Article Archives by Subject:  Politics

01-03-2013

Permalink



Ready. Aim. Fire!
Subject: Does The Left Have An Agenda?   Oh Yeah, You Betcha!

Throughout my life I have listened to the musings of people speculating on the actual intentions of those who align themselves with the philosophy of the progressive left. Many good-hearted people who always search to find only the best in others would look at the disastrous results being achieved by various wealth redistribution schemes, corporate bailouts, regulatory boondoggles, failed educational initiatives and programs based upon moral relativism, egalitarianism and altruism, and offer one excuse after another in an attempt to justify that, in spite of all the harmful consequences, the aim of these people was nevertheless still noble and well-meant.  But was it?

After four years of Obama's incessantly divisive rhetoric, capped off by his historic reelection last November, there appears to no longer be any need to attempt to conceal the true intentions of these folk. The time for polite conversation and gentle persuasion has drawn to a close, and more direct and decisive action is now being demanded. Take for example what Louis Michael Seidman — who, just like Barack Obama, was an instructor of constitutional law — suggests in his December 30, 2012 New York Times-sponsored piece entitled, Let's Give Up on the Constitution:

    AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.

    Our obsession with the Constitution has saddled us with a dysfunctional political system, kept us from debating the merits of divisive issues and inflamed our public discourse.

    [Emphasis Added]

That's right. Our reliance upon constitutional principles is a neurotic obsession, and those principles are not just wrong according to this constitutional scholar — but are morally corrupt and therefore evil! Well, let's give Mr. Seidman credit for finally coming out and explicitly stating this belief that so many have struggled to conceal for so long.

Seidman is the left's answer to John Galt. He stands up on the pages of the New York Times and proudly proclaims, "Get Out Of My Way!" — not to the looters and moochers — but to the last remnant of protection that this country has to offer in service of the rights of individuals wishing to exist on their own terms and live for their own sake. Who is he gunning for?  Me ... and for you!

If an objective guideline such as the Constitution is to be abandoned as a constraint upon unlimited government power, and the concept of inherent unalienable rights is to be abolished, then what will replace them?

    This is not to say that we should disobey all constitutional commands. Freedom of speech and religion, equal protection of the laws and protections against governmental deprivation of life, liberty or property are important, whether or not they are in the Constitution. We should continue to follow those requirements out of respect, not obligation.

    Nor should we have a debate about, for instance, how long the president's term should last or whether Congress should consist of two houses. Some matters are better left settled, even if not in exactly the way we favor.

    There is even something to be said for an elite body like the Supreme Court with the power to impose its views of political morality on the country.

    What would change is not the existence of these institutions, but the basis on which they claim legitimacy.

    [Emphasis Added]

Seidman is privy to the answers, which appear to be nothing more than a grab-bag of personal wish, whim and mystical revelation. For some unstated reason we should have respect for certain amendments (I guess he'll know them when he sees them) while abandoning others that are self-evidently undeserving. Some aspects of the Constitution represent great tradition or are too much a bother to change, while the remainder should be tossed out with the baby and the bath water. Seidman will let us know which is which. And then there's "something to be said" (of course, the actual reasoning is better left unsaid) for maintaining an unrestrained totalitarian body with the power to impose it's arbitrary will upon the remainder of us.

Who could argue with any of this? I mean, where exactly would you start?

What makes it possible for muddled linguistic regurgitations like these to pass for "thought," which then gets prominently displayed upon the pages of the New York Times? The answer is our postmodern educational system that has stunted the minds of the preceding and current generations, rendering so many incapable of any sort of rational analysis. As an example, consider this little gem:

    If we acknowledged what should be obvious — that much constitutional language is broad enough to encompass an almost infinitely wide range of positions — we might have a very different attitude about the obligation to obey. It would become apparent that people who disagree with us about the Constitution are not violating a sacred text or our core commitments. Instead, we are all invoking a common vocabulary to express aspirations that, at the broadest level, everyone can embrace. Of course, that does not mean that people agree at the ground level. If we are not to abandon constitutionalism entirely, then we might at least understand it as a place for discussion, a demand that we make a good-faith effort to understand the views of others, rather than as a tool to force others to give up their moral and political judgments.

Why is constitutional language so broad? Because in the postmodern world, words are no longer concepts with definitions and meaning, but merely "sounds" hinting at underlying platonic "feelings" which are all equally valid and must therefore be "embraced" through "good-faith" efforts.

And what's wrong with rigid, objective principles as embodied in our Constitution? For the postmodernist, these are the "tools" of oppression which force one to abandon their subjective "moral and political judgements." In this context, "judgements" means arbitrary assertions requiring no more justification than someone screaming, "this is what I want and demand!"

For additional information on how postmodern philosophy is infecting our educational system, I highly recommend a wonderful series of videos presentations by Professor Stephen Hicks, which form a part of his Philosophy of Education course.

Seidman concludes:

    If even this change is impossible, perhaps the dream of a country ruled by "We the people" is impossibly utopian. If so, we have to give up on the claim that we are a self-governing people who can settle our disagreements through mature and tolerant debate. But before abandoning our heritage of self-government, we ought to try extricating ourselves from constitutional bondage so that we can give real freedom a chance.

So the entire history of Enlightenment thought which developed throughout the 17th and 18th Centuries, and its impact that upon Western civilization, leading to the recognition of the concept of individual rights, limited government, the Declaration of Independence, the American Revolution, and the creation of the U.S. Constitution, is nowhere to be found. This history is reduced to a floundering heritage of "mature and tolerant debate" (whatever that is?) held in "bondage" by rigid constitutional ... what? Principle? No, nothing so grand — just archaic and idiosyncratic utterances.

The "freedom" that Mr. Seidman seeks, isn't the political freedom for which our forefathers fought. No, what he strives for is the unobtainable freedom from reality that, time and again, history has shown leaves only a trail of human death and destruction in its failed wake.

Here we find a classic case of our opening thesis. Do we make excuses and allowances for Louis Michael Seidman's apparent lack of knowledge regarding western history and the meaning and purpose of the Constitution which he has been teaching for nearly 40 years, giving him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't actually understand the meaning of what he preaches — or do we hold him fully accountable for his ideas and the consequences that they portend? We'll come back to that.

Just one day earlier, on December 29th, Donald Kaul, was compelled by current events to come out of retirement and pen a column for his old newspaper, the Des Moines Register, titled, Nation Needs a New Agenda On Guns. [Note: This link is to a Fox News story, as the Des Moines Register is not a visitor-friendly site. The original column may be able to be accessed here.]

Like Seidman above, Mr. Kaul is no friend of our Constitution. In his article concerning the Sandy Hook shooting, he declares that, "The thing missing from the debate so far is anger." Well, anger is certainly something that Kaul has in ample supply!

In just a few short paragraphs, he calls for:

    • Repeal the Second Amendment. Owning a gun should be a privilege, not a right.

    • Declare the NRA a terrorist organization and make membership illegal. I would also raze the organization's headquarters, clear the rubble and salt the earth, but that's optional. Make ownership of unlicensed assault rifles a felony. If some people refused to give up their guns, that "prying the guns from their cold, dead hands" thing works for me.

    • Then I would tie Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, our esteemed Republican leaders, to the back of a Chevy pickup truck and drag them around a parking lot until they saw the light on gun control.

    • And if that didn't work, I'd adopt radical measures.

When it comes to feelings of anger, it is always time for the Constitution to be sweep aside, allowing those emotions to flower into the bloodlust that is the hallmark of the progressive left. And after all, there's simply nothing quite as eloquent as a good lynching to firmly make your point.

Just like the New York Times, the Des Moines Register considered this suitable material to promote as part of the national discussion on violence. However, considering the rhetoric above, it gives one pause to wonder if the elimination of violence is actually a goal of the left after all?

So just what is the left's agenda? As these examples demonstrate, it is nothing less than a concerted attack upon the principles articulated in the Constitution that provide a framework for autonomy and independence in thought and action. So long as individual rights are recognized and honored, even to a limited extent, it means that people remain somewhat free from the rule of other men. This sort of freedom cannot be tolerated by the tinpot dictator-wannabes like Seidman and Kaul, not to mention the staff at many of our news publications who promote these views while propping up the elected officials — the Reids, Pelosis, McConnells, Boehners, and their ilk — who share in this desire to control.

The agenda is simple, and it explains every position taken by the progressives: That which promotes individual initiative and personal choice is the bad which must be destroyed, while that which constrains individuals in any manner is the good. As always, it's the age old battle between individualism and collectivism, and it does no good to make allowances and excuses for those out to chain and control us. They know exactly what they are doing. Let's not allow them to hide from the consequences of their own sorry truth one moment longer.



External links to reprints of this article:
11-13-2012

Permalink



Brad Harrington
Subject: The Sign Of The Dollar

Brad and Barbie Harrington reside in Cheyenne, WY and together they publish a monthly newspaper called Liberty's Torch, dedicated to the promotion of "individual liberty, private property and personal responsibility."

In the past I have included two excellent articles by Brad:

He has just penned an important new editorial analyzing where this country has been trending for the past century and the impact that those trends will have upon us all. I wanted to share this with you, and he has given me permission to reproduce here.

