Phlegm's Spot

A Response to Obama’s 12/6/11 Speech

2011-12-06T17:12:00.002-07:00

Here is a link to the speech:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/06/politics/obama-speech/?hpt=hp_t1

Let me begin by sharing my hope for success as I travel the quest in search for the ever elusive brevity.

Before I begin my responses, you should know the intention behind those beliefs which guide my approach to everything. Four quick points ought to get us there. We should have the smallest and weakest government possible because ultimately we were founded on knowledge that governing is always a use of force against the people. That force quickly leads to power, which corrupts through corporatism enhanced by an entrenched two party system, which shuts out almost all competition and therefore true choice and change. Secondly, government must adapt and unfortunately grow with changes in our nation and society. Thirdly, this growth must be designed and implemented through legislation in such a way as to always maximize the value and minimize the size of every bureaucracy created. Congress must also find ways to limit the growth, and often the existence, of each agency. This means limiting power. Next I would point out that charity can be and should be part of our governmental system. However, I think that 90% of this should come from the states. We must focus one thing ultimately if we are to return to a country which can provide us with prosperity and liberty; remembering that our government has wasted trillions of our dollars since it began promising us benefits and fairness if we would just give it the money to do it. Now I’m not mean, I’m not impractical; I wouldn’t do anything rash without a fair transition for those reliant upon assistance. But the philosophy must drive each piece of legislation in order to assure the eventual goal of liberty and a fulfilled society. Lastly, liberty is not just a word to chant out at Tea Party rallies. (For the record, I went to two, they were the original Tax Day party and the following one.) Liberty is the goal of our country. It is the goal of each and every person here. Financial liberty, personal liberty, professional liberty and the list goes on. Just go tell an American they HAVE to do something and watch what they say. Ask any Joe or Jane walking on the sidewalk if they think the government is too expensive and see what they say. We agree more than we think we do. The choices we are presented are never the right ones anymore. Almost no one makes the right suggestion or offers a truly new way (except in stump speeches) because the system supports them all. It isn’t in their best interest to offer true change and a return to the America became the defined example of a free and prosperous people. To make my point and end this prattle, I will simply point out that not one serious offer is on the table to limit the cost of our government for the debt reduction issue (nor the payroll tax increase but we’ll get to that.). That is ridiculous

-"It's not a view that we should somehow turn back technology or put up walls around America," Obama said in the 55-minute speech, which frequently prompted applause. "It's not a view that says we should punish profit or success or pretend that government knows how to fix all society's problems.

"It's a view that says in America, we are greater together -- when everyone engages in fair play, everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share."

--- Technology progresses faster and better in the free market. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates were pushed to their limits in order to keep up and attempt to out-due each other.

---Saying you aren’t going to put up walls doesn’t provide us with a choice. You are saying you won’t put up a wall, but you aren’t telling us what you WILL DO (both sides love this trick).

--How about you punish the ridiculous health benefits and retirement packages of members of Congress before you talk about raising taxes on even Bill Gates? How about you bring home troops from the foreign bases that haven’t been attacked for over 40 years? How about you tell the FBI, CIA, NSA, State Police, County Sheriffs, City Police and all the rest to get on a network run by Zuckerberg? Sweet, now we can get rid of Homeland security and save billions!!!!

--- You can’t logically pass a bill that LITERALLY gives the power to an appointed bureaucrat (Secretary of Health and Human Services—is that Hamiltonian or Jeffersonian LOL) to set the requirements for every single health insurance policy in the country and then force people to buy it, while claiming government is not your solution to just about everything. If you are willing to take that kind of power, how can anyone believe you are not willing to make much smaller power grabs by the hundreds or thousands with another four years?

- It sounds nice doesn’t it? Preaching fair play is saying you are going to ignore the rule of law. How? WE ARE FAIR! The law says so. Every time we are told that the government is going to change the rules to make things fair we must be very careful. Whatever good has come from the progressive agendas dating as far back as you would like to go was ultimately a recognition of liberties that had been denied until that point. Those are examples of the fantastic growth our nation is capable of. They are not symptoms requiring the growth of government or the removal of any liberty. Legislation pursuing fairness ignored the rights of those being polluted upon and justified (regulated) it for a fee. Now we have waited to create the technology and allowed the polluters and their politicians to corner the market and make things difficult. We should have held them accountable at the time thereby encouraging the development of new technology for profits. Everyone would have won the game already! The philosophy drives the approach. Just enforce the laws that we were given and most of the time you’ll have your solution.

“He framed the issue as a choice between making vital investments in future growth or the Republican position he characterized as maintaining "tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans in our country." “

--Same old crap from each party. Once again, come talk to me when you have stopped overpaying bureaucrats compared to the private sector and giving them life benefits on my dime. You know, they buy votes with that crap. They are stealing money in order to pay people benefits FAR beyond the private sector, Those people don’t ultimately believe in smaller government or turn a blind eye so they are reliable voters. They can safely vote for either party and never threaten the system! Bought and paid for! Confront the military empire as mentioned. Look up the words efficiency and consolidation, say them in the mirror everyday for a month, remember them and use them and then come talk to me about how much money you really need to govern.

"This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and all those who are fighting to get into the middle class," the president said. "At stake is whether this will be a country where working people can earn enough to raise a family, build a modest savings, own a home, and secure their retirement."

What is at stake is if the government can set standard to your aspirations here. Fairness through legislation requires them to decide for you what a “modest savings” is or what constitutes “enough” money to raise your family on. Ask yourself, do you want that? That is a rare moment where Obama actually said what he believes instead of babbling. Think about that. Why isn’t someone saying “You really need keep your money so I paid us only double the median income and matched the best retirement package I could find. We saved enough to pay for the payroll tax. Without leaving Washington even!”

"This is the height of unfairness," Obama said. "It's wrong that in the United States of America, a teacher or a nurse or a construction worker (who) maybe earns $50,000 should pay a higher tax rate than somebody raking in $50 million."

---Don’t need to say much here. To be extreme, the Constitution didn’t allow for an income tax until Congress changed it. To be realistic, if they would just stop changing the laws for favors, taxes would be simple and fair. Stop giving favors out and the law can be concise, clear and fair.

“Why? Does anyone here think the problem that led to our financial crisis was too much oversight of mortgage lenders or debt collectors? Of course not." “

---Yes I do. The combination of the banks, the Federal Reserve and the politicians gave us the force of law, which brought idiotic loan standards, whose bubble was partially filled with theft through monetary policy and inefficient social programs, and who also managed to make us poor and holding the tab in the end! By the way, all along the way you ignored your duty to enforce contract laws in order to pull your schemes. Don’t tell me you need more authority, you can’t use what you have already!

I’m going to stop here because I imagine no one made it this far. If you are interested in more, check out another article or leave a question. I’d be glad to respond to just about any question or comment.

Hungry For A Better Game--a book review

2011-09-28T11:50:00.001-06:00

Okay, I don’t normally do book reviews as both of you who follow this already know. Yet I feel compelled to depart from the normal political bitching to share a few words about a recent perusing. At the request of a local teacher, I read “Hunger Games” by Suzanne Collins. For those of you who haven’t read it, I won’t ruin the book but I must provide some sort of context for the article. Imagine the children violence of “Lord of the Flies” combined with the political essence of “Animal Farm” or “Fahrenheit 451”, then mix them with the context of the movie “Running Man” and you’ll have the general idea. Ah, I was incomplete. You must also add a healthy dash of a love story as challenged as in “The Fountainhead”. So I’m guessing you are either confused as hell or right where I was trying to put you. Either way I can’t change it so I’ll go on.

The only other sort of review I will offer is of style and story. I found the characters well developed, the story line engaging, the ending satisfying (if a little predictable) and the fact that I read it cover to cover in a day must say something good as well. Certainly I became emotionally attached to the main character, a positive trait in any book. After reading the novel, I spoke to my teacher friend quite quickly and offered her my thoughts on the age-appropriateness of the story, as requested. Yet it was later, during a conversation with another dear friend, that I discovered the crux of my opinion towards the first book of this trilogy. It was the choice. It always comes down to choice.

I must admit some of my favorite books maintain a common thread of social or political commentary, some which must be found and some overt. The titles listed at the outset provide a perfect imparting of the tone to which I refer. (Just for the record I also enjoy “brain candy” from the likes of Dan Brown, Clive Cussler and Steven Brust, to name a few.) My point is when I read a book which obviously makes political and moral statements; I judge my reading experience a bit more critically than with other types of novels. So while I enjoyed the story and characters and thought the book was well written it is on a perhaps more persnickety point I wish to offer my observations.

Why tell the story in the first place? I’m struck by this most basic question. One could easily read “1984” and derive a much more vivid context of the “Big Brother” message. You could read “The Giver” and find a more original world with the same themes. “Animal Farm” would present the dangers of an authoritarian’s unbridled control with more clarity. So, why write the book in the first place? Ostensibly, the prose purports to provide a new generation or new audience with the lessons provided by the other books in the past. While I understand and even find this goal both admirable and desirable, I must protest in this instance.

Don’t we have enough violence in the world? Don’t we have enough drabness in the country? Don’t we offer an alarming amount of violent fantasies through video games, movies and television? So why choose an arena of violence to display a timeless message? While I acknowledged that “Lord of the Flies” was among my favorite books in the educational fiction genre, the fact that the lessons and storyline both rely on violence being committed by children offer a formidable defense against a comparable protest. In a time where the departure from traditional values focused on individual liberty is alarming, I welcome any medium bringing a warning of the abuse of power by a government. Yet I am troubled that we are choosing to encourage a book which wraps the pure message in a cloak of darkness and violence. Don’t get me wrong here, I enjoyed the book and would even suggest it to other adults. You must remember, the context of my experience began and ended with a teacher and the implied students. Why are we encouraging children around 14 to read such a book in our schools? Couldn’t they read one of the classics I have mentioned and learn the same lessons within a more positive environment of a reading experience? If you don’t like that idea, I would suggest watching BookTV for a myriad of ideas. While I think our nation (and indeed world) would benefit from authors providing more uplifting themes for their books, I am a dark person by nature and can appreciate the experience from an adult point of view. We have plenty of chances to present our children with the darker side of humanity and society. Why don’t we teach a more complete and accurate history of our country for instance? Perhaps we could teach them economics without assuming a fiat currency must be involved and let them see the truth? We could teach them about the freedoms our government has taken away over the last 200+ years and offer them a true chance to question which decisions were wise and which were not. That might scare the hell of them, right? At least it would produce a generation with the tools to think for themselves and better society for future generations, tools we don’t currently utilize or focus upon in our schools. Within this society, with the problems we SHOULD be talking about with our students, we instead to choose to promote a depressing story line to developing minds gaining nothing extra from the violent theater. If we are to teach violence in school, wouldn’t it be better to use it to teach about the lessons of violence? “The Hunger Games” offered no remarkable lesson concerning violence. Perhaps the time for lessons containing violence should be found in the history classes which could provide more applicable lessons and better stories than almost any piece of fiction could strive for.

Deficit Committee's 1st hearing

2011-09-13T14:52:00.000-06:00

A clear choice must be made in order to watch the first hearing held by the deficit super committee. In her opening remarks Ms. Murray, Co-Chair, stated the topic of this initial hearing to be the history and drivers of our deficit and debt. It is within this statement where we find the choice we must make. Are we to believe the crux of the habitually repeated financial failures in our past remains elusive to those in Washington? Or shall we accept the hearing is an act and that her statement merely exists within the playbook of good Washington politics? To be honest, I winced inside as I felt the stab of pain resulting from the impression of a hand being placed upon my cheek. How can the American public withstand treatment more suited for 3 year olds? Our government blatantly acts stupid in order to appear working steadfast towards a grand solution to our problems. ---I should pause momentarily to make mention of the nearly half-trillion spending bill Obama just handed to Congress. More wasteful spending and you haven’t even spent the first 800 billion yet? No politics allowed huh? Then what are you doing? The point is I shouldn’t expect more from Congress days after Obama plays such idiot politics with more stimulus money we don’t have in order to get the taxes on the rich he wants. Typical Washington, nothing ever changes. --- How many people outside of Washington already know the major contributors? I would think a great majority. I bet if you ask non-economist adults nationwide you would get some pretty smart answers, mixed in with ideological spending priorities of course. Let us consider: they spend too much, they try to do too many things, they write laws in order to gain or reward campaign donors and they claim to have moral authority over us (and the world) when our Constitution was provided in order to establish a people free from coercion and force. They ignore established laws in the first place in order to create unneeded regulations and their bureaucracies in the second! So while I admit my culpability in falling for it once again; I only pray the hearing gets better from here.

