Freedom Yet Rings

The Casey Anthony Verdict: Justice for Whom?

2011-07-06T07:14:00.000-06:00

The problem for the prosecution in this case is that while they provided a lot of circumstantial evidence to support elements of their case, even if we accepted their evidence without question, there remained significant and reasonable doubt that Caylee's death may have been accidental. Take the elements one at a time:

A hair matching that from Caylee's brush and recovered from the trunk of Casey's car, had post-mortem banding consistent with a decomposing body. Experts also testified that air samples taken from the trunk of Casey's car showed evidence of a decomposing body having been in the trunk. One air sample was said to have high levels of chloroform present, while the other air sample, analyzed by a different lab, found low levels of chloroform present. One expert testified that chloroform would be expected to be found in a trunk air sample where a decomposing body had lain.

Because of the inconsistencies regarding chloroform testified to by experts, there is reasonable doubt that Casey administered chloroform to Caylee: the evidence for this part of the prosecution's theory is just not there. On the other hand, it is agreed that Caylee's decomposing body more than likely lay in the trunk of Casey's car for some time. However, it is possible that following an accidental death, Caylee's decomposing body was placed in the trunk until a permanent resting place could be determined

Whether or not Casey did a computer search for "How to Make Chloroform", there is no evidence that Casey had or exercised the capability to make chloroform or administer it to herself, Caylee or anyone else. There is insufficient evidence of Casey, or anyone, having administered chloroform to Caylee and this provokes significant and reasonable doubt that Casey murdered her daughter by administering chloroform.

The duct tape that was found attached to Caylee's skull is the same brand as duct tape found in the Anthony home, but we have no assurance that the crime scene duct tape was from the roll kept at the Anthony home. Testimony of experts and others who had visited Caylee's swampy grave, established that the site had been tampered with and that people, animals, and the elements may have moved parts of Caylee's decomposed body around. The prosecution theory that the duct tape had been applied by Casey to the nose and mouth in an attempt to smother Caylee was not proven in regard to the positioning of the duct tape or as to who might have positioned the duct tape. There has been no report whether Caylee's hands and feet were bound. If someone had placed duct tape over Caylee's mouth and nose to smother her, Caylee would have pulled the tape off with her hands. The duct tape theory is another element of the case that provokes reasonable doubt.

The prosecution theorized that the motive for murdering her daughter was that Casey wanted to be a party girl rather than a mom. Reports have confirmed that Casey has been a "party girl" for most of her adult life, with little change in her partying after Caylee was born or even after Caylee was missing and presumed dead. She had no shortage of ready babysitters to take Caylee frequently so mom could party. Despite Casey's affinity for the high life, photos presented to the court documented a loving, happy relationship with Caylee; the child was well-nourished, well-developed, and well-dressed. There was no evidence or even rumors of neglect or abuse. In addition, scientists who study human behavior have noted that some people develop a psychologic disorder consistent with mania (which involves behavior such as that demonstrated by Casey during the thirty-one days when Caylee was "missing") as an expression of their deep and unresolved grief. Again, there is reasonable doubt as to the prosecution's theory of motive.

While in my "gut" I feel and believe, as many others do, that Casey is somehow responsible for Caylee's death, I cannot say that the prosecution has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution was unable or incapable of developing and introducing enough solid evidence to remove the reasonable doubts discussed above. The Jury produced a correct verdict given the dearth of convincing evidence and the reasonable doubts that remained at the end of the day.

In our American Legal System, a large percentage of those who are accused of deadly crimes have their day in court and receive justice (conviction or acquittal). Victims of the most violent and deadly crimes, on the other hand, rarely get their day in court. Victims are at the mercy of a legal system that is more interested in preserving the rights of alleged criminals and assuring they get justice rather than in seeking justice for the victims.

While our legal system may have provided justice, according to the law, to Casey Anthony, where is the justice for Caylee? I’m afraid that many innocent victims like Caylee will be denied justice in this mortal world without significant improvement in our society and our legal system.

Should God be Erased From the Public Square?

2011-06-24T19:31:00.000-06:00

The latest effort to erase God from the Pledge of Allegiance was recently aired on the NBC network. The Founding Fathers believed that the people would only be able to retain their liberty and successfully self-govern under our unique Constitution if they remained a just, moral and virtuous people, living in accordance with the Laws of Nature (God's laws).

Elimination of the "under God" phrase in the Pledge of Allegiance aired by NBC is another attempt by some people to purge all religious references from the public square, often on the mistaken belief that the Constitution created a wall of separation between church and state. While the Constitution does not create a wall between church and state, it expressly restrains the federal government from establishing a “national” religion and from interfering with the free exercise of religion.

Those involved in airing the Pledge with “under God” edited out, by censoring free speech and meddling in the free exercise of religion are clearly violating tenets of the First Amendment. These people wrongly believe that the constitutional ban on the federal government establishing a state religion requires the removal of God and religion from all civil discourse or public display, and that this peculiar interpretation of the ban supersedes and justifies counteracting the constitutional prohibition against interfering with the free exercise of religion.

If the majority of the people were to take a similar, extreme position on "separation of church and state" turned away from the Laws of Nature, ceased to recognize the Creator's hand in mortal affairs (including government) and the people failed to retain the character qualities of integrity, morality and virtue, constitutional guarantees could not prevent the degradation of liberties and civil rights, and “self-government” would dissolve into the tyranny of mob rule and ultimately result in chaos.

Those who thought to erase God from the Pledge were ill-advised and exercised poor judgment. NBC is encouraged to take responsible remedial action in this regard to assure that such a breach of the public trust does not recur.

Actively seeking to eliminate references to God and religion in the media and passively allowing this kind of censorship to go forward is no less bigotry than that exercised against race or gender, and is no less harmful to the nation, and to the confidence of the nation in the media.

Steve Burke CEO NBC Universal steve.burke@nbcuni.com

Mark Lazarus Chairman of NBC sports mark.lazarus@nbcuni.com

Liz Fischer Vice President, Corporate Communications (212) 664-4825
liz.fischer@nbcuni.com

Kathy Kelly-Brown Senior Vice President, Corporate Communications & Media Relations (212) 664-3457 kathy.kelly-brown@nbcuni.com

Adam L. Miller Executive Vice President, Corporate Affairs (212) 664-7330 adam.miller@nbcuni.com

Can the Twin Plagues of Inflation and Joblessness be Abated?

2011-05-08T16:20:00.000-06:00

Recent unemployment figures show that we remain deep in recession despite the fake stock market gains due to the Federal Reserve propping it up. Money is being lent to Wall Street for non-productive activities to invest in bets on market trends and to speculate on and manipulate the price of oil and food commodities that increases the cost of gas and food to the consumer. At the same time, small businesses, the core of U.S. productive industry, cannot obtain credit to hire new employees or expand.

The government does not consider energy or food costs in reporting falsely that we’re experiencing little inflation. In fact, we’re experiencing significant inflation in the cost of energy and food because of Wall Street speculation and the Federal Reserve printing billions of dollars and creating trillions of dollars to give to big banking institutions to keep them afloat despite their being insolvent.

Many big businesses have a good reserve of cash on hand, but are reluctant to hire new employees or increase their productive activities because of uncertainty as to how new taxes and regulations will adversely affect their profitability. Many other businesses have been driven offshore by high taxes, stifling regulations and unreasonable Big Union demands, taking jobs offshore with them.

Another factor that’s increasing the cost of food is government subsidies for ethanol production from corn; a significant number of acres that used to be planted with food corn (both for humans and for animal feed), are now planted with different corn strains that are only useful for ethanol production. Government meddling in this respect has increased corn ethanol production with the adverse effect of decreasing food corn production driving higher prices for all foods that depend on corn (i.e. corn products, poultry, eggs, dairy, and other meats). The Obama Administration’s continued refusal to develop domestic fossil fuel energy resources prevents a lot of job creation that we could have in establishing energy independence from less than friendly foreign sources subject to regional turmoil.

To jumpstart our failing economy and put our people back to work, government must get out of the way with significant tax and regulation reform to bring jobs back to America, and the current imbalance of power between management and labor, in labor’s favor, promoted by government, must be reversed. Ethanol subsidies must be ended immediately, and an aggressive policy of allowing and encouraging domestic fossil fuel energy development must be undertaken.

Congressional audit and control of the Federal Reserve is essential to promote financing of productive small businesses instead of non-productive Wall Street gambling and to prevent further devaluation of the dollar by printing money and adding billions of dollars to the money supply. Each day that passes that we fail to take these first steps towards economic recovery prolongs the recession, ruins formerly successful businesses, stifles innovation, and incurs further catastrophic losses for individuals, both in terms of assets like homes and retirement, and in their personal lives.

Can Japan Weather the Storm of Earthquake, Tsunami and Nuclear Disaster?

2011-04-03T23:29:00.003-06:00

Why the Japanese Government Can Afford to Rebuild: It Owns the Largest Depository Bank in the World, by Ellen Brown.

The excellent article, discussed in this piece, about Japan’s ability to recover from the triple disasters is has recently suffered by utilizing the considerable resources of the country’s public central bank is from Ellen H. Brown, author of “Web of Debt”. In her book, Ms. Brown exposes the corrupt and decaying underbelly of the international banking cartel’s (IBC) death grip on world economies through its near total monopoly on the creation of money as debt.

While the IBC creates nearly the entire money supply out of thin air as loan principal amounts (based on fractional reserve banking), the IBC does not create the money supply needed by those receiving loans to pay the interest on these loans. The additional money supply required to pay the interest on IBC loans must be obtained from the misfortune and losses of others. The IBC then pockets their earnings, usually moving this income to foreign shores, thus transferring over time the wealth of individual victim nations to a foreign oligarchy that only grows more powerful each day.

Japan and China are examples of nations that have resisted the slimy tentacles of the IBC’s debt-bondage by having their own public central banks. China has fueled its tremendous economic growth with low or no interest loans to businesses (many of which, it is understood, do not have to be paid back). This allows Chinese businesses to produce goods and services at very low cost, permitting them to set extremely low prices for their goods. Low priced Chinese goods have attracted worldwide markets leading to China’s booming export trade and rapid economic expansion.

Japan’s government owned central bank, Japan Post Bank (JPB), functions much the same way as the Chinese model outlined above. The Japanese government, through JPB, has a large amount of debt on its books, but there are important differences between the Japanese government’s debt and that of Portugal, Ireland or Greece.

These European countries owe their debt (principal and interest) to the IBC, which can increase the interest rate charged, refuse to rollover any loan or deny further credit if the IBC lacks confidence in the country’s ability to repay the loan. The Japanese government owes its debt to itself alone, not to any counterparty, and charges itself a very low interest rate. JPB, using government debt money, makes loans to the Japanese people to spur economic growth and productivity.

As JPB has expanded financial services over the last several years, many and varied foreign and domestic financial institutions (all of which are ultimately owned and controlled by the IBC) have expressed concern about Japan’s fulfillment of international trade obligations and are pressuring the Japanese government to “privatize” JPB and institute “international competitive conditions”. In other words, the IBC wants to capitalize on and freely pillage the wealth and economy of Japan without any competition.

Current “international competitive conditions” for most countries of the world consist of a large number of banks that supposedly compete against one another for business. But the fact is, all these banks are owned and controlled by the country’s government chartered but privately owned central bank. The various central banks are, in turn, owned and controlled by the private IBC interests. The international standard of competition is the IBC monopoly (i.e. no competition).

Arguments that public banking is socialistic and anti-American, and that our current banking system is based on the free market, just don’t hold water. The Constitution grants Congress the power to make and control money in the U.S., and our Constitution does not promote socialism. As far as free markets, the international banking system monopoly never was “free enterprise”, and is the biggest example ever of crony capitalism gone wrong.

Disadvantages of our current international banking system include the fact that it is owned and controlled by IBC private interests, the IBC decides who gets credit at what cost (financing IBC friends and affiliates at favorable terms, while denying financing or reasonable terms to those less favored), the IBC manipulates money supply, most often increasing its supply out of proportion to productivity (i.e. by excess printing of money or by excessive creation of money as loans via fractional reserve banking), causing inflation and currency devaluation, and the workings of the IBC and its affiliate banks like the U.S. Federal Reserve go on in secret, behind closed doors.

Public banks are owned by the people and controlled by representatives elected by the people. Weaknesses with public central banking are similar to those seen with the IBC system: politicians are also prone to direct favorable financing to their friends and supporters as a form of patronage, they are usually unable to resist inflating the money supply to meet their insatiable desire to spend, and they also prefer that their horse-trading deals be conducted behind closed doors.

Where public banks participate in fractional reserve banking, the IBC system of creating money as debt, banks create ten times or more money as debt than they have in reserve and the money supply is expanded exponentially. Invariably, this practice leads to inflation, currency devaluation, and economic deterioration. To meet the needs of the people while avoiding these negatives, public banks should employ a system of 100% reserve banking.
While there is no redress or accounting obtainable from the private, IBC interests, politicians periodically have to face their constituents when they run for reelection.

If the people remain vigilant and demand restraint, fairness and transparency of their elected officials, the officials will respond appropriately or be removed from office. However, if people were to become complacent and neglect their responsibility to oversee their representatives’ actions, corrupt politicians controlling the public central bank could do little worse than the predatory IBC has done with the world’s money.

Japan will need every resource it can muster, including abundant cheap credit from the JPB, to recover, cleanup and rebuild from its triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami and nuclear emergency. If the JPB can avoid the many pitfalls of public central banking, and provide a real service by funding economic productivity and growth, Japan will weather this storm even as it has historically weathered severe storms in the past.

Napolitano Takes Credit for Alleged Improvements in Border Security

2011-03-31T17:25:00.000-06:00

When a radical Muslim jihadist, trying to blow up a plane over U.S. territory on a recent Christmas Day, failed to properly detonate his bomb, Janet Napolitano told us that government efforts to provide homeland security had been successful at preventing this terrorist attack. In point of fact, a number of red flags were raised to the government’s attention, predicting that this young jihadist would commit a terrorist act, but were ignored and the urgency and importance of the information available was not communicated effectively with the various U.S. intelligence units. Government failed in every way in regard to this terrorist attack. It was dumb luck and the courage of a few passengers on board that particular Christmas Day flight that prevented the tragedy that al-Qaeda had planned for America on that day.

In regard to illegal immigration, Janet Napolitano informs us that, due to her Homeland Security efforts under the Obama Administration over the past two years, illegal border crossings are currently at the lowest levels since the 1970s, and seizures of illegal drugs from illegals crossing the border from Mexico to the U.S. and of cash and weapons from illegals crossing from the U.S. back into Mexico have increased. The Obama Administration would have the American people believe that all of their hard work on border security has paid off with favorable statistics confirming the government’s successes in this area. But as it has been said before: In order of magnitude, there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

A slightly deeper look at these numbers reveals the spin that the Obama Administration is using to claim credit for what is being sold as improvement in border security. When the U.S. economy was growing and unemployment was at an all-time low, most illegal immigrants who crossed the southern border from Mexico into the U.S. came here to work; most found jobs that helped them earn money to provide for their families.