A Discussion Of The Post-2012 Election Fallout:

What Happened,  Why It Happened,
What The Consequences Will Be,
And What You Need To Do
To Prepare Yourself For The Future

"The task of defining ideas and goals is not the province of politicians
and is not accomplished at election time: Elections are merely consequences.
The task belongs to the intellectuals. The need is more urgent than ever."
—
Ayn Rand, "The Wreckage of the Consensus," 1967

It doesn't take the proverbial "rocket scientist" to figure out that on Nov. 6, the American social and political landscape, by hardly changing at all, changed dramatically forever.

Advocates of freedom, of course, viewing the re-election of President Barack Obama and a Democrat-controlled Congress with the trepidation such an event merits, have been in a twitter ever since, wondering what it is they could have done to make it different.

Factoid:  We're Outnumbered

    Well, what could we have done? Not a damn thing, fellow travelers, because it's time to wise up and admit the facts: The producers are now outnumbered by the parasites. Consider: When Ayn Rand wrote the above words 45 years ago, the country was still stocked with a large majority of producers. Yes, the so-called "welfare" state and interventionist economics were on the rise, and had been for decades, but many more people than not supported themselves and their families by their own efforts.

    If you still think that's true, you had better wake the Hell up and think again.

    In that year of 1967, for instance, the United States had a population of 198 million, a GDP of $825 billion, a federal budget of $157 billion and federal "social welfare" expenses of $26 billion. This placed "social welfare" spending at $131.30 per capita, or 3.1 percent of GDP and 16.6 percent of federal outlays.

    In 2012, on the other hand, the United States has a population of 314 million, a GDP of $15.2 trillion, a federal budget of $3.8 trillion and federal "social welfare" expenses of $2.3 trillion. This places "social welfare" spending at $7,382.17 per capita, or 15.1 percent of GDP and 60.5 percent of federal outlays.

    In the light of such figures, it's pretty clear that our "social welfare" outlays have skyrocketed — per-capita spending by 5,522 percent, percentage of GDP by 387 percent and percentage of federal outlays by 264 percent — and that's just the federal spending, folks. That doesn't count the state and local outlays.

    Given the data, it's not too far of a stretch to say that fully half of our population is receiving government aid of some sort and amount from the other half.

    And this guess, while a guess, is at least close, for the tax figures bear it out: In 2008, IRS figures show that the top 50 percent of the country's adult population (with incomes greater than $33,000) paid 97.3 percent of collected taxes, while the bottom 50 percent paid the other piddling 2.7 percent.

"Welfare"?  I Don't Think So

    And if you (mistakenly) think that this is the price we pay for "helping the poor," you'd better check your premises on that one as well: For, despite the untold trillions of dollars we've poured into the so-called "War on Poverty" since 1967 alone, when 31.8 million people lived under the poverty line, we now have 46 million people there instead — an increase of 44.6 percent. And food stamps? Just in the last four years alone, we've seen the number of recipients mushroom from 28 million in 2008 to 46 million in 2012, an increase of 64.2 percent.

    Clearly, the so-called "welfare" state isn't benefiting anybody — least of all the poor who need jobs the most. That's because it isn't "welfare," folks — it's the parasites living at the expense of the producers, pure and simple.

The Tipping Point

    Back in the early 1970s, when I was still a fresh young lad, my father told me something that I'll never forget (right after the election of Jimmy Carter): "When 50 percent or more of the country lives on the dole," he said, "you can kiss your freedoms goodbye."

    Well, Howdy Doody, welcome to the future. The 2008 election of radical left-winger Barack Obama and a host of additional tax-and-spend Congressional Democrats was the tipping point — and this election in 2012 merely slammed the nails into our political coffin.

    For how many more years does anyone seriously think such a trend can continue? When and where does it snap? At what point of the trend do the producers simply revolt and refuse to play their perennial role of self-sacrificial serfs? Like most human phenomena, it's a bell curve. Some people have already dropped out and off the radar, and more and more are joining them with every passing year.

Is "Atlas Shrugging"?  Yep.

    And the "bell" of that curve? It's approaching us much faster than we think. Indeed, just since the re-affirmation of America's commitment to half-socialist, half-fascist economic devastation, we have these facts to greet us:

    • St. Louis-based Energizer cutting 1,500 employees in attempt to save $200 million  (Channel 4, www.kmov.com, St. Louis, Nov. 8)
      "`These actions represent significant and necessary changes to our overall cost structure and organization,' said Ward Klein, chief executive, according to a statement."

    • Exide to lay off 150 workers  (The Reading Eagle, Reading, Penn., Nov. 9)
      "`This decision was based on several factors, including the dramatic swings in the lead market and the high capital investment needed, due to regulatory requirements, to remain operational in Reading,' said Paul Hirt, president of Exide Americas."  [Italics mine]

    • Boeing cutting 30 percent of executives at defense unit  (The Wall Street Journal, Nov. 7)
      "The company said funding for the U.S. Dept. of Defense is `under extreme pressure.'"  [Italics mine]

    • Stanford brake plant to lay off 75  (Lexington Herald-Leader, Nov. 7)
      "`This decision was based on current economic conditions and has no reflection on the quality and commitment of our people in Stanford,'" said Brake Parts LLC company spokesman Scott Howat."  [Italics mine]

    • Darden tests limiting worker hours as health-care changes loom  (The Orlando Sentinel, Nov. 11)
      "In an experiment apparently aimed at keeping down the cost of health-care reform, Orlando-based Darden Restaurants has stopped offering full-time schedules to many hourly workers in at least a few Olive Gardens, Red Lobsters and Longhorn Steakhouses."  [Italics mine]

    • Business owner fired employees who voted for Obama  (C-Span, Nov. 8)
      In a phone interview, a man who would only identify himself as Stu, saying that he owned a small aviation services company, also said: "`Yesterday, I called all of my part-time employees in and said because Obama won, I was cutting their hours from 30 to 25 a week so I would not fall under the Obamacare mandate... And I also had to lay two full-timers off to get under the 50-person cap... I tried to make sure that the people I laid off had voted for Obama.'"  [Italics mine]

    • Coal company announces layoffs in response to Obama win  (CNN, Nov. 9)
      "A coal company headed by a prominent Mitt Romney donor has laid off more than 160 workers in response to President Obama's election victory. Murray Energy said Friday it had been `forced' to make the layoffs in response to the bleak prospects for the coal industry during Obama's second term... Murray cited pending regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and the possibility of a carbon tax as factors that could lead to the `total destruction of the coal industry by as early as 2030'... In August, Murray shuttered an operation in Ohio, again blaming the Obama administration and its alleged `war on coal.'"  [Italics mine]

    I could go on and on and on, but then I'd be filling this space with things other than what it needs to be filled with, so... Suffice it to say that events similar to this have been occurring all over the country since Nov. 6, with who knows how many thousands of workers now out of work.

    I would hazard a guess that most of these firms, and many more besides, were waiting for the election results before finalizing their decisions. Now that the stake's been driven through our heart, these companies have acted in the only way they could to maintain their existences.

    For how much longer, however — given the now-for-sure increases in such collectivistic requirements as italicized above — will such companies be able to keep their doors open at all?

    Nor does it take the aforementioned rocket scientist to figure out that with dropping jobs numbers and decreased tax revenues, the result will be: More "welfare," more food stamps, more taxes and more regimentation and control — all of which, of course, will act to exacerbate and worsen the very problems such measures are (allegedly) intended to solve, thus ever-hastening the producer-vs.-parasite tip-over until the whole shoddy house of cards collapses of its own unsustainable weight.

    Consequently, our chances of affecting future electoral change on a national level have just been reduced to zero. By the time the next election rolls around, the balance between the producers vs. the parasites won't even be close.

The Hugest Heist In History

    Now, let's throw a few other things into the mix as well, as a post-mortem, so to speak, on an already-moribund productive corpse:

    • An "official" national debt of $16.2 trillion, which means: What we owe now constitutes 106 percent of our GDP, i.e., the entire productive capacity of the entire United States for the entire year. This, I submit, is an absolute looting spree, happening right before our eyes — and, as such, it constitutes nothing less than the hugest heist in all of human history. It is nothing more than an irrational, amoral, legalized, politically-driven plundering of the productive assets of the United States. And that's the good news: With budget deficits in the $1-$2 trillion dollar range these days, you can expect that 2x4 to wallop us right between the eyes at anywhere from $22-$24 trillion by 2016, minimum. More realistically, however, as the number for "welfare" and food stamp rolls continue to shoot themselves through the roof, you can expect that to mushroom by even greater amounts;

    • Unfunded liabilities for bankrupt programs such as Social Security, Medicare and government pensions now sit at $121 trillion, an economic dead weight of over $1 million around the necks of the (shrinking) numbers of every taxpayer in America. Check it out for yourself at www.usdebtclock.org, and watch the numbers spin so fast you could use the program for a ceiling fan;

    • The Fed, like a monkey turned loose in a power plant with a wrench in its hands, announced back in September that it would be proceeding forward with an open-ended, indefinite policy of "Quantitative Easing 3" (read: inflation) to the tune of $40 billion a month. You can expect, therefore, that the dollars in your pocket, already made nearly worthless by decades of such tactics, will be made even more so as time progresses.

