of government and the role of government. We do not need the government to care for us, the government can't even care for itself. The government deals in disparity, not in prosperity. Stop looking to the government for prosperity, you will not find it. The best and quickest way to have more money is to stop spending it on the government. This is accomplished via your vote.

The Great Contradiction

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 13:19:00 +0000

The "Progressives" have been at this for over a hundred years. The socialist utopian agenda idolized by progressives is not new. A very simple search of history shows socialism beginnings as far back as the mid 18th century and with it's real growth coming around the French Revolution. No need for a history lesson other than to illustrate that these forces have been at play for a very long time.

Reading Socialist and Marxist speeches and writings throughout history we see an alarming contradiction. We see that both philosophies refer to providing for those who cannot. We see an equalizing of social and economic classes.

We then see and hear the early leaders of the movement openly advocating the extermination of those who do not adequately contribute to the whole of society. George Bernard Shaw (Nobel Prize winner) states that we should all go before a panel about every 5 years to answer what we have done or do that justifies our existence. Mr. Shaw further made a call to scientists to develop a gas that would quickly, painlessly, and humanely kill people. We saw this very thing with Nazi Germany. We saw mass extermination by means of starvation in Russia and the Ukraine even before the Nazi's.

Socialism and Communism cannot sustain without the suppression of the government. Socialism and Communism cannot exist without taking from the productive and giving to the unproductive. Inevitably the unproductive will outnumber the productive (why work when you do not have to?).

Here's the contradiction: if socialism, marxism, and/or communism are for the betterment of all. If these philosophies are to equalize economic classes, why then the extermination; both in discussion and in application?

See the cycle:

Some in society cannot care for their own basic needs.
Society says, "We can do better than this, humans should not suffer.

These are humans, they are entitled.
We legislate the entitlement.

The burden of the entitlement is borne by the whole.

Too many entitlements cannot be supported by the whole.
Taxation rises, reducing earnings for the whole respectively.

Then the whole says it can no longer support the unproductive.
- You must justify yourself.
- You must be exterminated.

If everyone in our current economic system carried their own weight (specifically those who are physically able) there would be no need for the social programs that start the move toward socialism.

We then would have an extremely small percentage of our society who truly are unable to care for themselves. Those that find themselves in these extreme situations can be supported through local programs that can better serve their individual needs. This is where local charity groups and religious organizations do a fabulous job.

Again I say, the message is about personal accountability as a method of preserving freedom. There should be a safety net for those who literally cannot support themselves. Free entitlements from the government are NOT a safety net and are not free.

The Strategy

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 00:46:00 +0000

Just finished a Wall Street Journal Article describing President Obama's brazen "in your face" taunts after the Healthcare law passage. The strategy is clear, keep attacking and keep demonizing to keep socializing. With the full support of most major media outlets, the Republicans seem to be quite bruised and battered.

To further demonize the right, they are now provoking. The progressives in this country are now seeking out the opportunity to capitalize on the anger that they've stirred up. We see it already in numerous accounts (which most are not yet proven) of right wing or "Tea Party" violence and racism.

It's important to remember that this is a very long process. This is not one or two elections to bring the country back in line with the founder's intent. The progressive movement is well over a hundred years old. We didn't get here over night.

It's important that we remember a couple of things. First we must remember that there will be setbacks along the way. We will not gain momentum based on frustration to a single bill, law or administration, subsequently reversing over a hundred years of slow movement. The changes needed are societal, they are psychological, as well as generational. This is a long fight.

We must be involved from every angle. We must be involved in education, in the media, in the elections (both local and national), and in teaching our children. We must literally change the way that people think. Technology is on our side. The speed of communication and information can greatly enhance the speed with which we gain ground. Keep in mind, the progressives started this movement in a time when even a hand written letter could take months to deliver. The message should be clear and unwavering irrespective of situation.

Self reliance, personal accountability, reverence for the sacrifice of others for freedom, and respect of personal freedom. Most of all, the argument. The argument for personal freedom by minimal government control upon our lives is sound.

Most importantly now is the time for CONTROLLED and very disciplined passion, not anger. This is the time to rise above the petty name calling and the sarcasm that can be found on most news outlets.

Look for my next post on The Great Contradiction.

How do we teach History?

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 06:47:00 +0000

Before you read on please read the attached article that I found on the Drudge report. It may take a minute but it's relevant to my point.

Texas Curriculum

First let me clearly state that I believe that history should be taught as realistically and honestly as it can be. There were some points in American History that no American should be proud of. There are some points in American History that we must learn from so that we never repeat. However, none of those times should in any way make us dislike or be anything less than proud to be an American. In spite of those particular eras this country has done more to better the entire world than any other single country in the recorded history of the world.

There should be no doubts in anyone's mind that the world is a better place because of American ideals, ingenuity, morals, and willingness to sacrifice for others.

In reading the article linked above, I noticed a very simple point. All of the democrats wished to point out how bad America has been. All of the republicans wished to glorify American history. Why are the democrats so determined to teach our children that we're bad? Why do we constantly hear from the democrats about how wrong we are? If you are looking to convince people that you need to change from what you are, you must first dislike what you are. This can be attributed to nothing else. If we are so ashamed of ourselves and dislike what we are then we must feel compelled to change. What should we change to? We can easily look at the proposed policies of the most left leaning leaders to see the direction of change in this country. It's clear. One Hundred percent of the left's policies are social programs that in some way provide more entitlements to the poor while handing the bill to the wealthy and upper-middle class. More importantly, in each of these policies the government further dictates and controls the citizens choice (freedom). This is pure socialism.