Damn! Well, that hope was dashed with haste. For the next few minutes Xavier Becerra (D-CA) lashed out at those with money both business and citizen. He blamed the tax cuts for the debt (which as often as that is said, you wonder if Bush didn’t plan it this way….) and asked if it was the young or the poor who benefited unfairly from the tax cuts. While this argument ends up supporting a flat tax or consumption tax ultimately we’ll leave that for another time. To blame the tax cuts is to blame Washington. The companies and individuals are now set up to get fleeced in order to justify more spending when we can’t afford the spending we already have and borrow 60% of our funds. You can take all the money from the corporations, billionaires and millionaires and I mean ALL of it and it won’t make a dent in our problem. (Google it if you don’t believe me!) We should be worried about all companies paying the same percentage in order to remove corporatism instead of trying to pick out some for financial punishment (which ironically seems to happen to those our government helps the most). To blame the wealthy in any way is to demagogue the very financial success which most aspire to. How is this palatable to anyone with common sense? Blame those who wrote the tax code! Blame the relationship between them! Blame yourself for not voting with this most essential priority. Raising taxes on the rich in order to fund a new program is treating the people as moronic. How can we raise the debt ceiling, form a committee to cut 1.2 trillion off of our automatically increasing spending in the FUTURE, and propose more spending supposedly funded by new taxes on the rich and spending cuts which will never pass Congress? If this is the beginning of something new it must have been planted in the manure of the old because it stinks in here and suddenly I need some tall boots.

Darren Hutchinson, you are relieved…part 1

2011-09-04T22:43:00.004-06:00

Darren Hutchinson, you are relieved…

Please make sure to read this article before reading mine, otherwise it won’t make sense!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darren-hutchinson/five-reasons-why-ron-paul_b_947004.html

When writing a critical piece against someone in politics it is easy to become confused about ethics. For instance, the trend in campaigns for the last couple of hundred years tells us that if we merely attack someone enough then the veracity of the accusation need not be upheld in order to have the desired effect. I've written many opinions and I’m sure some were plainly wrong. No one is perfect, but Darren my friend; here are the reasons you shouldn't write such things:

“Paul is charismatic. He also comes across as a straight shooter. Some of his ideas -- like his opposition to militarism and the War on Drugs -- appeal to many voters, including liberals. His arguments about lower government spending and taxation sound good to folks who worry about budget deficits.”

Counterpoints.

Having a charismatic President is a good thing. We agree here.

Perhaps he is a straight shooter as his record indicates…..perhaps you will provide an example of where he isn’t instead of just suggesting it wrecklessly?

So his policies bring left and right together on issues such as national defense and the millions wasted on the war on drugs. Those seem like more good things. (even if you disagree with legalizing any drugs, the money was still wasted because we are losing worse than ever….at least we can agree the money could be better spent I’d say.)

So far so good….although the tone of the writing indicates he isn’t a fan of Dr. Paul’s he has been fair in representing him at least.

“Paul's arguments, however, often lack an empirical basis. History has already demonstrated that many of Paul's proposed solutions will never work. Thus, while some of Paul's ideas sound solid in the abstract, they crumble once they are subjected to widely accepted theories about government and society.”

I’m not sure where this paragraph is going. It ignores that Dr. Paul readily admits that he is not proposing anything new. The principles, priorities and philosophies that he represents are those that allowed us to become the most powerful nation on earth. The first 150 years of our nation were founded on the teachings of smaller government, individual responsibility, self-reliance, low taxes, thoughtful use of military force and above all liberty and those are the same lessons you will hear if you listen to Dr. Paul.

Where did history demonstrate that these ideas wouldn’t work? America is a unique country with a unique founding document. Name one place that history has shown it doesn’t work, because it sure as hell isn’t America. We feed over half the world. Even nations that hate us come to study within our borders before going home to plot against us. Such a statement ought to at least give reference to some point in history which proves his accusation. Saying it doesn’t make it so.

Ahhh the best part for last….. So his ideas “crumble once they are subjected to widely accepted theories about government and society.” So these principles Dr. Paul professes provided us with America and its constitution, yet they don’t stand up to the accepted THEORIES about gov’t and society. What the hell does that mean? The principles of those who support the status quo are the same as those that have brought this crisis in morals and economy to our doorstep. Ron Paul doesn’t want to give you more of the same crap, he wants to give you your freedom back and return our government to its lawful role in our country. The historical founding of our nation upon individual liberty and small government is fact. These “theories” that supposedly debunk Dr. Paul are just that; the accepted theories of a failed philosophy struggling to remain in power.

“ Paul would restrict abortion based on anecdotal "evidence," rather than science.”

Counterpoints:

I don’t even have to copy any more of this paragraph to prove my point. You can still read it at the link, I’m certainly not hiding it.

Ron Paul has never said he wanted to restrict abortion in anyway. He is prolife and personally believes that is the right choice. However, any fair examination of his comments on abortion always point to his belief in State’s rights and the unconstitutional ruling by the Supreme Court.

If anyone took your rights to abortion away from you under Ron Paul’s Presidency it would be your neighbors voting against it. If your state outlaws it and you don’t agree, you are free to move to a state more to your liking and yet still be an American; kind of a cool system right? I can’t force you into complying with my opinion, you can’t force me to comply with yours and the governmental structure supports both our opinions as valuable. Now we can still be Americans and yet disagree. Damn, what a country!

“Paul has dreadful views regarding personal liberty and fundamental rights”

Since you couldn’t find anything else to pick on him about, I guess you had to throw abortion back at him twice, Darren? Yes, we get it, Ron Paul opposes abortion. That in no way means he opposes your right to it within the confines of the law. Why don’t you quote him to prove your point? (oh, you can’t?)

Anyway:

The entire point of being a Republic is to have control as decentralized as possible. If Utah allows polygamy and New York doesn’t so be it.

This section is typical fear-mongering. Statements such as “Undoubtedly, many state courts would sharply curtail liberties currently recognized by the Supreme Court.” come out of nowhere in order to frighten us away from the reality that the States would actually only remove those liberties we voted against. Once again, if the people don’t support it, you won’t get it. When you pay attention to the big picture, which includes removing the relationship between business and government, Ron Paul allows for more equality and liberty than anyone else and it isn’t even close.

Darren, you act as though rights are handed out by our courts and politicians. They are not. America was founded upon the belief that we are born free and our government takes our rights away little by little. To act as though the centralized power we now allow in Washington is historically American is to rely upon the uneducated masses following you like the sheep beckoning your dreams.

I’ll finish this tomorrow I can’t take it anymore for the moment.

Phlegm

The Forgotten America

2011-09-04T12:59:00.002-06:00

It seems to me that somewhere along the way the American population forgot what America stands for. We forgot what made America different and have replaced those differences with an assumed arrogance without being able to support such a claim (not to mention without continuing the traditions that actually made us “better”). Why? How? Was it merely the removal of a strong family unit within the priorities of our nation? Is it evil capitalism? Is it education? Is it inevitable?

Education is perhaps the easiest culprit to find. Rarely do schools produce critical thinkers rooted in an unrevised history of their country anymore. We teach based on how to feel good about yourself instead of how to actually accomplish goals in life WHICH WILL IN RETURN MAKE YOU FEEL GOOD! I’d love to spout off about the infiltration of collectivism, Marxism, and socialism into our system; yet in the interest of time and space I would merely offer a book titled “None dare care it treason-25 years later” for you to read if you are open to a well sited and eye-opening read. Education used to be the responsibility of the parents and LOCAL school authorities. We have allowed politicians to convince us that we are not able to educate our children anymore. They have stolen the right of self-determination away from the rearing of our children. How can it be that in a “free” society we are forced to pay taxes for our schools when we might not have children, or perhaps we want to send them to a private school? Lord forbid that we want to send them to a religious school; for then we are told we have to pay the taxes for schools we don’t use because of the separation of church and state. This is ridiculous. The separation of church and state was put into place to prevent the state from forcing religion upon us. It was written in order to ALLOW, in fact, everyone to worship in their own way. What about the GI bill being used at a religious college (which it can be)? How is that any different? The real question shouldn’t be about religion, or test scores, or budget levels, or the frigging teachers’ union (who represent themselves more than any teacher and certainly more than any child). The real question should be: why are we letting Washington take our money in order to build a system of bureaucrats who justify their jobs and growing budgets with their own failures? If we believe that one party, or one President truly changes much we are falling for the systems’ primary defense. It is the existence of the system that we need to fight, in other words, the bureaucrats. Those people rarely change and they are the ones left to interpret and, more importantly, implement the supposed coming “changes”. No child left behind failed just as the next promised “solution”. They will have a few success stories to tempt us with, but overall the system will continue to waste our money and line the pockets of the bureaucrats, unions and politicians while leaving the schools, parents and teachers to take the blame. How is that logical? Looked at in another light, what if they truly solved the problems? Our grades shot up, international competitiveness improved, colleges were filled to the brim…..what then? How do they justify growing their budget and continuing most of the jobs they have “created” ? How much longer would they need the infrastructure they have built up? Is it truly in their best interest to solve the problem in the first place? My father once told me that it is the nature of a bureaucracy to always grow. I have thought about that a lot since he said it decades ago. Look at our government. How much money have we spent trying to solve social issues in the past 50 years only to see the problems get worse every decade? Education is at the heart of these issues and must therefore be the first we solve.

It is enough to point out that all learned values, behaviors, ethics and knowledge are either positively or negatively affected by the parents and family. I don’t care who works in a family. I don’t care if you both work. I don’t want to tell you what to do or how to do it. I’m merely saying that choices have consequences and when we stopped producing a strong family unit (which happened for many more reasons than just dual working parents). When we left behind the HUMAN (not American) tradition of a strong family unit we stopped creating not only the best children but the best environments in which to produce those children. We have become the selfish consumers our government has been pushing us to be. This attitude of “me first” supported by our government’s policies of tax exceptions, welfare and bailouts has encouraged us to ask the wrong question again. If we truly valued the liberty our country was founded upon we would place our efforts to the task of continuing that tradition through the production of well taught, well raised, respectful children and not more cars, bigger houses and better vacations. Perhaps if the value and history of the liberty our country provided was taught better (not to mention if it was still there) then we wouldn’t have the amount of single parent families either. Perhaps you wouldn’t have some people refusing to have kids in “this world” as well.

The “me first” mode of living is not going to allow freedom to continue. By allowing our federal government to take as much money as they want (which they can due to the IRS) we have in turn become a nation fighting against each other for what we are allowed to keep. We have let immorality creep into our lives and the absence of morals has assisted us in finding justifications for abhorrent behavior. Whether it is men fathering children for whom they do not care, women murdering fetuses in lieu of responsible sexual behavior, domestic violence, drug addictions, gambling problems, narcissism or whatever other issue you care to name; these problems will always exist but the proliferation of these situations is inexcusable. We allow the inevitability of a few problems to justify the immoral behavior of the majority. We relinquish control over our lives to a federal government while we can blame them for our failure and troubles. Meanwhile the government gives us reasons to segregate ourselves from both each other and the unifying principle of liberty. We fall for it every time. Perhaps instead of this “me first” culture, it ought to be a “we” first culture. That is what produced America and what can save it from itself.

Finally, a quick work about capitalism. Don’t blame it because we don’t have it. We have a partially socialistic and partially corporatist state. When industry and government get together (lobbyists) to write laws benefitting each other (profits or campaign donations/support) then there is no capitalism. I will close with an example I love to use. If we had capitalism we wouldn’t have issues with oil and its pollution such as we do. If our government were protecting the people through enforcing the laws on personal property and harming others then the free market would have been held accountable decades ago with the resulting price of oil forcing industry to take another path from the oil dependent one on which we find ourselves.

I hope that in 2012 people vote for their nation’s health and for their grandkids’ liberty. Look at their records of accomplishments and CONSISTENCY. Look at who pays for the campaigns of our candidates. Look at who runs the negative ads. Then realize that there is one person who runs on principles. There is one person who runs on a record that never varies. There is a Republican who wins in a Democrat district with common sense and logic. There is one person that runs for the people and just because the media and establishment hate him ought to get you to at least take a look at him.