Because jobs for illegals were plentiful, there was a dramatic surge in the numbers of illegals entering the U.S. illegally during this period. During most of the G. W. Bush presidency, most illegals who found work in the U.S. had their families follow them to America, while those who were unable to find sustainable work returned home.

Towards the end of the Bush final term and during the past two years of the Obama presidency, our economy tanked due to the Federal Reserve, Wall Street, Fannie and Freddie and other Bankster (think mobster) failed fraudulent, high-risk ventures and abuses at the expense of the American people. These high-rollers made trillions of dollars over the last decade by creating and manipulating their extreme-risk investments (think casino gambling) and secured huge profits and bonuses and for their CEOs, staff and shareholders.

When the bubble burst and all the Ponzi schemes disintegrated, the housing market collapsed and all the financial institutions were found to be insolvent. Even after an infusion of trillions of dollars from the Federal Reserve and billions of dollars from the pockets of those who were abused in the process of the financial bubble creation, the American taxpayers, these financial institutions continue to distribute huge bonuses to their management and staff and continue to remain insolvent despite unprecedented and unwarranted public bailouts.

These corrupt financial institutions were permitted by our government to privatize (and pocket) profits from their extreme-risk ventures while socializing their losses (sticking the bill for their bad behavior to the American taxpayer). In previous times, Wall Street and the monster banks provided investment capital and loans to all types of businesses that led to increased economic productivity and significant economic growth and prosperity.

Currently, these banks are holding onto their cash or cautiously investing in Treasury Bills. Most loans are being made to Wall Street firms or being used for the banks’ own investing, once again, in the same risky, non-productive and dangerous financial instruments. Small businesses, the life-blood of the productive American economy, are being denied the credit they need to innovate, grow, expand and create jobs. These banks have also severely restricted and increased the costs to the American people of consumer credit, leading to a dramatic fall in consumer spending. With demand for consumer goods plummeting, businesses, large and small, across the country slowed or were closed leading to our current, persistent high unemployment.

Enormous infusions of cash from the Federal Reserve to Wall Street banks and excessive government spending on pork-barrel projects, Stimulus, TARP and similar spending bills have temporarily propped up the stock market. However, government spending and the Fed’s “quantitative easing” have only made matters worse for the rest of the U.S. economy and the American people, prolonged the Great Recession with our jobless “recovery”, left millions of homeowners, drowning, underwater in their mortgages or facing foreclosure (the new “homeless”), and produced marked inflation that is currently threatening to collapse the dollar. Our government’s skyrocketing deficits and the Fed’s consistent abuse of the dollar will not only lead to continued devaluation of the dollar, but are likely to precipitate a switch from the dollar to another currency as the international currency of exchange and trade.

This ongoing collapse of the U.S. economy has severely limited the number of jobs available for illegal immigrants, most of who had previously come to the U.S. to work. With a scarcity of jobs in a bad economy, I can believe that many illegals that were here to work, if they had no job and no welfare support, would return to their home countries, and that fewer illegals would be motivated to immigrate to the U.S.

While I don’t believe Janet Napolitano has any idea how many illegal aliens cross the border from Mexico into the U.S. each day, I can accept that the number of illegal crossings may be decreased from the Bush years. If the absolute number of illegals crossing into the U.S. each day has really decreased, such a decrease is likely attributable to those seeking work deciding not to cross into the U.S. illegally, discouraged by the lack of jobs.

On the other hand, U.S. Border States report markedly increased illegal border crossings by criminals peddling illicit drugs, human trafficking, and violence. Such an increase in criminals crossing into the U.S. would naturally increase the odds that border patrol agents would intercept a larger number of these criminals.

Napolitano and Obama want to claim credit for decreased illegal border crossings. However, most of the decrease can be accounted for on the basis of policies put in place during the Bush Administration and the lack of jobs in the U.S. for illegals. When Napolitano boasts of increased border patrol seizures of illicit drugs and weapons from criminal illegals, she is unintentionally admitting to the current tidal wave invasion of illegal alien criminals bringing violence and lawlessness into the Border States with them.

The borders are really more porous than ever with a greater percentage of criminal illegal aliens entering the U.S., all because the Obama Administration is not really serious about border security. If the U.S. were truly serious about border security, we would have a fence the length of our southern border. If we really didn’t want illegals to climb the border fence, we would electrify it. If we really didn’t want illegals to cut electricity to or tear down the fence, we would build interval towers along the fence line with remotely operated sniper rifles to pick off any illegals climbing over, through or seeking to damage the fence.

Do we need to militarize our southern border like they have between North and South Korea with soldiers and artillery and drones? How serious are we about border security? Serious enough to do whatever it takes to stop illegal immigration?

If we ever did get truly serious and put into place such measures, it is doubtful that any would-be illegal alien would ever be harmed; once the word gets out that the border is defended by an electrified fence and sniper towers or soldiers, artillery and drones, few would be foolish enough to test these defenses.

Mandated Compact Fluorescent Light (CFL) Bulbs Are Environmentally Unsafe & Unsound

2011-02-10T18:12:00.001-07:00

I’m passing along this email warning about CFL light bulbs that can start burning and spread the fire to your home. It should be noted that the ballast in these bulbs (what triggers the light bulb when you flip the switch) contains mercury, a toxic “heavy metal”. Any broken bulb or any burning of ballast releases mercury into the environment-your home. Disposal of used CFL bulbs cannot be with regular trash disposal, but they must be recycled and processed as a “hazardous material”. To date, there is no uniform protocol established for the safe handling and disposal of CFL bulbs.

Because CFL bulbs are slightly more efficient at producing light (they produce more light and less heat per unit of electricity) a nearly worldwide environmental movement is driving lawmakers to mandate conversion of home and business lighting from incandescent bulbs to CFL bulbs. However, despite all the hype about the theoretical benefits of promoting CFL bulbs, such conversion can lead to either cost savings and environmental benefits or to increased expense and pollution, depending on the particular circumstances.

Home or business lighting with incandescent bulbs provides significantly greater contribution to heating needs than CFL lighting. In a cool climate with hydroelectric power and fossil fuel heating, exchanging incandescent lighting for CFL lighting would shift a portion of energy consumption from clean and cheaper hydroelectric power, to the increased expense and pollution associated with burning fossil fuels.

Despite these and other confounding factors, the average energy consumer is likely to experience a small decrease in electricity consumption and a lower electricity bill which may or may not be noticeable to the homeowner. In addition, the manufacturing and handling of CFL bulbs requires more energy consumption than that of incandescent bulbs. The higher cost and energy usage in manufacturing and handling associated with CFL bulbs may offset or exceed any theoretical cost/energy savings from their use. Because of the false belief that CFL bulbs are good for the environment and conservation, incandescent light bulbs have been outlawed in the U.S. and in many other Western Countries and they will soon be unavailable for purchase here or anywhere.

Unfortunately, this is another misguided effort to control the people, from those who claim to want to do the right thing for the environment and who believe religiously in Global Warming and want to stave off its man-made effects. Typically, these people neglect to calculate the collateral effects and cost of action they propose, endorse and enforce on the rest of us. In this case, the Environmental Lobby and lawmakers subject to their influence, have irresponsibly neglected the full balance of negative effects on the world.

Obvious negatives include higher prices for CFL bulbs. Some have claimed that General Electric (GE) stands to benefit greatly from the sale of their CFL bulbs, and that the outlawing of incandescent bulbs was done mainly to help GE make money. While it is clear that with Cap & Trade, the Obama administration and the Democrats are colluding to enrich GE in return for GE support (see Crony Capitalism), GE recently closed their massive incandescent light bulb manufacturing plant in Virginia adding to high regional unemployment, and China is now the largest producer of CFL bulbs for the world. Outlawing incandescent bulbs has thus added to the steady loss of American manufacturing and jobs to overseas interests.

The increased cost of CFL bulbs is not just due to markup or to increased costs associated with materials and manufacturing, but is also due to the cost of necessary, proper hazardous waste handling from the collection of materials, to manufacturing, and through disposal. Disposal of hazardous waste is often contracted for and shipped to third world countries for storage.

Other negative effects include those on the environment of spreading mercury throughout our communities with potential human exposure, causing brain and other nervous system damage, and then ending up in hazardous waste landfills poisoning the earth. CFL bulbs also expose humans to Electro-Magnetic Fields (EMF), Extremely Low Frequency (ELF) energy, and low levels of UV light, which may have adverse effects on the human body. Additionally, CFL bulb light quality is inferior to that of the incandescent bulb, making all visual inspection, from that of patients by their doctors for signs of disease, to that of the subject of the visual arts and design, to that of products for defects by manufacturers, more difficult and less revealing. There are also a number of reports suggesting that CFL lighting can adversely affect health, mood, psychological well-being, and those with pain syndromes and certain skin conditions.

If you believe that the outlawing of incandescent bulbs should be repealed, please contact your government representatives and let them know your feelings on this issue. Howard M. Brandston, a lighting engineer who has done a great deal of research and referencing in regard to these issues, makes his efforts available on his website for the public. In addition, a group opposed to outlawing incandescent light bulbs, “Free Our Light”, has set up a website and Facebook page where you’ll find information about this issue and you can sign a petition and communicate with like-minded people.

Forwarded Email Warning

Below is a picture of a CFL light bulb from my bathroom. I turned it on the other day and then smelled smoke after a few minutes. Four inch flames were spewing out of the side of the ballast like a blow torch! I immediately turned off the lights. But I'm sure it would have caused a fire if I was not right there. Imagine if the kids had left the lights on as usual when they were not in the room. I took the bulb to the Fire Department to report the incident. The Fireman wasn't at all surprised and said that it was not an uncommon occurrence. Apparently, sometimes when the bulb burns out there is a chance that the ballast can start a fire. He told me that the Fire Marshall had issued reports about the dangers of these bulbs.

Upon doing some Internet research, it seems that bulbs made by “Globe” in China seem to have the lion’s share of problems. Lots of fires have been blamed on misuse of CFL bulbs, like using them in recessed lighting, pot lights, dimmers or in track lighting. Mine was installed in a normal light socket. I bought these at Wal-Mart. I will be removing all the Globe bulbs from my house. CFL bulbs are a great energy saver but make sure you buy a name brand like Sylvania, Phillips or GE and not the ones from China.

Is the Tea Party Ducking Social Conservative Issues?

2011-02-01T19:32:00.000-07:00

There is broad agreement among Tea Partiers on issues of the economy, jobs, fiscal responsibility, Obamacare and adherence to the Constitution, especially in regard to cutting government spending. However, rifts in this coalition become apparent when the major cause of current government overspending and future insolvency, entitlement spending (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid), is considered for modifications that would produce real savings and sustainable entitlements.

Similarly, there does not appear to be as wide-spread support among Tea Partiers for a good number of constitutional issues that don’t involve commerce, fiscal matters, and smaller government, including many so-called conservative “social issues”. A good number of Tea Partiers believe that other priorities must take precedence at this time when our nation is in an extreme economic/fiscal crisis and the fact that our judicial system and leaders in Washington are moving the country away from our traditional constitutional republic towards a totalitarian and redistributionist “nanny” state.

Many, even members of the Tea Party movement, have been critical of other Tea Partiers expressing their belief that social issues should also be addressed. While I may not agree with all that’s said on social issues, I do commend anyone who stands up for freedom, the Constitution and other Tea Party values, and I stand fully behind their right to speak their mind as dictated by their conscience. Any honest person understands that no one person or group speaks for the entirety of the Tea Party movement. It is the Left that seeks to silence any opposition voice. There is no place in the Tea Party, or for that matter, among any people believing in freedom, for suppression of differing or opposing ideas.

“Social issues” can indeed be controversial and divisive, as many of the primary principles espoused by the Tea Party movement can be; but being controversial or divisive does not make them any less valid. In addition, these issues are not foreign to rights expressed as God-given in the Declaration of Independence and confirmed in the Constitution. The Declaration of Independence speaks of the innate right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The Constitution puts into law the right to life, liberty and property, and that these rights cannot be limited in any way except by “due process”. Due process in consideration of the right to life is exemplified by the lengthy court process involved in the eventual execution of a person sentenced to death under the law. This kind of consideration, which we provide to the most evil of criminals, is entirely lacking in abortion, where the life of the innocent unborn is terminated without a hint of due process.

No one educated in the field of biology rejects the fact that, at fertilization, life begins with a full complement of genetic material that identifies the life as human. It is clear that at some point after fertilization and during gestation, this life becomes a living, breathing, self-aware and feeling person. Controversy surrounds the question of exactly when a human life becomes a person. Traditionally, life was thought to begin at “quickening” when the baby’s movements inside the womb are first felt by the mother, and personhood was thought to begin at birth.

Today, we know that life begins at fertilization, and that the fetus develops, in utero, qualities that confer personhood. With modern ultrasound we can see the fetus startle in response to a loud noise, some will be sucking their thumb, and during abortions the fetus is seen to grimace, scream, and recoil with physiologic pain responses to the operator’s probe. In addition, it is apparent that even the tiniest of premature infants in Newborn Intensive Care, are born with their own personalities and clear cut likes and dislikes, respond to parent’s faces and voices, and respond to positive and negative stimuli in an organized fashion.

The dialogue about abortion has been co-opted by those in favor of abortion by expressing the two predominant viewpoints as either “Pro-Life” or “Pro-Choice”. Since the choice they are talking about involves the willful termination of a life, the correct term for those who want to be able to choose abortion is “Pro-Death”. Abortion takes the life of a human being based solely on the interests of a second party, the pregnant woman, without any regard for the baby’s rights. The aborted baby is denied his right to life, his right to enjoy liberty, inheritance rights he may have had to property, and his right to pursue his own happiness, all without due process. Both Pro-Life and Pro-Death sentiments continue to run hotly among the American people, and controversy surrounding abortion is unlikely to diminish over time. Abortion is very much a constitutional issue that involves the freedoms of everyone and cannot be ignored.

Gay activists insist on special rights and recognition that are contrary to many peoples’ religious views. These activists want to change the definition of marriage, force full fellowship with organizations that are opposed to the gay lifestyle, and silence “hate speech”, which includes reading scripture or preaching in church against the destructive gay lifestyle. Gay activists want to be able to “marry” the same-sex partner they love, and that gay “family” to be recognized and appreciated the same as traditional marriage between and man and a woman with a real family. These activists claim that all they want is equal rights, when they already have equal rights and what they are asking for is special or “more-equal rights”.

In conformance with the Constitution and most state laws, all citizens have the freedom to marry someone of the opposite sex, while no one has the freedom to “marry” someone of the same sex. There is no inequality inherent in these laws. There are many established cultural norms (often founded on religious beliefs) written into law, that few responsible adults would question.

For example, adults do not have the right to marry or have sex with a child, even if they love each other and the child or family give their consent. Adults do not have the right to marry a sibling or parent. Adults do not have the right to marry or have sex with animals. This fully conforms with the “equal protection clause” of the Constitution, with Natural Law upon which the Constitution is based, and with thousands of years of multi-cultural tradition that has worked successfully to preserve and sustain society and culture.