Now, to be fair I do believe that the republicans involved need to be careful to honestly include those low points in American history. I believe that we can teach our children about slavery and suffrage in a realistic manner so that they learn how bad these things were. I further believe that children can be taught in such a manner that they can be proud of those heroes who took up the fight to end such horrible things.

This great country was created to be different than England, Spain, and France. This great nation was intended to be free. This nation was not intended to be a nation of helpless receiving hand-outs from the government. Countless men and women have sacrificed both their fortunes and lives to preserve this different nation. How can we now revert back to the oppressive and controlling government structure that our great founders risked everything and freed themselves of?

Hypocrisy and Sacrifice

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:00:00 +0000

Take a look at the video clip of reporters ambushing and chastising Senator Bunning. What is most amazing to me is the sheer level of hypocrisy of our media and of Americans in general. We want cuts but we don't want to be cut.
Video
Most everyone in the country is screaming about the monumental debt. This is not a partisan point. Dems and Repups, as well as media outlets, are all screaming about the astronomical debt.

When one man stands to keep the rules as just recently passed, he is mercilessly attacked by the media, the left, and much of the public. What's more frustrating is that I didn't see any republican senators jumping in to back him up. This should be extremely alarming to you as well. Any republican senators that did not back him up should be immediately called on the carpet. These weak republicans need to have their true conservative morals called into question and possibly removed from office.

The problem here is that everyone has a stake in the game. Every American will be adversely affected by Government cutting. Everyone receives a benefit, works for the government, or knows someone who does. No matter who you are, you will feel the affects of any cut-backs. The problem is that cut-backs are inevitable. I believe that the number to pay off the debt is somewhere around $40k per American citizen as of today. This number is growing rapidly.

We just watched as the media pounded Sen. Bunning for enforcing a "Pay as you go" bill that was just signed into law not more than a few months ago. The media blamed Sen. Bunning for single-handedly hold up payments for all of these Americans who are suffering without their benefits. The fact is that the entire Senate who failed to pay for this bill is who held up those payments! We as voters need to write and inform them that we know the truth irrespective of what the media would like for us to believe.

I ask each of you, republican or democrat, to take a moment and ponder what it actually took to create this country. What it took to sustain this country throughout its history. Think for a minute if any of our founding fathers and countrymen sacrificed anything to create and/or keep this union?

Lewis Morris of New York, for example, must have known when he signed the Declaration that he was signing away his fortune. Within weeks, the British ravaged his estate, destroyed his vast woodlands, butchered his cattle, and sent his family fleeing for their lives. Another New Yorker, William Floyd, was also forced to flee when the British plundered his property. He and his family lived as refugees for seven years without income. The strain told on his wife; she died two years before the war ended.Ref

These couple of quotes are only but a few of thousands of untold stories where Americans have sacrificed to preserve this great nation and the freedoms that we have enjoyed for so many years.

We must keep in mind that as we work to correct the budget problems of the State and Federal Governments that we will feel the pain. That pain will be felt by you and by me. No one wishes to have their respective program, service, or benefit to be cut. No one wishes to see any one person laid off from their job. Furthermore, deciding which programs and services can be cut is extremely subjective. The importance of one program over another depends upon who you are speaking with. This is the very reason that we cannot legislate on emotion.

We must concentrate on retaining those services that we can all agree serve to keep good order and safety within the community. I think that we should first, as a community agree on a priority list. For example, Police and Fire = 1. Education = 2. Infrastructure (roads, etc) = 3. Health and Human Services = 4.

No matter the process, no matter the pain, it must be done. I believe that we as Americans must look at this and realize that these sacrifices that we're being asked to make are minute in comparison to what our predecessors have endured for this great nation.

There is a tipping point with regard to taxation. There is a point where too much taxation stagnates and actually reverses business growth thereby reducing the overall revenue intake at the state and federal level. The balance must be drawn between enough taxation to cover needed programs (safety, education, etc.) and too much taxation where the revenue flow will not even cover the basics. Too high of a tax reduces money flow. Money flow produces money and jobs. As the scale of taxation rises, the job creation drops. In turn, the need for more social programs like unemployment benefits grow. It's a deadly downward spiral that we're toying with here.

Simply put, I believe that the time for a little personal sacrifice is now. This debt to GDP ratio that our government is toying with could literally be the demise of this country. The problems with the state is that there simply are too many social programs (entitlements).

It may be yours or my program that's cut. I understand that I will not be happy and nor will you but we must do the right thing. If we continue to provide entitlements to the point that there is no more country then there will be no more entitlements. We must painstakingly restore balance.

We start this by writing to our representatives and more importantly to our local media outlets. Let them know that you will not stand for the "spin" and "attack" that was levied upon a man who decided to do the right thing. A man who decided to actually uphold the law. The blame should lay at the feet of 99 other men and women who opted to ignore the law thereby causing the delay in the extension of benefits.

