Common Sense Stimulus

We're Back!

2012-08-11T20:19:00.001-07:00

Sorry for the long delay between posts, however life tends to throw monkey wrenches into your plans, regardless of how well you, well, plan them.

As we are halfway into August, we have seen Romney emerge as the GOP contender for the Presidency. He has selected Wisconsin Representative Paul Ryan as his choice for the Vice President. Romney has been hampered by accusations that he isn't conservative enough for the GOP, while the Democrats have tried to paint him as an elitist, aloof to the plight of the middle class. Ryan brings a fresh shot of conservative juice to the ticket.

With the campaigns in full swing, we are already seeing the mud-slinging and dirty politics that have become synonymous with the American electoral process. Will this descend into a playground fight between the two bullies or will one party actually address the issues facing our nation?

The economy tops the CSS list of "most important issues" this election season. Job creation/job matching has been discussed in the political circles of Washington, and even touched on by the main-stream media but neither candidate has put forth any substantive plan dealing with this issue.

It's high time we as voters start demanding answers from our elected officials instead of swallowing the Kool-Aid that is being bottle fed to us every night by CNN, Fox, and the other propaganda outlets.

We have a voice, it's time we used it.

Congressional Candidate

2011-12-22T17:21:00.000-08:00

Ok CSS'ers, I have been pondering this for sometime now, and as I draw towards the end of my first career, I look to my second. I have been ripping our current politicians, and offering suggestions of my own on governmental issues. So, now is the time where I ask YOUR opinions and suggestions.

If you had the chance to tell your prospective Congressional Candidate what means the most to YOU, what would you say? What issues would you want them to address first? What legislation would you like to see presented on behalf of you, the voters?

Comments are on, let's hear it America.

Racism in The Government

2011-12-19T17:23:00.000-08:00

Holder Claims Racism

Attorney General Eric Holder fires back at his critics over his handling of the now infamous Fast and Furious Scandal. Holder addresses the "extremist" critics of the Republican Party, Conservative Movements, and other "right wing" commentators and bloggers (I wonder if I'm included in this?). Holder's statement that his critics are targeting him because of his "relationship" with the President and the fact that they are both "African-American" are both appaling and show that he cannot formulate a defense for his actions without stooping to such an inflamatory accusation. I have searched through the vast repository of internet information and cannot find one statement from any source of any credibility level that states Fast and Furious was mishandled because Holder is black. Not one. So, my question to the audience is at what point in time do we stop listening to this inflammatory drivel and get him a pink slip?

At War's End, A Reflection.

2011-12-18T19:32:00.000-08:00

Iraq War Comes to a Close

Nearly 9 years after it began, Operation Iraqi Freedom, also known as the Second Gulf War, OIF, Operation New Dawn, and to those who survived it, a host of other appelations such as The Suck or The 'Raq. Official totals for OIF/OND stand at 4,478 KIA, 30,000+ WIA on the US side, and on the Iraqi side, an untold number of killed and wounded. Those who opposed the war cite the large numbers of civilian Iraqis killed. As a soldier, innocent civilian casualties are heartbreaking and appalling. However, one must remember that many of those "civilian" casualties were shooting at us with all the determination of a uniformed enemy. In some cases, those "civilians" were more determined to kill us than the actual Iraqi Army. But I digress...

I remember where I was when the war started and we "went over the berm". I was stationed in Vogelweh, Germany and was working the night shift at the US Forces Police Station with members of the 569th USFPS, US Airforce, and the 230th MP Company, US Army. It seemed we all stared at that TV screen searching for a familiar face. Many of us had friends who were there for the invasion, and for those of us who weren't, it was a heart-wrenching experience. We had trained out entire careers for this moment, and we were about to miss it. None of us could have imagined that the war would drag on for another 9 years. It was shortly after the ground war began that we began performing escorts from Ramstein Airbase to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center. The stream of wounded and dead that came from the the flightline brought the grim realities of war to those of us "in the rear". As the war churned on, I was approached on day by my Operations Sergeant who informed me that I was to report to Landstuhl Hospital and provide security for PFC Jessica Lynch as she was brought in from Iraq. I witnessed the throngs of reporters all trying to get a photo of that soldier lying on a gurney to send back to the States and onto the front page of newspapers across America. I saw the fear in her eyes, and the relief on her face to be surrounded by Americans doing what the could to get her healthy and back home to her family. I watched the parade of officers and VIPs stream into her room to wish her a speedy recovery and offer some words of encouragement. I walked down the hall into the ward with the other wounded soldiers and saw the horrors of war with my own eyes. I shook hands with PFC Lynch's father when he arrived to see his daughter for the first time since she left the US. I saw the apprehension carved into his face, but saw it softened by the knowledge that she had made it back alive. In 2004, I rotated back to the United States and was assigned to the 4th MP Company, 4th Infantry Division at Ft. Hood, Tx. After a series of unit "redesignations" I finally began to train for an upcoming deployment. My squad studied and practiced tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) and refreshed themselves on first aid and started practicing basic commands in Arabic. On February 7th, 2005, a full month after I said my vows to my wife, I was informed that I had been "selected" to deploy with a different unit, from a different post, and that I would be leaving in less than 3 weeks. I picked one of my best soldiers to accompany me, and then faced the overwhelming task of telling my new wife and family that I would be leaving them and going off to war.

March 1st, 2005 found me at Ft. Carson, CO "on loan" to the 89th Chemcial Company, 3d Armored Cavalry Regiment. My soldier, then Specialist Kenneth Compton (known affectionately as Campy) went through a whirlwind medical screening and equipment draw. We were told we would be working in the Regimental Detention Holding Area (RDHA). Later that week, I would be breathing hot Kuwaiti air for the first time since August 20, 1998 when I returned from a 3 month rotation on the Kuwait/Iraq border. For the better part of a month, we drew more equipment, attended inumerable briefings, and prepared ourselves for the impending trip north. During a recon to the Kuwait/Iraq crossing known as Navstar, I caught a glimpse of Iraq in the fading sunlight. I have to say, I was not impressed. Finally, we were told to move into Iraq.

I volunteered to be a gunner one of the first trucks in our serial. I figured I should go ahead of Campy, "just in case". In case of what, I didn't know, but I figured it had to be horrible. CNN, Fox News, and the entire gambit of news outlets had me convinced that an IED (roadside bomb) was waiting for me every 10 ft. Mistake number one, believing the media. We prepared to depart from Navstar, Kuwait and I offered up a prayer with the others in my truck, Psalm 18:34-42. With the LT's (Lieutenant) final words ringing in my ears, "Keep your eyes open Gib", I couldn't help wonder what the hell I was supposed to be looking for in the middle of the night flying up the highway in a country that so far, was nothing but sand and trash. I would find out soon enough though.