RON PAUL 2012

Government funds don't equal success

2011-08-31T15:09:00.000-06:00

In yet another example that funding from our government doesn't equal success, it was reported today that the solar panel company Solyndra is going bankrupt. After receiving direct support from the White House and hundreds of millions of dollars in financial backing; the company turned away workers with seemingly no warning. When will we learn that the government can not create demand in the market? Whether or not solar energy is environmentally responsible, financially profitable, or morally preferable to oil; simply throwing money at the industry will never guarantee viability. Without the damage done to individual liberty by requiring the usage and/or purchase of alternative fuels our government will not be able to force an industry upon us. Perhaps a better way would be to produce domestic oil while placing an import tax of some sort on foreign oil. Perhaps that would push private companies to invest in changing their business model when the end is actually in site. Better yet, why not enforce the laws we already have and punish companies who pollute through the defense of property rights (the rights of everyone else, whose property is being polluted). The free market will work folks. We just have to punish companies who damage our health and our property while removing the relationship and rewards our current corporatism-style government structure provides.
Phlegm
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/massive-taxpayer-backed-solar-panel-manufacturer-goes-bankrupt/

http://dailycaller.com/2011/02/22/panel-green-jobs-company-endorsed-by-obama-and-biden-squandered-535-million-in-stimulus-money/

http://venturebeat.com/2010/05/26/obama-stumps-for-climate-bill-at-solyndra-giving-it-a-pre-ipo-lift/

Is peace a bad word?

2011-08-29T22:16:00.001-06:00

In the article attached below this post, Gov. Perry leaves open the door to the possibility (and I should say probability) of yet another war-happy President. While claiming to support using troops only for defensive reasons, he hides behind the old slogan of "our vital interests" being threatened. This is tantamount to the often heard claims of secrets within government due to "national security". Sure, our leaders must have secrets but the phrase is abused far too often. But back to Gov Perry; to be honest I find it difficult to write much even though another candidate certain to promote war finds me disagreeable. Not once did he make mention, at least where I looked, of bringing any troops home in general or specific. Not once did he talk about a reasonably sized military or number of bases. Not once did he talk about Europe's role in providing their own defense. I heard no call to the world's leaders to share the responsibility of protecting those who are innocent and helpless throughout the world. I heard the familiar call of war for profit, for defense of profit and business (what they call our vital interests.....for if our government is owned by the bureaucrats and corporations then theirs are the interests of which he speaks) and the defense of preemptive war (what they call the moral authority). I hear the toll bell and it is ringing for any country unwilling to be humble, be respectful, stand strong, demand fairness and promote liberty by example rather than force. We can not afford more financial or moral debt, it is just that simple. We can not help future populations around the world if we do not first ensure our country's continued survival, prosperity and dedication to liberty through restricted government.

Phlegm

http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/perry-offers-basics-of-his-foreign-policy-approach-1804523.html

Pigford Part II...theft and corruption funded by your tax dollars

2011-06-16T14:00:00.000-06:00

For those that don't know, Pigford vs Glickford was a case against the USDA for discrimination against black farmers by unfairly denying them government loans. We'll leave aside the issue of the government taking money from us in order to choose who we should have loaned it to. At the time the bill was written which funded the reparations, it was the opinion of the authors that approximately 3,000 people would be filing for awards under the law. It was originally funded to the tune of about 100 million dollars. A hundred million tax dollars to pay in penalties to farmers who had been discriminated against by our government officials at the USDA while loaning our money to others. Seems to me I could make a great case for removing the interference of the USDA in our farmers finances and thereby avoid such situations all together. Regardless, at the time the bill was written there were warnings voiced by some members of Congress that the bill would open the door to far more money being spent than intended as well as promised by the authors. They were told that the 100 million was a ceiling and would pay all outstanding issues within the lawsuit. As is often the case, those projecting future spending were correct. Consider the following facts brought to the floor of the House today:
1. projected 3,000 recipients turned into over 80,000
2. The USDA found less than 40,000 TOTAL black farmers in the nation, from which the 86,000 claims came
3. The 100 Million has now turned into almost 1.5 Billion!
4. The requirements only state that a non-relative must support the claim that the claimant COMPLAINED the were discriminated against. NO PROOF IS REQUIRED
5. Claims were encouraged if there was a farmer in past generations (which assumes they must have been unfairly denied a loan, but doesn't have to show they even applied for one)
6. In at least one district where discrimination claims were made, the USDA was managed by all blacks....how could that be discrimination?

I've saved the best for last. The most astounding fact about this whole scam is that NOT ONE person in the USDA (the agency at fault and responsible for approving subsequent claims) has been found guilty of discrimination.
So twice as many black farmers as there are in our country were all discriminated against by no one.
How is that possible?
How are there twice as many claims as there are black farmers in America?
If the USDA acted with such rampant discrimination, shouldn't management from the top down be replaced?
Doesn't this type of discrimination (which did occur to be sure) and the resulting fraudulent scheme provide us with another reason to keep our money and limit our federal government?

As long as Washington continues to support ridiculous legislation such as Pigford II, we need to laugh when they talk about reducing the debt or spending. If we take them seriously we will never remember to replace them when we vote. It is sad when the problems they hide rise to the level of corruption such as this example. Truly votes have been paid for through a program such as Pigford II.

The biggest tragedy though? The democracy is weaker for its implementation. We have built up the idea on the left that it is okay to steal from others in our society and we have given the right a reason to find the left biased and immoral. We have supported the idea that the government can force morality in its people. The arguement over whether it should or not is a waste of time; it simply can not force moral behaviour. We have split the populace into two groups AGAIN and ensured the future of our two parties. We have made the issue about white vs black instead of allowing the banks to handle financing while enforcing the laws of equality upon those banks. Government can not steal in order to act morally on our behalf, it can only enforce equality without using any labels in the process.

Ethanol Tax Credits and Storage Funds

2011-06-16T11:44:00.000-06:00

While Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) rambled on about the issue of subsidizing the ethanol industry I thought about the irony of his speech. He decried the support of oil through hidden expenditures such as military operations to keep the water passageways flowing for the delivery of oil out of the middle east. He talked about the volatile price of corn, ad that it wouldn't stay as high as it is now. He argued against the logic of food prices rising due to corn being used for fuel and not food. He lumped the food industry in with the oil and gas industry by accusing them of raising their prices needlessly only to never lower them proportionally when the corn price goes back down. According to Sen. Grassley, roughly 70% of the benefits go to 10% of the farmers, the "mega-farmers" or corporations instead of small and medium size farms. He then went on to relay how horrible it was that the legislation was being used to reward the largest farms instead of helping the small guys. According to him, the law was written to provide a safety net for "those that need it". So let me get this straight, the Senator from Iowa wants to re-direct subsidies going to large farms in the direction of small farms. Brilliant! One of his closing remarks mentioned that this wasn't part of the budget where Washington should be seeking to save money, that surely there are common sense areas that would be agreeable to all. This is about the 20th time I have heard a member of Congress say something like this. Either about oil, WIC, FEMA, ethanol, the military or a myriad of other issues. Let's remember, it was only last December when Congress PASSED the ethanol subsidies they are now trying to revoke. This whole mess reminds me of a scene from Mel Brooks' "History of the World Part I"; "politics, politics, politics!" Such crap out of Washington! So they won't cut oil subsidies, nor ethanol monies and they are heading in the direction of raising the Pentagon's budget. Our leaders are incapable of seeing the real issue and they are certainly incapable of solving it. Isn't it obvious that Washington should never choose the winners and losers in the economy? Yet it is hard to find a segment of our country that hasn't found some sort of favor within Washington through lobbyists and supporting campaigns. Perhaps I should write about the portfolios commonly held by our leaders and their financial interest in continuing to prop up banks and oil companies. The answer was and always will be to break the tie between industry and government. If they don't write exemptions within the tax codes the private sector can't garner favor through legislation or taxation. Break the mutual interest by removing the ability to impart favors on both sides of the equation and we just might have a chance at the return of the free market system which propelled our nation to the most powerful economic engine in the world.

Tiara Over A Trophy?

2011-06-16T01:58:00.001-06:00

As I watched game 7 of the NHL Playoffs (Way to go Bruins!!) tonight I was playing flipper during a commercial break and noticed a new reality show. This show took the American reality TV society to an all-time low. The entire show was built around toddler beauty pageants. No, I didn't watch it. I didn't have to. This is coming from the same society that has taken the word win out of youth sports? This is coming from the same country that doesn't want anyone to lose because they might get their feelings hurt? What idiocy! Instead, we put our daughters on TV to be pranced around like some sexual object because that makes better sense right? I realize the people killing the competitive spirit in American youth are probably not the same as those parading their daughters on stage but it is still hard to believe that one country could screw both of these things up at the same time. We are afraid of competition so we try to force rules of fairness everywhere. Hate crime laws attempt to make things fair, although they, by both definition and enforcement, value one life higher than another. Affirmative action, although well meant, places race over accomplishment. We've seen expectations reduced so that women can become firefighters (just hope they don't get stuck carrying the man of the house down the ladder). Now anyone who knows me will realize I support fair opportunity to all in all cases. This does not mean unfair ground rules in order to affect the outcome. I suppose it should come as no surprise that after producing those ideas that we now weaken our children by removing the idea that sometimes they will win and sometimes they will lose. Perhaps this is done to make parenting easier, I don't know. I'm sure that the lesson of expecting an award instead of earning it will serve them well when they hit the real world of business and life. Of course, at the rate we are going, the governmen will be taking care of them anyway. Surely it isn't their fault that no one handed a house or retirement or a new car to them. After all, one must only participate (or in this case be born) to deserve the prize, right? Instead we exploit little girls in beauty pageants for God knows what sick reasons. It is sad that some would use our liberties to defend toddler pageants after leaving a youth baseball game where they don't keep score anymore. Why practice? Why work hard? What is there to celebrate? What the hell is this country coming too? Surely the far left's attempt to convince us that all will be wonderful as long as those in power force what they consider to be fair by theft and brute force. Doesn't anyone remember how our country came to be anymore? I could have sworn it was founded on the liberty to compete.

2012 IRS Budget Request Hearing

2011-06-08T14:49:00.003-06:00

In case you are disappointed with the comedy selection on T.V. tonight, the 2012 IRS budget request hearing is probably going to be replayed on C-Span tonight. Watching the blame game between the IRS Commissioner and the Congressmen and women is actually humorous if you are a bit twisted such as I am. Douglas Shulman, the IRS Commissioner, gave testimony today to justify his budget request and to answer questions. There were a few note-worthy moments with regard to the budget itself, the Affordable Care Act (Obama care) as well as the very structure of the way we pay taxes.

Let’s start with this; the 2012 IRS budget request was for 12 billion dollars. We pay 12 billion dollars to run the tax collection system. Mr. Shulman was quick to point out that the need for additional funds over and above the 12 billion in order to properly invest in technology. With all the debating over how to reduce the budget and deficit isn’t this an obvious place to find a contribution? Luckily, congress removed one of the most glaring examples of insanity within the Affordable Care Act requiring business to file a 1099 on almost every business with whom they deal in a years’ time. If memory serves me right, I believe a 1099 was required for any business relationship which procured a 600 dollar transaction record within a year. Over 20 million dollars was saved when the IRS canceled their plans to prepare for this ridiculous portion of the health care law. It is curious how the measure related to the issue of health care but I think it has become more and more evident over the last year and half that the bill really isn’t about health care anyway. Yet I digress. One recommendation to the Commissioner was to find a way to remove the hidden additional tax for the average American resulting from the need to pay someone to file their taxes for them. Mr. Shulman, however, was very resistant towards the IRS offering a free web site where taxpayers can file their tax return without paying Turbo Tax or someone similar. He admitted it was a political and philosophical discussion within the agency and that the creation of such a website would only require additional funds to build the database needed to support such a service. He also pointed out that the Congress is historically guilty of funding enforcement over customer service. Big surprise there! It is curious that the IRS would not support the web site idea, although if we consider the health of the bureaucracy and the jobs within it; it is no wonder that the IRS, indeed any agency, doesn’t support such programs. It is in the interest of the citizen to reduce costs within the IRS or fees paid to ensure compliance; it is certainly not in the interest of those working to keep both their job and their overly-complicated tax collection system.

The lack of real regard towards the citizen was evident in the testimony and questions during the meeting today. The percentage of phone calls answered when an actual human was requested fell 15% from 2004 from 89% to 74%. Although as Mr. Shulman pointed out, he contributes part of that differential to the effective system they put in place warning the citizen how long the wait is and suggesting they hang up and call back during a slower time. Oh, how helpful. Mr. Shulman refused to lend his support to a free system for the people to utilize when filing their taxes. Mr. Shulman considers the IRS a “financial serves company”. As a citizen I take offense that he believes his agency in any way serves me. It may help me stay out of jail by explaining their rules perhaps. Yet, this fails to pass my test for service. The IRS is an institution founded to do nothing but take our money and it does so in such a convoluted and complex way that 6 billion man hours are spent each year seeking to file within the rules. Over half of the country hires someone to file their taxes out of either the fear of doing it wrong or the justified ennui induced when considering tackling the task alone. If we take into account how many people don’t file, are on government support of one type or another or aren’t required to pay taxes, the estimated 60% of the population hiring a tax service seems even more remarkable. I must admit, Mr. Shulman seemed to genuinely desire offering the best customer service possible. He said all the right things, regretted all the right mistakes and certainly stated worthy goals of improvement. The case might be made that the system does not lend itself to simplicity. As one of the Congressional Representatives pointed out, although the tax code is written by Congress, the implementation, collections and interactions are up to the IRS to develop. Certainly the removal of a revenue tax would be ideal, yet in place of that somewhat utopian ideal perhaps we should settle for investing a few tens of millions of dollars into a system allowing citizens to pay their taxes safely and directly and at no cost to them. It is hard to believe that the issue is considered a political one by the commissioner. Certainly they could serve us better while costing us less. At least it would be a start towards some common sense in our government.