You don't insure tune-ups and tires

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:46:00 +0000

Here's what I believe is the solution to all of our healthcare problems. I believe that the majority of the problems in healthcare is because we have removed or isolated the consumer from the equation. The problem is with insurance companies. However that problem will not be solved by adding another layer called government. The problem also not be solved by substituting insurance companies with government. Both scenarios remove the consumer from the equation. Here's an example: The insurance company has an agreement with the doctor. The insurance company then tells you to go to the doctor(s) that they have an agreement with. If you disagree with the doctor you are told that it's part of an agreement. If you complain to the insurance company, you are also told that it's part of an agreement. I've lived this scenario. The problem here is that the consumer was never involved in the agreement but is beholden to it. Interjecting the government will not change this. The solution lies in removing the problem layer, be it government or insurance company. Here's what I would propose:

Stop trying to insure all medicine or medical procedures. You do not insure tune-ups or tire changes on your car. Preventative medicine like physicals, annual exams, and normal visits for things like the flu or common ailments should be paid directly by the consumer. This is possible because nearly all medical professionals still make payment plans with patients. This is affordable as evidence by the majority of Americans' ability to afford a cell phone.
Stop all employer paid for insurance. This too removes another layer of "no control" for the consumer. When your employer decides on health plans, s/he has to make a financial decision with limited options. The plans put forth for you to choose from may not be the best plans for you as an individual. I believe that employers will benefit from this too. Employers can immediately shift the total moneys expended for employee health coverage to the employees. Shifting these money's to the employee then "fixes" the cash outlay, as current insurance programs are continually rising creating a major burden on the company.
Individual consumers would then shop in an open market for health insurance to cover major illnesses, accidents, and/or catastrophes. This would reduce the over all cost of insurance because of the open market for competition and because we are not insuring every sniffle or scrape. Many who pay for the insurance will rarely ever use it. Those who pay and rarely use the insurance will help to offset the costs of those who do need to use it thereby reducing the overall cost of the insurance to all. The details, extent of coverage, and issues such as pre-existing conditions would be worked out directly between the insurer and the consumer.
Prescription drugs can be treated in the same manner. They can be included in the plan or excluded. All of these "options" allows for the consumer to taylor a plan that best fits their individual needs.

This plan places the consumer back in control of their own individual health. This plan cuts any and all layers out the doctor patient relationship. This plan allows for coverage of "big ticket" items that would otherwise be financially devastating to working families.

This plan removes the over taxation required to have the government manage healthcare for all Americans. This plan eliminates the chance of government control of yet another aspect of respective Americans' lives.

Programs like Medicare would still exist and could be somewhat modified be be more like the above but none-the-less would still be in existence to support those who are elderly and/or struggling. Addition of more government entitlements would no longer be needed. Payments already made under State and Federal welfare type programs are enough to now offset the costs under my plan. By modifying Medicare to be more like my plan, the costs of Medicare could be brought under control thereby reducing the drag on the deficit and economy.

My Plan adds the element of the "healthy" paying into the system thereby offsetting the costs for those with pre-existing conditions. As we've seen with the automotive insurance industry, having a free market approach has driven down the cost of automotive insurance. Even those with bad driving records pay less because of those with good records that still pay for insurance. Roughly 85% of Americans have health insurance now, even without a federal mandate. I can only speculate but I would presume that number to only go up if the cost of health insurance went down. Factually speaking, we do not need a federal mandate to force American's into paying for health insurance.

Of those 15% of Americans who are currently uninsured, how many of them can afford preventive medicine? How many simply can't afford a big plan that covers the tune-ups and tire changes?

Under my plan I would support an "elected" government review panel to regulate and fight against abuses. There are already existing governmental entities that could manage this with little to no change in their structure or tax burden. This would eliminate abuses by "big" insurance companies.

I believe that just as with auto insurance or with gasoline prices, we as consumers are the ones with the ultimate power. Big business is ultimately accountable to the consumer. If we do not buy from Wal-mart, they will go out of business. The big businesses of the world must meet our demands if they wish to continue to receive our dollars. When the government mandates that we buy a product or service it affectively removes the power of the consumer.

We as Americans need to come up with our own solutions that retain our own control over our lives and our respective economic future. If you agree with me, copy and send this to everyone you know via email and most importantly to your representatives and your employers. I believe that this plan is possible as well as most economical for Americans. Most importantly, I believe that this plan retains personal responsibility, accountability, and freedom.

What came of the Healthcare Summit

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 05:47:00 +0000

Everyone was waiting to see just what would come of President Obama's Healthcare Summit. All of the pundits from right and left speculated but everyone seemed to say the same thing; nothing would come of it. President Obama knew that nothing would come of it. I say this because his actions from the very onset made it very clear that he expected nothing to come of it.

President Obama expected that he could show the American people that the republicans had no plan and that they simply refused to cooperate and the opposite happened. The Republican's came with plans. Both sides simply postured and did nothing more than try to pick apart the other. All of the polls show that the majority of Americans (almost 60%) still do not want the President's plan. The President simply believes that if you hear more about his plan then you'll finally come to your senses and agree.

I saw something altogether different. Think about this for a moment. If you didn't get the chance to watch it, then youtube it and watch it; even if it's just parts of it and you'll see what I'm about to tell you.

What I saw was an extreme imbalance of powers. I saw that the Executive Branch of our government summoned a meeting with the Legislative Branch. The Executive Branch lectured and even reprimanded the Legislative Branch. Which reminded me of the State of the Union address where the President excoriated the Legislative and even the Judicial Branches of the government.

All of this show me nothing more than sheer arrogance. President Obama believes that He (Executive Branch) is somehow senior to the other two branches of the government. If he did not feel superior he would not be speaking to what should be his governmental peers in this manner. Even when Congress refused to setup a bipartisan group to tackle the deficit He used his executive power to create one and then slapped the Congress in his State of the Union. I didn't agree with Congress on there inaction with regard to the deficit but this just illustrates the President's willful disregard for the balance of power. Just watch the video from the summit and look closely at the look on his face when Republicans were speaking.

To make things worse the Democrats in the congress have capitulated. By doing so they have allowed the and even fostered the imbalance of power. I believe that every American should write to their representatives in the Congress and tell them to take their rightful authority back and not simply bow to the President's every whim.