We arrived in Baghdad at one of the numerous camps that surrounded Baghdad International Airport (BIAP). I assisted the other members of the 89th Chem Co in setting up a temporary detention facility in an abandoned building complex. I would never see it used however, as Campy and I were assigned to the Regimental HQ where we worked in the ISF Cell (Iraqi Security Forces). The ISF cell was an adhoc group consisting of 1 Captain, 1 1st Lieutenant, myself, and Campy. Our task was to track and report the status of all Iraqi Security Forces in our AO (area of operations). I was assigned the arduous task of tracking and liasing with the 2/4/6th IAD (2nd Battalion, 4th Brigade, 6th Division, Iraqi Army) stationed south of Baghdad in Mahmudiyah, right in the middle of the notorious "Triangle of Death". A short time later, the ISF Cell was broken in half when the 3d ACR moved north to a town called Tal Afar. The Captain and Campy moved north while the LT and I stayed in Baghdad. Shortly after this split, I was told to analyze and coordinate the 2/4/6 IAD into 2 seperate operations in a larger campaign known as the "Isolation of the Fiyahs" (so named after the three towns in the Triangle that ended with 'fiyah; Mahmudiyah, Lutifiyah, and Latifiyah). The operations met some success, and "my" IAD performed as good as expected. After the Isolation campaign, the LT was informed he would be leading a MiTT (Military Transistion Team) to Mahmudiyah to live with and train the 2/4/6 IAD. After scrounging a medic and three mechanics we departed the relative comfort of BIAP and headed south to FOB St. Michael, just outside of Mahmudiyah where we linked up with our host US Unit, 2/70th Armored, 1st Armored Division, known as the Aces of Death. The Aces took splendid care of us while we were with them and always accomodated our wacky schedule and odd-ball hours. During a sweep of Mahmudiyah, I saw, firsthand, how the IAD worked with minimal American involvement. It wasn't what I had hoped for. During this period, I learned a few things. One, I don't like incoming mortar fire. Two, I LOVE outgoing artillery fire. Three, the AK-47 really DOES make a distinctive sound when fired at you (Heartbreak Ridge). Four, Iraqis will shoot at anything that moves and the safest place to be when they do this is somewhere else. Five, dysentary is hilarious when your buddy has it, but is anything but when it hits you. Six, I didn't really care for Iraq.

Then came the word that we would follow the rest of the Regiment north to Tal Afar. I would arrive in time to see the full brunt of American military might come crashing down on the Al Zarqawi Network of Al Quaeda in the Tal Afar/Mosul area. But that is another story for another time......

The GOP Before the Iowa Caucuses

2011-12-16T06:28:00.000-08:00

Well, it's that time again. The Iowa Caucus will "officially" start the Presidential campaign season. We know who is running on the Democratic ticket, despite the rumors that VP Biden may be shuffled out in favor of SecState Clinton, but so far, they are just that, rumors. On the GOP side, the field has been narrowed slightly, most notably by Herman Cain's departure from the race. Now, the remaining candidates fight to claim the lead in a contentious race for the GOP nomination, and the chance at unseating President Obama.

With regards to Cain, I will state my opinion and though it may sound bigoted, it is how I see things. Herman Cain was targeted early, and more so after his poll numbers placed him on top of the GOP field, because of his color. This is not to say that he would have won on his skin color alone, but his presence in the GOP field shut down much of the leftist rhetoric regarding the Tea Party and the GOP with regards to their alleged racist views.

*Disclaimer* I will not say that racism doesn't exist within the Tea Party, the GOP, or the Democratic Party. It does; in all manners and from a variety of people. What I am saying is that the Tea Party does not run on a segregationist platform, nor to they advocate a return to the era of Jim Crow.

In an October 4, 2011 interview with New York Magazine, actor Samuel L. Jackson, when asked if he agreed with Morgan Freeman's statement that the Tea Party was racist, stated, "It’s pretty obvious what they are," Jackson told us. "The division of the country is not about the government having too much power. I think everything right now is geared toward getting that guy out of office, whatever that means," he said, echoing Freeman. "It’s not politics. It is not economics. It all boils down to pretty much to race. It is a shame." (FYI: The interview was originally about the name of Gov. Perry's family hunting camp. Link to article here: http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/samuel_l_jackson_niggerhead_tea_party.html)

If this is true, then how could Tea Partiers support Herman Cain? This question was asked numerous times by a variety of media outlets, but never addressed by the Democratic mouthpieces. The accusations against Cain (true or not) surfaced only AFTER he topped the GOP field in the polls. This could be coincidental, but coincidence rarely exists when discussing American politics. Regardless, the accusations lead to Cain suspending his campaign for the GOP nomination. Now, the accusations of Tea Party racism have returned. Is it possible that had Cain won the GOP nomination, the Democrat's race card would have been eliminated or at least neutralized? It is something that we, unfortunately, will never know.

Current GOP front runner, Newt Gingrich, still leads in the polls and is now facing fire from fellow hopeful Ron Paul. Paul is attacking Gingrich's military deferments during the Vietnam War, and citing his own service in the process. While I'll be the first to praise Paul for serving his country, Gingrich's education deferrals would not be a Presidential first. Former President Bill Clinton received a student deferment in 1964. In 1969, Clinton was ordered to report for induction (was drafted) but managed to secure a slot in the University of Arkansas ROTC program. This granted him a second deferment as a member of the "reserves". In October of 1969, Clinton withdrew his ROTC application, forfeiting his reservist deferment and making him eligible for the draft. However, by the time of is ROTC withdraw, Clinton's original induction notice had expired, and he was not subsequently drafted a second time. This shows that even with military deferments, one can still be elected to the office of Commander in Chief. Gingrich's current status as front runner may be directly related to the "anyone by Romney" mentality. Romney's history of "flip-flop" and political inconsistencies has placed him on the villain list. While Gingrich's policies are still being formed (debates tend to change the stance of candidates, often only slightly, based on poll numbers (the populist form of campaigning), it appears that he will hold this spot through the Iowa Caucuses.

Ron Paul is starting to show an increase in popularity, due in no small part, to a grassroots, Average American campaign that has begun picking up steam. Paul has, thus far, remained fairly reserved, not seeking the limelight as other candidates have and has silently set himself up to strike at the right time. Paul has not pulled punches nor has he sugar-coated his beliefs on all facets of domestic, foreign, and economic policies. It will be interesting to see how Paul does in the Iowa Caucuses, as he stands as the only legitimate threat to Gingrich, even though Paul is seen as a "no way" candidate by many.

Unfortunately, Perry, Huntsman, Santorum, and Bachman have fallen to the rear of the pack and show no signs of rebuilding their campaigns to become serious threats to Gingrich, Paul, and Romney.

Mitt Romney, in my opinion, is an enigma. It is hard to discern his stance on many issues as his inconsistencies have clouded and negatively impacted the public's view of him as a generalization. While he maintains his supporters, many have jumped ship in favor of consistent views and opinions, whether right or wrong.

Iowa will be the "herd-thinning" event in the GOP race and will, I believe, remove at least two candidates from the race for the GOP nomination.

H.R. 625 Fort Hood Victims and Families Benefits Protection Act

2011-12-14T17:45:00.000-08:00

Cosponsors of this resolution include:

Marsha Blackburn [R-TN7]

Michael Burgess [R-TX26]

Larry Kissell [D-NC8]

Charles Rangel [D-NY15]

Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA3]

Frank Wolf [R-VA10]

This resolution would ensure that the victims and victims' families of the November 5, 2009, attack at Fort Hood, Texas, receive the same treatment, benefits, and honors as those Americans

who have been killed or wounded in a combat zone overseas and their families.