Without delving deep into the abyss of idiocy which I consider the Affordable Care Act to be, I would like to mention a couple of statements and questions with regard to the IRS and its involvement in enforcing and implementing the law. Already they are working on the collecting the taxes from additional revenue streams such as the new levy on tanning salons or the additional tax against our drug companies. Another task currently under way concerns the subsidies towards small businesses and the start-up of that “benefit”. (Any true solution would require neither subsidizing employers nor the numerous waivers which have already been granted.) Yet Mr. Shulman described the biggest concern and challenge as the implementation of the full law in 2014. Consider the task ahead of the IRS and the most glaring flaw of the law becomes readily apparent. The IRS is responsible for setting up the exchanges with the States and ensuring compliance. Both insurance companies and individuals will be part of a data base allowing both communication and financial transactions. This data base will offer information to the citizen on the status of their eligibility with regards to health insurance tax benefits. This same data base transfers money between all three parties in various ways; from health insurance credits, to payments, to expenditures relating to compliance on behalf of the insurance companies. Surely our streamlined, omnipotent and always benevolent government and IRS won’t screw this up at all. I’m quite sure I’ll never hear a testimony saying the task was too complex and that the IRS needs additional funds and resources to fix the implementation issues which are sure to come our way. I doubt we'll ever hear about the government either losing track of money or holding it without good cause, surely not the IRS! They perform so fabulously at present; this must surely be the time to tack on such an additional responsibility as the health care system of the nation. Never mind this massive amount of financial and health information being gathered into a central data base. Never mind the additional intrusion into your life by the IRS under the guise of improving the delivery of health care in our nation. What is the cost of this program of insanity? As I mentioned before, the removal of just the 1099 issue was going to cost us over 20 million in just 2012. Unfortunately, no one asked the Commissioner how much the rest was running up the tab.

I’ve been called crazy, nuts, stupid or worse when I speak about the need for less government with perhaps more zeal and passion than most people. Yet every day it seems the government makes my case for me. As my father told me many years ago, it is the nature of any bureaucracy to always grow in size in order to continually justify its existence and to offer advancement to those within it. This simple observation offers us a deep insight into why Washington spends and borrows so much money. Surely these issues of waste and agencies more concerned with survival than service are not a left or right issue but an American one.

Why libertarian? Part III

2011-06-07T15:04:00.000-06:00

Twice, in the first two portions of this article, libertarians were described as humble and the parties in power as arrogant. The easiest way to understand why libertarians are more humble than their American political adversaries is at the very heart of the libertarian philosophy. One of the most basic tenets of the libertarian point of view is that leaders are not wise enough to tell the rest of us what to do or think. I am no better than you and you are no better than I. We should be equal in the eyes of the law regardless of race, creed, gender, opinion or anything else. If we deny our federal government the ability to write legislation which labels citizens we would not have, or had, legislation which supported racism or sexism. We also wouldn’t allow Washington to tell us who we can or can’t marry. The subscription to the libertarian point of view requires one to admit that their opinion is no more important than their neighbors’. This admission is empowering because once a person removes their biases against those neighbors, they can begin to see past the issues used to divide us and focus on our common goals. That is the essence of our federal government to the libertarian. Washington should stop focusing on issues that divide us and leave those to the States. Washington should be a place where politics brings us as together as possible. Congress is a place to argue, debate and generally disagree with each other through our representatives. Instead of sending our officials to Washington in order to fight over social topics that can never be solved, let us send our politicians to Washington to fight over the best foreign policy method. Let us send them to fight over sending troops to roughly 65-70% of the nations on earth! Let them fight over how best to address immigration finally! By removing the issues behind which they hide, such as regulating any action possible by both person and business, we can force them to actually address the needs of the nation instead of the wants of their constituents. The libertarians are not afraid of this scenario. Both Republicans and Democrats avoid the true issues and have done so for decades. The libertarian wants to remove the ability of the government to print money through its incestuous relationship with the Federal Reserve. The ability to rob the people by devaluing currency in order to fund wars and social programs is beyond atrocious. Does no one remember the crisis in Germany less than a century ago? Should we trust our government officials when they laugh off such a scenario out of pure ego and self-interest? The arrogance of the left and right shown in their constant efforts to either take care and protect us or make our decisions for us is perpetrated with the permission of the populace. We vote them in. We believe in their benevolence through our active choice of ignorance. Vote in a libertarian and you will see that they value an opposing opinion equally when it comes to legislation. This is not the description of a weak person; just the opposite. Someone who is comfortable with not being considered “right” is capable of far more when representing a population that can’t all agree with him or her. They don’t have to pander to one side of a debate. The libertarian politician can be strong willed because they constantly respect the limits of their power and opinion.

It is quite possible that one could describe a libertarian as more concerned with the future of the individual rather than the country. However, if a country establishes a rule of law protecting the greatest amount of personal liberty possible, a libertarian would certainly do everything possible to protect both individual and country. No political philosophy is perfect to be sure. In point of fact, it is doubtful that any one philosophy is even possible. Socialism would be grand if people were motivated by patriotism as much as personal gain. As long as competition produces better economic results than nationalism, socialist nations will come in a distant second to the ingenuity of the free market society. Communism might be desirable if one could trust the government to act as a benevolent and omnipotent God. Capitalism would work if a society could prevent the collusion of government and business. The track record of pollution (i.e. the government’s failure to protect the citizen from the abuses caused by the motivation of business, namely profit) is enough to show America failed in this regard. A libertarian’s utopian society can’t exist either. People are not perfect and we always fall short when attempting to avoid judging each other. Humans always form into groups thereby creating the support for labels. Labels strip away liberty once they leak into legislation or perhaps even merely a public’s lexicon. People always want to be “right” and we can’t always “agree to disagree”. These are some of the issues with the libertarian school of thought. However, I would rather fall short of the goal when aiming at individual liberty than to fail in an effort to control industry and society as both our parties attempt to do. To fail in the desire to get out of your way seems much more honorable and less harmful than to fail in the attempt at engineering your future. Perhaps the most glaring weakness of the libertarian point of view is that it doesn’t promise anything except liberty. Without the time to explain how true liberty can break the cycle of generational welfare, how could a libertarian hope to convince those voters to live without the programs they currently rely on? Without the attention of the farmers, how can a libertarian convince them that farming subsidies are actually hurting their profitability? I can’t help but mention that Ron Paul did just that in Texas. It is possible. The issues of legislating beyond the constitution and giving gifts paid for through taxes are entwined beyond separation. On the one hand, we should not allow Washington to legislate beyond the scope provided by the constitution but on the other hand how many are willing to give up that ability at the cost of personal gains through such legislating? Not only that, how many people would lose their civil servant job if we abolished needless programs such as the department of education? The abolishment of useless and counterproductive bureaucracies such as the dept. of education lie at the heart of the libertarian point of view, yet they can’t be simply stricken without giving thought to the consequences. When facing voters in an election, the libertarian is challenged with such difficulties under the guise that the current tax dollars are actually contributing to the improvement of such fields as education. Such a claim is so far from the truth, yet the fear that our all mighty federal government might not provide education for our children is enough to scare people away from actually thinking for themselves in depth about the topic. The lack of local control over our schools is equal to the lack of parental involvement. I’m not saying we don’t have good parents out there. I’m saying they are the exception, not the rule. In fact, I am currently “facebook friends” with several people with whom I politically disagree, yet am constantly impressed at how much time and effort they give to their children and schools. Obviously they are people of character. Why should we desire a political system which chooses winners and losers through social engineering instead of one which respects the positive attributes of everyone? Are we so sophomoric in our desire for “winning” that we lose the respect of those we debated with in the first place? The libertarian message is one of respect and humility; unfortunately, it is a message drowned out by the promises of gifts and caretaking offered by the establishment.

Coming in Part IV

The reformation of Washington

Why anyone can be a libertarian (unlike Dems or Reps)

And MAYBE....a conclusion :)

Why Libertarian Part II

2011-06-07T10:16:00.000-06:00

Being a libertarian offers several advantages for both the individual and the country. One of the advantages for the nation is a stronger president. Another benefit is the rise of respect and friendship between current political adversaries. Although there are several more benefits to list, it must be recognized that the libertarian party faces its own issues and problems. Somewhere between the benefits and risks lies the individual’s choice to become a libertarian or retain the status quo of current politics in America.

So how does the libertarian philosophy offer us a stronger Commander in Chief? Perhaps the question should be; why would a libertarian even want a stronger President? Our President is weakened by the deals he must strike to gain the political support needed to get into the Oval Office. Whether they are left or right, the financial backing needed for victory in our current system guarantees that most opinions and goals of the President are necessarily congruent with the views of those who provided support during the campaign. The President of the United States of America ought to be able to think on their own and make decisions based on the facts and not the political mindset of campaign contributors. We should be electing Presidents based on their ability to deal with the unforeseeable, not in order for them to pass social legislation promised during campaigns. We should not be electing Presidents based on social engineering goals in any way. The more we bog down our President with legislation which properly resides within the individual states, the less he is able to coalesce the nation and the more he contributes to the divisive nature of our current political system. A libertarian point of view would allow our President to be stronger in terms of foreign policy, immigration issues and national defense for several reasons. Obviously the first reason comes from the focus on national issues which are the constitutional responsibility of the President and Congress. A second reason is the movement towards defining the President as a unifying presence instead of the divisive one we have seen for decades. If we restrict the powers of Washington to those provided in the constitution we might see that Americans agree more often than not when it comes to national defense, immigration, fair economic competition between states or foreign policy. This focus on constitutional demands upon the Congress and President would allow our President to avoid the alliances which prevent him from acting as a true executive. Is it not preferable that our President lead the country rather than his party? Is it not wise to distribute the power of government to as many places and people as possible to avoid the corrupting influence power so often brings? If a President has fewer responsibilities, doesn’t it seem logical that the focus on those issues would be far greater? Some of our best Presidents followed their heart, their character and their beliefs instead of their party. Lincoln was far from popular, even with his own party, yet he ensured the future of a nation and the eventual end of the deplorable retention of freedom from the black community. Washington was not popular for his stance on the war between France and England, yet by not giving in to the popular opinion, he kept our fragile infant nation out of a war that could have weakened us to the point of collapse. Of course he was just as unpopular over the whiskey tax, but no one is perfect and the taxation example only shows one of the problems of taking state issues and making them national ones. The President would be a more powerful office in regard to the world if he actually focused on the international relationships for which he is responsible. The President would be a more powerful domestic influence if the limitations of his power were enforced so that his focus remained on the good of the nation and not the good of his party. By avoiding the current addiction to legislating everything from cell phone bills to health care insurance, the President could rise above the fray the Congress produces and unite both the parties and the country. Finally, by limiting the power of Washington to legislating only that which constitutionally falls under their charge, the relationship between industry and government would be weakened thereby allowing the corrupting influence of money to lose its place at the legislating table. The freedom procured by removing personal gain would allow the voters to base decisions in the booth upon character and ideas instead of alliances and campaign bank accounts. Only a President with a strong character could survive an election based on philosophy and debating skills and a President with a stronger character would undoubtedly make a stronger leader. Beyond that, only a person of strong character would want the office of the President in the limited capacity provided by the Constitution.

Our nation is a union among people who disagree. This has been the case since its inception. Whether it is the Federalists and the Republicans, the followers of Jefferson or Hamilton, or the North and the South; our nation is built upon the idea that even though we can’t all agree we can provide for ourselves a nation which allows for both the variety of opinions and the common good. Part of the common good is the protection of those different opinions. Legislating behavior at the federal level goes against this founding principle of our country. By allowing the States to handle social issues we create a form of government which allows those who fiercely disagree on social matters to unite for the common good of our country at a national level. This unity at the federal level ensures the protection of all of our opinions by protecting the future survival of our country. The rule of law is dependent upon the ability of government to act as an agent of brutal force and coercion. If our government can’t hold us in jail, fine us, or take away our rights; then the law becomes impotent. Based upon this fact, isn’t it wise to formulate our social laws at the most local level possible in order to allow for those groups of people who disagree to live within their own beliefs while still retaining status as a valuable part of our country? How many federal laws are ineffective due to the inability of our federal government to enforce them? How many laws made within a city, county or state are more effectively enforced due to the support of the community? How many social laws only serve to divide our nation? For instance, does anyone actually believe that the issue of abortion will ever go away? It will be used to divide the nation into left-wing and right-wing voters until the country realizes that these beliefs aren’t going anywhere. Why shouldn’t we take such an issue and delegate it to the States, where it belongs, and allow for pro-life and pro-choice Americans to vote based on what is good for the country instead of voting in order to try to force their opinion upon those with whom they disagree? By allowing States to become truly reflective of their people instead of trying to create a nation of one belief system, we could make ourselves allies to each other and thereby form the more perfect union we should constantly seek.