In the end, the only reason that this summit was held for the public to see was so that President Obama could then say to the American people that they (Republicans) wouldn't deal. Because they wouldn't deal, he must move forward with reconciliation. He's forgetting one fact. Sixty percent of Americans do not want this and all of those Americans are not stupid, they saw what happened. The President didn't even get a full sixty percent of the vote to get elected. This should scare Democrats.

Jobs and Domestic Violence

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Tue, 23 Feb 2010 03:43:00 +0000

Here we go. Senator Reid wants you buy into more government spending on a jobs bill because us men are beating our wives because we're out of work.

Article

I can tell you that I'm no psychologist but neither is the good Dr. Reid. Domestic violence is a major problem in this country and should be attacked with a fervor. A weak attempt at blaming unemployment for the domestic violence is ludicrous at best. The only loose connection that may possibly be made is that those who already abuse their wives just have more time on their hands to do it now. Even that connection is weak at best.

What really upsets me about this, as it should you, is that this really spells out Senator Reid's attitude about the "common man." Senator Reid believes that you are so lowly and unsophisticated that you'll just start beating your wife if you're out of work. He must really see us common folk archaic cavemen.

Really?

We've really got to wake up and vote Senator Reid and all of the other elitist politicians out of office. America never got to be what it is because the common man was this archaic.

Senator Reid needs to believe that we are just this mindless so that he can justify going against the will of the people and forcing more government control over our lives. If he believes that we are this mindless then there is a real need, in his mind, for the elite ruling class to control and provide for us as if we were infants.

This is a Senator who claims to champion the little guy. This is a Senator that claims to be looking out for you. He's not looking out for you, he's looking down upon you with pity.

Take a minute and just ponder this. Are you that mindless? Do you need multiple degrees or to be part of the government in order to care for yourself. Would you really just decide to beat your wife because you're out of work? If you agree with me then write Senator Reid and all of your representatives to re-educate them about the strength (and wisdom) of the common man.

Accountability and Healthcare

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 03:51:00 +0000

I had a nice debate today with a co-worker of mine who is very much a liberal democrat and feels that we absolutely must pass comprehensive health reform. He believes, as many liberals and journalist do, that it's the extra-ordinary health costs that are destroying the economy. He further believes that having everyone on health care will provide enough paying healthy people to offset the costs of those who are plagued by illnesses and astronomical health costs.

My friend explained to me how insurance works and how the costs will go down because there would be a much larger paying base to cover all of the costs. My friend further explained to me that a good government should do things for it's people. His belief is that we have an obligation as a society and as a community to care for those who cannot care for themselves. My friend further explained to me about how much better Canada, Germany, and many other countries are because they have government run or controlled healthcare. He further stated that these example countries are pulling out of the recession faster than the U.S. because they do not have the burden of healthcare costs like the U.S. does.

Here's the catch… None of that matters. Even if any one of those points were accurate, and most of them are not, the real argument has been glossed over by those on the left. The left does not want to argue the real issue at hand because they cannot win on the real core issues at hand.

The real issue can be found in a few simple questions.

Do we as American's and as a Government have the right to demand that one man pay to bear the burden of another man?
Is it legal for the Government to demand under threat of penalty to purchase any product or service?
Is this what our founding fathers intended when they founded this nation?

There are no facts to support much of the arguments presented by my friend. On some of the merits of his arguments, I do actually agree. However, if we look at what the real questions are (listed above) then there is no argument.

Let's look quickly at how we come about determining the need for a law. Most laws are derived from a need to promote good order and safe living within a community. Most laws are created because there is a need to prohibit some activity that brings some harm to individuals or the society as a whole. This is where the waters get muddy. Most liberals will tell you that not having healthcare is harmful to the community on the whole and certainly harmful to those who cannot afford it and need it. Although you might loosely be able to make this assertion, you would then also have to make the assertion that drinking alcohol, eating fast food, smoking, not exercising, and even turning on your car also harm society as a whole.

The way to stay out of that muddy water is to truly look at what things should not be allowed within a society. Things like murder, stealing, coercion, etc… are all great examples of where there is a real justification to take away and individual's freedom. We all do something that in some loose way can be construed as a "drain" on society. Trust me, I do and you do.

When I questioned my friend about how does he feel that it's his right to impose a financial burden on another to pay for what should be his own responsibility. Sidebar: It is our own responsibility to care for our own selves. The Constitution never guaranteed happiness, it only guaranteed that the government would not impose upon your "pursuit" thereof. My friends response was that it was not he that was imposing these burdens but that it was society as a whole. If you vote to take another man's freedom or to impose some burden upon him then it IS you as an individual who is taking this action. There is no other way to look at it.

I know that this sounds like an old cliche but I do mean this in all seriousness. If you are seeking a system that supports you. If you are seeking a system that you work and get almost no pay but your "needs" are met, move to one of those countries. The reason that I bring up this point is not to say, "Just leave." The reason that I bring this up is that those places already exist and it is well within your rights and abilities to have those things.

This country was based on individual freedoms, freedoms from the government, freedoms from the burdens of overtaxation, and on the God given freedom to pursue happiness. It is every American's freedom to step out and take risks, to save, to work, to invest, and to pursue a higher standard of living. Every American has the opportunity and the RIGHT to succeed or fail. This country was based on these values and there is no other country like it on earth. There are plenty other countries that do exactly what the liberals would prefer.

If you disagree with me, that's fine, you are well within your right to do so. That's just one more reason that I love this country. However I ask one thing, take a minute and really look at what you think is an individual's responsibility and what is not. Think about this, do you believe that you are responsible for yourself or is the government responsible for you? If the majority of American's believe that the government is responsible and that we as individuals are not, then the country is lost. If this is the case, we are the new Canada and rapidly on our way to becoming the new France.