The full text of the resolution can be found here:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-625

Please rise in support of this resolution in the name of common sense.

Sign the petition to support the passage of this legislation here:
http://www.change.org/petitions/united-states-government-pass-hr-625

Examining the Constitution (Fifth Amendment)

2011-12-14T07:57:00.000-08:00

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The fifth amendment is one of the most familiar of all Constitutional amendments. The fifth amendment protects citizens from being forced to incriminate themselves during the course of a criminal investigation (right to remain silent), guarantees the right to due process (trial by jury of your peers), protects citizens against "double jeopardy" (being tried twice for the same crime), and protects the property of citizens from seizure by the government (local, state, or federal) for public use without fair and proper payment (they can't take your house in order to build a new highway without paying you a "fair price" for it).

One instance where the protections of the fifth amendment were used to circumvent existing laws is the case of Miles Edward Haynes v. United States. During this case, Haynes, a convicted felon, was found in possession of an unregistered firearm, a violation of the the National Firearms Act of 1934, which required the registration of certain firearms. Haynes contended in a Supreme Court appeal, that as a convicted felon, the requirement to register a firearm (which he cannot own as a felon) was essentially forcing Haynes to "incriminate himself" by the admission of firearm ownership. The Supreme Court agreed.

I do not believe this was the intent of the founders when this amendment was drafted. It does however, reflect the ways that our Constitution can be interpreted to suit the needs of the citizens, which, in most cases, is a good and intended notion. The flexibility of this document allows for societal changes, which our founders foresaw. However, the misuse of this flexibility, in the instance of Haynes, has a negative impact on those who seek to use the Constitution in a "law-abiding" manner, rather than the furtherance of criminal activities.

Examining the Constitution (Fourth Amendment)

2011-12-09T09:52:00.000-08:00

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No other Constitutional amendment has been used as often as the fourth amendment. The protection from unreasonable search and seizure is one of our most cherished rights. Nearly everyone is familiar with the term "search warrant" and have a basic understanding of what this term describes. A comprehensive definition is that upon finding probable cause (sufficient evidence exists that evidence in a crime is located in a specific place) the police or District Attorney (depending on where the crime is committed) will petition a judge for a search warrant. The police/DA must plead their case to the judge and provide sufficient evidence to show that the item(s) in question are located in the area to be searched. The judge, if he/she finds that this probable cause exists, then grants the police the right to search a specific area for either a specific item (murder weapon, document, body, etc.) or to search a specific area for any evidence of the crime under investigation. The term "specific area" can either be a vehicle, property, or subsection of a vehicle or property (i.e. dresser drawer, garage, vehicle trunk, closet, etc.). Once this search warrant is obtained, the police then present this warrant to the owner/occupant and conduct the search.

Certain exceptions exist which do not require a search warrant. These include: consent, plain view, open fields, curtilage, exigent circumstances, and motor vehicle exceptions, as well as others.

Consent is the simplest form of "warrantless searching" in which the police officer simply asks the owner of the vehicle/property for permission to conduct a search. If the owner/occupant gives verbal permission, then the search may be conducted within the restrictions given by the owner/occupant ("You can search everything but the glove box.")

Plain view seizures are just that. Objects in plain view of the public can be seized if they are lawfully deemed contraband or evidence in the commission of a crime (bomb on the dashboard or front seat of a car or a bag of money on the front seat of a bank robbery suspect's car).

Open fields are areas that do not have a "reasonable expectation of privacy" or are public property (city parks, national forests, pastures, etc.)

Curtilage is used to describe the area immediately outside a home or dwelling that the courts feel should be given the same protection as the home itself. However, courts have denied this protection based on the proximity from the primary dwelling, fencing, and the presence of certain types of plants and animals. Aerial surveillance is permitted of curtilage as long as the airspace over the curtilage is for "public use".

Exigent circumstances are ones in which no evidence is sought in connection with a previous crime, or those that endanger the life or property of others.

Example 1: A police officer is walking down the sidewalk and hears gunfire coming from inside a house. The officer may enter on the reasonable belief that someones life may be in danger.
Example 2: A police officer sees flames shooting from the window of a structure, enters and finds a meth lab. The meth lab can be used as evidence as the flames gave the passing police officer the reasonable belief that someones life or property may be in danger.

Motor vehicles have been deemed to have a lower expectation of privacy as they do not generally serve as primary dwellings or storage facilities of personal items. If during the execution of a traffic stop, the police officer notices a hand gun between the seats, it can be seized without the consent of the owner/occupant. Police officers may search areas that could conceal weapons or are within "arms reach" of the occupants of the vehicle. After establishing probable cause for a further search (weapons or drugs found in the vehicle) the police officers may search the entire vehicle, but not the passengers unless further probable cause is established (gun in the waistband).

Defense attorneys rely heavily on the interpretation of "reasonable expectation of privacy" when citing the fourth amendment. Often, the wording of the search warrant is vague enough to force the exclusion of evidence seized during the search. All evidence seized without a search warrant, and not meeting the above criteria for "exceptions" will be excluded from the prosecution's case.

The protection against unreasonable search and seizure is a luxury we cannot afford to lose. While a vast majority of Americans have nothing to hide from the police, the piece of mind that stems from this amendment is an invaluable commodity in our nation.

Examining the Constitution (3rd Amendment)

2011-12-03T18:41:00.000-08:00

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in manner to be prescribed by law.

The third amendment is the least challenged of any amendment in the Constitution. Since the ratification of this amendment in December of 1791, no challenges have ever been presented to the Supreme Court. This amendment was drafted in response to the Quartering Acts imposed by the British during the colonial period. Not since the Revolution have any US Troops been housed, by order of the federal government, in a private residence.

It is interesting to think that this amendment may be the only amendment in our Constitution that no longer has any use. While this isn't meant to be derogatory or unpatriotic, it is actually meant to be a statement of pride. The lack of legal challenges shows that we have progressed as a nation to such a point that we no longer have to worry about this. Score one for democracy, and common sense.

Examining the Constitution (2nd Amendment)

2011-12-02T18:42:00.000-08:00

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The Second Amendment of the US Constitution, as ratified by the States, is one of the most controversial amendments of the original 10 amendments. The only right covered in this amendment is the right of the American people to possess firearms. The plain text of this amendment states that the federal government can not infringe upon, or prohibit, the possession of firearms. What is not covered explicitly in this amendment is the extent of the regulation of that possession of firearms. Pro-gun advocates view the word infringe as ANY type of regulation regarding firearms. Anti-gun advocates view the word infringe as everything short of complete abolition of the possession of all firearms. Common sense tells us that there should be a happy medium.

Taking into consideration that when this amendment was written, only four types of firearms existed, each sharing a common characteristic. The four firearms (pistol, shotgun, rifle/musket, and cannon) were all single shot muzzle loaders, and were valuable items, essential to the survival of those early Americans. Today, the ease of access to firearms, increased magazine capacity, increased range and power, along with incredible variety of firearms has changed to face of "keeping and bearing arms".