    • Add it all up and what do you get, folks? Total, terminal economic dissolution and disintegration. Predicting a financial collapse, at this point, is about as daring as predicting that an egg is going to splatter when it's already on its way to the floor.

    We had a chance, small one though it was, to reverse some of these trends on Nov. 6; with the re-election of Obama and a Democrat-controlled Senate, however, you can kiss that chance goodbye. Even should the Republicans clean house come 2014, the die is cast, and the so-called "fiscal cliff" everybody is worrying about come Jan. 1 is little more than a firecracker to an atom bomb when compared to the yawning precipice awaiting us just a bit further down the road.

    The magnitude of that collapse, of course, can vary; it can be something as relatively simple as another Great Depression, or it can proceed on upward to complete social and political disintegration. Government, with its ability to change all the rules in the middle of the game, can postpone things for a bit longer — but not much longer. And the longer the postponement, the greater the level of devastation when the Piper finally collects his dues.

Rough Times Are A'Comin'

    Now, before we get to how our soon-to-arrive collapse actually represents the best and greatest hope we have before us, let's make a few things clear: It's gonna be hard times ahead for who knows how long, and you need to be prepared for it. Therefore, any rational and intelligent individual should, to the extent possible financially:

    • Stock water, food and other life-sustaining essentials. When you suddenly find your grocery shelves empty, what do you intend to do in order to feed yourself and your family?

    • Stockpile weapons and ammunition. As a producer in an ever-widening sea of parasites, you need to understand that you are about to become a target — and, should the horrible need arise, you need to be prepared to defend your property and your values from those who would take it all away;

    • Begin to buy silver and gold. When the dollar bills you have in your pocket become completely worthless, you need to have an alternative money supply on hand to be able to trade with other, like-minded producers — and silver and gold have been the tried-and-true currencies for millennia;

    • Consider your power needs. What happens when your utilities quit working? Do you have things like flash lights, batteries, candles — or, better yet, a generator? Or, better yet, an alternative source of long-term power? It's pricey but if you can afford it, get off the grid;

    • If you live in a big city and you are able to, move. Such locations will soon be resembling Potsdam after World War II (some of them look that way now). Get out of the cities and onto some land where you can still raise chickens and grow a garden if need be.

    There's much more than this, but you get the idea. The Torch will be running a series of articles, from this point forward, discussing all of these topics and then some: Foodstuffs, canning, weapons, defense, gardening, raising livestock, alarm systems, power generation, water-purification and transportation, just to name a few.

    Now, if you think I'm being alarmist here, that's fine. Throw away this newspaper and go pick up your copy of the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, where you will read that everything is fine and you've got nothing to worry about. If that's your viewpoint, great. For the rest of us, however, who know better, stay tuned. As a public service, the Torch intends to give you what you need to function and survive in the midst of what's coming.

Withdraw Your Sanction!

    Now, at this point, if you're beginning to feel a bit helpless and completely at the mercy of forces beyond your ability to manage, don't! For the fact of the matter is that it is you — the producer — who, in reality, maintains complete control and possesses an incredible power no moocher or looter can ever touch. And, furthermore, it is precisely therein with that power that our greatest hope lies.

    For, consider: The moochers and the looters, by definition, are incapable of sustaining themselves. As Howard Roark once remarked in Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead, "Creation comes before distribution, or there will be nothing to distribute." It is the very nature of the existence of such people that they cannot produce on their own; therefore, it is you, the producer, that they have to beg, borrow or steal from in order to survive. They need us; we do not need them. Yet, if you've ever wondered why it is that such parasites have always been successful at enslaving you despite this simple fact of reality, I'll hand you the answer: Because you have made it possible.

    Whose taxes permit the "welfare" state to function? Yours. Whose wealth is plundered in order to pay for it? Yours. Whose creations, innovations and productive abilities are hijacked in order to sustain the whole incredible mess? Yours.

    Quit granting your sanction — for, by so doing, you create your own chains and propagate your own servitude. Without you, the producer, the entire shoddy system is blown to smithereens. Given the devastation you are witnessing around you — never mind what's to come — isn't about time you just said "No"?

    This is not a new idea, by the way; Ayn Rand explored it thoroughly in Atlas Shrugged, written in 1957. While it is true that we have yet to reach the physical and economic devastation portrayed in her book, our cultural disintegration is nearly complete and the rest will follow soon enough. The single best thing any producer on the planet can do to come to understand their tremendous power is to pick up a copy of that book and read it.

    Above all, you need to realize that, at root, this is an intellectual and philosophical battle — and that the real goal of the collectivist slavers is not merely to seize your wealth but to collectivize your mind. Arm yourself accordingly, and remember: Free spirits cannot be enslaved, they can only be exterminated.

What YOU Can Do, Right Now

    The variety of ways in which you can drop out, refusing to build your own sacrificial furnace, are innumerable:

    • Join the underground economy if you can. Underground economic activities are now estimated to be in the neighborhood of $2.25 trillion per year, nearly 15 percent of the 2012 GDP. This represents money you own, free and clear, that the looters can't touch;

    • If you're so inclined to do so, quit paying your taxes — or at least figure out legal ways to keep as much of your money out of the hands of the looters as you can. Starve the leviathan beast;

    • Restrict your dealings, whenever possible, to other producers. Join up with other like-minded people in your community, personally and economically, and do your part to quit paying the looters for the privilege of having your assets plundered;

    • Quit voting — at least in national elections. Folks, the lesser of two evils is still evil, and we've been playing that game for decades. Look where it's taken us — to a level of degradation unmatched in all of history — and, remember, you're outnumbered anyway. Withdraw your sanction and refuse to play a role in your own political and economic destruction. Let the collectivist slavers own the entire mess we've got coming; let them write their names all over it. Agitate and gain control in your local communities to the extent you can, but quit wasting your energy everywhere else . Direct it instead to more profitable enterprises;

    • Get your kids, to the degree possible, out of the tax-supported indoctrination camps we so witlessly refer to as the "educational" system. The Leftist slavers have controlled this field of our economy for decades and your children are receiving nothing more than thoroughly collectivist brainwashings as a reward for their attendance. Get them into a private school — or, better yet, home-school them instead;

    • Hasten, wherever and whenever possible, the demise of the collectivist-slaver-state, which is only made possible by your consent — politically, economically, socially and philosophically. Quit giving it! When enough of the producers drop out and simply quit producing, the game's over.

The Greatest Power On Earth

    For those who doubt the tremendous power we all have — not only each of us as "mere" individuals, but also in terms of our amassed power as a consistent, cohesive and ideologically-aligned collection of like-minded free-thinkers and free-doers — read your history. One man, Mahatma Gandhi of India, armed with nothing more than a clear and consistent vision, aligned hundreds of millions of Indians into a social and ideological force that wiped out British rule without ever firing a shot.

    Similarly, in the depths of communist slavery in Poland, one man — Lech Walesa, co-founder of Solidarity — stood against all the guns, bombs and tanks of his gangster government and literally brought that government to its knees, becoming the first democratically-elected president of Poland in 1990. In so doing, Walesa also helped pave the way to the Soviet empire's implosion in 1991.

    So, never doubt the incredible power you hold! The philosophy of the Rights of Man has toppled kings and despots before and can do so again. You, as an independently-thinking, independently-functioning "mere" individual, constitute the greatest power on Earth.

    When the game's finally over and the rule of the collectivist thugs is finally and irrevocably brought to an end, then — and only then — we will be free to re-emerge and reconstitute society based on our principles.

    At that point, we will be ready to utter the words of John Galt, hero of Atlas Shrugged, stated on the final page of that novel:

    "`The road is cleared,' said Galt. `We are going back to the world.' He raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar."


11-05-2012

Permalink



Results?
Subject: Some Final Reflections On The Election

On the eve of the U.S. Presidential election, like many other people, I thought I would jot down a few final observations.

For liberty-loving people, the past decade in this country has been exhausting. In the wake of the 9/11 attacks we find ourselves saddled—apparently permanently—with the draconian Patriot Act which drastically expands unchecked government powers at the expense of our individual rights and personal privacy. Our medical and insurance industries have been further socialized, first through the addition of Bush's Medicare Prescription Drug entitlement, followed by the imposition of Obamacare. The automotive industry was nationalized, while the rules of law were simply ignored, and those with government contacts and pull were undeservedly rewarded. Declaring the financial sector "too big to fail," it became the handmaiden of politicians through expanded regulation (Dodd-Frank) and bailouts (TARP). The overall financial health of the country has been crippled by Obama's anti-business regulatory and tax policies coupled with his Keynesian-driven reckless spending, record deficits ($16.2 trillion) and inflation of the money supply. Obama has also demonstrated that it is his intention to disarm America and replace national sovereignty with our submission to a U.N. World Government. And those are just some of the low points.

Over one year ago, back during the primaries, as I saw one Republican candidate after another being viciously attacked by the Democrats and the left-leaning media, I wrote the following:

    [Obama's] best reelection chances rest with Romney getting the nomination, and that is why he and his army are working so hard to see to this by discrediting every candidate that offers a real alternative.