I, for one, do not believe that the majority of Americans are not responsible for themselves. I believe that if we can continue to push forward the real conversation as illustrated herein, then we can get back to what matters.

What's Stimulus Doing?

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:39:00 +0000

I just went out to the recovery.gov website where all of the economic Stimulus Funding is tracked. They have a nifty page that allows you to see the dollars of contracts, grants, and loans for specific areas in the country. I put in the zip code for downtown Bakersfield, where I live and was surprised to see how that money is working. Here's the breakdown as of February 10th, 2010:

$23,561,960 in Contracts which created 1.21 jobs.
$103,984,148 in Grants which created 60.36 jobs.
$0 in Loans which created 0 jobs.

$127,546,108 in Total which created 61.57 jobs.

I'm not an economist but that's roughly two million dollars for each job created. This is money that's never going back to the government. Notice there was zero dollars in loans.

If the government truly wished to create jobs, why are the funds going out to so many grants? Why are there so few jobs created for our tax investment? The twenty-three million in contracts obviously went to companies that were already fully staffed. Twenty-three million dollars just became a net loss in terms of job creation. The one-hundred three million went for grants which are only temporary employment for those employees. If more grants do not come later, those jobs/programs will go away.

This approach is counter-intuitive. We have a jobs problem. We have a deficit/debt problem. Why isn't this money invested where more jobs can be created which will ultimately result in more tax income to the state and federal governments?

Let's define a small business as one that's been in business for at least five years and employs more than ten employees. Let's select the top sixty of these companies determined by earnings before interest & tax. Let's now award each of these companies two million dollars for expansion and growth. How many employees do you think that each of these companies would hire?

If the economic recovery was the so important why has only one-third of the stimulus money been spent? Where has that money gone to? How many small businesses have you heard of that received stimulus funds? I know of the banks and some very large companies. This tells me that the Democrats are not quite so big on helping the middle and low income earners in the country as they purport to. Take a look at all the new taxes rolling out at the state and, soon to be, federal level. These new taxes on products and services hit the lower and middle classes in this country the hardest. Without the jobs the tax base dwindles. The smaller tax base causes a demand for creative new taxes to recover loss tax revenue.

Do you see what's really happening? Those without jobs get benefits extended to them. Those with jobs get taxed more. Those without jobs are still taxed every time they consume a product or service. If a more jobs were created there would be less expense in benefit payouts and more wage earners as a tax base. If this isn't happening then what is? Now that's a good question.

I would encourage you to visit the recovery.org site and look for yourself how the money is affecting your area. See if it's anything like my area.

Toyota v Government - Conflict of Interest?

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:41:00 +0000

Seriously think about this for a minute. The problems with Toyota accelerators have been happening since roughly 2000. I, in no way, will come to the defense of Toyota or the company's actions to correct the problems. I will however, point out just a couple of issues that cause me to be concerned and ask you to keep your eyes open.

The NHTSA (National Highway Transportation Safety Administration) has recently stepped up its public campaign against Toyota. At this point in time this may just be my paranoia however I ask that you just think about it and ask yourself, "What do you think?" I find it suspicious that Toyota has been dealing with these issues now for roughly ten years but the NHTSA just now decided to step up and take real action.

In typical political expedience the Congress is looking to do a full hearing and investigation. Congress will now haul the Toyota executives into the capital and demonize them for all the world to see. By doing so we voters can get a view of how our political leaders are taking action to ensure our safety. This will be nothing more than another grandstanding show by our leaders (Republicans and Democrats alike).

Is the fact that we have so much (as taxpayers) invested into GM and Chrysler a conflict of interest? Why is just now that the government has decided to take political action against Toyota with so much publicity and fanfare?

President Obama and Congress bailed out GM and against popular public opinion went in and dictated to GM who will lead the company, how much they'll be paid, and even what cars that GM will produce. Now that they have such a political stake in GM, are they truly unbiased with regard to dealing with Toyota?

Lastly, keep in mind that this will negatively affect future Toyota sales. The factories that are being affected most are those right here inside the United States. When Toyota has to cut costs because of the lawsuits and the negatively impacted sales, they'll certainly make those cuts within the U.S. first.

Again, this may just be my paranoia but just keep an eye on this and watch how if unfolds. While doing so, watch for those politicians who are grandstanding the loudest. Look seriously at their motives and do your best to read through the political double-speak.

Hook or Crook

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:12:00 +0000

The President has now stated that he will begin to use his Executive Power to get done what the Congress cannot. Is this an abuse of his Executive Powers? You'll have to decide that. I personally believe that it is.

Executive Power Abuse?

The President is reviewing ways of doing away with the "Don't Ask Don't Tell" laws even though the Congress is currently reviewing the possibility of repealing that law. When Congress would not create a bipartisan budget commission, President Obama decided to do it on his own and announced it at the State of the Union address. An apparent attempt at "shaming" congress.

The President's cabinet is currently reviewing how they can use Executive Power to make changes on all of the President's major agenda items such as Health Care reform and Environmental policies. The White House communications director, Dan Pfeiffer said, “In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.” The EPA is already moving forward with Heat Trapping Gasses regulations even when the most recent news coming out on Global Warming shows that many of the former supporters are doubting the scientific data.

Even as Americans are speaking out and even as congressional representation is slowly starting to listen, the President says, "I'll do it on my own anyway." The President will ram this junk legislation down our throats come hook or crook.