Coming in Part III

The problems of being a libertarian (as well as the problems for the party)

Why anyone can be a libertarian (and why anyone can’t be a Dem or a Rep)

A Party of Humility vs. parties of arrogance

The reformation of Washington

Why consider being libertarian?

2011-06-03T20:45:00.002-06:00

So why should you consider becoming a libertarian? If it is so great, why isn’t it a viable third party in our country? What does the libertarian philosophy offer that the other two parties can’t? What does it offer you as an individual both in and out of the political arena? Why is the libertarian movement seeing a rise in strength and numbers?

Quite possibly the most attractive part of being a libertarian is the lack of judging. Our political parties waste an awful lot of time and effort judging people. When we are aligned within the political system according to moral beliefs we are judging people by seeking to control morality through legislation. Libertarians do not seek to control people at the federal level. Our two political parties are great at preaching about morality but fall short more often than not when practicing those same beliefs, yet we continue to listen to them, why? Being a libertarian offers people the choice to lead their lives according to their morals without judging those who hold different beliefs. Libertarians are often cast as supporting some form of anarchy. Nothing could be further from the truth. Libertarians must believe in the rule of law more than their political opponents because it is the law which protects us from each other as well as citizens from their government. However, the rule of law must stop our government from offering the temptation to voters to control those with whom they disagree. The prevention of social engineering demands the support of the population and today that support comes from the libertarian belief and its supporters.

Libertarians can show what politics should be like. Today’s politicians are experts at the empty response. How many times do you hear a politician answer a question with a great speech while never answering the question? Libertarians don’t need this skill. Libertarians rarely change their stance on a subject for two reasons. Firstly, we don’t have as many opinions to push because we believe the vast majority have no place on the federal level. If we are talking a local or state election there will be more to say due to the responsibility at that level, yet the principle remains the same and actually would allow more local control to the voter over the type of person writing legislation based on morality. The second reason libertarians don’t often change their opinion is that it isn’t rooted in polls and election cycles like the other two parties. The libertarian bible is the constitution and it doesn’t change. The libertarian debates the application of constitutional responsibilities such as the application of military power or protecting our borders. Those debates can occur with more honesty and more clarity if they aren’t polluted by the parties’ effort at herding us according to moral beliefs. Once you let go of the stump speeches and tag lines you can begin to learn what a candidate really believes. Their philosophy becomes clear when they aren’t giving sound bites along party lines. Yet it is still politics. You still need votes and supporters. So how does a libertarian use their philosophy as an advantage in these areas? The first way is to speak to the concerns of the audience. Libertarians have an easy job in this regard if they stick to their beliefs. As explained above, it is easier for a libertarian to be consistent from audience to audience. It is also easier to be convincing because freedom and liberty are easily understood and highly desirable. All a libertarian needs to convince a voter of is that they are a capable human being. Libertarians always give as much power to the individual as possible; so it is logical that if you can convince someone they can take care of themselves you can offer a philosophy which leads to retaining as much of that power as possible. The libertarian philosophy also offers the only serious plan to reduce spending, taxes and the deficit at the same time. By reducing the bureaucracy in Washington we can allow state and local governments to control issues such as education with far more efficiency and effectiveness. Libertarians don’t support the concept of a central bank so not only would you have more money in your pocket, but it would be worth more as well! These are issues which the Washington politicians refuse to address seriously. With the humble platform built on offering people more power over their lives and more sound money in their pocket, a libertarian doesn’t have to play gutter politics because they actually have something to say of value. A libertarian doesn’t have to point out an opponent’s faults, only the faults of his political beliefs and how they rob the voters of power and money. None of this explains why we don’t have a libertarian Washington though. Perhaps that has something to do with the media outlets promoting the two parties which offer favors to the conglomerates which own them. You know; companies such as G.E. for instance.

Coming in part II:

How being a libertarian creates friends out of enemies

Why ANYONE can be a libertarian

The problems with being libertarian (and the problems for the party too)

Greed part II

2011-06-03T16:33:00.002-06:00

So it occurred to me as I was sitting down to write the second part of the greed article that some of the examples I gave in the first part could be said to be selfishness and not greed. However, I would say that selfishness and greed are shades of the same thing. I think being greedy is also being selfish since a person can’t have more without someone else having less in many cases. However, this is about the greed in Washington and how that has confused the issue of greed in America.

Politics in America has become a three-ring circus. In one ring you have the parties, in another the business and lobbyists and finally the finale is performed by the voters. Although selfishness, arrogance and ignorance are plentiful in Washington, I think the damage done by greed can do the most harm.

Firstly, the voters. Voters are greedy because they believe they can get something for nothing out of Washington. Whether it is education, subsidies, health benefits or national security; the voters are greedy. I understand that voters are willing to pay taxes, but how many officials are willing to come out and tell the voters they need to raise taxes? How many would get elected if they did? Even worse, voters are greedy because they think as long as they elect a person from their chosen party that after the election all is good and they can return to watching American Idol. We are greedy because we request and require that our government set our moral standards. We are greedy because we allow the centralizing of power in order to foster a more remote relationship with our government. This “long-distance” relationship allows voters to profess helplessness and the lack of accountability. Why are these things greedy? They are greedy because we value our time, money, and energy too much to use them for the better good of our society and country. It is far easier to wave our rights if it allows us to wave our responsibility. This is the essence of what is wrong with our country. It is not a left or right issue. It is an issue of citizenship, education, and a balanced amount of nationalism.

As far as the parties are concerned, I’m not sure where to start. What could I possibly list as the greediest actions that make up a normal day? I suppose that the greed in Washington boils down to power for the politicians and money for the businesses and lobbyists. Quite possibly the greediest action undertaken by Washington is that of social engineering? How hard is it to understand that our country was founded in such a way as to promote our states as democratic experiments that can learn from each other while not risking the union with their failures? The prevailing opinion in Washington is that we cannot decide for ourselves, whether as citizens or states, how to conduct our affairs. If we consider the financial and military actions taken by our current President, I believe it confirms the fact that the parties aren’t really that different at heart. The only differences worth mentioning involve either the supporting organizations (the old argument of unions vs. business) or the social engineering promoted by each party. They both voted to bail out the banks. They both send our precious troops around the world to further our empire. They both choose to ignore or obey the United Nations depending on which serves their goal. They both sell their souls to the organizations which fill the coffers during election time. So what makes you a Democrat or Republican? I would argue that it really comes down to only a few things. Currently among these traits are: abortion, gay marriage and tax structure (including welfare). Obviously there are many, many more. Class warfare plays a huge role in defining our parties, for example. Race also plays a role due to the differing philosophies on the government’s role for this issue. Yet I dare to believe that when it comes to immigration, most voters agree on the basics. I think most people agree our military should be used for defense and not the building of an empire. Most citizens support a safety net for those that are poor, sick, old or young. However, there are subjects upon which the sides will never agree. How does this come back to greed? Politicians and business leaders alike seemingly survive off of greed in Washington. They covet the power given to the states and the voters. They covet our money through inflation and taxes. They yearn for more power and money without end. Yet earlier I blamed the voters for allowing this greed to grow. Why? We the voters are allowing moral issues to permit the two parties to mislead us with promises of social engineering. We should demand a true choice, one that promotes our empire and one who believes we should bring troops home from wherever possible. That would be a true choice involving decisions and power left to the federal government by the constitution. We should be demanding a choice between a national bank and the constitutional ban on printing money. Yet we allow the system to organize us according to our beliefs on issues such as abortion and gay marriage. These decisions were never meant for the federal government and yet because of their greed towards power, they herd us according to our beliefs without ever addressing the issues for which Washington is actually responsible. This grouping of voters has allowed politicians to avoid the true issues facing our nation such as central banking, imperialism or the promises of benefits which can no longer be afforded. For over a century education fell to the parents, teachers and local community and yet we have allowed the greed in Washington to take that over too. The greed and arrogance shown through taking over everything possible is only viable if voters allow it. The greedy politicians write bills which scratch the back of their campaign supporters while promising benefits to the voters. Doesn’t it seem incompatible that we can help everyone with health care costs through a bill written by and arguably for the insurance companies and drug companies? Politicians get re-elected because voters are too greedy with their time to really study issues or candidates and instead vote based off of TV advertisements. Doesn’t anyone else think money shouldn’t decide elections, and yet it does year after year? Yes, our federal government is greedy, but it is our mutual greed which is sending our country down a dangerous road. Americans enjoy comfort and yet democracy and true liberty DEMAND that we be uncomfortable at times. Should we be more afraid of allowing people to act or believe in ways we disagree with or should we be more afraid of a small group in Washington that decides the value of our money illegally? Allowing the Constitution into the political conversations and elections in a meaningful way would permit States to decide these moral issues while preserving the health of the nation. The greed in Washington is dangerous and immoral yet the submissive attitude of the voters is far worse. If America is to survive and flourish in the 21^st century we, the voters, must become as greedy towards the rights our constitution gives as us we are towards our bank accounts.

Greed Part 1

2011-06-02T10:41:00.000-06:00

What does greed mean to you? Greed it typically used in a context meaning to gain power, material goods or money. Greed can often imply that the greedy person wants more than they need. I believe that most people would agree that we have plenty of greedy people in Washington, for example. With this I would agree. However, I also think that any patriotic American also must be greedy, to a point. Greed doesn’t always have to be a negative attribute. Greed has contributed to the improvement in living conditions as far back as recorded history and most likely much further than that. It was greedy to want to be warm while others slept fitfully, yet man built fires to warm himself at the cost of the forest. It was greedy to not be satisfied eating fruits and vegetables and to supplement mans’ diet with dead animals, cooked over a fire I might add. It is greedy to control people through means of religion and political structures granting power to the few over the many. Consider the amount of money taken in through various churches and religions. What are they selling you really? An opinion perhaps? A particular interpretation of a Bible, Koran or other holy text? Are they selling you salvation, or are they selling you assistance in finding your salvation? Is it not greedy for a Pastor, Priest or other religious office to think they hold the key to your soul’s future? Is it not questionable that money, tithings, or even your life can be the price for your membership or salvation? Certainly it is greedy for a Monarch or dictator to think they should have utter control over a country because of the family they were born into or the size of their armed forces. Quite obviously, it is also greedy for a CEO who makes millions, if not billions, from his company to lay off workers or refuse to raise wages while living in luxurious bliss. However, our country has relied upon private industry as the fuel for economic progress since its inception. If a business owner doesn’t want to grow, doesn’t want to advance, doesn’t want MORE; he won’t hire more people nor seek to advance the industry in which he works. Without some greed, competition dies. Isn’t it a form of greed to want to outshine your opponent in sport, life or business? Our country is full of greed in both positive and negative forms. If we want to get rid of the negative greed (or as much as possible anyway) then we need to look at why it exists and whether the particular act of greed is a symptom of a systematic issue or a particular person’s choice.

I recently was talking with a friend about the greed of Oprah. I don’t believe Oprah is above the yearning for power and money. I do believe she is one of the most popular and effective philanthropists in our country today. I don’t believe that she branched out to start her new TV station out of pure benevolence. I think she started the station to expand her influence, which is usually a positive one thankfully; her power, and yes to line her pockets. There is nothing wrong with Oprah’s success, and in point of fact, there are many wonderful things about her story. I’m not making a judgment for or against her; I’m merely making the case that without some greed her empire would not have been possible. If we support her empire and we support individual liberty; how can we attempt to use her magnanimous spirit to justify her actions before she had the resources to give so much back? My point is this, she could never have become what she is today without the right to not be that person. In order to allow someone like Oprah the ability to build a media empire we have to acknowledge the use of that empire is up to the builder as long as it doesn’t act illegally. In other words, you can’t have an Oprah without a Donald Trump. (For the record, I’m not saying anything bad about Mr. Trump. I’m using the stereotypical image of him as less than giving when compared to Oprah.)