Well, they were successful and Romney ended up as the last man standing. And what in November 2011 appeared to be a slam-dunk win for the Republicans has now, not all that surprisingly, been relegated to a complete toss-up.

I have been an advocate of voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate in this election. This is the first time I have voted Libertarian and it was a choice made for me by the Republican Party which, towards the end, reduced itself down to Santorum and Romney, the only two candidates for whom I absolutely refused to cast my vote. In life we each have to draw various lines that we simply will not cross, and in the case of this election, while I am 100% in agreement that Obama must go, the Republican Party lowered itself below my threshold of acceptability. In absolute terms, Romney's lack of integrity, his failure to hold any specific ideology or philosophy, and his totally unprincipled pragmatism all place him so far from the limits of reasonable that no relativistic argument comparing him favorably in contrast to Obama can compensate and justify my support. Obviously, my threshold is quite different from others who have decided to support Romney, and that is certainly each individual's call to make. At the end of the day we all must do what we believe is in our best interest.

This year, some people view a second Obama term as potentially a death knell for America, and see their vote as principally a matter of preserving the country from imminent destruction. While many of these people do not view Romney favorably, they are willing to adopt a "lesser-of-two-evils" approach and cast their vote for him, despite their deep-seated reservations. While I understand this position, as I argued in my previous election piece, Voting in 2012, this is a strategy that has been tried over and over again and has failed, in the long-term, to yield favorable results.

In opposition to this approach of working to hold back the tide of destruction, I rail against lowering my vision to the level of simply responding to the continual threats being made against me and my life by the likes of our current politicians. There is a tragic political game afoot which constantly offers us only a Hobson's choice between two generally bad alternatives. If our political system has been reduced to a level where standing for one's principles is no longer acceptable, then I want no part of it. If involvement in the political process is nothing more than reducing a negative rather than acting in service of something positive and inspiring, then what is the point? And if we accept these terms, what does it say about our spirit?

Yes, we are all exhausted, and especially so by the past four years, because we are constantly playing defense in a game with the rules written by our enemies — and there is nothing more draining than that. Regardless the outcome of tomorrow's election, it is time to issue a clarion call to all people to exit the game, abandon the false choices being offered, and choose to dedicate our future efforts to a positive vision of our own choosing. It is time for individuals to reject our position as chattel and uncompromisingly assert our status as sovereign individuals. Or as Howard Roark put it:

I wanted to state my terms.
I do not care to work or live on any others.
My terms are a man's right to exist for his own sake.


09-05-2012

Permalink



MIA
Subject: Voting in 2012

The following article is scheduled to be published in the September (now October) issue of Liberty's Torch, Brad and Barbie Harrington's Cheyenne, WY newspaper, where their motto is:

    "Defending your individual rights, whether you like it or not!"

Well, you can't beat that!

    It's Romney's Job to Win Over the Johnson Voters

    In most presidential elections within memory, there seems to always be a sizable portion of the public voting against one candidate rather than voting for the other one. Or to put it in different terms, many people continue to find themselves in the unenviable position of having to choose between the "lesser of two evils." Occasionally, a viable third-party candidate gains traction as an alternative to what is seen as the status quo being offered by the Republicans and Democrats. This happened in 1992 with the independent candidacy of Ross Perot, and this year we are seeing signs of growing support for the Libertarian party candidate, Gary Johnson.

    Without a doubt, this is a critical presidential election. After suffering four years under Obama's administration, many people have come to the conclusion that he must be replaced at any cost, even if it means voting for the lesser of two evils and supporting a suboptimal candidate such as Mitt Romney. Other people, taking a longer range view, are choosing to support Johnson who most closely represents their values and principles, understanding that his chances of winning this fall are slim, but hoping that a significant showing in this election will produce a more favorable crop of candidates next time around and ultimately lead to a better future. Those who believe that Romney's election is of paramount importance are fearful that a majority of Johnson voters will come from people who would otherwise vote Republican, possibly swinging the election in Obama's favor. One such person commented that should Obama win, it would be Johnson's loony supporters who will be to blame.

    I don't have a strong quarrel with how people choose to vote in this election. As is the case every four years, this country is in an unholy mess and the state of political leadership is disgraceful, so making a serious choice as to how to vote requires a strategy and calculation that can be complicated for intelligent, thinking people. However, one thing should be made clear. If Romney fails to convince enough people to vote for him and defeat Obama, then the responsibility will rest squarely on his shoulders. It will be Romney's inconsistencies, waffling, record of past actions and his inability to adequately sell his current soft and unfocused message that will be at fault.

    If Romney and the Republican Party cannot convince a large segment of smart, informed voters that it is in their best interest to cast their ballot for him rather than for Obama or for a third party candidate who has almost no chance of winning, then it is really disingenuous for anyone to try and shift that blame from him onto those alternate voters who are pursuing what they believe is their best available option.

    In truth, it would be a fairly easy matter for the Republican Party to convert a great many of the Ron Paul, Johnson and independent Obama supporters into Romney voters. All they would need to do would be to adopt some of the policies and positions that this voting block heavily favors. But instead of considering that, the GOP continues to kick this constituency in the teeth as it has recently done by forcing the exclusion of Ron Paul from a convention vote through procedural tricks, and by adopting an extreme abortion position that is impossible for liberty-respecting people to swallow.

    If the GOP wants the independent and libertarian-leaning voters to come into its tent, then they have to actually demonstrate that they support individual rights, free markets and personal liberty, through action as well as words. However, not only do they fail that, they demonstrate repeatedly that they support the exact opposite! Look no further to see why there is a growing shift towards a third party. Johnson is an ineffective campaigner. It is not so much his performance that is drawing voters his way, but the GOP itself that is pushing them, with great force, in his direction. I suspect that this recent convention tactic will further swell Johnson's ranks with disaffected Paul backers.

    Everyone in the Republican, Libertarian and Independent camps agree that Obama must go. There is no need to push that message. Obama's every action automatically does it for us, and people not long ago convinced of this are a lost cause. But for those of you who have decided that the only serious path forward is to elect Romney, I would respectfully suggest that you should stop attacking individuals who are leaning towards supporting Johnson. These people have good reasons for their choice. Rather, you should be directing all of your focused energy and anger towards Romney and the Republican Party, demanding that they abandon their quest to impose their own personal vision of morality on everyone else, and instead adopt a program that truly embraces individual autonomy, personal responsibility, stands for the equal rights of all citizens, and supports a strict application of the principles that form the bedrock of our Constitution. This is the pathway towards naturally expanding the Republican base and defusing any harm that a third party might represent.

    It is not looney for people to follow their conscience and stand up for their principles. What's looney is an organization like the GOP that expects to receive support from those that it overtly despises and attacks, and then whines when it fails to achieve the results it wishes.

    C. Jeffery Small
    August 25, 2012


To this, let me add a few additional comments.

I really do understand the argument being made by those who believe that Obama must go — at any price — even if it means voting for someone as sub-optimal as Mitt Romney. I too am troubled by the concerns that, given a second term, Obama may attempt to decimate our military strength, further destroy our economy, continue to expand the powers of the executive branch, and make additional disastrous appointments to the Supreme Court. The consequences of any of these actions would impose a heavy cost on each of our lives and further weaken the country as a whole. And yet, while acknowledging the potential burden to be born, I nevertheless think this remains an extremely short-sighted view of the future.

For as far back as my political memory extends (which is to the early 1970s), every presidential election has been framed in terms of fear. Voters were warned that the "other" candidate was enormously dangerous, and if elected, would do immense harm. Therefore, even if "our" candidate was not perfect, it was still crucial to support him. In other words, every election has been sold to the alert and intelligent voter as one where it was necessary to set aside their principles and vote for the lesser of the two evils — but of course, just this one time! And the next thing you know, fifty years have passed while sitting on one's hands.

How successful has this strategy been? A simply survey of the current state of our country and culture documents the results. On balance, the lesser-evil has ultimately led to precisely the same place that the greater-evil was promising to take us. What we inevitably get is an ever expanding government of increased programs, regulations, spending and power, which confiscates more and more of our personal wealth and property while curtailing our right to determine and direct the course of our own lives. Democrats who once promised to uphold our civil and social rights now violate them with abandon while Republicans who promised us fiscal restraint gleefully tax, spend and regulate us into oblivion.

When you stand back and take in the big picture, what becomes obvious is that the idea of a lesser or greater evil is nothing more than a sham. There is only evil which must always be identified for what it is and opposed at every turn.

I wrote the article above before the Republican National Convention (RNC) was held. During that convention, delegates were asked to vote on certain rule changes that were designed to make it much easier in the future for the party to exclude delegates of which it did not "approve". Watch the following video which highlights how this issue was handled by the RNC.

The fix was in! The RNC preordained the outcome of the vote and incorporated the desired result into the teleprompter script which was then dutifully parroted by John Boehner. The Republicans accuse Obama of totalitarian aspirations and yet here is a clear example of stealing the vote worthy of any tin-pot dictator. This is a clear and naked example of evil in practice. You wouldn't give these folks access to the keys to your liquor cabinet, so how could you possibly entrust the country and your future to any of them?