The science is not settled

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:51:00 +0000

I've addressed this earlier regarding the money behind global warming so I won't reiterate here. I said then and have always said that I am not a scientist but that there were too many differing opinions from scientist to call the science "settled".

Al Gore and even President Obama in his State of the Union address accuse those with differing opinions of just disregarding science. Take a look at this article. These scientists referenced in this article were previously supporters of the global warming theory and have now cast doubts.

Unsettled Science

The fact is that it is not settled either way. So again, I say let's not radicalize the way we produce and use energy. Let's not skyrocket the cost of energy to somehow punish Americans into using less. All of this ultimately affects the poorest families in America more than any other. This administration does not need to raise taxes on the poor when their policies are killing middle and lower income America.

When there is a consensus then we can look at decisive action and I'm sure that the vast majority of Americans will be supportive.

Transparency & Debt; Business' Ball-n-Chain

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 21:15:00 +0000

Take a look at the article that I've linked here. The Obama administration continues to try and control what we as American's see and don't see.

Debt Limit Raised Behind Closed Doors

The President does not want you to see this publicly because he knows that it's wrong and he knows that you know it's wrong. Raising the debt ceiling and spending more money that we don't have to spend is not the answer and will not fix the problem. How is it that every other bill signing has been done with cameras and fan fare?

Because the government is not a business it does not have to balance a budget or, God forbid, be profitable. When a business is efficient and provides a needed or valuable product and/or service the business is rewarded with profits. Conversely when the business is inefficient or does not provide that needed product or service, they are punished by revenue loss and eventually by going out of business.

The government has none of the above. They are neither rewarded or punished based on need or efficiency. This is the exact reason why the government should NOT be involved in anything that is not part of the original powers set forth by the constitution.

Even with medicine, Doctors must be proficient and accurate or they will go out of business. Introducing more layers of financial cushion between the consumer and the provider only allows for mediocracy and additional costs.

Think about this for a minute... if you only pay the doctor with no one in the middle to absorb more costs, wouldn't the cost come down? The existing insurance companies and eventually the government has to pay for the employees and facilities, etc. thereby adding additional cost to the entire process. Perhaps a system of insurers that only insure for catastrophic illness and accidents but not for normal Doctor visits. I can't help but believe that when there is a need for affordable "normal" healthcare with limited oversight by the government that there'll be entrepreneurial Doctor's that will gladly meet that demand. The government is just simply not structured for this.

This is just one example of how these major problems can truly be solved with simple common sense exercised by the common man. Big executives' and big government's idea of fixing problems is not by re-evaluating a problem and finding simple cost effective solutions. The solutions proposed by massive companies and big government are nothing more than adding layers or bureaucracy and throwing more money at the problem. We see that here. Increasing the debt ceiling and spending more money on things that are not truly needed is just a short term fix. The jobs are temporary but the debt is long term.

Tell your republican and democrat leaders to get out of the business trying "take care" of people. This is not their job. The government will do far more by simply reducing its own drag on society. The over taxation and over regulation does nothing more than act as a dead weight or ball-n-chain on business thereby inhibiting business' ability to function efficiently.

I ask, why did President Obama feel the need to hide this?

Bipartisanship

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 05:52:00 +0000

Nancy Pelosi unveiled an $80 Billion Jobs Bill today that is intended to extend jobless benefits and more infrastructure projects.

President Obama called for Bipartisanship on this bill. The President also reached out for a bipartisan effort on the health care reform. Why does he want bipartisanship now? The obvious answer is because of Scott Brown's election victory and subsequent confirmation as a U.S. Senator. However, Scott Brown's victory is but only a small part of a much larger equation.

Bipartisanship means both Democrats and Republicans working together to come to some common ground on these two very important matters. The problem is that the majority of Americans have clearly stated that they do not want either. That being said, bipartisanship is exactly the opposite of what Americans want. If the debate is shifted from being a simple "do or don't" argument to a "look how we're coming together" argument, the President and other party progressives believe that they'll be able to continue with their agenda.

The Scott Brown victory certainly threw a monkey-wrench into the progressive agenda but as you can see, it did not stop it. The victory merely slowed it down. The agenda will only be broken down into smaller segments and pushed in smaller increments while we all sit idly back and applaud the Democrats and Republicans working together.

Contact your representatives and let them know that bipartisanship is NOT what Americans want. Americans want the federal government to get out of trying to run their lives. Americans do NOT want more social programs and more big government and more debt.

Contact your representatives and remind them that you do not want them to go to the table and debate a matter that is not debatable simply because they were invited. Do not fall for the typical rhetoric and double-speak. Read between the lines. President Obama has already clearly stated that he will not stop pushing for health care. The President has telegraphed his next move, let's stop him before he takes another step.

Lastly, be upset. Be upset that after such a clear message has been sent, the President still refuses to hear you. Moreover, the President simply believes that you're wrong.

Economic Stimulus - Again

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Tue, 02 Feb 2010 15:12:00 +0000

Today President Obama will be traveling to New Hampshire to push his new economic stimulus. President Obama is suggesting that Congress take 30 Billion that was paid back by the larger banks and pumping into smaller banks so that they can increase lending to small businesses. Everyone agrees that small businesses are the tool to help stimulate and grow the economy. Everyone agrees that small businesses need help.

Did we as a nation already learn what this Administration does to businesses and banks when they lend money? Didn't we already see? Please write to your senators and congressmen and remind them how this Administration stepped in and basically took control of these entities. We do not want the White House running what they've already taken over much less making a power play to take control of small banks and businesses.