Another example is adoption agencies that hold religious beliefs that oppose gay adoption and raising children in that environment, being forced to allow gay adoption or cease doing adoptions. This is a violation of the constitutional rights of free association, free speech and the freedom to practice one’s religion without government interference. The Left also seeks to nullify or restrict the constitutional right to free speech by suppressing any views that oppose the current administration, the right to “keep and bear arms” (where keep means possess and store and bear means carry, display and use), and the right to work free of union control if so chosen by the workers with a secret ballot and without intimidation. While these anti-Constitution attacks do not deal directly with the economy, jobs or fiscal responsibility, the persistent assault on liberty cannot be ignored and must be countered.

Once the country is back on the path to restoration of economic/fiscal and governmental constitutional practices and principles, these social issues will need to be addressed with some urgency. Basic human inalienable rights can be put on the back burner only so long and at great risk to freedom. True freedom and our Constitution cannot exist if some in the country are more free than others and where any constitutionally guaranteed rights are abridged.

Egyptians Protest Against Mubarek and For Freedom

2011-01-28T18:31:00.000-07:00

There's little question that the Egyptian people are protesting in resistance to tyranny, or that Mubarek has abused human rights and exercised totalitarian oppression of the people in the process of maintaining his 30 year rule. The Mubarek regime justifies its oppression as the only effective means of preventing the violent overthrow of its government and its replacement with an even more tyrannical regime. The people have clearly suffered under Mubarek’s rule, they no longer (if ever they did) subscribe to this justification for oppression, and are seeking a change in government. The Egyptian people, as all mankind, have a Natural Law right to the liberty and self-determination that they seek and that has long been withheld from them.

While the current mass protests in Egypt may indeed precipitate a change in government, the use of violence by either the protesters or the government is deplorable and is only destructive to the causes of either party. The use of violence in this type of mass popular uprising, where an unarmed people face a heavily armed and mechanized military force, the people will suffer more casualties and a higher rate of defeat, unless there is a significant mind-set change in the troops, military and other political leaders. If the current protests do lead to a change in government, it remains unclear whether such change will improve or diminish liberty for the Egyptians.

As freedom loving Americans, we can certainly identify and empathize with the desire of the Egyptian people to be free. However, regardless of American commercial or political interests in Egypt (which are undeniably significant), it is not our place to intervene in the internal affairs of sovereign countries, one way or the other. The question, then, is how do we support the Egyptian people in their quest for freedom without intervening inappropriately in internal, sovereign affairs? While we can provide moral support in terms of world reporting on the protests and our government and public opinion leaders, and the American people speaking out in support of the people, anything more than this could easily be interpreted as inappropriate meddling, and could actually be detrimental to the cause of freedom.

The Egyptian Army and Police have kept Mubarek in power all these years. While the U.S. has worked with Mubarek by default, in order to have dealings with Egypt, the U.S. has in no way "propped-up" the Mubarek regime at the expense, or promoted its oppression of the Egyptian people. Continued efforts to encourage the Egyptian government, whether changed or not, to conform to the principles of freedom and human rights, including the right of self-determination, must be maintained.

The real danger is that many groups and organizations that do not have the best interests of the Egyptian people at heart, including their right to freedom and self-determination, are seeking to co-opt
the current power of the people for their own designs of imposing different tyrannies. If the current government is incapable or unwilling to supervise the peaceful transfer of power to a new government that will hold free elections and respect the rights of the people, it is likely that the Mubarek government will disintegrate, leaving a vacuum that will be filled by one or the other of these totalitarian groups, leaving the people no better off, and perhaps even worse off, than they were under Mubarek.

Egyptian President Sadat, a leader who was largely responsible for Egypt signing on to a major agreement of cooperation and peace with Israel (the first such agreement between an Arab nation and Israel in modern times), was assassinated by the Muslim Brotherhood. At that time Alman-al-Zawahiri
was a major figure in the Muslim Brotherhood. After being jailed for his terrorist activity, he became the mentor of Bin Laden, and currently serves as second in command of al Qaeda.

The Muslim Brotherhood, despite Mubarek's tremendous oppression and counter-terrorism efforts, has continued to spread blood and horror throughout Egypt, spread terrorism beyond Egypt's borders with Hamas, al Qaeda and others, and continues to pursue the violent overthrow of the Mubarek government so they can impose an Islamic Totalitarian State. These folks, and many others like them, are not the good guys. Egypt is at great danger at this time of ending up like Gaza (ruled by Hamas), or more recently, Lebanon (ruled by Hezbollah).

Whether or not countries seeking freedom and self-determination succeed in their efforts, or fail, leading to more tyranny, is of considerable interest and import, not only to the citizens of the countries seeking freedom, but to the peace and security of all nations of the world. But the truth may be that there is precious little peace and security in store for the future. Perhaps the world is fated to descend into terrorism, anarchy and totalitarianism, and resistance is futile.

I pray for people everywhere seeking freedom, and especially now for the people of Egypt, that they may achieve their righteous goals and enjoy the blessings of liberty.

The Power to Make & Control Money Derives From Natural Law

2011-01-26T02:24:00.000-07:00

In the charter documents of the United States, the Founding Fathers highlighted Natural Law from which mankind’s unalienable rights are derived, including the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. These natural and unalienable rights, especially with regard to property and the pursuit of happiness, necessarily involve economic freedom and free enterprise. Natural Law, the Founders related, also defined and restricted the role of government to that of securing these natural rights to the people, without otherwise getting in the way of the individual’s pursuit of happiness. The Constitution, based on Natural Law, grants specifically limited powers for the sole purpose of enabling the federal government to protect and preserve these rights.

One of the major tasks of government is to protect the nation’s lives, liberty, property and economic freedom from foreign invasion. Primarily for this purpose, the Constitution provides the federal government with the power to raise and command military forces in the nation’s defense against foreign military attack. The Constitution, in granting the government the power to make and control money, also provides for the defense of the country from another form of foreign invasion and attack, that of the International Banking Cartel, which through its ownership and control of the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Reserve’s absolute monopoly to make and control money, seeks to ensnare all Americans in debt-bondage and precipitate boom and bust cycles that lead to the systematic, legalized theft of American property.

The monopoly power to make and control money was usurped by the Federal Reserve while the nation’s leaders stood by helplessly, silently complicit in the construction of this most egregious form of Corporate Statism. This wholly, privately owned business (there is NO government ownership or control of this business) is strictly controlled by foreign banking interests, who operate this government-granted monopoly with the singular goal of acquiring America’s wealth without respect to natural rights. Only by restoring the power to make and control money to the Congress, as prescribed by the Constitution, can the federal government fulfill its Natural Law role in defending the nation against this form of foreign invasion and in securing our natural rights to economic freedom, property and the pursuit of happiness.

Some see the call for restoration of the power over money to government as a departure from free enterprise principles in favor of centralized, typically inefficient and imprudent government control. However, the Federal Reserve banking system, as a government-granted, Corporate Statism monopoly, never was free enterprise, it selectively dispenses financial advantages to its crony businesses thereby removing the effects of free market competition, and its persistently imprudent actions have led to massive erosion of the dollar’s purchasing power and to recurrent periods of economic chaos and collapse.

In addition, there is a clear duty of government to protect and preserve Americans’ natural rights to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness in defense against economic invasion, manipulation and conquest by the foreign, International Banking Cartel. Protection of economic and property rights by the constitutional power over money is no less a Natural Law role of government than that of maintaining military forces to defend against military assault.

The federal government has the responsibility, duty and authority to protect America’s property and economic freedom, and can and should restore the power to make and control money to Congress. The concept of the individual States sponsoring their own public banking system, minimizing the power and negative effects of the Federal Reserve banking system monopoly on a Statewide basis, and promoting State commerce, industry, employment and prosperity, is a natural function of State’s rights and sovereignty in the protection of its citizens’ rights, and is complimentary to and does not conflict with the federal power over money.

Why Michael Steele should be re-elected Chair of the RNC

2011-01-04T19:08:00.000-07:00

The truth is that elections in 2009-2010 represent one of the greatest routes of the Democrat Party in history with huge Republican gains across the country. While Michael Steele presided over the RNC during this incredible period of Republican success and he should be commended for his hard work and the successes of the Republican Party, Mr. Steele cannot be given all the credit for this. On the other hand, the greatest complaint about Mr. Steele is that he failed to raise sufficient funds that might have permitted even more Republican candidates to successfully campaign for office, and even went into significant debt in an attempt to help these candidates. While it is true that RNC fund raising suffered under the direction of Mr. Steele, he likewise does not deserve most of the blame for this.

Throughout the period from 2008-2011, the people rose up in a nationwide grassroots movement (Tea Party, 9/12 Groups, and others) to protest, not only the policies, edicts, principles and lack of listening to the people of the Democrat Party which had shifted markedly to the Left, but also those of establishment Republicans, who had abandoned many of the basic tenets on which the Republican Party was based and “lost their way”, primarily in regard to fiscal responsibility and morality (especially in reference to political corruption).

“We the people” determined to promote, from the grassroots, the nomination, campaign and election of good, honest candidates we believed would adhere to constitutionally conservative principles and shun corruption, and candidates that would listen to and act based upon the will of the people. This people’s movement intentionally functioned largely within the Republican Party rather than forming a third party which would be likely to dilute and divide conservative will and benefit the Left. This grassroots strategy was calculated to replace both Democrats and establishment Republicans who had failed the American people.

Unfortunately, establishment Republican Party leaders, acting primarily through the RNC in a top-down fashion (RNC decisions imposed from the top down to the local levels), based their strategy on a singular goal of Republicans “winning elections” at the expense of promoting higher quality candidates. This strategy was directly at odds with that of the people, and in many instances the RNC supported establishment candidates across the nation, even in the nomination and primary processes, in direct competition with grassroots candidates supported and promoted by the people. The people quickly learned to support quality individual candidates and the myriad cause groups accepting donations, rather than contributing to political parties that would use those funds to continue establishment people and practices and thwart the American people’s struggle to reform American politics.

This alienation of the American people by the establishment Republican Party (RNC), coupled with the people’s movement strategy of donating to individual candidates and causes, is the single most direct cause of the RNC’s failure to raise the desired funds. Of all the establishment Republican Party leaders, at least Michael Steele, more than most others, appropriately acknowledged and supported the people’s Tea Party movement where he could; this support for the people cost Mr. Steele dearly in terms of establishment Republicans supporting his chairmanship of the RNC. In addition, Mr. Steele provided support to non-establishment candidates once they had won Republican nomination.

The fact that Mr. Steele took the RNC into debt leading up to the 2010 elections, rather than reflecting fiscal irresponsibility, is evidence of his deep commitment to helping elect Republicans to office despite sagging donations to the RNC. Similar commitment was echoed by many of the citizenry who, having exhausted available funds, made donations to worthy candidates from their credit cards. In addition, nearly every candidate for public office goes into debt for campaign expenses. Do detractors contend that this depth of commitment, where people, organizations and candidates are willing to go into debt to support their cause (an expression of free speech), should be condemned?

During the 2008-2011 season there has been dramatic “climate change” to the political environment, I believe for the better. There is a new crop of leaders across the country determined to carry out the will of the people in changing the direction of the country from a freefall into the abyss of socialism and poverty to a return to the Constitution, harmony with Natural Law, preserving unalienable rights, and to recovery of American economic prosperity and employment, not just for Wall Street, Giant Banks and Financial Institutions and other Favored Large Corporations, but for Main Street and the small businesses and the people who live and work there and continue to suffer under the heavy hand of misguided government intervention, profligate deficit spending and excessive taxation.

With due public diligence and oversight, future election cycles are likely to further improve the numbers of quality leaders elected to public office. American political parties that respect, honor and respond to the will of the people will thrive. Those that refuse to reform will continue to suffer the consequences.

Michael Steele’s RNC Chairmanship, while at times considered corrosive by establishment Republicans, cannot be justly criticized for having managed a Republican landslide with severely limited funds. In addition, the restricted ability of the RNC to raise funds is directly due to establishment Republican practices and attitudes, not to Mr. Steele’s chairmanship.

Given the circumstances under which Mr. Steele had to function, his performance as Chair of the RNC has been exceptional. Based on this performance, and if Mr. Steele truly is the face of needed Republican Party reform that he seems to be, I believe Michael Steele has more than earned another term as Chairman.

The Great Recession: what is the root cause and is there a way out?

2010-11-14T21:24:00.078-07:00

(Updated 12/05/2010)

Subprime Mortgage: a mortgage given to an individual who is likely to default on payments and the mortgage as a whole.

The narrative promoted by Obama and the Democrats and passed along to the public by the lame-stream media, is that eight years of Bush administration policies, cronyism with big corporations and Wall Street, and war-mongering with loss of U.S. treasure on contrived foreign wars led to the collapse of the housing sector and U.S. financial markets, which has caused our current Great Recession with volatility in financial markets affecting the retirement savings of millions of Americans, the loss of U.S. manufacturing industry, high unemployment and business stagnation.

The story goes on to claim that because of Obama policies, bailing-out and taking-over private companies, and the high level of government spending under the Obama administration working in concert with a Democrat majority in Congress, significantly deeper and more painful economic disaster has been averted by stimulating the economy and saving or creating millions of jobs.

Further Democrat narrative claims that the new Obama financial law brings much needed regulatory control of financial markets that prevents Wall Street from taking the kind of risks that they took with subprime mortgage derivatives that led to the financial collapse. The narrative also claims that the new financial law frees the taxpayer from ever having to pay for anymore bail-outs of companies “too-big-to-fail”.

While this grand Democrat myth seems plausible on the surface and has a certain appeal to a public that has been much abused by the excesses of Wall Street and the loss of gainful employment by businesses moving offshore and deserting everyday Americans, there is the minor annoyance that the facts just don’t support the story.

In fact, the collapse of housing and financial markets, the loss of U.S. industry and jobs, and our current Great Recession were brought about and then worsened by failed Democrat policies that persist in supporting unacceptably high-risk Wall Street ventures based on taxpayer-guaranteed, subprime mortgages that Democrats continue to encourage, and future government-mandated, tax-payer-funded bail-outs of failing “too-big-to-fail” companies that was written into the new financial law.

The new Obama Financial Law canonizes for select, large financial companies that profits are privatized while losses are socialized (i.e. if these big firms undertake high-risk ventures and make huge profits, they will pocket the gains; however, if in taking on high-risk ventures they lose big, their losses will be absorbed by the government with taxpayer funds). Some call this close relationship between government and large corporations State Capitalism, but a more appropriate term would be National Socialism (from which the German National Socialist or Nazi Party name was taken and whose precepts Hitler and the Nazi Party embraced).

It is also the inconvenient truth that Democrat policies have produced the loss of U.S. industry and jobs, and Obamacare, the new financial law, the promise of higher taxes and Democrat anti-business rhetoric has dramatically increased the costs of doing business and created such uncertainty that American businesses are virtually paralyzed. While large, government-favored financial institutions have been showered in taxpayer funds to keep them strong, small banks and businesses on Main Street have been abandoned by the federal government and hung out to dry.