This is only one example of many that repeatedly demonstrate that the current makeup of Republican Party is thoroughly corrupt, and it should be clear that nothing good can come from offering them your support. It hasn't in the recent past, and there is certainly no magic with Romney to suggest anything different today.

Principles are statements of fundamental truths, used to guide one in making proper choices. When evaluating a politician, it is important to not only gauge the specific positions that they take, but to also judge the character of the person making the promises. Are they honest, and do they possess the integrity to act consistently with respect to the principles they articulate? It is my hope that everyone will give this serious consideration before deciding how to cast their vote in this election. Politicians are not going to begin to value and demonstrate these qualities until voters once again make them the coin of the realm.

The choice in that regard rests with each of us, and the message we send resides in how we use our vote. Do we continue to double down on the losing proposition of lesser evils, or do we instead begin today to change the rules of the game and withhold our support from any and all candidates who do not earn it by pledging respect for our sovereign individual rights and also demonstrating the character necessary to stand up and defend them unwaveringly?

The future awaits the actions that we take today.




External links to reprints of this article:
05-31-2012

Permalink



This Election
Matters!
Subject: The Choice is Yours!

As we move closer to the election, I will have more to say about the choices that we face this year.
However, for just a moment .....

Forget everything about politics. Forget all the hype and the spin.

Just look at these two pictures and then ask yourself one simple question:

Which of these worlds do I want to live in?

Really, deciding how to vote in this election is just that easy!

And for those who are wondering where Mitt Romney is, well he's still
trying to figure out what position the majority of you want him to take here.
He'll get back to you.



www.garyjohnson2012.com
11-22-2011

Permalink



Michael Mann
Penn State Univ.
Subject: Climategate — Version 2.0

After the original Climategate scandal broke back in 2009, revealing how the scientific method had been corrupted by the incestuous relationship between government funding of research and institutions willing to manufacture politically expedient conclusions in exchange for those funds, it was not as if there was any need to further confirm the junk status of much of what has passed for climate science research. Nevertheless, a second round of emails exchanges from the UK's Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have now been released.

Apparently culled from the same set of files that were taken back in 2009, these exchanges focus more on the political agenda driving the climate message along with the role that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has played in that regard. As James Delingpole, reporter for the British newspaper The Telegraph, succinctly states it:
    "In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism.

The new correspondence was released by someone calling themselves FOIA, obviously standing for the Freedom of Information Act, and while the full set of documents has yet to be reviewed, the README. file compiled by FOIA includes a large number of excerpts. Recognizing that these have been taken out of context and will need to be verified by a full reading of the material, here are a few of the more interesting comments from that summary:

Phil Jones of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, discussing the packing of the IPCC:
    Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital — hence my comment about the tornadoes group.

    Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud issue — on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be [sic] have to involve him ?)

Bob Carter of Australia's James Cook University, discussing centralized scientific decision-making:
    It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.

Tom Wigley from the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, discussing deceptions of the IPCC:
    Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive [...] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC [...]

Peter Thorne of the UK's Met Office, discussing the political manipulation of science:
    I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

Jonathan Overpeck from Univ. of AZ Inst. of the Environment, discussing letting the ends justify the means:
    The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what's included and what is left out.

    I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about "Subsequent evidence" [...] Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge — more evidence. What is it?"

Leopold Haimberger from the Univ. of Vienna, discussing manipulating data to fit preconceptions:
    It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.

Phil Jones of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, discussing how to manipulate the message:
    We don't really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written [...] We'll have to cut out some of his stuff.

Michael Mann of Penn State University, discussing the manipulation of the propaganda:
    the important thing is to make sure they're loosing the PR battle. That's what the site [Real Climate] is about.

Steven J Humphrey of the UK's governmental Department DEFRA, discussing the state's agenda:
    I can't overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don't want to be made to look foolish.

    Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.

Thomas J. Crowley of the University of Edinburgh, discussing how sociology trumps science:
    I am not convinced that the "truth" is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships

Mike Hulme of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences, discussing religious influences on science:
    My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of God's planet into research and action.

Phil Jones of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, discussing circumventing Freedom of Information laws:
    I've been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process

    [...]

    Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get — and has to be well hidden. I've discussed this with the main funder (US Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.

Keith Briffa of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, discussing circumventing Freedom of Information laws:
    UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task

Michael McGarvie, a director at East Anglia, discussing circumventing Freedom of Information laws:
    As we are testing EIR with the other climate audit org request relating to communications with other academic colleagues, I think that we would weaken that case if we supplied the information in this case. So I would suggest that we decline this one (at the very end of the time period)

However, of all the statements made, the most damning are those where the participants speak casually of their fealty to "the cause" of global warming. This clearly demonstrates that it is not truth that they seek, but a preordained outcome that motivates their efforts, and science be damned. Consider the following:

Michael Mann of Penn State University:
    By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

    They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate [sic] paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit."

    I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don't know what she think's she's doing, but its not helping the cause"

    [emphasis added]

Berger:
    Phil, Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.

    [emphasis added]

07-24-2011

Permalink



Listen Up!
Subject: An Open Letter to All Republican Members of Congress Concerning the Debt Ceiling Cap

I have been watching the circus playing itself out in Washington D.C. over the past month concerning the fight to raise the federal debt ceiling and, as has been said many times before, just like observing sausage-making, it is a truly disgusting sight. This is my no-nonsense letter to all Republicans in the House and Senate letting them know what I expect of them.

    Dear Republican Members of Congress:

    As time draws ever closer to the August 2nd deadline for the debt ceiling debate, pressure is increasing from many quarters in and attempt to force you to back down from your principled position and accept some form of compromise.

    Statist-oriented pundits, including the very foolish E.J. Dionne, suggest yet again that all members of the Tea Party movement are unhinged, and that listening to their demands is politically unwise. Well, of course this is what you would expect them to say, since the Tea Party stands in opposition to everything that they advocate:
    • A further undermining of the U.S. Constitution
    • Ever increasing government power and control
    • Nationalization of business and industry
    • Centralized economic planning
    • Further entrenchment of the welfare state
    • Fiscal irresponsibility
    • Wealth redistribution
    • The abrogation of every citizens' individual rights

    If you were to consider a compromise with these statists, in just which of the above areas are you willing to make concessions on behalf of the American people? As Ayn Rand so eloquently put it:
      "In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win.
      In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit.      "

    Identify that which you know to be the good, and defend it with every fiber of your being.

    Then there are the various proposals by Paul Ryan, John Boehner, Barack Obama, The Gang of Six, and on and on, which attempt to trade off an immediate $2.5 trillion increase in the debt ceiling in exchange for some amount — between $2 and $8 trillion — of spending cuts that extend out anywhere from ten to forty years into the future. Let's be serious! No one is fooled by these absurd and totally unrealistic scenarios. Each of these proposals is a classic case of the Big Lie!
    • We all know that any future Congress could overturn these spending cuts at any time — and history has shown that they more than likely would eventually do so.

    • These are not real cuts in relation to today's spending, but cuts against proposed future budgets that already include huge spending increases. While these proposals might slow those increases, they make no actual cuts, allowing future budgets to continue to grow.

    • What practical good is a $6 trillion spending reduction spread over ten years? That amounts, on average, to $600 billion in cuts per year which, when offset against deficits well in excess of $1.6 trillion, still leave us with an annual deficit around $1 trillion.

    • These proposals do nothing to balance the budget, let alone effect real reductions in federal spending.

    Given these facts, supporting any of these budget proposals is just another exercise in punting on the responsibility that Congress has for dealing honestly and realistically with our fiscal situation. Passing the buck forward only means that in two more years we will find ourselves in a hole that has grown from $14.5 trillion to $17 trillion, and will still be racking up huge deficits that require yet another increase in the debt ceiling. Exactly what level of debt do you believe is enough?

    There is another form of pressure that the President is attempting to apply in an effort to force your hand. By sending a message to the markets that disaster looms on the horizon, he is trying to create a stock market panic that will influence people, including those of you in Congress, to respond irrationally to fear and make foolish choices, similar to what occurred in 2008.

    The President is also working to rattle the American people by telling them that if Republicans refuse to raise the debt ceiling, he may not be able to cover the national debt or send the elderly their social security checks. But notice the nature of his threat. If he is forced to make a hard choice as to where to allocate limited dollars, his proposal is to continue funding organizations such as NPR, the Corporation for National and Community Service, and so on, instead of issuing Social Security checks? He proposes to continue paying for all of the welfare programs, doling out money to people who have never contributed a dime to the system, while denying payments to those who have financially back our country, or to people who have spent a lifetime paying their hard earned cash into this so-called retirement program! It's a no-brainer. To counter this empty threat, all you need to do is loudly and publicly call him on this and the American public will see that this wannabe Emperor has no clothes — or more precisely, no principles at all.

    These tactics make Obama one of, if not the most craven Presidents in our history, and you must not allow them to stand. Identify his actions for what they are, report them to the American people, and refuse to be coerced by these tactics.