We just heard in the State of the Union that those banks who took bail outs should be able to pay extra money to help the taxpayers that bailed them out. That's code for another tax. That's how this Administration punishes those who may (or may not) have needed help. With this example, how can we trust that President Obama will not do the same with small businesses? Taking control or over taxing the small business community will kill them.

This may sound good on the surface because we'd be helping small businesses but look deeper. Look at the examples that we have before us and you'll see that this is bad. This is bad for the people that you know, for your neighbors. Your friends and neighbors are the little guys that we are talking about this time.

Don't be naive and believe that only those who take money will be taxed or controlled. The President's Administration instituted policies to allow them to take over banks that did not take money. President Obama is going to tax ALL large financial institutions, not just those who took the money. Follow the actions, not the rhetoric.

This is actually a brilliant move on behalf to the Obama Administration. Stop and think about this for a minute. First, He can take the money from the "evil" big banks and give it over to the "little guy." Second, American's will love this because it helps the small businesses. If you wish to change over to a Socialist economy, you need to have control of the entities that generate jobs and income. To do grab this control you must have support from the populace. If the populace despises these entities, they'll gladly give over control. As it pertains to Big Business and Wall Street fat cats, this is complete. Grabbing control of small business is the next step. American's may never despise the little guy but it won't matter when they're beholden to the government in the form of debt.

What will the government do with all of this control and money? They'll give over the entitlements programs which will make American's dependent. Dependent upon the government health care, social security, and now the jobs that they will control.

Bipartisanism

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 16:00:00 +0000

In the State of the Union address the President says that the Republicans can no longer be the party of "no" and must come to the table and meet the Democrats half way. Many Democrats have said that the Republicans are not meeting them in the middle. Here's two problems...

The first was illustrated by Glenn Beck last night. Beck showed how even with Scott Brown's victory there is a clear majority in the house and the senate for the Democrats. The Democrats do not need even one Republican vote to pass a bill. If every Republican voted no in the house and the senate, they could still pass a bill. That being said, why can't they pass bills? Why no health care? The truth is that the Democrats are split into two factions, the Progressives and the Blue Dogs. The Progressives are pushing for extreme socialism and the Blue Dogs are more middle of the road. The Blue Dogs are your traditional Democrats that are in support of more social programs but still believe in the original American values and freedom. These two are clashing and cannot seem to meet somewhere in the middle. The Progressives want major reforms that will literally create a socialism within the U.S. and the Blue Dogs are just left of conservative but no where near socialist or marxist. That being said, it's not the Republicans that are holding up the progress.

Secondly, and I've not heard any of the major pundants bring this up is that the American people have not told the Republicans to meet the Democrats in the middle on issues like Bail outs and Health care. The American people have said "No." The American people have said clearly and resolutely, "No." Under no circumstances do the majority of Americans want their health care to be run centrally by the Federal Government.

This clearly shows that, as of now, the Republicans are listening and more importantly following the will of the American populace as well as adhering to traditional American values. Please write your senators and representatives to let them know how they are doing relative to their respective positions.

Republican's went wrong

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 05:50:00 +0000

In the State of the Union Address we heard President Obama blame the Bush Administration for all the problems including leaving a 1 trillion dollar deficit for President Obama to inherit. The deficit number is certainly true and the fact that President Bush did not properly fund the wars is also true. President Obama and the Democrats like to state that we did the "deregulation" and "tax cut" things under Bush and judging by the deficit, we can clearly see that it did not work. Therefore we must undertake the very socialistic approach of the President and his most left leaning supporters.

The problem is that this is a very good twist of the facts. The facts are that President Bush and the Republicans failed miserably on the economy but it is not capitalism that failed. The Bush Administration spent too much. Conservative capitalism must be just that... Conservative. Spending like drunken sailors (not including the wars) is not conservative. Had the Bush Administration adhered to true conservative principals, we would not be where we are today. There may certainly have been the Banking and Housing crises however, those are also not caused by conservatism or capitalism. Conservative capitalism would never allow the Freddie and Fannie debacle. Conservative capitalism says that if you can't afford it, you don't get it.

Keep in mind that the last years of the President Bush's term in office was with a majority Democrat House and Senate. He could only sign (or veto) the things that comes across his desk.

Americans as individuals need to take accountability for their own actions as well. This is not the popular thing to say but let's just cut to the quick. Those who financed a home on an arm and bought into the "the market will only go up" argument were foolish. Americans who refinanced their homes to buy fancy toys that they otherwise would not have been able to afford were foolish. Believing that a $350k home could possibly have a thousand dollar a month payment was foolish. At some point, we must look at the mistakes that we made as our own and quit calling bankers and Wall Street professionals evil. We all know that there were many criminals out there looking to take advantage but the math is not hard. It does not take a college degree to see that these deals just didn't make sense. Let's face facts. It was nothing more than individual greed that drove the housing bubble. The buyers, sellers, flippers, and the rest were all too greedy to get more for nothing than ever before and they all got burned. In the midst a many good people also got burned. The point is that it wasn't the government's fault and it wasn't all the evil bankers. Everyone has fault here.

Now back to the point at hand... By blaming everything on the previous administration President Obama is setting up the straw man argument that it was conservative capitalism that failed. The facts are that it was abuses by criminals and those who knew better that caused this problem. How many times have you heard, "If it sounds too good to be true, then it is"? We've all heard it and we've all messed up before.

I'm not against some regulation and I believe that modest regulation to protect consumers are prudent. These regulations used to be in place until the Clinton Administration lifted much of them and then the Bush Administration followed suit by further lifting them.