Whether it is T Boone Pickens, Oprah, Donald Trump, Bill Gates, Carnegie, or Tiger Woods; we love to portray them as saints or sinners when neither is correct. They are as human as any of us and all of us are greedy. Did you eat steak last night when a hamburger would have sufficed? Did you buy a new car because your last one was too old, even though it worked? Do you smoke cigarettes even though they will probably give you cancer and cost your family, friends or children the ability to know you in old age? Do you buy the cheapest form of everything? Do you want HD TV when normal would suffice? How many cars do most families possess? Do you expect a pill to solve almost all your health issues? There are countless examples of Americans wanting more than they actually need. Compare us to a poor country for example; we believe each kid needs their own bedroom when there are places where whole families sleep in the same bed. As long as we are willing to work for the pleasures and lifestyle we want, I see nothing wrong with it. Greed is part of desire, desire is part of motivation, and motivation creates. That is what America does; we create. Before we condemn those at the top of our economic ladder, we should remember who built universities, concert halls, bridges, sports arenas and so much more. How many people realize Carnegie Hall was basically built from the profits of a steel company? Besides, doesn’t it make sense to support a society in which greed is fostered in any individual willing to work for their goals? At least this is a fair system allowing anyone the chance to be greedy for his or her family and business. I, for one, prefer the greed of the private individual to the greed of the politician. Above all else, it is the responsibility of the American citizen to provide for themselves whenever possible and to prevent the collusion of business and government. Politicians and business owners should never be allowed to collaborate in their greed. It is this collaboration that has the American population confused over the issue of greed and that is the topic of the next article.

America's Energy Problem

2011-04-19T14:15:00.000-06:00

Is there anyone who doesn’t agree that America has energy problems? Our addiction to foreign oil, our inability to use domestic resources or ingenuity and, most regrettably, our lack of the ability to foster a productive conversation at both the water cooler and in Washington have left us with a situation that seemingly requires a painful solution regardless of which side of the cooler you stand. Our shadow of a republic, a partially corporatist, somewhat socialist, hardly capitalist and amazingly useless government , has created the problem and so now, in their infinite wisdom, must come to save the day, from themselves, yet again.

I’m always amazed that the American public has fallen so far so fast in regards to the value we place on freedom. There was a time where even the most average of citizen could give an intelligent oration on the form of government in their country. There was a time when the majority of Americans thought more about the limitations of governmental power than they did about what the government could for them. Unfortunately those days are over. The powerful influence of government drives the conversation about energy with both funding and legislating and thereby effectively shuts the door to opposition in the discussion. This should be nothing new to Americans, we continually vote for this transfer of power to our government’s officials and bureaucrats. Perhaps the conversation is more free than that; but tell me how much it has accomplished and we can at least agree on the effectiveness of the fringe components of the energy conversation. Alternative fuels and energy systems always lose due to one common weakness, funding. Even those with the resources like T Boonse Pickens and Ted Turner are having to seek out legislation to promote and support their point of view and interests. Certainly our government contributes to this problem with the oil subsidies doled out every year. Only the government can empower, favor and fund whatever companies and industries it wants to. An awesome power when citizens place their votes up for auction as we do.

While researching oil subsidies in America, I ran across an article where an obvious effort was made to separate the issue of the oil companies from the issue of subsidies in general. (http://cleantech.com/news/node/554 ) Once again the real issue is missed. Why should we subsidize any industry? If the GOP sold out to big oil, it was only because citizens allowed the sale of a party in the first place. If the Democrats are owned by unions, it is only because we allowed it to grow too big and do too much. While the removal of all subsidies would be ideal, this is of course another time where compromise is the only way to get anything accomplished. Unfortunately we can’t develop our own oil quickly. This leaves us in a position of weakness when doing business abroad. However, our energy crisis can be solved if we accept a few principles. Firstly, it is going to hurt a little bit. I don’t think anyone is going to develop a painless (cheap) implementation of a new energy system. When we start to back off of oil subsidies we will risk an acute rise in oil prices. Most likely oil prices would fall quickly however. Once the path to an alternative fuel system is cleared and embarked upon, OPEC and the like are going to see the beginning of the end and will have to lower prices in an attempt to de-fund the new system through under-cutting the new competition. Perhaps a goal for our politicians could be to cut spending and apply those dollars to a tax holiday on gas in order to temporarily offset a rise in gasoline prices when the time is right. Secondly, government subsidies have to be a part of the solution. One possibility would be to announce the ending of certain subsidies ahead of time. They would have to be phased out of course, but the movement away from supporting the oil industry could make investment in alternative fuels logical and without spending any money. Thirdly, holding an industry accountable for pollution instead of allowing lawyers to legislate it will serve people and nature better. Bringing some common sense to the conversation about pollution could also swing the momentum in favor of alternative fuels. Allowing our government to legislate pollution was a big mistake. Polluting the air we breathe is not a complicated issue. If an industry pollutes then they must be responsible for both cleaning up any pollution and repairing any damages to both people and property. Obviously we can’t expect to drop the bill for all lung cancer patients on the doorstep of BP. However, what we can do is set up a phased-in penalty for their pollution. Fourthly, obviously the big problem here is the resulting price hike in response to the new expenses and cuts in revenue. The tax holiday is potentially one part of a solution. The price hike is why we must take concrete steps forward without backing ourselves into a corner. We can not allow our energy system such power over us again. We must move away from funding one industry without replacing it with another. If our politicians would realize they can provide a road map towards a new era in energy sources and delivery systems without choosing the system or source; they could move our economy and energy consumption in new ways with hardly any expense. Perhaps it serves them better to assume the responsibility to make all the decisions for us, that way they can bicker about arguments best solved by the consumers and providers in order to avoid actually doing anything. I often hear of the trillions of dollars that the private companies are holding on to since 2008. Doesn’t it make sense that if we made the political commitment to get out of the business of subsidizing big oil and pollution without choosing the next “winner” that the public’s desire to invest in the next-big-thing would take over? While our country can’t afford any new spending currently, that doesn’t mean we can’t find ways to support the transfer into a new energy era. A portion of spending cuts could be retained for energy programs. Any funding big oil loses could go to new energy projects temporarily too. Of course, one could also believe that competition and free market principles will provide more than estimated as well. How and if we support the new industries is a very important question, perhaps the most important. There can always be something better, cheaper, faster, or more efficient. The reward for continually improving our energy consumption and source of fuel must not be locked away by legislation and an uneven playing field. We have waited a long time to take any serious step away from oil dependency due to the corporatist alliance of government and international oil companies. Let’s hope we don’t make the same mistake again.

America's Middle Class

2011-04-04T14:46:00.000-06:00

Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum love to rally around the middle class in our society. However, I believe that in many cases they are promoting a myth. They need the middle class to keep pumping tax dollars into the system. They fight over the centrist vote found in the middle class in order to get into office. The use the middle class lifestyle to both promote the opportunities in America and to justify doctrines based on “fairness” for those seeking to move up the economic ladder in our society. Unfortunately many of these pictures they paint use lies as their canvas.

Our country was not built by the middle class. I hear this falsehood spread by both parties on the hill. Our country was built by many things, but the middle class is not one of them. We were unfortunately built by slaves. We were built by fearless explorers headed west in covered wagons. We were built by exploiting our advantages in population, medicine and weaponry over Native Americans. We were built by lower class factory workers. We were built by farming families. We were built by miners. We were built by construction workers. Many people became middle class due to the lessons they learned in tough times. They learned to save their money and buy a house. They learned to promote education and discipline at home and at school in order to set their children up for success. They learned to start their own small business in order to provide for generations of family. Unfortunately, our government used this advancement as an excuse to provide more things to more people in an attempt to level the playing field. The belief that those with should provide for those without through the force of government took hold and both politicians and voters have never turned back. Look at the history of our country and you will not find government support of the individual until somewhat recent history. The creation of the middle class was not due to the government but in spite of it.

Politicians are correct when they say the middle class is important. The middle class creates a population that threatens the government. The higher education enjoyed by the middle class can threaten the government through enlightenment. The lack of financial dependence is another cause for worry among politicians. Basically, if the middle class doesn’t need the government, our politicians have something to worry about. So what was their reaction to this threat? They furthered their influence in the lives of every citizen. They funnel money to just about any cause in order to group middle class voters together. Whether it is the arts, farming, oil, banking, sports, radio, television, sexual orientation, marriage or anything else you can think of; there is some government committee or organization influencing your life. The government has become a beacon of morality while behaving so immorally that collectively we all agree it is broken. This is quite a feat actually. In order to convince us all that we need it, it teaches us that it can control opinions and actions. If you believe in gay marriage, you need to move the moral compass of anyone disagreeing through governmental force. If you are a minority, then you must force someone to hire you through legislating fairness. If you are a renter with no savings, you need to force banks to loan you money through the government. All of these are false. The idea that our government has any right to define marriage is a joke. Why, in a country of religious freedom, should we ask much less listen to our government’s opinion about marriage? Why can I not disagree with the idea as long as I don’t infringe on your right to lead your own life? Why must I support the idea of gay or straight marriage with tax dollars stolen from me? Without the intervention of government the two sides could learn to live without limiting either parties ability to live their own life. As long as we vote based on moral principles we will be easily divided thereby strengthening our government’s control over us.

Through promising to control or convert people our government has convinced us that it is the only way to change our society. Taxes are used for bribes against the voters at every turn. Think about that for a second. We are not allowed to make an income without our government taking some of it. Although we are used to this idea, it wasn’t always so. They used to be a bit more honest with voters. If the government needed money, they taxed a product or service directly in order to raise the funds needed. The people knew why the taxes went up and could support or rally against the new source of revenue. Who knows where their taxes go now? Quite literally, they take what they want, change the codes when it suits them, exempt their supporters; then leave us to fight over a few million dollars here and there for our chosen cause. How can this be the government of liberty? When did it become acceptable to offer up self determination for the influence of centralized power?

The middle class is a threat to Washington’s power. So far, they have been able to control this threat through dividing it. When the people realize that they do not need to use force against those they disagree with then liberty will once again flourish. The threat of law should not guide our moral compass. The respect between individuals allows for liberty and mutual growth. The force of government will never truly be applied for the cause of fairness because the proposed “fairness” must be defined by those promising or receiving gifts stolen from others. Instead of seeking fairness through government power, we ought to enforce the laws protecting us from each other without labels. We ought to celebrate the ability to disagree without causing harm. We ought to keep as much money as we can in order to privately fund the programs we support instead of giving it to a government who reacts by holding it hostage in return for votes. We ought to honor the lessons learned by those who suffered to build this nation instead of listen to our leaders who teach us to expect life’s rewards to be given to us according to our need. The middle class rose due to the prosperity allowed by liberty and the resourcefulness found in self-reliance. It was not created by our government but may yet be destroyed by it.

What a Government Shut Down Means For Us

2011-04-04T13:34:00.000-06:00

The Looming Budget and Debt-Limit Fight and the Possibility of a Government Shut Down

I always thought we were more of a hot chocolate or apple cider nation. Perhaps those newly addicted to their earl grey need to remember that honey gets you more than vinegar. Shutting down our government due to an inability to work together will not serve those looking to reform our government. I firmly believe that the shut down will be blamed on the Tea Party with some success. Those on the left in our nation will be able to point to the newest members of Congress and rightly claim that they have neither realistic expectations nor the ability to work with opposing points of view. Holding entitlement reform over the heads of the older Republicans and all but the blue dog Democrats will accomplish nothing in the long term and will only serve to push the Tea Party further into fringe politics. Who knows what the older Republicans of the establishment will do? Will Ron Paul and other like-minded politicians be allowed into the Republican primary debates, or will they be grouped into this fringe movement in order to justify ignoring their message and their supporters? Will the Republicans be further weakened in our government due to a successful blame game played by the Democrats? Will the Democrats be able to push a more leftist agenda due to rallying the centrist voters against fringe movements like the Tea Party? This is a dangerous stand off for both the Tea Party and American politics in general.

$30,000,000,000 is what this is all about. Well, roughly anyway. With the kind of spending our federal government enjoys, this 30 billion bucks just doesn’t seem like much money anymore. Can either party, much less our country, afford to shut down our government over such a number? The Republicans in the House are under pressure to pass a bill removing their ability to collect paychecks during a potential shut down. The Senate has already done so. Yes, under current law, they still get paid if they fail to keep the government running. Although the idealist in me wants nothing more than our “leaders” to go home for a while and quit writing legislation; the practical side of me acknowledges that during a shut down it is the myriad of lower level government employees that actually are hurt. It is the local sandwich shop or hot dog stand that shuts down. The local economy will see more pain than the central economy since our illustrious leaders in Washington will simply “print” more money to pay the bills they left unaddressed while shut down. States will end up either suffering through bridge expenditures they can’t afford or assistance in lieu of pay to those affected within their borders. Meanwhile we will all be reminded how much we need our federal politicians’ leadership to avoid future shut downs. Their talents at playing the blame game will be on full display. Their disgusting campaigns will once again prove we can be herded like the Romans to the Coliseum. Give me a little right-wing-Christian slander and I’ll trade you some tree-hugger-union libel. So what, if anything, can we gain from the shut down scenario?