    And then we have the shameful and unconstitutional proposal by Mitch McConnell. In a ploy that is all political theater with absolutely no benefits for the country, he suggests that Congress should relinquish its constitutional responsibility to determine and control federal spending and appropriations, and simply turn that power over to the executive branch, allowing the President to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling at his discretion. And this is being done so that Mitch and his fellow traitors who support this idea can be relieved of the necessity of committing to a position of either raising or not raising the debt ceiling. Cowards! Do not abase yourself by even considering supporting this.

    So, what should you do regarding the debt ceiling and the budget? It's simple. Start representing the wishes of the American people who sent you back to Washington in 2010 with a very clear message. Let me spell it out.
    • We do not want the debt ceiling raised at all. Period. No compromises. No trade-offs. Raising the ceiling simply provides more funds for more spending, which is exactly the problem needing to be fixed. Refusing to raise the debt ceiling is a positive step in that direction.

    • Do not raise taxes. Just as with the debt, taxes are another source of revenue for the government and those dollars will support additional spending. The money spigot must be shut off.

    • Federal revenue for 2011 is $2.57 trillion, which, in equivalent adjusted dollars, is greater than the entire outlay for 2002. By simply scaling the size and scope of government back to 2002 levels, the budget would be immediately balanced with no need for additional taxes or debt financing.

    • Based upon the preceding facts, what the American public expects and demands is for you to cut spending immediately and deeply. The simplest approach would be to immediately impose a spending cap for 2012 equal to current revenues of $2.57 trillion and then do one of the following:

      1. Make an across the board cut to every federal program. (The easy way out.)

      2. Simply unwind government back to the 2002 configuration, eliminating all programs that have been added since then, and scaling the others back to their previous level.

      3. Examine the budget carefully and negotiate which departments and programs should be eliminated, which ones should be reduced, and which should remain at current funding levels.

    • What is clear from the past forty years is that so long as there is an open source of funding, Congress will continue to devise new ways to spend. And until a fixed dollar limit is rigidly imposed, Congress will refuse to examine and prioritize its spending.

    Time is up, and you and your fellow Republicans must finally stop playing at the childish game of politics, man-up, and do the adult thing. It is time to stop this ship of state and make an about face. The budget must be balance not in ten, twenty or forty years, but right NOW, in the upcoming 2012 fiscal year. You must cut over $1.5 trillion from next year's budget. Will it be hard? Of course. But it's not going to get any easier tomorrow, next year or after the 2012 election. It has to be done immediately.

    So what is your answer? Are you stepping up to the plate and swinging for a home run, or are you going to take the coward's way out and add one more bunt to a lifetime of bunting? Are you finally going to be the hero, or end your career as the goat? This is the moment of truth. No one can guarantee what the political fallout will ultimately be from this, but there is a huge and growing contingent all across America that will stand firmly behind you if you choose to do the proper thing and actually lead the Republicans in a serious charge into the battle to save this country from ruin.

    We are all watching, so forget the words and simply give us your answer through your actions.

    Sincerely,

    C. Jeffery Small

07-12-2011

Permalink



Under Attack...
Yet Again!
Subject: A Call to Action

    From the United States Constitution — Section 7:

    All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

    Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; ...

Today, the Associated Press released an article entitled:

In this piece it is reported that Republican Senator Mitch McConnell (KY) presented a proposal that would effectively turn the keys to the piggy bank over to President Obama, allowing him, at his discretion, to increase the debt ceiling by up to $2.5 trillion! In exchange for this broad new power, Obama would be required to submit to Congress a proposal for equivalent spending cuts — not from current levels, but from Obama's own inflated future spending projections — which would then be endlessly debated in Congress, with no assurance that they would ever come to a vote, let alone be implemented. And even if these spending reductions were to be enacted, there is no parity here, since, as Peter Schiff has so accurately pointed out, Obama would be increasing the debt today, while any cuts would certainly be set to kick in at some future date, and most likely be extended out over a period of five to ten years, and possibly longer, rendering their offsetting fiscal impact almost meaningless.

Now, why would the Republicans, who have a clear majority in the House where, according to the Constitution, revenue bills must originate, propose such an idiotic "compromise", giving up the authority that the voters vested in them during the last election, and capitulate to Obama's authority while burying us citizens under addition debt, raising the a total load to just shy of $17 trillion? As the article points out:
    [I]t would allow Republican lawmakers to avoid having to support an increase in the debt limit, something many of them find odious.

    "Republicans will choose a path that actually reflects the will of the people, which is to do the responsible thing and ensure the government doesn't default on its obligations," McConnell said in a speech on the Senate floor.

Why would they do it? Because they are cowards! They prefer to both have and eat their cake silmultaneously. Unwilling to take a strong principled stand on the issue of the debt ceiling, they want to raise it because it is "the will if the people", but they do not want to actually have to vote on it because that is not "the will if the people". What are the Republicans actually concerned about?
    Any such proposals could also be used by Republicans in the 2012 campaigns, if only to blunt attacks made by Democrats.

That's right. They are more concerned with political maneuvering and reelection than they are on saving this country from total financial collapse as we are currently witnessing in many European countries.

Why is anything like this proposal being discussed? We are currently running a huge deficit and must cut federal spending immediately to balance the budget and stop the bleeding. Even if we gave ourselves a lobotomy and then were able to take this proposal at face value, believing that raising the debt ceiling would be countered with spending cuts of equal measure, that would be the same thing as standing still, and we would continue to hemorrhage. It solves nothing! The only possible path out of these dark woods is reduced spending, and it is clear that neither the White House, nor the Democrats, nor the Republicans are interested in taking decisive action. Raising the debt ceiling won't address our problems, it just makes things considerably worse.

Do not let this action stand! Contact Mitch McConnell and all of the other Republicans† in the House and Senate and tell them exactly what you think, not only of this particular proposal, but of their entire failed record. Let them know that:
  • The President should not be given the ability to arbitrarily raise the debt ceiling.

  • Stop undermining the separation of powers embodied in the U.S. Constitution.

  • The debt ceiling should not be raised by any amount, under any circumstances.

  • The 2012 budget which begins this October, must be balanced.

  • Balance the budget with federal spending reductions, not tax increases.

  • Immediately de-fund and then repeal Obamacare.

  • Every American citizen should have the choice to opt-out of all entitlement programs.

  • We are tracking their actions and we will remember each and every one at the next election.

Here are links and phone numbers to some of the worst RINOs in the Senate. Use this information to let them know exactly what actions you expect of them.

    Name State Phone No. Email Contact
    Mitch McConnell KY 202-224-2541 Email
    Lisa Murkowski AK 202-224-6665 Email
    Jon Kyl AZ 202-224-4521 Email
    John McCain AZ 202-224-2235 Email
    Mark Kirk IL 202-224-2845 Email
    Richard Lugar IN 202-224-4814 Email
    Scott Brown MA 202-228-2646 Email
    Susan Collins ME 202-224-2523 Email
    Olympia Snowe ME 202-224-5344] Email
    Mike Johanns NE 202-224-4224 Email
    Tom Coburn OK 202-224-5754 Email
    Lyndsey Graham SC 202-224-5972 Email
    Lamar Alexander TN 202-224-4944 Email

If you would like to harass my RINO state Representative, by all means, please have at it! :-)
    Name State Phone No. Email Contact
    Dave Reichert      WA 206-275-3438 Email

And for all your other Representative and Senatorial needs, use this link to Congress Merge.

Remember, this is the second American Revolution, and you are all soldiers on the front line of this battle. Fight back as though your future was at stake — because it certainly is!


† I say contact the Republicans, because I have written off the Democrats as beyond hope. As the past two years demonstrated, they are operating from a social agenda that is to be imposed upon this country, that does not recognize self-preservation as a counter-force. They have demonstrated that they will not listening to our message. They must all be replaced, but attempting to sway their opinion is a waste of time.


[Thanks to Siska Van Soolen DeYoung for bringing this news story to my attention.]
06-06-2011

Permalink



You're Outta Here!
Subject: Cancellation Day.  Promote it!

Hey there folks!

If you're like me, then I suspect you are just plain sick of business as usual in Washington, D.C.

    Are you disgusted with politicians who steal your hard earned cash and then squandering it on high priced hookers, mistresses, fleets of new limousines, the study of cow flatulence, and bridges to nowhere, while refusing to balance their own budget, leaving you on the hook for their 14 trillion dollar mess?

    Are you weary of having to continually fight for your rights to life, liberty and property, while they are being violated by those very people who have been charged with protecting them?

    Are you fed up with the totalitarian elites who believe that they can ram their policies down your throats without your consent or approval, and do so with a total disregard for the U.S. Constitution?

    Does it fill you with rage to see your savings and investments dwindle away as the government prints its "funny money" and doles it out to favored friends with political pull, while at the same time using the tax laws to manipulate people into behavior that they would not choose, left to their own devices?

    Have you had enough of the socialistic nationalization of our financial, energy, utility, automotive and medical industries?

    Are you infuriated about being forced to use low-flow shower heads, non-flushing toilets and the coming loss of your incandescent light bulbs?

    Do you reach for the pitch fork every time someone says that you are not paying your fair share of taxes?