Beginning with the Clinton administration, Fannie, Freddie and other mortgage banks were coerced by the Democrats to give mortgages to low-income families so these families could participate in home ownership and enjoy some of the economic benefits of the middle-class, a seemingly noble humanitarian goal.

While it's a worthy goal to want to help as many low-income citizens as possible join middle-class America through home ownership, what may have seemed initially like a blessing has now become a curse. In the medical profession's Hippocratic Oath it encourages physicians to do all they can in the interests of the patient, with this final caveat: But above all, DO NO HARM.

Since the mid-1990's almost all lenders have been making subprime and creative mortgages. These loans are called subprime because the homebuyer is at significant risk of not making payments and of defaulting on the mortgage at some time in the near future. In the originating lenders' rush to collect the inflated fees and points that were producing huge profits for themselves, lenders often overlooked or failed to verify creditworthiness, employment status, citizenship, or ability to repay the loan.

Since originating lenders quickly bundle and sell the mortgages they write to Fannie, Freddie, other large financial institutions, and Wall Street firms like Goldman-Sachs, what should they care if the homebuyer should default some time in the future? The originating lender has made its profits by charging low-income homebuyers more to make a subprime loan than it charges for other homebuyers.

While the low-income homebuyer gets hit with a huge bill from the lender for advancing the loan, these loan costs are usually hidden in the loan amount to be advanced and taken off the top by the lender, so the homebuyer doesn't feel it until later on in the loan repayment schedule. After signing loan documents, and before the ink is dry, the originating lender immediately sells the mortgage. The subprime hot potato has been passed to someone else, who will pass it along to again another or multiple other investors (i.e. Fannie, Freddie, Bank of America, Citibank, JPMorganChase, and Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs).

Subprime homebuyers take another hit when the loan terms are written. Typically, an Adjustable Rate Mortgage (ARM) is set up providing for an initial low monthly, low interest, interest-only house payment. Then over the subsequent 3-5 years, the homeowner sees his interest rate increase and also begins paying back principle along with the interest payments which often doubles or triples the initial monthly payment to a level that the homeowner had not anticipated, a level of payment that the homeowner cannot sustain for long without exhausting all resources. Many of these subprime loans have a large balloon payment due at 3-5 years. Also, virtually all subprime borrowers are required to purchase mortgage insurance which adds a significant sum to the monthly payment.

The lender predicts while making subprime loans that the homebuyers are likely to default within the first 3-5 years. Even if the originating bank holds the subprime mortgage it makes, the bank makes money from making the loan, collects monthly payments for the duration of home ownership, and forecloses on and takes possession of the home for resale when homeowners default. As long as home values continued to rise, if the bank had to foreclose on the home, the bank stands to make a profit on this too. In addition, since all subprime mortages require mortgage insurance, if the homeowner defaults, the bank can turn to the mortgage insurance company (AIG ring any bells?) to pay off the defaulted mortgage.

Many subprime lenders utilize predatory loan practices that benefit the lender at the expense of the homebuyer. Such as lending to low-income, would-be homebuyers, where the lender knows in advance there is high risk of default, higher loan costs are charged the homebuyer but hidden in the loan amount, ARMs are set up as described above where over several years a reasonable payment becomes two to three times it's original amount, there may be an unrealistic balloon payment required, and the cost of mortgage insurance is added to the monthly payment.

If not too many homeowners default on their mortgages at once, this is not an unmanageable or unprofitable situation for banks. So, while lenders making subprime mortgages clearly reap huge profits from these predatory practices, the low-income homebuyer takes another hit with foreclosure, eviction, and financial and psychosocial-emotional loss. Rather than being a benefit to low-income families, hundreds of thousands of subprime mortgages have defaulted and are in foreclosure; many more such loans are due to default over the next several years. Massive subprime mortgage defaults resulting in collapse of the housing, financial and insurance markets, and the ensuing Great Recession has brought about untold misery for these families and for most Americans.

The fact that most mortgages are federally guaranteed (using taxpayer money), explicitly or implicitly, encourages the financial sector to consider these high-risk, subprime mortgage bundles and the Wall Street securities and derivatives based on them as low-risk investments.

The government mortgage guarantee converted a known high-risk investment into a low-risk one, being secured by mortgage insurance companies and also by the good faith and credit of the United States. These mortgages were securitized and sold by Wall Street as prime investments, not based on the usual anticipated high homeowner debt repayment level, but based solely on the insured value and the government mortgage guarantee.

When millions of these homeowners began to default on their subprime mortgages as predicted, a glut of troubled or foreclosed upon homes on the market produced a fall in home values, making most American homeowners upside-down in their mortgages (the mortgage balance owed is greater than the current appraised home value). Securitized subprime mortgages were leveraged as derivatives at 100:1 and greater, and when the housing market collapsed and mortgages were defaulted, the value of the derivatives evaporated as well leaving the Wall Street investment banks owing 100:1 on their products which now no one was buying.

In 2006, the Bush administration tried to rein in Fannie, Freddie and the other mortgage banks and halt any new subprime mortgages with government guarantees to people who could not afford them. Democrats in Congress resisted all efforts to provide judicious oversight or regulation of this high-risk activity. As late as 2008, Democrat leadership in Congress assured the American public that Fannie, Freddie, and the U.S. housing and financial markets were in good shape and as strong as ever.

When the subprime mortgage housing crisis began to grow and spread, Wall Street firms and other large financial institutions filed insurance claims based on the defaulted subprime mortgages, that led to the failure and federal bailout of large insurance companies like AIG, that were insolvent and unable to satisfy claims. The financial sector next went to the federal government for the guarantee and the government gave the financial and insurance companies taxpayer money to bail them out.

The bubble of subprime mortgages was contrived and executed and Wall Street and other financial company excesses were subsidized by Democrat policies that led directly to the current Recession. While the Bush administration was admittedly far from perfect, Bush is not responsible for the current recession—this blame is more appropriately laid at the feet of the Democrats.

While the Bush administration did little to hold down government spending and deficits, Obama has raised spending and deficits more than twice as high as levels under Bush. Most of the Bush deficit expenditures were for a prescription drug program for seniors, and providing justifiable action for national security defense against Islamic Jihadist terrorists.

On the other hand, most of the Obama expenditures have been political payback to Democrat cronies, like Wall Street, the unions, environmentalists, ACORN and other subversive groups, and increasing the size of government and the number of government employees, along with ensuring that federal employee salaries and benefits were more than twice those of comparable workers in the private sector.

The fact that Bush did a limited amount of damage to America through deficit spending on widely desired and other essential, constitutional government functions, does not justify Obama’s multiplying Bush’s deficit many times over with frivolous and wasteful, pork-barrel, political payback while aggressively acting to destroy American free market capitalism, abridge American freedoms, stifle the voice of opposition and critical analysis, weaken American and allied national security defenses, increase American subservience to international interests and secure long-term power to himself and the Democrat Party.

Big Labor, and high corporate taxes, both strongly supported by Democrats, have forced companies to leave the United States and take their businesses elsewhere to remain competitive. If we could have stopped the unions in the 1980’s, and maintained a more reasonable business and investment tax policy we might still have a private auto industry, other manufacturing, and a stronger business sector with higher employment in our economy. Even now, we have the opportunity to dramatically reduce corporate and investment taxes and see business and industry return and boom in the U.S.

However, in order to hire employees, expand the business and increase production, business needs capital. Despite a massive infusion of taxpayer dollars, money is still tight. The banks still are not lending to the economy what the economy needs to grow. When the banks get back into the business of providing the needed capital to the economy instead of just investing overcautiously in Treasury Bills, the economy will have a chance to start growing again.

In the United States we don’t have a typical parliamentary system, but we do have a fairly strong two party system. Many times in the past, third parties have been formed, and while they may temporarily sway American thought and the direction of the two major parties, none have been successful in being any real, long-term influence on American politics. The plan of the Tea Party from the start was to take over, from the inside, the Republican Party, taking it from the establishment which had lost its way and return the party to its roots in fiscal responsibility, smaller government, lower taxes and free markets within the framework and freedoms of a Constitutional Republic. The Tea Party did not want and refused to go down that pointless, third-party road.

Large numbers of individual, average Americans, most for the first time in their lives, moved beyond their comfort level, took a stand against the fiscally irresponsible policies of both major political parties, and worked long and hard hours to get good people with Tea Party views to win in the Republican primaries. Many progressive incumbent Republicans were replaced in these primaries with a Tea Party-supported Republican candidate. In the general elections, many progressive Democrats and earmark and spend establishment Republicans were roundly defeated and replaced with Tea Party Republicans committed to sound fiscal policies.

Over time, the goal is to replace progressives of all party affiliations with Tea Party Republicans such that the Republican Party will be the party of Tea Party principles and values, and the majority party in federal, state and local government. The “Tea Party” is not an actual political party, but a loose organization of Republicans, Independents, Constitutionalists, Libertarians, Unaffiliated and even some Democrats fed up with politics as usual forming thousands of small patriot groups that together make up a rather disjointed but broad-based and committed, grass-roots political movement.

There is nothing illegal, immoral or unethical in being a Tea Party Republican. Rather than serve to prop up the corrupt Republican or Democrat establishment in Washington, Tea Party Republicans have been charged with the special mission of restoring the Republican Party and the nation to correct, constitutional principles of government that promote freedom and prosperity.

There is less than zero basis for any type of legal or ethical challenge to these newly elected lawmakers for not being “real” Republicans. The Tea Party movement believes that real Republicans ascribe to Tea Party principles and values, and that establishment Republicans have strayed far too long from their true conservative roots. The Tea Party movement may, in fact, be a part of another “Great Awakening” spreading across America and even well beyond her shores, presenting the possibly of a second chance for other great nations as well.

With an influx of Tea Party Republicans into governments across the land and a Republican majority in the House, slowing down if not actually stopping altogether and reversing the relentless and destructive Obama socialist/anti-colonialist juggernaut is a real possibility. If the average American continues to stand against what is wrong with America, and fights for what is right for America, in the next several election cycles there will be Tea Party Republicans in power across the country, in the House, the Senate and in the Oval Office.

If the millions of Americans who relate to the Tea Party movement continue to stand up for the God-given, inalienable rights guaranteed by the Constitution, corruption and destruction will fail, freedom will prevail, and America will be back on the road to honest industry and real, non-bubble prosperity, building a better life for our children and grandchildren, instead of selling them into future slavery to foreign powers.

Earmarks are a perversion of the normal congressional funding process

2010-11-14T05:30:00.003-07:00

Funding of government activities begins with the passage of an appropriations bill specifying the gross sums of money that will be spent during the fiscal year. The executive branch proposes to Congress exactly how the allocated money will be spent. Congress, representing the interests of the people, then holds hearings, writes, debates and votes on bills funding specific projects or programs, or agreeing to the President’s proposed expenditures. Spending bills passed in both chambers of Congress then go to the President’s desk for signature or veto.

Where contracts are to be made with private companies to perform any such funded project, the contract is properly put to competitive bid, and the bid with the highest cost-to-benefit value wins the contract. This process is wholly transparent, is subject to public scrutiny and serves to involve rank-and-file congressional members in the process of deciding how much will be spent on which projects.

Earmarks (Em) are a perversion of the constitutional provisions for funding government. Earmarks are requests by individual congresspersons to congressional leadership that portions of the year’s total appropriated money be directed to specific entities for specific projects, bypassing the open bidding process. While the constitutional appropriations process is based on merit and cost-benefit value, Em are not merit-based, but based on seniority, state or locality, congressional district, committee assignments, party power, political connections, and perceived need for reelection campaign support

These earmark requests are often funding projects, companies, universities, organizations and individuals that are located in the congressperson’s district (bringing home the bacon), or benefit those that provide generous campaign contributions for the congressperson’s reelection and preservation in office, whether or not these entities are located in the particular district.

Proponents of congressional earmarks argue that it is the only way for Congress to specify how the allocated dollars will be spent each year, that earmarks allow Congress to fund local projects and industry, providing jobs in their districts, and that earmarks only provide for congressional dollar allocation while not increasing total spending levels.

Ems are made anonymously without public hearing, transparency or accountability, are granted by congressional leadership on a seniority/majority/party/political connections basis, are placed inside other bills at the discretion of the leadership, are not vetted, debated or voted on for their merits, and the congressperson who submits the earmark request is obligated to vote for whatever bill the leadership attaches the Em to, even if that bill entails bloated budgets or wasteful spending. In this manner, congressional leadership, controlling the very structure of Congress and every step in the process of passing bills, exerts an undue dominant influence on what Congress does each year. This Em interplay between leadership and rank-and-file members, serves to continually raise levels of government spending.

As explained above, the Constitution provides an open process for funding government activities including specific projects or programs desired by Congress; the Em process is not required for Congress to exercise its prerogative of designating how taxpayer funds will be spent. In the self-serving rush to assure each congressperson’s share of the federal pie, and to assure that the executive branch doesn’t get to spend all the money by itself, the option of not spending all the appropriated, hard-earned taxpayer money is rarely considered.

Ems to fund projects in the congressperson’s district (to garner local support for reelection) or to specific entities in exchange for campaign contributions are a corrupt mechanism to promote an individual congressperson’s interests over the interests of the American people. Bypassing the open bid process leads to government paying more than the actual value and getting lesser quality of the service or product provided, and fosters corruption behind closed doors.

The fact that earmarks are granted by congressional leadership at their discretion allows leadership to carry out their top-down agenda and control rank-and-file members, often at odds with fiscal responsibility and the goals of the people and their representatives. Leadership, seeking support for unpopular legislation, will insert many Ems into such a bill, guaranteeing the votes of those who requested the Ems, even where the individual representative may be opposed to the bill in question because of its excessive spending or other significant objections.

Government agencies estimate the direct cost of Ems at less than 2% of federal spending, and many have suggested that due to the relatively small amount of money spent on Ems, the practice should not be condemned. However, indirect and hidden costs are considerably greater and are truly significant. When major appropriations bills go through Congress, lawmakers pad each bill with excess dollars in anticipation of taking Ems further on down the line. Data showing a direct correlation between the annual costs of Ems with total annual federal spending suggests that the practice of earmarking contributes significantly to excessive government spending.

Many Ems are simply add-on expenses to bills that, without question, directly increase total spending. In other instances, involving only redirection of previously appropriated funds, projects unvetted for merit are funded by defunding other programs that had been justified on a merit basis. With the Em redirection of funding away from merit-based programs, a greater portion of taxpayer dollars is spent on non-meritorious and often frivolous and wasteful projects.

Many Ems are not even included in a bill, but in the conference reports on the bill. In this case, the Ems are given the full effect of U.S. law, despite the fact that they are not an actual part of the bill that was given public hearing, debated and voted on by Congress, and signed into law by the President. A convincing argument can be made that such Ems are illegal and unconstitutional and should be publically declared as such.