The main target of anti-gun advocates are hand guns and so-called "assault rifles". Hand guns are targeted because of their ease of concealment as well as ease of access. Assault rifles are categorized (by the anti-gun side) as being semi-automatic (no manual ejection/insertion of cartridges and a single shot stemming from a single trigger pull) and having high-capacity magazines (this definition is hazy and varies from person to person).

Anti-gun advocates, in order to comply with the second amendment, have focused on increased regulation of firearms. By imposing more restrictions on the sale and possession of firearms, it becomes more and more difficult for citizens to own them, resulting in a decrease in the amount of lawful firearms sold and possessed. Many believe that if it becomes "too much of a pain" to get the necessary licenses and permits, most would-be gun owners will give up on purchasing new firearms. The largest flaw in this thinking is the fact that the vast majority of the gun crimes that are cited by the anti-gun establishment are committed by those who have illegally obtained their firearms, thus circumventing not only the second amendment, but any and all additional laws set in place to regulate firearms purchasing and possession. Pro-gun advocates use this argument and rely heavily on the ambiguity of the second amendment to maintain their gun rights.

The sheer number of court cases involving second amendment challenges and the challenges of the challenges prohibit their listing on this post. As a summary thought, reasonable regulation of firearms is a sound thought. Over regulation to essentially ban firearms is unconstitutional. This amendment will be a battleground for years to come with neither side fully achieving their respective goal.

Examining the Constitution (1st Amendment)

2011-11-30T07:59:00.000-08:00

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

The First Amendment of the US Constitution is a broad "Congress can't do" statement. This amendment guarantees Americans the right to speak their mind, worship or not worship as they choose, write their opinions down and set the before the public, gather in protest or in support of a specific cause, and to tell our government, the body that created these amendments, that we are displeased with their actions.

The first section addresses the establishment of a state sponsored religion. This was directly linked to the establishment of the Church of England. The founders elaborated on this by guaranteeing the right to worship, and the manner in which they worship up to the individual. This section does NOT contain the words "separation of church and state" as is so often quoted. Nor does this amendment declare anything other than the prohibition of a national religion. The "separation of church and state" quote is instead found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist association of Connecticut. This quote stems from Jefferson's agreement with the Danbury Baptists that "...religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship..." He goes on to state that because of the first amendment, and the prohibition on government establishment of a national religion, it has created a, "wall of separation between Church & State." This does NOT, in anyway state that every mention of religion should be stricken every facet of government (i.e. Pledge of Allegiance, currency, photographs, etc.) Far too many have taken this amendment out of context in order to further personal agendas, thus violating the very amendment they claim to support by suppressing the freedom to worship, and the freedom to speak and express their faith. This amendment does not, in any way, shape, or form give any citizen the right to suppress the speech or expression of any other citizen with whom they disagree.

(Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association): http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

The next three "government can't do" aspects of this amendment give Americans the right to express themselves, speak freely without fear of government reprisal, and to gather in protest or support of a certain item or issue. The freedom of speech and expression is one of our most prized freedoms. However, more often than not, individuals that carry this amendment as their banner use these freedoms to agitate, anger, and inflame the sensibilities of the masses. An example is the Westboro Baptist Church. They are given the right to protest at the funerals of fallen service members under the Constitution, however, in certain instances, in the zeal to protect the WBC's right to speech and assembly, the rights of the families of the fallen have been restricted. A line must be drawn regarding this amendment to prevent the rights of the few from trampling the rights of the many. Just as we protect the rights of those we don't agree with, so should we protect the rights of those we do. Regarding the right to peaceably assemble, many have missed a key word in that guarantee, "peaceably". At the point in time where the assembly becomes uncivil, violent, disruptive, or impacts those beyond the assembly in a negative manner, the assemblage has moved beyond the first amendment right and begun encroaching on the rights of those around them, again, violating the very rights guaranteed to them. Recently, the OWS movement occupied numerous public spaces around the country. While most were peaceful and fell within the bounds of the First Amendment, many did not. By occupying Zuccotti Park in NYC, the OWS movement disrupted the commerce of local businesses, denied free and uninhibited access to the park by non-OWS citizens, as well as creating a less than peaceable assembly when they refused to comply with orders to disperse. Even excessive noise voids the protection of "peaceable assembly" when the peace of others is violated. This does not mean that chanting should be prohibited, but explosives, fire-bombs, and other items restricted from general-public use should be dealt with within the confines of the law.

The freedom of the press is one that America has taken to heart and protects with substantial ferocity. We are fortunate enough not to live in fear of government reprisal if we read a dissenting opinion in the local paper that openly criticizes the President's economic policies. Publishing and distributing inflammatory literature is also protected, regardless of how much you may disagree with the message. The right to print and distribute this material is no greater than the right to decline the offer of the material or disagree with the message being distributed.

The final freedom to petition the government for redress of grievances (tell them you don't agree with their policies) is one that should be expressed more often. Handcuffing yourself to the fence outside the White House or lying on the steps of the Capitol Building en mass is not petitioning the government. Letter writing, the sending of emails, telephone petitions, even peaceable assemblage to voice your displeasure is a Constitutionally protected right. As a personal note, perhaps if more people exercised this section of the First Amendment, we could see a positive change in our government and their policies.

Personal Assessment of Being Conservative.

2011-11-26T10:34:00.000-08:00

I have recently spoken to a number of Americans who consider themselves "conservative" in their political beliefs. I have also spoken to a number who consider themselves "liberal" in their political beliefs. We define our party affiliation, as a general rule, using these to labels. Conservatives are generally Republican and liberals are generally Democrats. I'd like to look at Conservatives first and break down what it really means to have conservative political views; the good, and the bad.

Webster's defines "conservative" as: a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners

For starters, I don't know ANYONE who is disposed to maintaining current conditions in our government. Anyone who maintains that the status quo government is benefitting them probably isn't feeling the economic pinch that the vast majority of America is feeling. As far as institutions, well, this is a grayer area than current conditions. I favor maintaining our democratic system of government, but I do not favor maintaining it in its present, inefficient state. I advocate change in our government insofar as the individuals who run it and the manner in which it is run. Does this make me conservative? To a degree, but it also makes me a liberal in that I advocate reform and change from the status quo. With regards to existing views, this is an even grayer area than the previous two. If, by views, one refers to the "C" definition and incorporates traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners, then I am more conservative than I am liberal. I advocate a two-parent house over a single parent house, but only if both parents are working together to make that house a home and raise their children to be productive members of society. If not, in the instance of physical abuse or substance abuse, then a single parent house is better for all persons involved. I advocate raising your children to be responsible adults rather than victims of society. If this makes me conservative, then so be it. I advocate expressing your rights under the US Constitution to their fullest, as long as your rights don't supercede the rights of others. I go to the church of my choosing, worship as I choose to worship, and live my life to the best of my ability. These are my rights. However, I do NOT force my viewpoints onto others, especially if they have informed me they don't agree with me. This encompasses politics, religion, social issues, and personal values. I am free to say that I personally don't agree with homosexuality, but will NOT condem a homosexual or those that support them. This is not my place, nor is it my right to exert my opinions forcefully over those of another American. I am free to say that I personally don't agree with "Christians" who espouse hate towards any group of people (Westboro Baptist Church). A true Christian follows the teachings of their faith, and loves their fellow man as they love themselves. Let the judgement come from God. I am free to say that I personally don't agree with abortion, however, will never tell a woman she cannot get an abortion. It is not in my realm to regulate her body. No more than I can regulate what she eats or drinks. I don't feel that abortions should be publically funded. It is a personal choice that should be personally funded. Period. I also am free to say that condemning an entire group of people based on their religious beliefs, sexual preference, color, creed, ethnicity, gender, age, or any other government affixed "demographic label" following the actions of a few lunatics. Example, I don't condemn all of Islam because of 9/11. I have read the Qu'ran and found nothing in it that says kill innocent humans. I have also seen a degree of loyalty coming from Muslims, true Muslims and not extremists, that is tough to find in this country. Are the individuals that pervert a religion, cause, social status, or personal belief in order to accomplish a goal; of course there are. But these are the exception, not the rule.