If this sounds like you, then don't just stew about it. Instead, get up and take action! There are sixteen month between today and November 6th, 2012. That's 518 days available to effect real change. During that time there are many things needing to be accomplished, but here is a simple marketing effort in which we can all participate, hopefully resulting in some real impact.

Recently, I was reminded of the title of one of Steely Dan's albums:

Everything Must Go

This is the perfect anthem for the coming election! It is time to mount the Herculean effort to clear the political stables of all manner of human waste that has accumulated over time. We did a bit of housekeeping in 2010, which was a good start, but has proven to be inadequate in effecting any real change. So now, the philosophy must be that so far as Washington is concerned, "Everything Must Go!"

From that album, the song, "The Last Mall" opens with the stanza:

Attention all shoppers
It's Cancellation Day
Yes the Big Adios
Is just a few hours away

That sums it up for me!

Marketing teaches us that how we label a thing goes a long way in helping to to sell it. To get across the message that a real and substantial change is coming, I suggest that we make every effort to spread the message that we are not approaching November 6, 2012 as just another typical Election Day, but see it as:


Cancellation Day: The moment when all career politicians are summarily dismissed for past, unacceptably bad behavior.


So put this date on your calendars and then help spread the word. Let's do everything we can to inject "Cancellation Day" into the political dialog, promoting November 6, 2012 as our new national holiday honoring all patriots who fight on for renewed liberty, the restoration of individual rights, and a proper, constitutionally limited government in the tradition of a true republic!

I encourage you to run with this idea, making it your own in any creative way you see fit. If you would like to use the above image for your own purpose, you can access the large version by clicking here, or a smaller version, seen in the upper right corner of this page, by clicking here.

If you are interested in adding the small image to your website, with a link back to this article, then all you need to do is include the following code in an appropriate location on your web page:

    <A href="http://smallthoughts.com/blog/permalink/0161.html">
    <IMG src="http://smallthoughts.com/blog/images/cancellation2.jpg"
    alt="Cancellation Day"
    title="Cancellation Day"></A>

I hope you find this idea compelling, and I appreciate any effort you are willing to make promoting it to others. Now let's get out there and make sure that the shelves of liberty have been restocked come November 7th, 2012!




External links to reprints of this article:
04-26-2011

Permalink



I'm Entitled To It!
Subject: TANSTAAFL

"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch."  —  Robert Heinlein, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress

When Heinlein wrote these words, he was simply referring to the obvious fact that you cannot get something for nothing. Everything consumed must first be produced and everything bought must be paid for. For previous generations, this was a common-sense observation with which all reasonable people agreed. However, these days, that is far from the case, and whether the adage is applicable or not depends upon just exactly what type of person you happen to be.

Back in December, I wrote an article titled, Money for Nothin' and Your Chicks For Free, where I briefly examined the history of the ever expanding welfare state and the subsequent erosion of the American work ethic, all of which ultimately led to the creation of a population substantially trapped in the morass of a new found learned helplessness. And what are the practical consequences of this? For that, I refer you to the following story, released earlier today:

    Tuesday, April 26, 2011

    Reliance on Uncle Sam hits a record; 2010 income was 18.3% entitlements

    Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

    Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation's history, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds. The trend shows few signs of easing, even though the economic recovery is nearly 2 years old.

    A record 18.3% of the nation's total personal income was a payment from the government for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other programs in 2010. Wages accounted for the lowest share of income — 51.0% — since the government began keeping track in 1929.

    The income data show how fragile and government-dependent the recovery is after a recession that officially ended in June 2009.

    The wage decline has continued this year. Wages slipped to another historic low of 50.5% of personal income in February. Another government effort — the Social Security payroll tax cut — has lifted income in 2011. The temporary tax cut puts more money in workers' pockets and counts as an income boost, even when wages stay the same.

    From 1980 to 2000, government aid was roughly constant at 12.5%. The sharp increase since then — especially since the start of 2008 — reflects several changes: the expansion of health care and federal programs generally, the aging population and lingering economic problems.

    Total benefit payments are holding steady so far this year at a $2.3 trillion annual rate. A drop in unemployment benefits has been offset by rises in retirement and health care programs.

    Americans got an average of $7,427 in benefits each in 2010, up from an inflation-adjusted $4,763 in 2000 and $3,686 in 1990. The federal government pays about 90% of the benefits.

    "What's frightening is the Baby Boomers haven't really started to retire," says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes of the 77 million people born from 1946 through 1964 whose oldest wave turns 65 this year. "That's when the cost of Medicare will start to explode."

    Accounting for 80% of safety-net spending in 2010: Social Security, Medicare (health insurance for seniors), Medicaid (health insurance for the poor) and unemployment insurance.

That's right, just under one fifth of all personal income (and remember, that's 2.3 trillion dollars per year) now flows from the hands of government into the pockets of your fellow citizens, while only one half is actually earned by way of traditional work. So, if you are on the receiving end of this 21st century, automated bread line, then it certainly appears that Heinlein was seriously mistaken and the free lunch is actually an all-you-can-eat smorgasbord — so take your fill! And exactly how does this money get administered? Why, through various federal domestic assistance programs of course. And as I reported in my previous piece, at the end of 2010, there were 2,094 of them, each making sure that all deserving recipients were being hansomly serviced.

Now, since we are in the depths of a severe multi-year recession, with a sluggish economy, an underemployment rate hovering around 20%, rising inflation somewhere between 7-9%, a federal government running an annual $1.65 trillion budget deficit, many state governments nearing bankruptcy, and a robust discussion throughout the country about the need for significant spending reductions, you might reasonably expect that government programs would at least be frozen, awaiting development of a plan designed to address these concerns. No such luck. Returning to the the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance website now reveals that there are currently 2,133 programs in existence, for an increase of thirty-nine new programs just since the start of this year, including such additions as:

  • Pre-existing Condition Insurance Program
  • Medicaid Emergency Psychiatric Demonstration
  • Program for Early Detection of Certain Medical Conditions Related to Environmental Health Hazards
  • Community National Dissemination and Support for Community Transformation Grants
  • Biomass Crop Assistance Program
  • Livestock Forage Disaster Program
  • Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honeybees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program
  • Durum Wheat Quality Program
  • Aquaculture Grant Program
  • Poultry Loss Contract Grant Assistance Program
  • Distance Education Grants for Institutions of Higher Education in Insular Areas
  • ORA Grants to Meet Food, Nutrition and Health Needs of Program Eligible Participants
  • Export Guarantee Program
  • Repowering Assistance
  • Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels
  • Electronic Absentee Systems for Elections
  • Community Economic Adjustment
  • National Wetlands Inventory
  • Endangered Species Conservation-Wolf Livestock Loss Compensation and Prevention
  • Coastal Impact Assistance Program
  • National Heritage Area Federal Financial Assistance
  • Mississippi National River and Recreation Area State and Local Assistance
  • New Bedford Whaling National Historic Park Cooperative Management
  • Overseas Schools Program
  • EUR/ACE Humanitarian Assistance Program
  • EUR/ACE National Endowment for Democracy Small Grants
  • Weapons Removal and Abatement
  • Export Control and Related Border Security
  • Small Business Teaming Pilot Program
  • State Trade and Export Promotion Pilot Grant Program
  • International Compliance and Enforcement Projects
  • Postal Model for Medical Countermeasures Delivery and Distribution

It's no wonder we need to raise the $15 trillion debt limit ceiling, with 2,133 programs like these, all in desperate need of funds.

You really cannot blame the citizens in our entitlement culture who think that they can have their lunch and eat it too. After all, look at the example that their legislators are setting as they coast along on their own free-lunch wagon, creating whatever programs they desire, and then printing paper dollars out of thin air to back them up, with no foreseeable source of revenue in sight — and all the while ignoring the looming debt, the unsustainable deficits, the unresponsive economy, and the rising outcry of protest from the remaining minority of citizens who do understand that there is indeed no free lunch and that the coming catastrophe is going to ultimately be borne on the backs of their productivity.

It's enough to make a grown person shrug.

Update:
  • As of 06-06-13, the number of programs currently listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance has now grown to 2,233. That's one hundred additional entitlements that have been implemented without the general public even being aware that this activity was occurring. That's one hundred additional programs that are being funded through taxation, inflation and debt, on the backs of an already overburdened citizenry.


External links to reprints of this article:
12-11-2010

Permalink



Help Me!
Subject: Being President Is Hard!

Now some say he's a clipster and a tailor's toad
And he could hype a miserman for all his gold
Some say he's a hipster and some say nix
But everyone's solid when he gets his kicks

He's a shape in a drape
——
Joe Jackson


Here is a must-see video clip that I believe will be carefully studied in college political science classes for generations to come.