The Bush Administration never acted as a true conservative capitalists therefore it was not conservative capitalism that failed. It was President Clinton followed by President Bush combined with a healthy dose of human greed that led to the perfect storm. Now President Obama will have you believe that it's merely capitalism that failed. I personally blame the failure of President Bush to adhere to strict conservative principles and human greed that set the stage for President Obama's straw man argument. Please see it for what it is and do not allow the economic system that made this country great to be tossed out the window like the baby with the bath water. Remember, the government only deals in disparity, not prosperity. The government cannot make you wealthy unless you are a politician or a lobbyist.

Massachusetts

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 06:59:00 +0000

I thank God for Scott Brown's victory because of all that it represents. It represents American's speaking out. It represents the fact that you can make a difference, even in a community as liberal as the state of Massachusetts. That's very important for people in California and in states like Maryland, Hawaii, New Jersey, and New York. You can make a difference even when you feel like it's overwhelming and nothing but an uphill struggle. Having said that, let me make one thing clear... stop the rhetoric about this guy running for President. Let's see how he truly does as a senator? Let's not jump to crazy conclusions here. The Mass. election results did not represent Scott Brown's ability to be a senator as much as it represented Americans' disgust with what's currently happening in Washington, D.C. This is a referendum on the socialist policies being forced upon Americans against their will. This is the common guy saying, "I've had enough." So again I say, don't jump to conclusions. Let's see what Scott can do.

Are you tolerant of intolerance?

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:14:00 +0000

Ever noticed how the liberals (mostly on college campuses) preach about tolerance. Ever notice how they are tolerant to anything that is liberal and absolutely intolerant of anything that is not within their own point of view.

If you disagree with the social programs, you're evil. If you are wealthy, you are evil. If you wish to create a social and economic environment that fosters individual accountability and independence, you are heartless. Pay attention to the political races. Now I'm not going to go on some limb to defend republicans because they are by no means perfect but just look. The liberals will even devour their own if they step out of ranks. Take for example the attacks on Joe Lieberman's wife when he balked at the Senate Health Care plan. They'll first try to convince you, then they'll discredit you, then they'll attack you. They'll act as if you don't even exist.

When there's not a defensible position, there's no argument. When one is guilty they resort to name calling, diversionary tactics, and slander. Even if there is a defensible argument for socialism, it's not here. The founding fathers set out to create a nation of free men, not kept men. A nation where men are free to succeed and fail and free from the government's intervention from either. That plan worked!

Unfortunately the media has played right into this montage and they control information (so they think). One beautiful thing about technology is that folks like you and I can write and communicate. We can go to libraries in person or online. We can do freedom of information act requests. We can read the history books of years ago and compare with what our children are being taught now. We can (and should) hold our children's educators accountable. We can hold our government accountable. We can even hold our media accountable. This is done by refusing to be silenced or ignored. This is done by writing, voting, and putting our money where our mouths are. Donate to the conservative independent candidate on the ticket and help them to win over the big lobby interests. Donating $5 each to a candidate will far outweigh what the lobbies can bring in.

The republican "status quo" is also not the answer. If republicans wish to garner our support they need to also move themselves away from the earmarks, overspending, and bribery. The republicans need to get back to the basics of Constitutional values.

Do not allow the intolerant to preach tolerance to you. Do not allow the those who preach moral relevancy talk to you about morality. Do not allow those in jets and limos to preach to you about hybrid cars.

Stand up tall and proud and speak loudly for original American Values as true Americans did in Massachusetts did tonight. Remember to be civil but be strong. Meek is not weak. You will be heard and you do have the power to bring back America to what it once was both democratically and economically.

Political Correctness is Political

noreply@blogger.com (Rich) — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 07:04:00 +0000

I've already addressed this topic but I believe that you'll find my position on this as a little bit of a surprise. I believe that we must stand for Reid on this one.

I personally believe that Harry Reid needs to resign just because of the radical socialistic policies that he's forcing upon America against the overwhelming will of the people. That being said, I believe that we as Americans need to confront the Republicans who are looking for political expedience with Reid's comments about President Obama.

First, this is America and Americans have this all too often forgotten thing call freedom of speech. Secondly, what Reid said was absolutely the truth and panned out to be just that.

I've listened to all the commentators weigh in on this however they are ALL wrong.

The left "forgives" him and states that it's because of all that he's done for the African American community as a politician. I can first tell you that his socialist policies are more racist that his comments could have ever been. The left is looking to get past this quickly so that they can move on to more racial policies. The left use the black community as a tool to be used on an "as needed" basis. Harry Reid was actually one of the Senators that called for Trent Lott's resignation. Al Sharpton and President Obama jumped right on the bandwagon to forgive Reid. They did this because they need this to be over and for him to continue to push for the socialist agenda that they all have a limited time to move forward.

The right are all wrong because they are looking for nothing more than to capitalize on a situation and use it to take down a political opponent as well as to exact revenge for the Lott situation. The Republicans need to be standing up for his right to freedom of speech. The Republicans need to get past the race issue by making issue of anything that furthers their own political agenda.

what Reid said was true. Barack Obama is light skinned and this unfortunately does make a difference within the white and the black community respectively. Anyone who denies this is simply denying facts. The fact that Barack Obama is so articulate was most certainly a factor is his getting elected. Again, denying this simply is denying obvious facts.

Reid needs to go for obvious reasons but not for this. We as a society need to write our politicians as well as the radio commentators and news agencies to let them know that we're done with the politicizing of everything for their own respective gain.

Remember, you must absolutely stand for freedom. To stand for freedom, you must stand for your political opponents freedom. Freedom does not know political persuasion, freedom is God given. We must protect the freedom of ALL people.