Being conservative today has gotten a bad reputation. The actions of a few, in the name of being conservative, or being Republican, should not endanger the overall conservative population. On the other side of the coin, being a liberal does not mean that you want everything to change all the time. If that was the case, then you would never want your liberal politician to get re-elected. Re-election of a politician is a disposition to maintaining existing views, conditions, or institutions, the definition of conservative.

I have gotten more personal on this issue than others we have discussed here on CSS, but I felt the need to express my 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression. These are my opinions. I sincerely hope this doesn't cause anyone to think less of me, but if it does, that is your right. In America today, no one can say they are 100% conservative or 100% liberal. To do so is a lie and a farse. Are we more or less of one or the other; absolutely, but we can no longer remain totally committed to either. Just as we can no longer vote straight party lines and truly believe that it is what is best for the country. Common sense folks, let's use it.

For the upcoming week.

2011-11-26T07:55:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, I asked the audience, via facebook, whether or not our elected officials should take class (non-partisan of course) on the US Constitution prior to taking office. It seems as though many of our elected leaders have no idea what this document says, even though they swore to support and defend it when they took office. I feel that it is only fair that we cover the Constitution, amendment by amendment so that we, the American people, can more effectively hold our politicians accountable. We'll take an amendment or two a day, give the original text, the moder interpretation, and examine how our politicians have twisted and manipulated the text to serve their own purposes.

Please feel free to add your own insight to the upcoming discussion, but keep the comments civil while exercising your 1st Amendment rights.

Complete lack of common sense...

2011-11-25T21:18:00.000-08:00

I'm sure most of you, by now, have heard of the acts of lunacy and violence that accompanied this year's "Black Friday" shopping extravaganza. Across the nation, people were shot, stabbed, pepper sprayed, trampled, and robbed. These were not isolated incidents by a few "bad apples", this was a reflection on the what our nation is hurtling towards. While I know that not every shopper fell into this sort of idiotic behavior, it is shocking to see that so many incidents occurred across the nation. Have we gotten to such a low point in our nation that we are willing to harm our fellow citizens for an Xbox? Has our economy gotten so broken that we are willing to pepper spray children for a discounted game system? This is ridiculous. In such a short time we have fallen so far off the wagon of human decency that we are able to shrug this type of incident off as "just a couple crazies".

While these were not "politically motivated" incidents, it underscores the shift in priorities we as a society have seen. Our politicians have sacrificed their sworn oaths to serve the very people that elected them. Our citizens are becoming more disaffected by the day. These individuals committed violent acts in the name of self rather than the good of the masses. These individuals trampled on the rights of their fellow Americans to buy a holiday gift with force and complete disregard for the safety and well being of everyone around them. Our politicians are no different. How often have the wishes of the nation been pushed aside for the sake of a politicians pocket book? How long have our politicians been squandering the wealth and prestige of this nation on personal agendas and the agendas of special interest groups? We are facing a national "Black Friday" scenario. Our nation is going on sale, at a deeply discounted price. Who will buy our nation? China has already started. Who is next? Which nation will unleash their own brand of pepper spray just to get at the "good deal"? We have got to take back that which is rightfully ours. We, the American people, MUST take back our government. We, the American people, MUST take back our right to adequate representation in our government. We have to do better ladies and gentlemen, our futures, and the futures of our children and grandchildren depend on us.

Emulate Europe? Go Broke Like Greece!

2011-11-25T15:48:00.000-08:00

From CNN Money:

Another Awful Week For Stocks. Thanks Europe!

So, as you can tell, the economic instability in Europe is weighing heavily on the minds of investors as stocks finished lower on Friday.

This should be a giant red flag to our politicians who want to emulate Europe and their various socio-economic programs. When the Euro was introduced, it was supposed to replace the dollar as the "world currency". Our current administration has taken subtle steps to reshape America into a pseudo European, starting with nationalized healthcare. If you take a look eastward, you'll notice that Europe is floundering, socially as well as economically. This is our wake up call. We are seeing our future in the EUs demise, yet we continue to march to their drum. It's not working there, it won't work here. The EU SHOULD be dominating the world market, but isn't. The EU SHOULD be the most progressive and socially responsible group in the world (they preach it, but don't practice it) but aren't. Making everyone equal doesn't work. Giving everybody the same slice of the pie builds resentment from those that do, and enables those that don't. I still cannot fathom why we would move ever closer to a European style nation when they are crumbling before our eyes?

Wake up America! It's time to speak up before our politicians hitch our buggy to that horse to Hell.

US Foreign Assistance Cont.

2011-11-25T08:49:00.000-08:00

Happy Friday CSS World. I hope you had a wonderful Thanksgiving. Now, let's get back to raising the awareness of our nation, shall we?

Yesterday, I gave you a link to a website, US Foreign Assistance, and showed you that in 2011, the US gave South American nations over $661 million in foreign assistance. Mind you, this isn't just the US writing a check for an enormous sum of money, this dollar figure includes various programs such as humanitarian aid, economic aid, military aid, grants, and other programs which include climate change initiatives.

As part of a global community, the US has a certain level of obligation to the rest of the world. This does not mean that the US is responsible for the well being of the entire world. Just as we are not the world's police force, we also should not be the world's bank or "rich uncle". That being said, we should NOT be buying friendship, nor should we continue to pour millions of dollars into nations that spew hatred towards everything we as a nation stand for. If the money is being sent to "bad countries" (North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, etc.) then I would HOPE it is being done to destabilize their government and usher in new, more "friendly" governments. Does anyone believe this? Of course not. The government wouldn't come forward with this information if it was true. So, one has to infer that the $3.5 million sent to North Korea in 2010 was for a program such as humanitarian aid or "global climate change". I wonder if North Korea spent that money on food for its people. I'll venture to say probably not. I'll go even further and say we probably purchased another tank or two or maybe a new nuclear capable missile for them. Yay America! Perhaps when the finally go completely insane and fire off one of their "Long March" missiles at Hawaii or South Korea, they will attach a "Thank You" card to it.