The entire system of congressional rules and structure greatly favors leadership agendas, which are often contrary to fiscal discipline and the best interests of the American people. Eliminating Ems would greatly diminish leadership power and influence; a bitter battle is likely to ensue with Washington powerbrokers desperately resisting any reduction in their influence and power despite this being a necessary component of government reform to further the interests of the American people.

The Heritage Foundation and others have called for complete elimination of Ems and total reform of the majority/seniority system congressional rules and structure with the goal of real power-sharing with rank-and-file members, full disclosure of interested party/lobbyist/lawmaker relationships, and full reporting of campaign or favored cause support by those making and receiving contributions.

Other sound proposals for government reform include the institution of term limits, moving congressional members and their retirement funds into Social Security, moving congressional members from congressional health plans to those that are available to the public, eliminating members voting on their own salary increases, and assuring that lawmakers are subject to every law they pass. The prime motivating factor for lawmakers must be the best interests of their constituents and the American people, not what’s best for self or party.

Kiss Your Social Security Goodbye

2010-10-23T18:26:00.000-06:00

Unfortunately, you can kiss your Social Security goodbye from the day it started, and the victims of this scandal are the American people. When FDR hatched the scheme of having workers contribute a portion of their income to the Social Security Trust, it was with the promise that those who contributed to the “insurance” program would receive benefits from that Trust upon retirement.

In reality, the money taken from your paycheck is not insurance and does not go to the Trust Fund, it goes to the general fund and Congress spends your contributions each year.

Your hard-earned money that you contributed to the Trust Fund has been spent from day one of the program and there is NO money in the Fund today. Currently, more money is paid out to Social Security beneficiaries than comes in in contributions, and this will only worsen as the baby-boomers retire en mass and leave only a relatively few workers left contributing.

What this means is that we have to borrow more and more money each year to continue paying benefits at the current level for more and more people; this is UNSUSTAINABLE, we can’t continue on this path for long.

If the Social Security contributions, from the beginning, had been placed in a true retirement account in low-risk investments in the market, there would be billions of dollars in the Fund, even after the 2008 market decline. Instead, Congress has consistently robbed the Fund and there is ZERO dollars in the account.

If we continue on the current path, there will be no Fund in a few years, and no further benefits will be paid out to anyone. So, with your choice being NO Social Security versus reforming Social Security, which would you prefer? How can we preserve something from Social Security?

We have to make choices that are neither fair nor easy, and this involves the consideration of private accounts, increasing the retirement age, increasing payroll contributions, decreasing benefits, and limiting benefits to wealthy retirees who don't need them.

Academic elites resist true reform and criticize current proposals as “pretty drastic” and “horse manure”; they’re right about drastic, and drastic reform is all that will save any vestige of this program. We can’t afford to continue to “kick this issue down the road” anymore as Congress has for the last 20 years.

As far as whether or not Social Security is constitutional, this is a moot point. The fact that a Supreme Court packed with FDR yes-men said that Social Security was constitutional is more a reflection of political corruption than jurisprudence. The fact is, it’s a crime perpetrated on the American people by the federal government over the last some eighty years, and this has to stop.

Given the history of the U.S. Congress’ abuse of the Social Security Trust Fund, if there were a choice, would you choose to trust Washington, your state government, or a private, personal investment account that you hold and will grow your retirement money and actually have something for retirement?

My preference would be to have a private account in my name that I possess and have inheritance rights to that the government cannot confiscate and spend that will BE THERE when I retire. One way or the other, we’re going to have to do something dramatically different from what we’ve done in the past, if we want Social Security to exist in the future.

Connor Boyack Questions Utah Candidates for U.S. Senate

2010-10-20T19:54:00.000-06:00

In August of this year, Connor Boyack, previously with the Mike Lee for Senate campaign and currently a Scott Bradley supporter, submitted eight questions to the Constitution Party, Democrat Party, and Republican Party candidates for U.S. Senate from Utah, asking their positions on a number of issues. Only the Constitution Party candidate, Scott Bradley, elected to respond to this questionnaire, and his rather lengthy response was published on Boyack’s blog site. I have chosen to respond to Boyack’s questions, listed below, from Mike Lee’s perspective.

1. What should be done in regards to our current military engagements in the Middle East, and why?

2. What should be done with the Federal Reserve, and why?

3. What is your position on the war on drugs, and the legalization of marijuana?

4. What is the constitutional authority for our current immigration law? What reforms, if any, do you support?

5. Do non-citizen terrorists have any constitutional rights?

6. Are you for or against term limits, and if for them, in what form?

7. Is a balanced budget inherently problematic, or only because it may possible trigger a constitutional convention?

8. How should tariffs be used? How do you define economic protectionism, and do you support it?

Several of Connor’s questions are already addressed on Mike Lee’s website, although perhaps not in the detail that political aficionados would like. Mike addresses the issue of the current war on terror as manifested by the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and his views do not differ greatly from those of Mr. Bradley.

Mike has also clearly expressed his position on illegal immigration: secure the borders, no amnesty, no more anchor babies (via original intent of 14th Amendment clarified by legislation as Mr. Bradley explains), no healthcare/welfare benefits for illegals, and enforce current law including preventing employers from hiring illegal workers so they will pack up and go home.

Mike Lee is also in favor of a balanced budget amendment, and has expressed his view on his website that members of both chambers of congress should not become career politicians, but serve no more than 12 years.

Mike has also outlined his views on fiscal responsibility, smaller government, strengthening national security, preservation of freedoms and tax reform. Mike Lee is a constitutional scholar undeniably committed to returning to constitutionally limited federal government.

As for the other questions, they concern controversial issues where simple answers are insufficient with a public that is unschooled and uninformed regarding current libertarian issues and thought such as the role of the Federal Reserve.

Without such a foundation for discussion, a candidate’s well-reasoned position in these areas will be easily misunderstood and motives misconstrued. However, there is no doubt that Mike Lee will adhere to the Constitution on all issues.

The comments here predominantly commend Mr. Bradley for his straightforward response to each of the questions. His responses are detailed and lengthy and are evidence that Mr. Bradley dedicated significant energy and effort to this work. I was personally disappointed, however, that he deftly side-stepped some of the major concerns regarding these issues.

Mr. Bradley’s proscription against war is well taken, however, when we are attacked by an enemy we have the right and the obligation to defend ourselves. It is undeniable that Congress has the power to declare war and the executive branch has the power to wage war. Abuses of executive power must certainly be stopped. And the United States should not have a mission of nation building.

The difficulty is that the Taliban government of Afghanistan was willingly hijacked by al-Qaeda and served as a base of operations for attacks on the West. Even now, if we were to abruptly pull out, the Taliban/al-Qaeda insurgency will return to dominate and abuse Afghanistan as a base for terrorist attacks. Without some “nation building” assistance, how will the Afghan government ever become strong enough to resist on their own a Taliban/al-Qaeda takeover?

After further terrorist attacks we would have to return to Afghanistan again to finish the job we justifiably started after 9/11. In the interests of our very real national security needs and a mission to eliminate the root of terrorism that threatens our land, we cannot afford to go down this road. I would like to know how Mr. Bradley would address this part of the issue.

As far as illegal immigration, as others here have pointed out, Mr. Bradley deals with the constitutionally designated federal control of naturalization, but fails to mention that the Constitution does not give the federal government jurisdiction over immigration, which is a separate issue.

In such cases, the power to control immigration is constitutionally relegated to the states or to the people. While state control of immigration may be difficult and impractical, if we are to adhere to the founder’s intent of the Constitution, that’s the way it is.

Also, Mr. Bradley says that we should enforce immigration laws and then penalize any illegal caught after a grace period who has not submitted to forced self-deportation. In the past, enforcing immigration laws has meant in practice primarily detecting and deporting illegal workers.

Mike Lee believes that by enforcing laws that prevent employers from hiring illegal workers, jobs for illegals will dry up and they will pack up and go home without any coercion. Where does Mr. Bradley stand on employer enforcement?

Nixon's Blood Cries From the Grave for Obama's Resignation

2010-10-15T02:12:00.001-06:00

Nixon resigned the Presidency largely because of Administration "enemies lists", slush funds to finance "dirty tricks" to influence voters, and the cover-up after the fact of these activities authorized by the President. Illegal Nixon Administration activities, like the Watergate break-in, are now known to have occurred without the President’s knowledge or approval.

President Clinton was impeached by the House essentially for lying to the American people, and remains indebted to the Senate for having the mercy not to convict him of high crimes and misdemeanors. What Obama is doing is little different from what Clinton and the Nixon Administration did that led to Clinton’s impeachment and Nixon’s forced resignation. Except that Obama is better organized, better funded, better connected, has the full support of the lapdog, lame-stream media, and is much more dangerous.

President Obama, as a candidate for the presidency, flagrantly violated campaign financing laws in raising the record number of millions of dollars to finance his campaign. As president, Obama encouraged and sanctioned the thuggish activities of ACORN and SEIU, and his stimulus bill sent millions of dollars to these groups for their illegal activities. President Obama has blatantly lied to the American public on many occasions such as when trying to sell Obamacare, the new financial law and the DISCLOSE Act to the people.

Obama’s Justice Department has failed to prosecute criminals intimidating voters or assaulting Tea Party members, investigate serious voting irregularities across the nation, or defend in the courts the Defense of Marriage Act. Supreme Court Justices have been appointed that lack a healthy respect for the Constitution and refuse to abide by the oath of office that requires Justices to render equal judgment without regard to race, status or condition of wealth.

Virtually daily Obama initiatives are slotted to repress personal freedoms from silencing the free speech of those who oppose his agenda, to registration, limitation and confiscation of personal firearms, and even to outlawing sweetened drinks at schools or the addition of salt to our food.

Where Arizona passed a law to permit state law-enforcement to help do the job of enforcing laws governing illegal immigrants that the federal government refused to do, the DOJ sued the State of Arizona to stop the state from upholding the law.

The Obama Administration actively promotes illegal immigration, wants to secure health and welfare benefits for illegals, encourages illegals to vote in U.S. elections thereby violating voting-rights laws, and wants to grant amnesty to more than 12 million illegal immigrants currently working in the country that would lead to assuring the Democrats’ grip on power for many years to come.

Many scabs are being hired by the Left to infiltrate Tea Party and 9/12 Project groups and stir things up, creating controversy and behaving badly to attract negative attention, to divide, discredit and incapacitate our grassroots efforts. In a number of locations around the country, the Left has also fielded and funded candidates to run with the Tea Party name on the ballot, to confuse voters, split the conservative vote, and give the elections to Democrats.

In the early 1970’s, there was such a public outcry against President Nixon for being involved in half the offensive activities that President Obama is today involved in, that Nixon was forced to resign the presidency. When George W. Bush was running for president, the public had to see his school transcripts and check his attendance records with the National Guard.

However, Obama has a team of high-powered lawyers criss-crossing the nation daily at taxpayer expense to fight in court the legitimate demand that official records of his stateside hospital birth and school records be released, records that would reflect on Obama’s constitutional eligibility to be the U.S. President.

Are there no longer any waves of shock and shame that our President would stoop or bow to these depths? Does it even matter today that our President is a liar and "...a crook"?

Is former President Clinton secretly frustrated that he was impeached for lying about mere sexual indiscretion while Obama’s many flagrant lies about serious issues that affect the lives of every American go with little public criticism and remain unpunished? While Obama strives for social justice and income redistribution, does the blood of Nixon cry out from the grave demanding of Obama “equal justice”?

And what about all the taxpayer money Obama gives to cronies to promote Obamacare, the financial law, the proposed cap and tax scheme, the Obama Presidency and agenda? And all the taxpayer money spent on criticizing and denigrating the Tea Party movement? Is there no longer any respect for the voice of the people?

Why is my hard-earned money being spent by the government to try and convince me that what I'm diametrically opposed to, is something I really should support? Save my money, it’s not working. And why is my money being spent to neutralize a grass-roots movement of which I’m a part and that is the only hope for preserving our free country?

Is there no longer any respect for property, a right constitutionally guaranteed? Is there no longer any respect for the rule of law where citizens and leaders and black and white alike are held to the same standard of compliance? If we are not a free nation of laws, based on inalienable rights granted man by his Creator and secured by the founding law of the Constitution, then we are no longer a free nation.

If we are no longer a free nation, then we must all join the fight to restore our freedom and a respect for our Constitution and all the other laws that proceed from a constitutional basis. Along with this secular renewal, we must also recommit ourselves to a respect for the laws of our Creator and seek to develop a spiritually-centered individual life and public culture.

When asked by a spectator of the Constitutional Convention what they had made, Benjamin Franklin answered “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Mr. Franklin predicted correctly that without continual vigilance, it would be difficult to preserve our free society in the face of constant and unrelenting assault on our Constitutional Republic from sources both foreign and domestic.

The American people have turned their eyes to heaven to repent from having elected President Obama and given him a Democrat majority in Congress, which, combined have worked to destroy all that makes us a great country, including our spiritually-centered culture of doing that which is right and morally responsible. The full measure of our penitence will be required at the ballot box.

Once we have secured honorable people with strong moral and conservative ideals to high office, we must continue to be vigilant to help our leaders continue to walk the straight and narrow path to which they are committed.

If we persist in this struggle with the far-Left radical extremists that currently are running this great country into the ground, and we continue to win new support on a constant basis, eventually we will succeed in restoring liberty and the rule of law, limited by the Constitution according to the founding fathers’ design which was guided and led by the Creator in the sacred work of founding this great free nation.

Today we would answer Benjamin Franklin’s statement as he left the Constitutional Convention that day, in saying “By the Grace of God we will fight to keep our Constitutional Republic and our freedoms.”

Controversy Over Ground Zero Mosque Gives America "Black Eye"

2010-10-14T00:45:00.001-06:00

News outlets in the Muslim world have reported on the controversy surrounding the plan to build a mosque and Islamic Center near Ground Zero in New York, expressing Muslim sentiment that this would give America a “black eye” for its intolerance.

In these recent reports, a Cairo housewife questioned the purported reasons for this American resistance and was quoted as saying “It's not that important for Islam to have a mosque at Ground Zero”. If Islam is truly disinterested in the precise location, why not build this center elsewhere?

If it was just about freedom of religion and building a place of worship, why have the developers refused to even discuss any other location, even one provided at public expense? If it was really about building understanding, cooperation and good will between different faiths, the Ground Zero location would never have been seriously considered.

The Ground Zero site selection was no coincidence. It was chosen precisely because of its symbolism of Muslim conquest over the U.S. Cordoba, Spain, was the historic center of Muslim conquest of Southern Europe where a Christian cathedral was torn down and a grand mosque built in its place to commemorate the victory over Christians.

The Ground Zero site was chosen in order that the U.S. might be symbolically denigrated by the traditional Muslim insult of victorious Muslim feet treading on "the bones and ashes" of the murdered 9/11 victims. This is the site where the landing gear of the plane piloted by Mohammed Atta, which slammed into the World Trade Center, fell through the roof of the Burlington Coat Factory Building. This is the site of the Islamic Center “Cordoba House”.