First of all we can recognize why this is really such a big deal. Our federal government is just too damn big and has their hands in too many piles. Our nation must learn that the ring of freedom sounds less loudly when half the population is hanging from the Liberty Bell. We need to realize that we can not sustain the type of society in which roughly half the citizens rely on taxes for their wages. Well, that isn’t strictly true. We can go down the road of government employment if we are willing to be honest with ourselves and admit that liberty is not the goal of our nation anymore. Government jobs will always reflect government control. The second lesson we can learn is how to fight for the goals we have. Going to Washington with a sharpie isn’t going to work when politicians will only address discretionary spending. We need to look at the system as a whole in order to figure out how to improve our future financial outlook. We need to figure out how to stop the lie that Social Security has become. Everyone knows that relying on social security as a retirement isn’t realistic. I have yet to find a supporter of social security that is willing to rely on it by choice. So why do we tie up our money in a system that will not provide for us later? Those who are forced to rely upon S.S. due to their economic status are really the victims here. The system is built to promote reliance and an ever growing government. If S.S. isn’t enough they will help with Medicare or Medicaid. When those fail, they will use them as an excuse to not only spend more money, but also the failure will justify reforming health insurance on your behalf. Every one of these ideas creates more government jobs. Every government employee reduces the tax base. Every mistake made while creating government programs creates the need for a fiat currency. The cycle of governmental dependency never ends. If we are to fight for true change in Washington, we need only look to the past for our set of goals for the future. We need to stop lying to younger citizens about what we can provide for them. We need to start holding our leaders to their oaths. How many Presidents have started military actions without congressional approval? Was Iraq building a Navy to attack us? Did they have more missiles pointed at us than Russia used to? Did Libya threaten our nation? How many miles of American soil exactly were under threat of invasion or ruin by these foreign countries we bomb? So let’s start with an easy one, no more war. I support each and every man and woman of our military branches. However, I believe we can best honor what they are fighting for by actually promoting those principles at home. I find it interesting that we are being threatened by our politicians (and that is what they are doing) over 30 billion dollars while yet another President is spending money on a new military action without talking about the spending or Congressional approval required under the Constitution. Last time I checked, no political leader swore an oath to the U.N. of course that could come next I suppose. I firmly believe we could vastly reduce our presence overseas without weakening our national security here at home. However, if the Arab League (or Europe or Asia etc..) really wants our military assistance then let them pay us for it. Let our country be honest, we are in the business of war. If this is going to continue then let’s be honest about it and sell our product instead of giving it away. Of course, I hope this suggestion offends most people. It certainly offends me, yet at least it is an honest portrayal of what we do. We arbitrarily apply our military might to the causes that suite us at that time. If the selling of death and regime changes doesn’t sound like a good way to turn a profit, then why are we doing it at our own peril? If we believe in the claims that we are protectors of democracy then we need to remember that democracy is only the right to vote, it certainly doesn’t promise anything resembling fairness. We have not brought peace on the back of bombs very well in our history and the belief that we are now is foolish.

Let’s bring our troops home. Let’s use them to guard our borders and true national interests. Let’s start obeying the guidelines we were given in our Constitution. Let’s demand that our government ONLY does those things that are impossible for us to do for ourselves. Let’s address the tools, such as the Federal Reserve, that allow our current thieves in Washington to steal money from both us and future generations at the same time. Let us stop idiotic expenditures such as sugar subsides or oil exploration in Brazil. Let us decide to hold elections not based on money but merit. Instead of arguing over a few dollars here and there, let us address the principles we have abandoned and the rest will fall into place. In a government that spends trillions of dollars with the stroke of a pen, should we really be guided into a circus tent of side-show politics by 30 billion? Once again we are distracted by the useless hand of government while the productive hand simply continues wasting our resources and liberty. In the end, our government will probably not shut down. They may not pass a budget at all like last year and instead pass continuing resolutions to keep things going. They may act like they are coming together for the best interests of us all and pass a compromise. I doubt either party is willing to show they can’t even fund our government, especially since they pretty much use Monopoly money as it is. Regardless of how it turns out, the American population has been distracted with yet another short term problem with long term consequences created by our politicians. Someday we need to fight against the systemic problems which allow Washington the power to create these issues. Someday we need to fight about the real issues and not just about how to handle the consequences of past and current abuses of that system.

Republican's Ridiculous Grilling of the DHS Compliance with FOIA

2011-04-01T01:45:00.000-06:00

As I struggled to sleep tonight I stumbled upon a House Committee hearing about the compliance of the FOIA (freedom of information act) in regards to the DHS(Department of Homeland Security). After hearing the chairman's opening statement I had no chance of sleeping. Accusations of political interference in regards to the releasing of documents bothered me and I simply had to watch what happened. I must admit that the opening statement of the ranking member completely disregarded these accusations but I passed this off as partisan protection at first. (For those that don't watch much Congressional action, ranking member means they were the highest ranking member of the minority party, in this case the Democrats, the chairperson is the highest ranking member of the majority party, or the Republicans.) What followed these opening statements was astounding, even for someone so critical of Washington politics as I.
If you listened to the opening questions by the Chairman you would have thought those testifying were undoubtedly guilty of allowing partisan politics to affect their jobs on a regular basis. Furthermore, you would have believed that this was a common practice. Almost without exception, the Chairman gave little chance for those testifying to actually answer the accusations. He was rude, disrespectful and assumptive in his questioning. Repeatedly the Republicans phrased questions in such a way that they answered their own queries and they basically dared the two-person panel to deny the charges. Most of the time, when a Republican heard the beginning of a refute, they simply cut those testifying off. Behind the Chairman's desk hung two highly partisan signs referring to transparency which gave no reference to fact and merely purported to question the integrity of the DHS and those responsible for FOIA compliance. The tone of the Republicans' questioning was so assumptive that I found it impressive that neither of the persons testifying lost their cool.
I was actually impressed with the testimonies offered. Time and again it was shown that the level of information released had significantly increased since 2009. As I was in bed watching, I didn't get a chance to write the names of those testifying, so unfortunately I can't give them here. There was a lady who was in charge of the FOIA personnel within the DHS and the DHS Inspector General. The lady testified that they had reduced the inherited requests by roughly 84% in the first year which was far beyond the requested performance of 10% per year. She also testified that the DHS was among the fastest in response time at about 94 days I believe. She implemented a new system of information sharing about requests which notifies all relative parties through a shared database. Before 2010 information was passed via email which was understandably slower and more cumbersome. I am talking about telling the lawyers, FOIA personnel and political positions about the different FOIA requests that were about to be released. She admitted that when she first took her job that political positions were afforded the opportunity to put their stamp of approval on releases but she quickly noted that due to the new database sharing method; notifications were given the day before information was released. The system she inherited was put into place by Republicans. From all of the testimony on behalf of both her and the DHS Inspector General they showed a remarkable effort to do their job as best they can. Unbelievably, HR1 (the Republican budget proposal) cuts their budget by 9%. If there is one place we ought not to look into for savings, I would suggest it is here. The point of the matter is this; I didn't hear one accusation which had factual support given to it. The only time a Republican came close, it was quickly pointed out that the procedure he was referencing was an inherited one and that it had been discarded for a system removing political appointeess' ability to affect the releasing of documents. I must give those testifying credit. They had all the facts to support their case while those accusing them of partisan foul play had very little if anything to back up their loaded questions.
I do believe there are a few things we can learn from the hearing. First of all, what the hell is the DHS doing which prompts our press and citizens to file 130,000 requests for information in a single year? We know the DHS is granted a myriad of powers totally against not only the idea of liberty but the constitution as well. This was well documented during the initial founding of the department as well as during each time it has been up for renewal. Secondly, we can learn that the House of Representatives is still a circus, just with a different ring-leader. I have watched countless committee hearings over the last few years and with the possible exception of judicial nominations, I have never seen someone testifying treated so rudely without any proof of the accusations cast upon them. These are individuals with reputations. These were human beings for heaven's sake. I am completely in favor of the minority party (not in the House, but in the govt as a whole) keeping the administration honest. I am totally in favor of the checks and balances that Congress can provide by questioning those in charge of FOIA compliance. However, if our politicians can't even hold a hearing armed with evidence to back up their accusations, what good are they doing? They never asked the questions that would have meant something. While the lady in charge of FOIA compliance touted their improved pro-active releasing of documents, no one asked her why there were still so many requests. Out of those 130,000 requests roughly 600 responses were altered or denied; yet no one asked if there were any commonalities among those 600 requests. Not once was subject content of requests addressed. Perhaps if someone had the guts to ask what the majority of questions were about, we might have learned something which could have helped them move forward in the hope of reducing the overhead costs of FOIA compliance. Better yet, from the point of view of the Republicans, they might have learned something they could have sunk their teeth into. Instead we, the citizens, are left with Republicans making a sophomoric scene and with no useful knowledge gained from what should have been an informative and highly relative committee hearing.

House Bill and Debate Over Public School Funding vs. Voucher Funding

2011-03-30T14:49:00.000-06:00

Again our attention is turned to the House of Representatives. Today there is an amendment called the Holmes-Norton Amendment. This amendment would transfer funds that are currently used for a school voucher program which allows the parents to use federal funds to send their children to charter or private school. These dollars are also allowed to be used to support homeschooling if that is more desirable. Obviously the parents can send their kids to the local public school if they prefer. The debate over this amendment once again shows why our government is broken.

After almost an hour of debate the Democrats either would or could not address the accusation that the only reason they are looking to divert these funds is directly influenced by the support of the teacher’s union. It is certainly understandable why the teacher’s union would like to discontinue or weaken this voucher program. When the union looses automatic funding and is set against the performance of other educational programs money is spent against what they stand for. The teacher’s union stands for lack of accountability through their tenure program. The teacher’s union wants to keep the students in the public school so that the system employing them remains intact. I was astounded to hear the Representative of the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, actually challenge another member of the house from Indiana to offer the same type of voucher program to his state, so that they could enjoy the same type of choice that “we (the people of D.C.) didn’t ask for”. If that doesn’t say it all I don’t know what could. She seemingly admitted in that statement that she didn’t believe her constituents wanted the choice where to educate their kids. Another example of the Democrats circling the wagons was the reason Rep. Rob Andrews gave for his support of his colleague from D.C. He actually said that he supported this bill simply because Rep. Norton does and that her opinion should be the only one that matters. It is hard to believe that our politicians admit these things and we don’t call them out on it. The arguments put forth today by the Republicans promoted funding the parent’s choice. They accused the Democrats of fearing competition between schools due to their support for a union. It was unfortunate that the Democrat speakers never addressed this collaboration; I would have been interested to hear the counter-point.

So what can we take away from this debate? Firstly, that our political parties are sold out to their supporters. This, of course, is nothing new. Both parties hold too many beliefs regarding legislating simply because those organizations who support their party and campaigns desire a certain outcome. As I wrote the other day, this is all about power and money. The power to educate your child in their own way and the money to pay for it is at stake here. On the one hand you have a party heavily influenced by a union who wants to see neither their power diminished nor their automatic funding cut off. One the other hand you have a party who wants to tear down the union and thereby weaken the opposition. They can say they want to put the choice in the hands of parents, and indeed they are trying to do that. However, they still want federal dollars to influence local education and therefore they are still wielding power over us. Perhaps one of the biggest faults in this debate is that no politician had the guts to suggest that perhaps the Federal Government shouldn’t be controlling the issue in the first place. Regardless of which side of the debate you support, it is tough to deny that the influence of our federal government changes powerfully whenever there is a power shift in the Congress. Even if you support federally funded public schools, the ability of those who disagree with you to bring about major changes to your programs, once they are in power, ought to give you pause. This is the crux of the issue. How well are those in D.C. enrolled in the voucher program represented by Rep. Norton? How well are those in D.C. who choose not to use the voucher program represented by the newly elected Republican majority? This conflict in Washington will not end as long as they hold the power to constantly change what already exists. I am obviously against a national teacher’s union. This could take another ten pages to explain, but suffice to say that this union is fighting for benefits that are beyond the public’s ability to afford. They fight for rules such as tenure which remove accountability to a large extent and foster, in my opinion, an environment that can produce complacency. I rarely hear any fighting that is truly about the children from the teacher’s union. Of course they throw rhetoric out for us to feed upon, but when was the last time they spent their political capital for such a cause and not for the benefits of teachers instead? It is a teacher’s union, not an education union. Their party, the Democrats, fought today to keep children in the public schools taught by this union while they rejected the notion that a parent’s ability to choose where to send their kids is a good thing. I support an individual’s ability to choose in almost any way you can think of. I also support the notion that each state and local government could provide better education for a cheaper price if they could have the revenue instead of our federal government. Even if one supports public schools at the expense of choice, that goal could be accomplished at the state level. If we take the power from Washington we can do so much more for our children. The arguments today only show another false choice. Either you support the Republicans or Democrats. I would prefer to support the citizen’s right to truly influence their own local schools. This influence can only be gained through weakening the centralized programs which are run by corrupt parties. I think it would be better to give the current revenue our federal government takes from us back to the states. The fed's should eventually transfer the collection of these funds to the states as well. This would at least begin to transfer the power back to the local level where an individual’s ability to influence government is more powerful.