Here is a rough breakdown of where YOUR tax dollars went in 2011 (foreign assistance wise):

Central America/Caribbean: $826,228,000
South America: $661,951,000
Europe (West of Russia): $448,508,000
Asia (Including Middle East and Far East): $10,265,600,000
Africa: (I couldn't get all the numbers/countries to come up, but it is in excess of $10,000,000,000)
Total Estimated Foreign Assistance for 2011: $22,202,287,000

So, there it is, in the proverbial "black and white" from the US Government. By the way, the homepage for this website contains this statement:

"The Foreign Assistance Dashboard was created in response to the principles of the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and President Obama’s Open Government Initiative. The goal of the Foreign Assistance Dashboard is to enable a wide variety of stakeholders, including U.S. citizens, civil society organizations, the Congress, U.S. Government agencies, donors, and partner country governments, to examine, research, and track U.S. Government foreign assistance investments in an accessible and easy-to-understand format.
My fellow Americans, this is unacceptable. But so is the rest of our spending. Defense spending consumes 25% of our national budget. While I fully support a strong national defense, I do not support the over use of foreign and domestic contractors to support our military when the military has the ability to do the same job. Example: In Iraq, contractors provide dining facilities for our troops. Every branch of service has food service personnel (cooks). Why are we not utilizing these soldiers effectively? Other contractors fulfill jobs that our military personnel train for, i.e driving trucks, basic construction/road repair, law enforcement, medical care, food service, power and water, even landscaping. With that being said, I'm sure many civilians who work for the military will be angered by this sentiment, but the military employees many civilians to do the job of soldiers. With the impending draw down of the military, this may become a necessity in the future, however, no one can deny that it is cheaper to use a Soldier/Sailor/Marine/Airman to do a job that the government has already trained them to do than hiring a civilian contractor to do the job.

As a parting shot, we spent more than three times more money on welfare as we did on education in 2011. I feel this is wrong on a number of levels. Some other facts that might turn your stomach:

Due to the number of exemptions and deductions, 35%-40% of American households pay no income tax, this increased to 51% in 2009. Much has been said about the need to increase the tax on the higher income individuals in this country, but remember, their tax liability is already at 35% compared to the lower brackets of 15% and 28%. In 1979, these top earners were taxed at a rate of 70% which was lowered in 1980 to 50% and again in 1988 to 28%. I do not care who you are or how much you make, paying 70% in income taxes is ridiculous. And the last time I took a math class, 35% of $1,000,000 ($350,000) is significantly more than 15% of $50,000 ($7,500). So, the rich are paying taxes, and taking advantage of our tax code, just like the middle and lower class are. In a nutshell, tax reform is needed, and sooner rather than later.

Tax reform, spending reduction, job creation are the three keys to economic survival and growth. So far, our government has failed miserably in each area. Enough is enough.

US Foreign Assistance

2011-11-24T11:08:00.000-08:00

This week's GOP Debate focused primarily on foreign policy and national security. In addition to our failing economy, a good leader must be able to project the confidence of his/her nation onto the world stage. Currently, the US has done a mediocre job at this. It is not hard to believe that many nations out there do not like us. Many actually revile us and would love to see us as a nation fail (we are working on that now apparently). What are we doing to thwart their hopes? Are we trying to buy friendship? You'd be surprised at the answer to this question.

If you would like to see who we are sending money to, US Foreign Aid by Country is a great place to start. This map shows the nations of the world and how much they received/are supposed to get for the last several years. Interestingly enough, we are giving money to places like China ($17.8 million), Pakistan ($1.38 billion), Russia ($66.1 million), and get this, North Korea ($3.4 million). Is anyone else disturbed by this?

Take a look at this map, hover over the different countries, add up some of the figures and then, please feel free to get violently ill. Our government, in 2011, gave $661,951,000 in foreign assistance to South America (every nation except French Guiana). I wonder what we could have done with that much money here at home?

I'm going to leave this post right here to allow you to visit that site, mull over some numbers, and get sufficiently angry. Tomorrow, I'll do a comparison of domestic spending vs. foreign spending.

Enjoy your Thanksgiving.

Pre-Turkey Day Posting

2011-11-23T12:40:00.000-08:00

Well folks, it is the day before the greatest holiday ever conceived in the name of overindulgence, family, friends, football, and oddy enough, a Presidential pardon for a turkey or two. Thanksgiving is tomorrow and many of us will ease up to a table full of food, eat more than we probably should, then settle in for football or a nap. Our President has pardoned the two turkeys, a tradition dating back to 1989 (officially), named Liberty and Peace. Many of our men and women in uniform will spend another Thanksgiving away from family and enjoy (hopefully) a hot meal with comrades. Many Americans will spend the day wondering where their next meal will come from, while even spend the last bit of unemployment on a decent meal for their families, hoping and praying that another job comes along soon. Folks, this is our national day of thanks. We have much to be thankful for despite our problems. We have much that we COULD be thankful for if our politicians would show the same respect to each other as the President showed the turkeys today. As you enjoy tomorrow, take a moment and be truly thankful for what you have. Remember those less fortunate than you, and remember those who cannot be with family and friends as they are sitting in harm's way this Thanksgiving Day.

All of us here at CSS wish all of you a happy and peaceful Thanksgiving. Enjoy the day, enjoy the day after sales, and enjoy your common sense.

Post Super Committee Fallout

2011-11-22T05:10:00.000-08:00

From CNN:

What's Next After "Super Committee" Failure?

From FoxNews:

Obaa to Veto Any Attempt to Roll Back Automatic Cuts...

Ok, in the spirit of unbias blogging, I have included links to stories from the left and the right. By now, we all know that the super committee failed to reach an agreement regarding the additional $1.2 trillion in spending cuts. While this is no surprise to many of us, it does underscore the basic issue we have within our government, partisan bickering. Others have said that the parties act a checks and balances on each other, and to certain degree I concede this point. However, the checks and balance theory is shaken when we consider that the Democratic party controlled all three facets of our elected leadership (White House, Senate, and House) only a few years ago. During that time, they (the trifecta of our government) couldn't pass a single piece of budget legislation. Who is to blame for that short coming? I'm sure there are the hard-line Democrats who will blame the Republicans or George W. Bush, and that is fine. That is what makes our country superb. We can blame others for our own shortcomings. This does not, however, exempt the Republicans or Bush from their shortcomings and failures as lawmakers.

Now, with our Congressional leadership throwing in the towel (for now) we are still faced with a mounting debt crisis, out of control spending, continued unemployment, not to mention world issues that will impact us as a nation. The stock market reacted to the impending failure of the super committee in a less than favorable way, with the Dow dropping nearly 300 points. To the OWS campers, this should make you happy, but remember, there are middle and lower class employees who have a vested interest (not to mention retirement) in the success of the companies trading on Wall Street who were negatively impacted with that drop, so ease off the little people.