Muslims are encouraged to lie to infidels (all non-Muslims) if it furthers Islam. What better cause to lie about to the West, then building a celebratory mosque at Ground Zero which would serve as a center for indoctrination, training, command and control for jihad and the forcible imposition of Shariah Law on America.

Islam understands that the freedom we enjoy in America also makes us vulnerable to this kind of manipulation by those who have as their ultimate goal the overthrow of the U.S. Constitution and the forced, total subjugation of the American people. The very word Islam means “submission”.

America and the West have been viciously attacked by Islamic Extremists over at least three decades. At the same time, we supported the Afghan mujahedin in their fight with the Soviets, we fought to remove Saddam Hussein's armies from Kuwait after his ruthless invasion of a sister Muslim country, we fought for Muslims in Bosnia, we freed Afghanistan and Iraq of brutal totalitarianism and are still fighting in Afghanistan to defend the Afghan people and give them a chance at freedom.

Because of all America has done for them, we should apologize to Muslim nations and do whatever we can to return to their good graces?

In a country where religious freedom abounds, Muslims, notorious for their intolerance of other faiths, may take advantage of this freedom in claiming the right to build a mosque wherever they please, despite the sentiments of those who perished and those who survived the horror of 9/11.

If it gives America a black eye because we refuse to be rolled over by these Islamic Extremists, then I say, let us have two black eyes.

Open letter to Pastor John Reed of Sonrise Church, Reno, NV, Sharron Angle's former pastor

2010-10-10T23:17:00.000-06:00

Reverend John Reed of Sonrise Church, Reno, Nevada, and former pastor to Sharron Angle, Republican candidate for U.S. Senate from Nevada, has come forward with a tirade of bigoted anti-Mormon propaganda apparently aimed at Angle's opponent in the 2010 Senate race, Senator Harry Reid (D-NV). The following is an open letter to Pastor John Reed:

You claim that Mormons are a “kooky” faith that does illegal and secret things, including hiring people to kill those not in favor with the Church. I’m sure the same kind of false and misleading comments were made by many of the Jewish faith when Jesus Christ introduced his Gospel to the world in the Meridian of time. Is it your wish to be judged on that final day, even as the leaders of the Jews in the time of Christ who rejected Him for teaching new, different and competing ideas?

For someone who claims to follow the Lord’s teachings, your bigoted and false criticisms of the LDS faith are distinctly un-Christian. What about the biblical charge to love one another (even your enemies, which Mormons are not), not to bear false witness, and do unto others as you would have them do unto you? The Bible says that you will know the true Christians by their fruits: the fruit that you are yielding in this regard is bitter, and the tree of the bitter fruit will eventually be hewn down and cast into the fire by the Gardener.

Harry Reid claims to be LDS, but based on his observable actions and beliefs, this is in name only. He would do well if he could be persuaded to follow the guidance of LDS Church leaders and fight against abortion, fight for traditional marriage and family, and fight for individual responsibilities and rights as opposed to “collective salvation” at the hand of the tyrannical nanny state.

Unfortunately, Harry Reid’s creed has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with progressivism/socialism and the domination and coercion of man, according to the plans of the Evil One, stripping man of his God-given freedom and free agency.

Far from hurting Harry Reid’s campaign, your words of ignorance and hatred towards Mormons have unfortunately hurt Sharron Angle’s campaign, which has had much support from the LDS community in Nevada and elsewhere. Was this your intent from the beginning, to hurt Angle and help Reid? Are you a plant from the Left and a subscriber to social justice, an Obama pawn and sleeper cell?

And about things you call secrets: these things are sacred to the LDS people and are between the individual and God and no others. LDS garments are also sacred and symbolic of our faith in Jesus Christ; perhaps you have an article of clothing that you similarly hold as a sacred symbol of your commitment to the Lord, such as a collar or other token.

I call on Sharron Angle and leaders of faith everywhere to denounce this bigotry and un-Christian behavior towards Mormons. How is such wickedness any different from that which marched 6 million Jews to the gas chambers, led to unmeasurable suffering during the Spanish Inquisition, or that which motivated Islamic Jihadist Extremists to bring down the twin towers? How can decent people anywhere sanction such behavior silently?

Far-Right Extremists with a Radical Agenda Are Set to Descend on Washington

2010-10-10T22:56:00.000-06:00

The devastating recession was caused by Democrats insistence on banks, Fannie & Freddie providing government guaranteed mortgages to people who could not afford them. These "subprime" loans were turned into stock assets whose value was determined not by the belief that the loans would be repaid by the borrowers, but by the value of the federal government guarantee of these mortgages. Predictably, when borrowers began to default on these mortgages in large numbers, the house of cards created by the Democrats collapsed creating the current recession.

The radical Obama/Democrat agenda led to bailing-out Wall Street and the insurance industry, taking over auto manufacturing, spending billions of dollars in “stimulus” money on pork-barrel and political payback projects which have failed to prevent the ongoing loss of millions of jobs. Instead of helping small businesses create jobs and get the economy going again, Obamacrats have created large, expensive bureaucracies in a takeover of healthcare and financial regulations and taxes that hamstring businesses and prevent job creation and growth.

Obamacare, the new financial law, higher taxes and Washington’s anti-business positions have paralyzed American business and prevented any real economic recovery. Those who want to reduce taxes for all and facilitate the business expansion and job creation that are necessary for real economic recovery are condemned and ignored.

The new Democrat financial law not only raises serious obstacles to economic prosperity, but fails to cure the conditions that produced the mortgage banking and Wall Street collapse. Rather than preventing any further collapses, this puts Obama’s policies of bailouts into law. Now Wall Street is assured that if it takes excessive risk in its ventures and is successful, it will pocket the profits. At the same time, if taking excessive risk results in failure, Wall Street can rely on a federal government bailout.

Given this situation, there is little incentive for Wall Street to limit risk-taking that can lead to financial collapse and recession. The new financial law also does nothing to halt Fannie and Freddie from continuing to back up new subprime mortgages with taxpayer money, the original root of the problem that led to the current recession.

Passage of Obamacare was paid for with more than $500 billion dollars stolen from and weakening Medicare. While Medicare is facing insolvency in the near future, the Obamacrats have done nothing to help sustain this program.

Everyone in today’s workforce knows that they cannot depend on Social Security being there for them when they need support in retirement. The main reason for Social Security going bankrupt is that Congress steals all the Social Security funds collected each year and spends them on general projects, leaving the Social Security Trust Fund empty.

Obamacrats fight desperately against any change that would prevent them from robbing this trust fund each year, and anyone that offers a plan that would restrict Congress’ ability to gut this fund is accused of wanting to eliminate Social Security. All attempts to fix Social Security and Medicare so that they will be there for retirees in the future are condemned by the Obamacrats.

Billions of dollars are collected from the states by the federal government and a small portion of this money is returned to the states by the Department of Education in funding that is given, provided that the states adopt federal government criteria, methods, curricula and teacher and student indoctrination.

Programs to deal with the unproven theory of a “Climate Crisis” (or global warming, global cooling, or just plain climate change), many through the Department of Energy, are designed to make insider politicians and favored corporations rich from taxing the American public for energy usage.

Obamacrat initiatives have shut down American fossil fuel industry precipitating the loss of thousands of jobs, while financially supporting foreign oil production (even that of Mexico in the Gulf), and denying Americans energy independence.

Obamacrats claim that they support a woman’s right to the privacy of reproductive choice, or the “Right to Choose”. For those who understand that abortion is the killing of a human being growing inside the mother, this is no less than the “Right to Choose Death”. There never was such a “right” to kill one human being just because it inconveniences another. However, there is the well-established, God-given and Constitution-assured right to life.

Problems in this country due to illegal immigration are largely due to the imbalance between U.S. demand for illegal workers and foreigner’s lack of viable employment in their home countries. The U.S. government should use policy and diplomacy to strengthen neighboring economies so that home countries can provide the needed employment for these displaced workers. In addition, immigration law should be enforced such that businesses no longer hire illegal immigrants as workers. If U.S. business ceases to employ illegal immigrants, especially if there are good jobs in their home countries, they will pack up and go home.

The Obamacrats claim to be the defenders of American rights; however, there are consistent actions by these people to restrict inalienable and constitutional rights. Free speech that opposes the Obamacrat agenda is to be suppressed. Obamacrats want to register and limit the right to keep and bear arms in preparation for eventual arms confiscation planned by the federal government. The freedom to practice one’s religion is to be suppressed if religion in any way differs from the political thought of those currently in power.

The Obamacrat socialist agenda also calls for government controlling what kind of insurance you’ll buy, what kind of car you’ll drive, what kind of food you’ll eat, whether you can add salt to your food, whether you can drink sweet drinks, and how much you are permitted to weigh.

The Obamacrats have moved the Democrat Party so far to the Left, that regular Americans are now labeled “far-right extremists” and dismissed as favoring a “radical” agenda harmful to America.

Regular Americans who care deeply about individual rights and responsibilities, who want to restrain big government and put America back to work, and who care about the Constitution and the survival of our country and our culture of freedom are cast by the Obamacrats as deluded, manipulated and ignorant “Astroturf”. But these Tea Party, regular American patriots have no intention of being so summarily dismissed; they will be heard.

Candidates for office who have a similar vision of America are supported by regular Americans and condemned by the ruling class who see this wave of American will as disrupting their carefully crafted world of privilege and power. The truly radical agenda is that of the Obamacrats and the ruling class, and with any luck, the American people will replace the Washington elite with these new American candidates and the radical Obamacrat agenda will be discarded onto the trash heap of history.

The Emperor's New Clothes

2010-09-07T04:33:00.004-06:00

TARP was supposed to rescue our financial system from total collapse by providing capital to failing financial firms; when the firms had stabilized and then paid back the money borrowed plus interest that returned money would be used to pay down the deficit. Contrary to express language in the bill, the Obama Administration bailed-out a number of imprudent financial and insurance firms, not only by the provision of capital, but also by the purchase of stock in these institutions.

TARP funds were also used for the hostile takeover of most of the nation’s automobile industry by stealing the value of the companies from investors and transferring it to the favored unions as part of a grand wealth redistribution scheme. Money returned by the financial firms has not been used to pay down the deficit, instead, it’s become a massive slush fund for Obama to distribute to his favorite special interests, like SEIU and ACORN.

The DISCLOSE Act was forged in dark, smoke-filled back rooms, behind closed doors, with Obamacrats and a gaggle of Most-Favored Lobbyists nose to nose as the special interests wrote in carve-outs for themselves, and the Obamacrats added language that hamstrings the opposition. They claim their legislation increases transparency and provides a more level playing field for more fair campaign financing. In reality, the Act does nothing to increase transparency and skews the playing field in favor of the Democrats by giving them an unfair advantage.

The Act goes on to provide for warrantless, compulsory submission of sensitive, private donor and member lists to the government, exposing vulnerable opposition supporters to government intimidation and persecution. While 2010 pre-election efforts to pass this legislation have been unsuccessful, the ideas behind the proposal have not been abandoned, and similar legislation is planned for the future.

Attempts by the Obamacrats to limit constitutionally guaranteed rights are not restricted to campaign free speech. Laws and executive orders have been promoted to restrict the free practice of religion, to limit other forms of free speech, and to abridge the right to keep and bear arms. In addition, the government takeover of student loans for higher education is being used to promote student indoctrination by providing financial aid only to students attending schools “approved” by the government. Other Obamacrat measures seek to control what kinds and how much energy Americans use, which energy industries will be permitted to survive, what body-mass index (BMI) is acceptable for Americans, and which foods and condiments Americans will consume.

President Obama touts the new financial reform law as ending any further taxpayer bailouts and as a boon to the consumer. In reality, the financial takeover legislation creates more layers of bureaucracy and red tape that dramatically increases cost to any business offering credit or financial services; this increased cost is passed along to the consumer. Millions of small businesses, including doctors, dentists, and local retailers, are no longer able to offer payment plans to their customers. Credit card companies have already raised interest rates and banks are no longer offering free checking in light of the new rules.

Written into the financial reform bill, the President and Secretary of the Treasury, are obligated to bailout, with taxpayer money, any company that they deem, at their sole discretion, to have serious financial difficulties. Favored companies will be propped up and preserved with taxpayer money. Politically unfavored companies, especially those that actively oppose the government’s agenda, will be placed in receivership, assets will be liquidated and sold at bargain-basement prices to favored companies, and favored companies will benefit from the reduced competition.

Two companies that played a big role in the housing and financial collapse that precipitated the Obama Depression, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, received a blank check from Obama as a perpetual, unlimited and continuous bailout using taxpayer funds, permitting these companies to continue to make the same high-risk, sub-prime loans that triggered this financial collapse. Likewise, the highly-leveraged mortgage-backed derivative market continues unchecked, where high-risk vehicles can produce eye-popping gains that are pocketed, or staggering losses that are bailed-out by Uncle Sam.

These companies were not included in the new financial law, and the business plan and practices that led to the failure of Fannie, Freddie, and Wall Street firms have not been corrected. The continuous drain on the treasury to pump life into the failed Fannie, Freddie, and others, along with the promise of bail-out for Wall Street and other large companies as needed, does nothing to restrict excessive risk-taking and adds daily to skyrocketing government spending and deficits.

Businesses and individual taxpayers shoulder the burden of higher taxes needed to help people who can’t afford a home buy one anyway, and to enable Wall Street’s gambling addiction by allowing them to enjoy their winnings without suffering the negative consequences of their actions in terms of losses that are bailed-out by taxpayers.

The financial legislation also gives the Administration unrestrained power to determine at its arbitrary and sole discretion, if a business should be declared insolvent or about to be insolvent, to take over that business, and distribute assets to cronies. This has sent a chill over the business community, as it is forced to think twice before donating to the opposition, when doing so could lead to very real dissolution of the business, in retaliation, by Obama’s lethal financial weapon. All of this contributes to iron-fisted control by the government of the American economy on an apparently unstoppable march to socialism and totalitarianism.

Obama’s Stimulus Bill is credited by the Administration with “saving or creating” millions of jobs, and breathing new life into a severely injured economy. The Stimulus Bill was advertised as principally funding “shovel ready” infrastructure projects. The truth is less than a third of the Stimulus money spent went towards anything that even slightly resembled infrastructure projects. Instead of saving or creating jobs, since the Stimulus Bill was signed into law, there has been a net extinction of millions of jobs, most of which were losses suffered by the private sector, and unemployment lines have never been longer, outside the Great Depression.

Most of the Stimulus money, which was primarily supposed to help the private sector, hardest hit by the Obama Depression, has been squandered. At a time when the average government worker makes over twice the income of non-government workers, the majority of this taxpayer-funded windfall went to government and union jobs and benefits, cementing organized labor support for the Obamacrats. The remainder was wasted on pork-barrel payback to other cronies to further strengthen the political base.