The sadly comedic rucus caused by the motions offered by the Democrats before the voting show the absurdness of our federal government. The Republicans could not overcome the rules objection that the bill spent new money without an offset; a rule that the Republicans put in place when taking over control of the House. Instead of addressing the motion, they by-passed the reasonable objection by saying that the objection was an “untimely” one. I must side with the Democrats on this point. It only goes to show why we need to weaken the federal government. Both sides of the political spectrum abuse their own rules when it suits them. Anyone who watched the legislative disaster that passed the Affordable Care Act knows the Democrats aren't above this two-faced legistlating as well. This abuse, above all else, should show citizens the value in removing power and money from their clutches.

House Debate on Ending HAMP (housing mortgage affordable program)

2011-03-29T13:37:00.000-06:00

Today the House is debating the end of the Housing Mortgage Assistance Program, otherwise know as HAMP. The debate seems to point out that the current Democrats are desperate to cling to a program that sounded great and works terribly. Quite honestly they aren’t even getting support from some of their own most liberal supporters. La Raza, a Hispanic based organization know to be very liberal, has come out against the program while Democrats actually claimed on the floor that the ending of the program is going to unfairly hurt minorities. (http://www.nclr.org/) This is just an example of our government creating a situation where the financial sector was encouraged to loan money too cheaply due to artificially low interest rates. In addition to that, the Affordable Housing Act placed requirements upon banks to enter into loan agreements they would not have otherwise done. To say that this situation was rectifying a problem with the lack of minority homeownership is to ignore the facts. Even the Democrats on the floor today would only claim roughly 25% of people applying have been helped. The inspector general of TARP, where the funds come from, Neil Barofsky, doesn’t even support HAMP. He has released statements that too many people are hurt rather than helped. (http://www.dsnews.com/articles/tarp-inspector-generals-report-says-hamp-is-failing-2011-01-26)

Why do the democrats insist on holding onto such a failed program? Perhaps it is because they are afraid to admit the truth. They forced or encouraged banks to give mortgages people who shouldn’t have qualified and now they have furthered the pain by placing many of those homeowners into a program which can lower their credit scores, cost them back-payments they can’t afford, reduce the equity in their homes, and leave them with less money in the bank and no home. Perhaps the reality is that we shouldn’t have an artificial interest rate. Perhaps it isn’t so bad to be a renter. What do we tell the people that didn’t buy a home because they knew they weren’t ready for it? What do we tell the people who live within their means and pay for their home? We tell them to fork over money for TARP so that we can change the private agreement and adjust the payments. We teach our citizens that it isn’t there fault they bought something they couldn’t afford. We teach our people that they should buy a home with no savings. We teach our voters that as long as they vote a certain way, they won’t be held accountable for their poor choices. Democrats rallied against the pain the financial crisis has caused while blaming Wall Street without accepting their own responsibility. Who funded Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Who allows the Federal Reserve to lead the way to irresponsible loaning practices? Who placed race ahead of financial qualifications? Let’s not let the Republicans off the hook either. They are a leader in meddling with the financial sector. They too spend our money without wisdom. They too believe they should use authority they don’t have. This particular case is against the Democrats but don’t think that the real issue is HAMP. The real issue is those in Washington thinking they have the right or the ability to orchestrate and regulate our entire financial system. It doesn’t matter which side of the isle you are on; allowing Washington politicians and their appointed bureaucrats to make decisions affecting our very financial lives has left us with a debt that threatens to crush our country. When have they served our country well? Do they even care about the country, or are they more concerned with getting elected again? I suggest the latter.

Comments on the Passing of Geraldine Ferraro

2011-03-29T10:51:00.000-06:00

Recently we lost a woman of great importance and influence. Geraldine Ferraro was much more than just the first woman to run for Vice President. She inspired countless women in countless ways. Whether it was her fight against cancer, her political career, or her time spent on the U.N. Commission of Human Rights; Geraldine fought for her beliefs with a fervor everyone can learn from. While I am old enough to remember but a shade of her run for the office of Vice President, I certainly remember the unique energy brought to the campaign simply because a woman was in the running. I am lucky enough to live in a time where a woman’s ability to run a company or a nation is no longer as remarkable. Just recently we saw a woman finance her own political campaign as the former owner of a EBay. The fact that it was a woman was not the headline and I find this comforting. Geraldine was not just a teacher, lawyer, politician, activist, assistant district attorney or broadcaster; she was a symbol of a country moving forward in its enlightenment.

Some people will find the painful progress of equality an issue which shows a weakness in our society. I whole-heartily disagree. The constant search for equality is what makes our country great. While we should not seek to favor one portion of our citizens over another, the fact that our country constantly produces individuals who strive to bring the opportunity found in true liberty to all persons only serves to advance our country beyond the constraints of yesterday’s biases.

America

will only reach this goal when we stop seeing people as men or women, black or white, gay or straight , Christian or atheist or any of the other categories we now use to segregate citizens from each other. We ought to celebrate those who challenge injustice. We ought to emulate those who fight for the ultimate American value of individual liberty. We ought to honor the memory of those who have paved the road to shared prosperity. We ought to remember Geraldine Ferraro as such a person in our nation’s history.

Why Many Americans are Afraid of a Weak Government (And Why They Like That)

2011-03-28T22:21:00.001-06:00

The fight in our country today comes down to power and money. There is only a finite amount of both power and wealth in our country and world. Our founding fathers knew this fact to be true and thus struggled through war, legislation and debate on how to disperse these resources. We send missiles and troops while employing financial pressure against those abroad who we deem to be abusing their power and money, such as our recent involvement in Libya. Our government sits upon a judgemental soap box while spending vast resources to avoid the admission that it too abuses the trust of its population and founding documents. Our leaders have become nothing more than the shepherds of a flock of voters clambering for a piece of the pie whose ingredients are kept secret from them.
We get angry when corporations don't pay their share of taxes. We get angry when politicians are busted for any of a variety of illegal activities, yet never seem to pay any price for their behaviour. We get angry when corruption makes headlines. Why do these things happen? Could it be that our politicians grant themselves and their supporters special rights that we don't enjoy? Could it be that our government gives tax breaks to companies in return for financial support? How long will we keep our eyes closed to a system perpetuating their power and our weakness?
When our country was founded it was a simple idea. Liberty could only be gained by restricting the power of the ruling class or government. This struggle against centralized power goes back to the original arguments between Jefferson and Hamilton. For example, the ability to control currency was not granted because people like Jefferson knew the awesome power of manipulating money. Our leaders learned this lesson first hand through the collapse of the Colonial currency. Those lessons hold true today. Any government arbitrarily placing value on a currency is not only lying to its citizens but it is also stealing from them. Theft through inflation coupled with the false sense of security in holding such money historically follows. While conquering its neighbors, Rome literally confiscated their gold in order to produce more currency back home. While the methods of acquiring this new gold may or may not be found desirable according to our morals, at least the currency was worth something concrete. Since we won't support a war of conquest in order to increase our wealth, our government employs a game of inflation through interest rates instead. How and why does this occur? Does it help the common citizen or harm him? Since our Constitution declares the printing of money beyond the power of the government, how is this even legal? The answer is simple. The fiat currency employed by our country destroys the value of the dollar robbing the poorest among us while rewarding the richest. Our government usurped this power, disregarding the Constitution, simply because it could and because it was in the best interests of those bankers and industry leaders supporting the politicians in power. This collaboration was an ugly example of corporatism and it has led to the growth of corporatism over the last century. This is only one example of the way our government has centralized power and money in our country.
Unfortunately our politicians have grown wiser through the years and found many more ways to rob us of both our money and our rightful political influence over the decades since then. They toss around words such as fairness, charity or humanitarianism to justify theft through taxes. They write tax codes that take an army of accountants to understand. They act as though it is within their power to forcibly take our money in order to dole it out to people, nations and causes without our consent. This is not so. We allow our government to choose which artistic programs we should support. We allow them to decide which nations will get foreign aid, many of whom I dare say we would not support if given the option. We allow them to give our money to the support of varying scientific research projects. We allow them to wage wars costing us billions if not trillions while corporations turn obscene profits. The specifics do not matter, any way you look at it the government is in the habit of choosing winners and losers through the control of spending our money in whatever way it see's fit. How does this reflect the idea of a weak central government or representative government? Why do we allow this to occur? What will it take for the citizens of the United States of America to fight for the rights bestowed upon them by their Constitution?
Part of the solution to the problem of centralized power is to re-unite the masses. Our government has managed to separate its citizens through its influence our lives. It is this influence we should rally against. Whether it is a social, economic, or religious influence we are divided against each other along lines of personal beliefs. Our government is not in existence to support or deny these beliefs. They are not in place to make these judgements. We have lost the ability to see what we have in common and instead focus on what we disagree about. When we realize that the divisions among us are supported by the legislative powers our government has taken against the Constitution we can once again see what we have in common. We all want freedom, in fact we treasure our right to disagree. However, the idea that collecting enough people to vote in politicians who will legislate for or against a certain cause only divides us. This method of forced morality will never unite our citizens. In fact, it only serves those in power by placing voters against each other instead of the common enemy of our liberty, namely the Federal Government.

So why do we fear a weak government? We fear that our vision, our morals, our very beliefs will not be forced upon those who do not agree with us. We have accepted that the only way to support or promote our personal beliefs is to gain the support of the government. This system of legislating morality goes against the idea of liberty. A government can not enforce morality without admitting that it holds the view that its people do not have the freedom to choose for themselves. We are free to believe and do anything we want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. This is such a simple principle yet we forget the implied liberty it gives us all. When we remove the ability of our politicians to distract us with debates focused on what divides us we will find ourselves empowered to support our individual beliefs without allowing the theft of our liberty. How many times each day do you see ways to contribute to social causes without the government being involved? Whether it is clicking on yahoo, or twitter or google we are inundated with ways to support foreign countries and issues both domestic and abroad. Why do we need politicians and civil servants to do this for us? Why do we pay people to choose which cause we support? Why do we support a governmental system which picks winners and loses instead of allowing us to choose ourselves? Imagine how much money could be saved by giving directly instead of funneling donations through a system riddled with wasteful bureaucracy. Imagine the efficiency of keeping education a local issue instead of relying on unions and politicians to decide what is best for everyone. Imagine all people being treated equal instead of placing more or less value on one race, religion or creed. Some people will say that what I propose would remove the protections some people need but I believe that if we were willing to rely on enforcing existing law instead of fighting for exemptions from it we would all be better off. Every time a politician promises a gift of money or special rights they are taking your liberty. Just remember that the power you give them today could be used against you tomorrow. In fact this is already the case. Those on the left hate the causes supported by the right and vice-versa. This hatred has become the fuel for elections. If we realized that we can all keep our beliefs and support the causes we choose to, politicians would lose the ability to herd us and we might find the liberty enjoyable. We are afraid of a weak government because we have forgotten how to rely on ourselves. We are afraid of a weak government because we believe politicians when they tell us how important they are. Simply put, we are a society controlled with fear. Fear did not create this nation; the ability to rely on ourselves, the respect for our neighbors and the mutual pursuit of liberty gave us a nation of simple laws and a weak central government. It is about time we remembered the value of keeping power among the people and the States and away from political parties and politicians who only seek to divide us thereby empowering themselves.

Tee Up For Life Charity Golf Tournament Supports the Fight Against Cancer

2011-03-28T22:17:00.002-06:00

If you live near the front range area in Colorado, please check out the following fundraising golf tournament. You can either play or support through donations. I have played in this tournament for the last two years and highly recommend it as a way to support the fight against cancer. Of course, I might be a bit biased as part of the team seeking to defend our championship last year! :)
Please contact Teri Mears for more information:
Teri Mears
Vice Director
Tee Up for Life Colorado Springs
719-357-6557
http://www.teeupforlifecoloradosprings.org/