Many have said (including SecDef Panetta) that these "automatic cuts" (sequestration) will be the death of America, both in terms of defense and domestic spending. I, for one, am not drinking that Kool-Aid. Firstly, these cuts will not take effect until 2013, which gives our government another 13 months or so to fix their oopsy-poodle (yes, I just said that). Secondly, I suspect there will be an attempt by both parties to nullify these cuts if an agreement cannot be reached. The President has stated he will veto any attempt to do so, for which I applaud him. I'm not a huge fan of the current President, but on this issue, he should stick to his guns. Many in the Republican party have criticized him for his "lack of leadership" on this issue, but the super committee was a Congressional baby. He had nothing to do with it, and I again applaud him for letting Congress hang itself. Thirdly, the $1.2 trillion in cuts are to come out of a 10 yr span. Ladies and gentlemen, while $1.2 trillion sounds like an absurd amount of money, please realize that in the span of those cuts, (if we spend no more than we spent in 2010) will equal $35.5 trillion. If you take away a bunch of zeroes, you are looking at saving $1.20 for every $35.50 spent. I would have been more impressed if it had been an attempt to cut $1.2 trillion A YEAR rather than over ten. Anyone else feel this is pathetic? I can do better than that using coupons from the Sunday paper. Hmmm, there's a new slogan "Coupons for Congress", we should discuss that later on.

Basically, no one is surprised that Congress failed. No one is surprised that they all blame everyone but themselves. No one is surprised that we are still struggling economically as a nation. The people that need to be surprised is Congress. Their surprise should come every two years when America heads to the polls and hands them a pink slip. Let's give Congress the opportunity to draw unemployment for a while.

Letters to our elected officials

2011-11-21T11:20:00.000-08:00

Message Subject: Congressional Failure

Message Text:

Dear Representative Hartzler, I am writing you today to not only voice my displeasure at the complete failure of the "super committee" to reach any sort of agreement on cuts to our over-the-top spending, but also to ask that you and your collegues representing the American people consider other options to solving our economic crisis.

I addressed the topic of a National Sales Tax on a personal blog I author and after speaking with a nearly one hundred individuals (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) have found that an overwhelming majority would support a National Sales Tax in the amount of $.01 or $.02 per dollar spent. By using the 2010 Census data and other figures provided by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce and the Bureau of Economic Data, I have found that a National Sales Tax of a single penny, for every dollar spent would generate an estimated thirty six billion dollars every year. A National Sales Tax is a fair and socio-economically neutral way to increase revenue for our struggling economy. Representative Hartzler, I realize that a national sales tax would not solve every economic issue that faces our nation. I also realize that thirty six billion dollars is a proverbial drop in the bucket when compared to the trillions of dollars we as a nation spend annually. However, thirty six billion dollars would provide a starting point for some sort of increased revenue for our nation. Couple that with a responsible, yet sizeable decrease in spending, our financial situation would improve drastically in a very short time.

I ask that you at least consider this suggestion for a moment and perhaps even bring it up during a discussion with your constituents and/or collegues. Regardless of the outcome, I sincerely hope that you as well as the rest of our elected government can put aside the finger-pointing and party-politics long enough to save our country from economic collapse and restore our economic standing in the world.

With the utmost respect,
(author's name witheld for blog post)

Dear Senator Blunt,

I am writing you today to not only voice my displeasure at the complete failure of the "super committee" to reach any sort of agreement on cuts to our over-the-top spending, but also to ask that you and your collegues representing the American people consider other options to solving our economic crisis.
I addressed the topic of a National Sales Tax on a personal blog I author and after speaking with a nearly one hundred individuals (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) have found that an overwhelming majority would support a National Sales Tax in the amount of $.01 or $.02 per dollar spent. By using the 2010 Census data and other figures provided by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce and the Bureau of Economic Data, I have found that a National Sales Tax of a single penny, for every dollar spent would generate an estimated thirty six billion dollars every year. A National Sales Tax is a fair and socio-economically neutral way to increase revenue for our struggling economy. Senator Blunt, I realize that a national sales tax would not solve every economic issue that faces our nation. I also realize that thirty six billion dollars is a proverbial drop in the bucket when compared to the trillions of dollars we as a nation spend annually. However, thirty six billion dollars would provide a starting point for some sort of increased revenue for our nation. Couple that with a responsible, yet sizeable decrease in spending, our financial situation would improve drastically in a very short time.
I ask that you at least consider this suggestion for a moment and perhaps even bring it up during a discussion with your constituents and/or collegues. Regardless of the outcome, I sincerely hope that you as well as the rest of our elected government can put aside the finger-pointing and party-politics long enough to save our country from economic collapse and restore our economic standing in the world.

With the utmost respect,
(author's name witheld for blog post)

Dear Senator McCaskill,

I am writing you today to not only voice my displeasure at the complete failure of the "super committee" to reach any sort of agreement on cuts to our over-the-top spending, but also to ask that you and your collegues representing the American people consider other options to solving our economic crisis.
I addressed the topic of a National Sales Tax on a personal blog I author and after speaking with a nearly one hundred individuals (Democrats, Republicans, and Independents) have found that an overwhelming majority would support a National Sales Tax in the amount of $.01 or $.02 per dollar spent. By using the 2010 Census data and other figures provided by the U.S. Dept. of Commerce and the Bureau of Economic Data, I have found that a National Sales Tax of a single penny, for every dollar spent would generate an estimated thirty six billion dollars every year. A National Sales Tax is a fair and socio-economically neutral way to increase revenue for our struggling economy. Senator McCaskill, I realize that a national sales tax would not solve every economic issue that faces our nation. I also realize that thirty six billion dollars is a proverbial drop in the bucket when compared to the trillions of dollars we as a nation spend annually. However, thirty six billion dollars would provide a starting point for some sort of increased revenue for our nation. Couple that with a responsible, yet sizeable decrease in spending, our financial situation would improve drastically in a very short time.

I ask that you at least consider this suggestion for a moment and perhaps even bring it up during a discussion with your constituents and/or collegues. Regardless of the outcome, I sincerely hope that you as well as the rest of our elected government can put aside the finger-pointing and party-politics long enough to save our country from economic collapse and restore our economic standing in the world.

With the utmost respect,
(author's name witheld for blog post)

Continued Government and Economic Meltdown

2011-11-21T09:35:00.000-08:00

My fellow Americans, as the deadline for the super committee rapidly approaches, with no deal in sight, it appears that our elected officials have once again let us down. After partisan politics pushed this summer's budget battle to the 11th hour (again), partisan politics have now prevented the implementation of significant spending cuts. If no deal is reached by Wednesday, then the "automatic across the board" cuts will be implemented, with half of the spending cuts coming from the Defense Dept. and the other half coming from domestic spending. Not to worry though, these cuts won't take effect until 2013. With this in mind, Congress can, and probably will, go in and repeal these cuts, effectively ignoring their own mandate to themselves, and, yet again, pushing us ever closer to economic collapse. Our government working for us, right?

Ladies and gentlemen, this has to stop, and stop immediately. How much longer are we, the American people, going to trust those we have sent to Washington to represent us, who have consistently failed at every turn to improve our situation? Neither party shoulders the blame entirely, but both parties share the blame equally. Partisan politics have thrown us into an economic spiral second only to the Great Depression of the 1920's and 1930's. Thankfully, it doesn't have to be that bad. We can still turn this around, but it will take a unified effort by our Congress and President to make the decisions that will benefit our nation, not their contributors. Enough is enough America, we HAVE to do better.