Obama and his minions have stumped the country proclaiming the “Bush Recession” over and prosperity in view, believing, against hope, that if they ritualistically repeat the words often enough, they will magically come true and naïve Americans will accept them at face value. On their way to imaginary prosperity, Obama and the Democrats swallowed whole, Keynesian economic theory: if the government could just spend enough billions, the consumer-driven economy would turn around. In reality, despite over a trillion dollars of stimulus, growth remains at a dismal 1.6% and true jobless figures remain at a devastating 15% plus.

The Obama-led race to spend money we didn’t have led to an astronomical deficit; these huge deficits imperil the financial and national security of the nation. As deficits rise, interest on the debt rises exponentially. The excesses of today will be paid for by the sweat of our grandchildren in the future. This is not the legacy that Main Street Americans want to leave for their posterity. Part of the American dream is that our children should have a better life than we did. How can this American dream come true when our children and grandchildren will be saddled with the monstrous debt that this generation has accumulated over our lives? The Obamacrats continue to insist that our country is still much better off, even despite the massive deficits.

But the Family on Main Street is still out of work, and is trapped, upside-down in a high-interest mortgage, unable to refinance despite record low mortgage rates because appraisal value is significantly less than the balance owed. The Family is behind on payments or fighting foreclosure, owes $10-15 thousand dollars in credit card debt at recently raised exorbitant interest rates (another benefit of the financial bill), has exhausted savings and tapped into retirement accounts for living expenses, and has put off necessary expenditures for major items like a new roof, furnace replacement, auto repair or an expensive, indicated healthcare procedure. Despite active searching, no prospect of employment is apparent, and discouragement sets in.

The Small Business (SB) on Main Street is not doing much better: SB has been through downsizing and belt-tightening, trying to remain profitable in a marketplace where demand has dropped precipitously. The SB has too much debt, at unfavorable rates, production is down and receipts are too little. Money is tight, and the SB no longer has a standing line-of-credit with its bank, which it had used on occasion to cover cash-flow shortfalls. On some paydays, the SB owners do not draw a paycheck in order to make payroll for others in the company. What assets remain available are horded by the SB and spending on supplies or maintaining large inventories is curtailed.

A tidal wave of new regulations coming from Washington (Obamacare, the Financial Bill, the DISCLOSE Act and other legislation, executive orders and regulatory agency rulings), many yet to be written by their respective agencies, are casting a pall of uncertainty on the Main Street SB. Heavy regulation, such as that seen over the last 18 months and including the financial reform bill and Obamacare, dramatically increases the cost of doing business.

Without knowing exactly how these regulations will affect it, the Main Street SB knows it’s going to take a major hit. However, it has no way of determining the magnitude of the damage to be done, or to plan for the anticipated increase in costs, restrictions, reporting requirements and red tape. In this overburdened, uncertain and anti-business climate, the SB is paralyzed. Hunkering down, the SB is cutting personnel and other expenses to the bone, is struggling to get out of debt, is conserving capital and deferring any plans for hiring or expansion. Waiting on the sidelines for months and years for the business climate to improve, hope for the promised economic recovery has begun to fade and the SB contemplates permanently closing its doors.

Obama has promised on multiple occasions, that those with an income of $250,000 or less would not be subject to any tax increases. New Obama initiatives, astronomical government spending and deficits, and refusal to renew the Bush tax cuts have crushed that promise by imposing higher taxes on all Americans at a time when Americans can least afford it.

With Obamacare, the President promised “If you like your health insurance and your doctor, you can keep your health insurance and your doctor”. Obama promised that government would not get between the doctor and patient, and that there would not be rationing of healthcare or any “death panels” deciding who will live and who will die on a cost-benefit basis. Obama promised that public funds would not pay for abortion, that government healthcare spending would be contained, that healthcare and insurance expenses for the consumer would be reduced, and that actual savings from Obamacare would help pay down the deficit.

Estimates of the true cost of Obamacare have recently been dramatically revised upward, and this is now shown to be adding significantly to the deficit instead of reducing it. The cost of healthcare and insurance to the consumer has also increased because of Obamacare. Avoiding congressional and public scrutiny, Obama recess appointed “Dr. Rationing and Death Panel” as the director of CMS, the agency that runs Medicare and Medicaid, and this Director, with Obama’s approval, is planning on limiting the healthcare anyone can receive, making healthcare decisions previously made between the physician and patient, and withholding care when the government determines that the value of the individual to society is not worth the cost.

Public funds provided through Obamacare may be used to pay for abortions depending on the individual states. Also, most people will not be able to keep their same doctor or health insurance. During the Obamacare debate, a majority of the people recognized Obama’s dishonesty and fought passage of the bill. A smaller but not insignificant percentage of the people, took Obama at his word, and passively accepted passage of the bill, patiently awaiting Obama’s promises to be fulfilled. It is rapidly becoming apparent, even to this smaller, more passive group of Americans, that Obama was not being truthful and is not to be trusted.

President Obama and his Administration have been braying loud and proud about all of the good things Obama has done for the country, the economy, small business and the little people across the nation. However, this self-congratulatory trumpeting rings hollow on Main Street where the lack of any positive Obama accomplishment is glaringly apparent.

The Emperor’s procession moved slowly down the central road of town, lined with peasants cheering the Emperor. The Emperor’s advisors motioned for the peasants to come close to admire the Emperor’s new suit of clothes, handmade of the finest silk by the most skilled tailors in the land. “Only the most intelligent among us can truly appreciate the excellence of the Emperor’s new clothes”, they said, and the peasants clucked approvingly. As the procession neared the center of town, a small boy on the side of the road tugged at his father’s sleeve, “The Emperor has no clothes” he said. On hearing this, all the peasants looked again at the Emperor, and realized the boy was right, The Emperor Has No Clothes!

Amnesty (Is) For Dummies

2010-09-06T01:12:00.000-06:00

Amnesty is defined as the action of governments by which persons or groups who have committed a criminal offense of a political nature that threatens the sovereignty of a country, are granted total or partial, conditional or unconditional, immunity from prosecution for that crime. Amnesty law, the core of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, is not the solution to our illegal alien crisis, despite misguided claims from the Left. Indeed, past amnesty law dramatically increased illegal immigration, and any suggestion of new amnesty law only encourages more of the same, with illegals crowding into the country to get in under the wire at the prospect.

Even the potential for amnesty rewards lawlessness, penalizes legal immigrants & lawful citizens, leads to a dramatic increase in illegal alien immigration, contributes to the deterioration of American sovereignty, culture & language, undermines our socio-economic stability & growth, and promotes unchecked, single-party dominance, destabilizing our two-party political system. No Amnesty should be offered and no illegal aliens should ever be allowed to vote.

One of the key components of the current illegal immigration crisis is “birthright citizenship”, based on misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, Section 1, where it says:
____________________________________________________________________

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
____________________________________________________________________

Based on this “Citizenship Clause”, even children born in the U.S. to illegal alien parents are currently considered citizens. This definition of birthright citizenship has led to the practice of foreign women crossing the border into the country illegally, for the sole purpose of giving birth to a child in an American hospital, so that baby would be a citizen of the U.S. and serve as an “anchor baby”, facilitating the legal immigration of the entire extended family, and, in turn, the extended families of each individual of the original extended family, and so on. Recent reports have found that, while illegal aliens comprise only 4% of the U.S. population, they account for more than 8% of babies born in the United States.1

Considering this rate of birth of anchor babies, the subsequent family members that will immigrate based on these births, and the current and projected rates of illegal immigration, the sheer numbers of illegal aliens constantly breeching our borders are overwhelming. There is a huge toll to be paid for this; the cost to American taxpayers and culture vastly outweighs any benefit from work done and taxes paid by illegals.2,3,4 Illegal aliens must not receive welfare, medical coverage, Social Security, or any other services at the expense of taxpayers, as this costs the public millions of local and federal dollars, and voraciously consumes local and national resources.

This clause of the 14th Amendment was intended to assure citizenship to the children of African-American, former slaves, in anticipation of Southern challenges to black citizenship rights. Many have the erroneous belief that birthright citizenship applies to all children born on U.S. soil. In fact, children of foreign diplomats born in this country are not U.S. citizens.5 Furthermore, the 14th Amendment was never intended to extend birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. U.S. Senator Jacob M. Howard was the author of the 14th Amendment “Citizenship Clause”. During debate over this clause, Senator Howard confirmed that children born in the U.S. to foreign or alien parents were not birthright citizens. This was recorded in the Congressional Record of the time:
____________________________________________________________________

“This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the family of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”6
____________________________________________________________________

Congressional debate at the time also established that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. meant that children born in the U.S. to parents who owed any allegiance to a country other than the U.S. (i.e. a foreign citizen), would not automatically be citizens. Congress was referring, in the 14th Amendment, to those who were completely subject to U.S. jurisdiction, those who would enjoy the full rights and shoulder the full responsibilities of a U.S. citizen, including being subject to military draft, voting and holding office, and being capable of being charged with treason. Illegal aliens simply do not meet this qualification.7

To fix the anchor baby portion of the illegal immigration crisis, it is not necessary to repeal the 14th Amendment, as some have proposed. Rather, congressional legislation could reaffirm the original intent of the “Citizenship Clause” and all children subsequently born in the U.S. to illegal immigrant mothers would retain their foreign citizenship, would no longer be birthright U.S. citizens and would no longer be able to serve as anchor babies.8

Immigration law mirroring federal statute was passed in Arizona in 2010, in response to a virtual invasion of illegals, with thousands of people crossing the border from Mexico each day. Other States have also noted an influx of illegals and are planning similar legislation. State immigration laws like Arizona’s are necessary when the government fails to uphold, and continues to delay, fulfilling federal obligations to provide border security and protection from violent illegals and foreign drug cartels.9,10 While Arizona went to great lengths to assure there would be no racial profiling and the law would meet constitutional muster, many, including U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, criticized the Arizona law as racist and unconstitutional, before admitting they had not yet read the law.

In fact, President Obama indicated to U.S. Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona that he is holding border security hostage until he gets the necessary political cooperation to pass Amnesty law.11 In addition, rather than provide assistance to this embattled State, the Obama Administration, acting through the U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, filed against the State of Arizona in federal court and was granted a stay of several key portions of the law. The injunction was reported to have been issued based on the Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause”, where, if there is overlap, federal statutes supersede those of the States. This temporarily halted meaningful implementation of the Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070, pending appeal.12

Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 4 of the Constitution grants power to the Congress to uniformly regulate “naturalization”, which is the process involved in a foreigner obtaining citizenship. However, since the power to regulate “immigration”, the relocation of foreigners into the U.S., is not granted to the federal government, this power, by default, belongs to the States. As such, Arizona and all other States in the Union, have the right and obligation to establish and enforce their own immigration laws.

Article 1, Section 10, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution clearly gives Arizona the right to wage a defensive “war” based on the imminent danger of the illegal immigrant invasion of Arizona and President Obama’s persistent delay in providing assistance:
____________________________________________________________________

“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress…engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
____________________________________________________________________

Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution organizes the judicial system, and determines that where a legal action involves a State, the Supreme Court is the only court where such actions can be tried:
____________________________________________________________________

“In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
____________________________________________________________________

Having filed an invalid action in federal court and obtained an invalid ruling from a federal judge in regard to the State of Arizona, Mr. Holder finds himself in another awkward situation. Any action the federal government wants to take against Arizona, must be correctly tried only by the Supreme Court. Whether the federal or State government, in the end, takes responsibility for the border, it is essential that it be secured without delay. The imperative of border security is a key part of National Security and is heightened by the ease with which known terrorists can illegally traverse the border without detection, to infiltrate American society with murderous intent.

Some have proposed, as a solution to our illegal immigration crisis, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, which is Washington-speak for Amnesty. However, we have seen that Amnesty is no solution and would only worsen the problem. The key to a real solution is strengthening and enforcing current immigration law. If proper enforcement prevents U.S. employers from hiring illegal aliens, these jobs will “dry up” and illegal aliens, most of who came here to work, will pack up and go home without further incentive.

Those choosing to commit the crime of illegal immigration understand that family separation is an integral part of this choice. However, families should not be torn apart, if at all avoidable. Rather, as unemployed illegal aliens repatriate themselves, they are encouraged to keep their families intact by taking them along with. Serious consideration should also be given to advancing the legal immigration and naturalization of more highly-educated and skilled workers, if demand exists.

References

1. Jordan M. Illegal Immigrants Estimated to Account for 1 in 12 U.S. Births. The Wall Street Journal, U.S. News, August 12, 2010. http://tinyurl.com/2cmgbp2

3. McNeill JB. Amnesty as an Economic Stimulus: Not the Answer to the Illegal Immigration Problem. May 18, 2009, The Heritage Foundation. http://tinyurl.com/25nyobo

4. Smith L. Immigration: Many Questions, A Few Answers. October 3, 2007, The Heritage Foundation. http://tinyurl.com/2gyz7rj

5. Gordon R. The Diane Rehm Show: The Debate Over Immigration and Birthright Citizenship. Case Western Reserve University School of Law News. http://law.case.edu/Home/News.aspx?id=807&content_id=57

6. Howard JM. The Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, Senate, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, p. 2890. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcg.html

7. Feere J. Backgrounder: Birthright Citizenship in the United States, A Global Comparison. Center for Immigration Studies, August 2010. http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship.

8. Lee M. More Key Issues: Illegal Immigration. Mike Lee for U.S. Senate 2010. http://www.mikelee2010.com/

9. Archibald RC, Cooper H, Hulse C. Arizona Enacts Stringent Law on Immigration. April 23, 2010, New York Times. http://tinyurl.com/22q2h4b

10. Brewer J. Arizona Border Security Information: Brewer Letter to President Barack Obama on Immigration. April 6, 2010, Governor Jan Brewer’s website. http://azgovernor.gov/AZBorderSecurity.asp

11. FOXNews.com. Kyl: Obama Won’t Secure Border Until Lawmakers Move on Immigration Package. June 21, 2010. http://tinyurl.com/358m6au

12. Markon J, McCrummen S, Shear MD. Arizona Immigration Law SB 1070 – Judge Blocks Some Sections. July 29, 2010, The Washington Post. http://tinyurl.com/28ry299
2. Wagner PF, Amato D. The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Facts, Figures and Statistics on Illegal Immigration. http://tinyurl.com/ybtwl8s

Prosecutorial Abuses in Columbia/HCA Case Not Hurting Rick Scott's Run for Governor of Florida

2010-08-29T08:45:00.000-06:00

I'm not a big fan of Columbia/HCA, I don’t know Rick Scott personally, and I don't even have any connections to Florida. But to be fair, a great deal of the purported facts and summary conclusions derived from reported details of the Scott and Columbia/HCA affair need to be corrected. Scott started Columbia, but he did not start HCA; years later Columbia bought HCA to become Columbia/HCA. Most of the alleged fraud at issue was regarding coding and billing for hospital services by HCA long before Scott and Columbia came on the scene. Many of the whistleblower claims of fraud against HCA at the time, were later discredited and followed by court findings favorable to HCA and certain of its lower-level executives.1,2,3.