After his public "shellacking" during the midterm elections, and now facing mounting opposition from Democrats across the country in response to his willingness to compromise on his long standing pledge to raise taxes on the "rich", Obama scheduled a conference with former President Bill Clinton to discuss a strategy for moving forward. After meeting for just under one and one half hours, the two men then attended a hastily organized press conference. After some brief introductory remarks, Obama turned the podium over to Clinton and then indicated that he was leaving to attend a Christmas party, stating:
    "I've been keeping the first lady waiting for about half an hour, I'm going to take off. I don't want to make her mad. You're in good hands and [Press Secretary] Gibbs will call last question."

at which point he exited the room while Clinton could be heard exclaiming, "Help me!" — whether done in seriousness, or jest, or a combination of the two was unclear. The press grilled Clinton for the next twenty minutes, and in his responses to the first two questions, seen in this clip, it is clear that even the usually smooth talking Slick Willie cannot find any way to spin the narrative in a favorable light. No wonder Obama wanted to escape without having to face the same inquisition.

In any case, the fact that Obama would abandon the press conference to attend a party while effectively turning the Presidency over to Clinton, leaving him to explain the administration's positions and polices, was certainly a very teachable moment, showing the entire country just where his priorities lie. But of even greater concern are the questions that this raises regarding Obama's judgment and current mental state. Whether you support or despise his ideology, most people agree that he is facile in the art of politics, so to see him engage in a gaff of this magnitude demands pause and serious reflection.

The real significance of this event is that it has momentarily pulled back the curtain, revealing that the emperor is truly naked — bereft of any ideas or actual solutions for moving the country forward.

The Tea Party was the first to get it. Then the Republicans began to wake up. And now the Democrats are finally beginning to see the light too. How about you?

He's just a shape in a drape.




For another blogger's take on this subject, see Rational Nation USA
04-15-2010

Permalink



Barry Goldwater
Subject: A Tax Day Tea Party Reminder Of Our Mission

    I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents' "interests," I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
     --
    Barry Goldwater (The Conscience of a Conservative, 1960)

This is the litmus test for every acceptable candidate for any political office, whether local, state or federal. Copy this quote, reread it often, commit it to memory, and then use it as your measuring stick when evaluating your potential representatives. Do they demonstrate this clarity of understanding of the true purpose in job they seek? And do they exhibit the character and the conscience required to stand proudly and firmly in service of these constitutional principles? Let us settle for nothing less from them, for the restoration of our lost liberty hangs in the balance and demands our full allegiance to this cause.
12-19-2010

Permalink



Tea Party Debates
Subject: New Tea Party Debate Reference Site

Robert Tracinski, the editor of The Intellectual Activist, has created a new website titled The Tea Party Debates, where he shares his personal experiences in planning and executing a candidates' debate with his local Tea Party organization. The information on this site may be used as a guide for others who wish to do the same.

Currently, the website contains information in the following areas:
  • Why Host a Tea Party Debate?

  • 12 Steps on How to Host a Tea Party Debate for Political Candidates

  • Articles on the Philosophical Foundations for the Tea Party Movement

  • Reports and Videos on the VA-5 District Debates

As Robert says:
    "If the Tea Party movement can have an impact on the Massachusetts senate race, why not California, too?"

Why not indeed! Get involved with your local Tea Party group and help build momentum during the next few election cycles for a renewed commitment to individual rights and liberty for all.
01-20-2010

Permalink



Scott Brown
Subject: My Direct Letter to Scott Brown

I just sent Senator-Elect Scott Brown the following letter.
    Dear Mr. Brown:

    Congratulations on your win last night. I was one of the many from outside MA that provided financial support for your campaign leading to this great day for both you and the entire country. But Mr. Brown, please do not let us down. You have been sent to Congress for one purpose: to do everything you can to stop the socialist juggernaut from crushing the spirit of America. Your job is to defend the rights of every individual and to cut the scope of government back wherever possible, doing what you can to return it to its singular function of protecting our rights, and nothing more. So once you have cast your vote against the health care legislation as you have promised, remain true to the principles of the people who elected you and continue the valiant fight to uphold the U.S. Constitution. If you do that, you will stand at the forefront of the Second American Revolution and earn yourself a place in history.

    Do not be seduced by the congressional seat and decide, as so many others have, that being elected has somehow granted you the wisdom and the powers to assume the role of making decisions for and manipulating the lives of the citizens of this country. Always remember that we are each sovereign individuals with the constitutionally guaranteed right to our own lives. We are not wards of the state. This means that we each get to make the decisions for ourselves as we best see fit, and that right is not limited to health care, but to every aspect of how we pursue our lives and every decision we make in disposing of our earnings. As the Constitution states:

    "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"
    — Fifth Amendment

    "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
    — Ninth Amendment

    "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"
    — Tenth Amendment

    The United States government was not granted the powers to make health care decisions for the citizens, and therefore, it remains a right of each individual. And that same reasoning holds true whether it pertains to deciding whether to invest in an energy efficient appliance, a fuel efficient car, determining whether and what type of mortgage to obtain, and whether we wish to provide financial help to a poor individual, a failing company or a foreign country in the aftermath of an earthquake. Always remember that the products of each person's efforts are their property, to dispose of as they - and only they - see fit. And the choices that they make are their means of pursuing their own happiness.

    The single proper role of federal government is to be a protector of the rights of the citizens. Every time the government steps outside that role and passes legislation to regulate business or personal actions, it has transformed from a protector into a violator of those rights. The majority of the text of the U.S. Constitution was written with the express purpose of constraining government so that it would not violate its mandate and become an agent of oppression. As you can clearly see, those protective measures were long ago breached and this country has been on a rapidly accelerating slide towards totalitarianism. Please make it your single-minded purpose to go to Washington D.C. to put the governmental genie back in its bottle and restore the right of every citizen to determine their own future.

    So again, I send you my best wishes for your victory and am excited to see you head to Washington and help us all in the struggle to recover our lost liberty.

    Sincerely,

    C. Jeffery Small

The election of Scott Brown is a watershed event with many positive consequences. But Brown has demonstrated with his actions before the election, and comments made afterwards, that he is not a person who sees the relationship between a government and its people as it was intended by the framers of the Constitution. I suggest that everyone who supported his election write their own letter to Scott Brown, letting him know that he is representing all citizens of this country, not just those of his home state, and explain to him your views and expectations for his term in Congress. Let's make sure that as he heads off to Washington D.C., he goes with a clear understanding of his proper role.

01-20-2010

Permalink



Scott Brown
Subject: An Open Letter To Scott Brown And His Supporters

Let me extend a huge thank you to all of the people in Massachusetts who turned out yesterday and voted for Scott Brown. You have each contributed to a political event that will have untold repercussions, both in the short and the long term. In casting your votes, you have spoken loudly, sending a clear message to President Obama and the Congress that the majority of the citizens in this country are opposed to the nationalization of the medical profession as well as the other socialist policies that these career politicians are doing their best to force upon us against our will. And I am also grateful to all of the other people across this country who spoke out in support of Brown's election and contributed their money, time, effort and commitment to seeing that this result could be achieved. It was an organized team effort, and we have achieved a rewarding result.

There has already been much discussion in the press about various dirty tactics that the state of MA might attempt in order to block Brown from being certified and confirmed, until after the congressional vote on the health care bill. There are also reports of maneuvers that the House and Senate are cooking up to try to ram a bill through before Brown, a duly elected representative of the people, can cast his vote. It is difficult to predict what specific actions may actually be taken, but the MA state legislature and this Congress have each already demonstrated their contempt for the will of the people, for due process, and for allowing us to observe their underhanded, back room deal-making. President Obama was nothing other than a bold faced liar when he promised openness and transparency for his administration. Should the politicians resort to any of these underhanded measures, then we must act again and let our protest, in voice and action, become a wave that washes over them, drowning any hope for a political future. Let them know that Brown's election has only been a warning shot.

And Mr. Brown, please do not let us down! You have been sent to Congress for one purpose: to do everything you can to stop the socialist juggernaut from crushing the spirit of America. Your job is to defend the rights of every individual and to cut the scope of government back wherever possible, doing what you can to return it to its singular function of protecting our rights, and nothing more. So once you have cast your vote against the health care legislation as you have promised, remain true to the principles of the people who elected you and continue the valiant fight to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

Now everyone get out there and celebrate. You've earned it!

09-26-2009

Permalink
Subject: Peter Schiff: Running for Connecticut Senator in 2010

Peter Schiff is an economist and broker who predicted, with astounding accuracy, the economic and housing crisis, while most others, in the both the financial industry and the government, derided him as simply loony.

Here is a link to a video of a Mortgage Bankers Speech that Peter gave back on November 13, 2006, in which he outlines, in detail, exactly what was—and still is—wrong with the American economy. He then states, without equivocation, what the natural, and therefore predictable, consequences of those policies must be. It is an extraordinary eye-opener!

This is such an important piece that I believe it should be seen by anyone interested in our current state of affairs. Therefore, I have added the link here in order to give it additional exposure. The video is roughly seventy-three minutes long, but it is an education in important economic concepts and well worth the time invested. If you agree, pass along to others, a link either to the video, or back to this site.

Peter Schiff is currently running in 2010 for the Connecticut Senate seat currently held by Christopher Dodd.

If you find the Schiff video interesting, I would also recommend an eighty-six minute video of a talk by John Allison, the CEO of BB&T Bank, given back on January 29, 2009, titled The Financial Crisis: Causes and Possible Cures.

[Thanks to Cloud Downey for bringing the Schiff video to my attention.]