"Lazy" America?

2011-11-19T19:35:00.000-08:00

From CNN Opinon Section:

Yes, Mr. President, Americans can be "lazy"

This article on CNN's Opinion page caught my eye. And I'll admit, it was the teasing tag line "Obama "lazy" remark hits mark" that drew me in. I had heard about this briefly, but didn't pay it much attention. Perhaps I should have. As you all know by now, I am not a fan of our Commander in Chief, nor Congress, and not much on the candidates currently moving towards the primaries. However, I wholeheartedly agree (ok, 99.9%) with the president's comment. Many were angered when they heard the second hand story on this comment. The president, in all of his flaws and ineffectual policies, did NOT call the American worker lazy, in any sense of the word. He did say, and correctly state, that American commerce has gotten lazy in its ability to compete with the rest of the world. Specifically, American companies do not sell American products, or America to the rest of the world compared to, let's say, China. This is a true statement. We have been at a trade deficit with China, and many other countries for a while now, and it shows no sign of changing. Kudos to you Mr. President for telling us the truth for once. Now, on to the critical comments.

Part of the reason we are not globally competitive is that through the policies of the current and former presidents we have restricted our companies, driven them overseas, and over-valued our labor force. Our committment to unions has placed American labor out of the price range of many companies that may have considered America as a new manufacturing location, but instead, reverted to the cheap, unskilled labor that can be found throughout the rest of the world. Do not misunderstand my words on this topic. Unions have, in the past, served a valuable purpose, and should be commended for that work. However, in such a competitive world economy, demanding higher wages and more and more benefits on top of an already decent work environment is killing American manufacturing. This may anger many, but it is true. What incentive does any company have to hire heavily unionized Americans at a wage two to three times higher than they can get in an overseas factory, or even half again as high as a non-union American? The times come when you have to pick your battles, and demanding more in a rough economic situation may not be the smartest move on the part of the unions. Is a $15 an hour paycheck better than a $25 an hour check; no, of course not, but is it better than a $0 an hour check, you bet your sweet bippy it is.

As far as our government, over regulation is killing American production, especially in smaller businesses. I know I sound very Tea-Party-ish on this stance, but I do believe some deregulation would encourage growth as opposed to implementing additional regulation which will do nothing but slow down what little we can foster.

In Trenton, NJ, one of the bridges has as sign that says, "What Trenton Makes, The World Takes". That used to be true. Today, well, it seems that slogan is nothing more than a reminder of a bygone era. One I desperately wish we could get back to.

Bailout loss estimate increased

2011-11-18T14:20:00.000-08:00

From Facebook:

The Treasury Department has significantly increased its estimate of losses from the $85 billion auto industry bailout by over $9 billion, bringing the total it expects to lose to $23.6 billion. This new estimate increases the overall cost of the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program costs to taxpayers. The government spent $425 billion to bailout banks, insurance companies, and automakers and $45 billion on housing program assistance. The government now expects to lose $57.33 billion, including the entire cost of the housing program. Like this post if you do not think the government should bail out companies.

The "Being American" facebook page/person/community (whatever it is) posted this today.

I, like many Americans, got more than a little irate when I heard about the TARP thing (bailout) and railed against it. However, since it is now in the annals of history (sort of), I figured it would be OK to address this initiative. Many Americans said "let them fail" (referring to the auto industry). Many said "let them fail" (referring to banks and insurance companies). No one (that I have encountered) said "let them fail" in referrence housing assistance. Folks, I for one, agree that companies that are mismanaged should not be "rescued" from themselves. I agree that companies who offer huge bonuses to senior level folks while their company spirals down the drain should receive any assistance from the government. However, we MUST understand, that by bailing out these companies, the government saved some American jobs. Not as many as we would have liked, but there are Americans employed today because of that bailout, and that is something I will NOT rail against. However, I will say that I think we (America) could have managed the TARP better. What if we had invested in smaller business instead of the big ones? Could we have employed more Americans? I'd have to say yes. I am not trying to detract from the automakers who employ Americans, they should be applauded (and do a heck of a lot more in my opinion). But our government focuses on big business so much that often the little guys get left out. Ladies and gentlemen, our government is estimating a loss of $102B dollars on TARP (not to mention the money that was paid back that never made it back into the "kitty"). Could we have stimulated small business with $102B dollars? I'm pretty sure we could have put a decent little dent in unemployment in the small business sector with that. Kinda seems like the old saying about hindsight proves, once again, to be true. Another example of a lack of common sense in our government. Are you ready to say "enough is enough" yet?

Question Time at CSS

2011-11-16T17:15:00.000-08:00

Ok faithful readers/followers (though you are few, I am confident we will grow and expand), I was approached today about podcasts. I'll admit, I have heard of them, but haven't the foggiest idea how to make one, set one up, download, etc. In the interest of promoting CSS, I have looked into the feasibility of podcasts, and so far, it looks simple enough (this may change when I get knee deep into it however). The question to you is, if a podcast was available of CSS, what would YOU like to see (hear) it include? Would you prefer a weekly podcast summary of the week, an every-other-day podcast, daily podcast? What about content? With the variety of media outlets shoveling information down our throats on a daily basis, would you prefer a commentary or a "straight headline" podcast?

This is the information I am seeking from the CSS nation. Please comment and let me know your ideas. The improved content will hopefully increase readers and spread the message of common sense.

Enjoy the rest of your week!

CNN poll: Americans doubt super committee will reach deal before its deadline

2011-11-16T05:53:00.000-08:00

From CNN:

Americans doubt super committee will reach deal...

I, for one, am not surprised by this poll. Granted, I take these polls with a grain of salt, but every American can conduct their own poll, just ask the person sitting to your right and left at some point during the day, see what they say. When the super committee was formed, I was skeptical that a bipartisan group would be able to come to any sort of agreement since they had been unable to do so thus far. I applaud the incorporation of the automatic cuts if a deadline is not reached, but only to the extent that should they be enacted, BOTH parties will face the ire of the American people. This is not a Democratic problem, nor is it a Republican problem. Regardless of the finger pointing that is so common in our government, neither party has been willing to compromise with the other in order to serve the American people. This is the fundamental problem with our government, the 536 members that make up our legislative branch (100 Senators, 435 Representatives, 1 President) do NOT represent the interests of the people that elected them. That being said, the Senators and Representatives often attempt to funnel money into their districts, but at the same time, do not listen to what the entire district needs or wants. Money for insane projects will not pay the bills of the unemployed factory worker. This is why America needs to stand up, and in one loud unified voice say "enough is enough". Ladies and Gentlemen, they work for US. WE are their employers. WE pay their salary. And WE reserve the right to give them a pink slip if they no longer serve our interests.

My favorite three words in the US Constitution are the first there. "We the people". This means us. Everyone of us, regardless of race, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or religious preference. We the people are responsible for our own destiny in this country. From where you attend church, or choose not to attend church to where you buy your groceries. This is our choice. This is our country. They are our representatives to our government. Its time they be reminded who they work for. It's time for our representatives to get right, or get left.