With Medicare, Medicaid and other hospital insurers, it doesn't matter what the hospital might charge for its services, all insurers have a fixed amount that they pay. For example, if hospital A charges $500 a day and hospital B charges $1500 a day, Medicare will still pay $200 a day, and no more, to either hospital. Thus, any claims by the government that a healthcare provider is guilty of charging too much, are meaningless. Predictably, the goal of all payors, especially Medicare and Medicaid, is to pay out as little as possible. Government is continually searching for ways to avoid paying for healthcare services, and is not above trumping-up imaginary crimes if it might help accomplish this objective.3

Regulations and considerations regarding the proper coding and billing for healthcare services, the methods for determination and reporting of actual hospital costs in providing care, and guidelines regarding physicians’ renting office space from and directing units within hospitals lacked clarity and were highly subjective during the 1990's. It was during this period that, capitalizing on the government’s failure to provide clear direction in this regard, and in response to pressure from the Clinton Administration, there was frantic activity among investigators and prosecutors across the nation to pin fraud on America’s healthcare providers. Based on differing interpretations of nebulous rules, the government pursued this form of healthcare fraud, especially where no real fraud existed, in an attempt to "claw-back" money from the “wealthy” healthcare sector in a wealth redistribution scheme.4

Ironically, during debate over HR 3523 in the U.S. House in 1998, it was then Rep. Bill McCollum who noted that with the federal healthcare payment system, comprised of more than 1,700 pages of law, 1,200 pages of interpretation of the law, and thousands of additional pages of often conflicting instructions, governing over 70 million healthcare claims filed each year, unintended errors and differing interpretations were inevitable. Rep. McCollum explained that a claim was not necessarily fraudulent, just because the government found it inconsistent with their idea of what the law meant, that there had to be an element of intent to defraud.5

By vigorously pursuing all potential “fraud”, even where there was no intent, few healthcare providers escaped reproach. The government also sought to intimidate healthcare providers to bill for a lower level of care than they delivered, as less intensive care is billed with a lower level code and receives a lower payment. In contrast to the “make-believe” fraud that government has aggressively pursued, real fraud (such as the Mafia forming a dummy home healthcare company and billing Medicare for services and equipment never actually provided using the stolen Medicare ID numbers of deceased patients6) is virtually ignored and goes on today unchecked and unpunished, to the tune of billions of lost healthcare dollars.

It is apparent that Rick Scott and Columbia/HCA were unfortunate enough to be caught up in this witch hunt. Clearly, the majority of alleged fraud that actually involved Scott and Columbia/HCA was not really fraud. Hospital records and other evidence supporting the allegations of fraud were lacking. Still, the government clung to an arbitrary, self-serving belief that hospitals were coding and billing for a higher intensity of care than they had actually provided (upcoding), that hospitals were providing free rent of physician office space in return for patient referrals (kickbacks), and that hospitals were paying physicians for bogus positions in the hospital (bribes), again, to encourage patient referrals to the hospital.3,4

When the government cries “upcoding!”, it means, in the real world, that a bureaucrat decides, years after the fact, and solely on the basis of the submitted claim, that he knows better how sick a particular patient had been, better than those that contemporaneously were in the room with the patient and following his chart carefully. When the government cries “kickback!”, it means that where a physician rents office space from the hospital at $3000 per month, the government believes the hospital might have charged as much as $3200 per month for the space. When the government cries “bribes!”, it means that a physician received a fee from the hospital for providing valuable medical direction services over specific units in the hospital that could not otherwise function.

With the government threatening to prosecute Columbia/HCA, Scott, who was the company CEO, wanted to fight the government, believing the company was innocent. But the Board of Directors did not have any real grasp of the business of providing healthcare services in the minefield of confusing regulations, was thoroughly intimidated by prosecutors, and insisted on settling out of court. Because of the Board's determination to capitulate over his objections, Scott resigned in protest and left the company. Four years after Scott left Columbia/HCA, the company entered into its first settlement agreement with the government.1,5

A great deal has been made, for political attack purposes, of Scott exercising his 5th Amendment right in declining to answer questions regarding the Columbia/HCA investigation. Most have falsely presumed from this that Scott and Columbia/HCA were guilty. However, this is an era of prosecutorial excesses, where prosecutors, when unable to establish guilt of an actual crime, will attempt conviction for “lying”, based on twisting the often innocent testimony of the accused.7 Because of this, the best legal advice is often given, especially for the innocent, to remain silent and refrain from giving prosecutors anything to twist and use against them.

Refusing to provide fodder for prosecutorial excess, without the presumption of guilt for doing so, is a constitutionally guaranteed defense against out-of-control government abuses. In America, we take great pride in our system of justice where the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. Yet when an accused individual uses this constitutional defense, and with the government leaking selected and partial “facts” of the case, we are too quick to jump to unwarranted conclusions and premature judgments.

When the awesome power and resources of the government are waged against the individual, the government has a grossly unfair advantage from the start. Complicity by the Lame Stream Media, more interested in sensational claims of wrongdoing and convicting the accused in the press, than in any real evidence, presumption of innocence, or desire for justice, contributes dramatically to the damages done to the individual accused victim. It is a naïve, gullible and culpable populace that willingly accepts, joins and promotes this conspiracy of deception that is so damaging to individual rights and human dignity. When the public falls for this deception, it becomes complicit in the “Statist’s” anti-capitalist scheme to criminalize American business and redistribute American wealth.

Indirect costs to business are incalculable; what little is publicized about direct costs to business is staggering.8 Most of these investigations are dropped after a period of time due to lack of evidence to support the government’s case and do not result in prosecution. Most cases that are prosecuted result in settlement and do not go to trial. Most cases that go to trial end in acquittal, while only a tiny few end in conviction. For the most part, these activities fly under the radar and only a small fraction of the whole scheme, that portion involving significant settlement amounts and high-profile convictions, is publicized.

The cost to the government of investigating and prosecuting pseudo-fraud is carefully hidden, but estimates have been up to twice the amount collected by government in fines and penalties, and possibly in the tens of billions of dollars. All of these costs, including the costs to business that are passed along to the consumer, including the cost of lost productivity and persistent damage to the economy, and including the government costs of pursuing these cases that are paid by the American taxpayer to support the full employment of government attorneys, are paid for out of the pockets of John Q. Public.

In the case of Columbia/HCA, Rick Scott believed he and the company were innocent and he wanted to fight the government. The Columbia/HCA Board, however, was intent upon negotiating a settlement that would minimize company losses in money and reputation, over fighting a lengthy court battle. The Board wanted to put the whole thing behind them and was willing to take its lumps in order to get on with the business of providing healthcare. Contrary to widespread reports that he was forced out of his job for complicity in the alleged fraud, Scott had resigned in disgust at what most corporate types consider to be the Board’s fiscally responsible surrender.2,9

In fact, Columbia/HCA gave Scott a generous $5.1 million severance, a 10 year consulting contract with the company, and stock and options valued at over $300 million.2 While Columbia/HCA did eventually settle with the government for a significant sum, no bonafide evidence of real crime ever surfaced, and the company was never found guilty of any wrongdoing by any court of law.3,9,10 In addition, if there had been the slightest shred of evidence against Scott, the relentless government jackals would have mercilessly torn him to pieces. Instead, no charges were ever justified or brought against Scott in the Columbia/HCA debacle.10 It is absolutely shocking that no report of Scott’s innocence has popped up in any media headlines, and political opponents continue to take advantage of government and media disinformation to condemn Scott unjustly.

References

1. The Observer Staff. Scott Explains What Happened. The Observer Group, Longboat Key, July 14, 2010. http://www.yourobserver.com/news/longboat-key/Opinion/071420107063/Scott-explains-what-happened

2. PoliticalCorrection. Richard L. Scott: Trials and Tribulations at Columbia/HCA. May 12, 2009, PoliticalCorrection-A Project of Media Matters Action Network, FactCheck. http://politicalcorrection.org/factcheck/200905120006

3. Hiaasen S, Dorschner J, Clark L. Rick Scott and His Role in Columbia/HCA Scandal. The Miami Herald, Florida Politics, June 26, 2010. http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/26/1703036_p4/rick-scott-and-his-role-in-columbiahca.html#ixzz0s6Cx7U2E

4. Kleinke JD. Deconstructing the Columbia/HCA Investigation. Health Affairs, Vol. 17, No. 2, March/April 1998. http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/reprint/17/2/7.pdf

5. McCollum B. Healthcare Claims Guidance Act HR 3523: Introductory Remarks. Congressional Record, March 19, 1998, p. E434. http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=1998_record&page=E434&position=all

6. Kennedy K. Mafia, Violent Criminals Turn to Medicare Fraud. Breitbart, Associated Press, October 6, 2009. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9B5OKO01

7. Ogden B. Judith Miller Hates Scooter Libby. Freedom Yet Rings, Blogspot, August 29, 2010. http://freedomyetrings.blogspot.com/2010/08/judith-miller-hates-scooter-libby.html

8. Department of Justice. Justice Dept. Civil Fraud Recoveries Total $2.1 Billion For FY 2003: False Claims Act Recoveries Exceed $12 Billion Since 1986. November 10, 2003, U.S. Department of Justice, #03-613. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2003/November/03_civ_613.htm

9. Department of Justice. Largest Health Care Fraud Case in U.S. History Settled: HCA Investigation Nets Record Total of $1.7 Billion. June 26, 2003, U.S. Department of Justice, #03-386. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2003/June/03_civ_386.htm

10. PolitiFactCheckFlorida. Rick Scott, Former Healthcare CEO, Faces Questions About Past. May 18, 2010, St. Petersburg Times – The Miami Herald. http://politifact.com/florida/statements/2010/may/20/alex-sink/rick-scott-healthcare-ceo-faces-questions-a/

Judith Miller Hates Scooter Libby

2010-08-29T07:05:00.000-06:00

The panelists on Fox News Watch were discussing the WikiLeaks Afghan War intelligence leak, when Judith Miller, one of the panelists, stated that Scooter Libby had similarly leaked Valerie Plame’s identity to the press and had been “convicted of that”. Ms. Miller then went on to talk about the current leaks and additional panelists also contributed their thoughts. After the break, Jon Scott corrected Ms. Miller by reminding her that Libby had not been convicted of leaking information, and Ms. Miller clumsily reversed herself, responding no, he was convicted of obstruction of justice. That a journalist of Ms. Miller’s caliber, experience and particular background in this very case, would make such a seemingly small, but in reality enormously egregious error, casting additional, unwarranted aspersions on Mr. Libby, is inexcusable. There can be no other explanation, Judith Miller hates Scooter Libby.

While I’m glad that Mr. Scott clarified the facts of the Scooter Libby reference by Ms. Miller, I was stunned speechless to hear her make the false statement in the first place. As Mr. Scott mentioned, if anyone knows the facts of the case, it would be Ms. Miller, who covered the Valerie Plame/Iraq-Niger uranium hookup story from its onset, and even did some jail time for not revealing sources. As such, it is unimaginable that Ms. Miller could make such a statement without deliberate intention to mislead and add further insult to the injury Mr. Libby has suffered at the hands of a hostile press and a criminally rogue special prosecutor on a mission to damage the despised Bush/Cheney Administration.

At the outset of his investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor, determined that any leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity by a government official was not a violation of law, and that it was Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State under Colin Powell, who had leaked Valerie Plame’s identity to the press. Any honorable officer of the court would have shut down the investigation at that point, having completed the special prosecutor duties he had been assigned. But attack-dog Fitzgerald proceeded with his illegal investigation and persecution of Mr. Libby that led to Grand Jury indictments and eventual conviction for making “misleading statements” which, they concluded, caused an “obstruction of justice”.

Mr. Libby was investigated, persecuted, interviewed, indicted & convicted, but he did nothing wrong. His only real crime, in the eyes of his detractors, was being associated with the Bush/Cheney Whitehouse. What Mr. Libby did do, that got him in hot water, was to relate recollections of who he had spoken with and when, in not talking with reporters about a non-crime that he did not commit. Mr. Fitzgerald noted that Libby’s recollections of these non-events were not entirely consistent with the recollections of some of the reporters interviewed, with regard to the exact person, place or time associated with these non-event, non-crimes.

Grasping at straws, Mr. Fitzgerald accused Libby of lying to criminal investigators who were not investigating a non-crime, a lawful act they knew had been committed by Armitage, who was never charged with a crime, and argued that Libby’s “lying” (otherwise known as poorly recollecting; of course it’s always possible that the reporters and not Libby were the source of the inconsistencies) about no unlawful non-event, somehow “obstructed justice”. Knowing well in advance of Libby’s interviews and testimony, that the non-crime criminal investigators were no longer investigating had been committed by someone other than Libby, exactly what “justice” was being obstructed by Mr. Libby? The correct answer is no justice.

If any intentionally misleading statements were made during this debacle, they were made, not by Libby, but by Mr. Fitzgerald against Libby, calculated to bring down condemnation, punishment, humiliation and loss of credibility to the Bush/Cheney Administration by destroying their vicarious whipping-boy. It’s a pity Mr. Libby was unable, through his testimony, to provide any effective obstruction to this gross “injustice”. Deeply complicit in this travesty, the mindless destruction of a good man for political gain and hubris, are the Lame Stream Media, the special prosecutor, the Grand Jury, the trial judge and jury, the activist courts, the American legal system, the FBI, the State Department and all the people at the time who similarly suffered from the irrational, Bush/Cheney Derangement Syndrome. I indict them all.

The rest of us go on with our everyday lives and our work as if nothing of true import has happened. But as I look out over the horizon, I see a deep scar on the soul of America, once the champion of truth and innocence, and evil is festering just beneath the surface. I shudder involuntarily as the icy north wind blows heavy, black cotton clouds low, down through the valley. It smells like rain. I tuck my hands deeply into my coat pockets, tilting my face against the wind and I head for shelter. Somewhere out there, an innocent man, stripped unjustly of his dignity, reputation and profession, labeled a felon for life, struggles to provide for his family and just get through one day at a time. Have we no shame?

Who's Zoomin' Who?

2010-08-29T06:26:00.000-06:00

Gone are the days of the Democrats being classified into moderate, liberal and far left. Marxists have hijacked the Democrat Party and these days, they are all FAR LEFT EXTREMISTS. Due to this shift within the Democrat Party, the majority of Americans are now labeled by Democrats and aided by the lapdog Lame Stream Media, as FAR RIGHT EXTREMISTS.

What the new Democrats call Centrist Republicans are really the new Democrat Moderates. What Democrats call the Right is the new Center, and what Democrats call far-right extremists are the new Right of Center, in reality, mainstream Conservatives. Although Democrat terminology has shifted, the American Mainstream remains still Right of Center.

Far from being condemnation of Conservatives, current Democrat terminology is only further evidence that the Democrats are out of touch with the American people. I am hopeful that, despite past successes and current efforts to steal the Mid-Term Elections, the Democrats will receive due punishment at the polls.

Some claim that the American people have abandoned the Democrat Party. Many in the Republican Party complain that the people have abandoned it as well, especially former “Centrist Republicans”. The truth is, while America has remained steadfastly Right of Center, both Democrats and Republicans in large numbers have abandoned the American people.