Modern Patriot

The Real War For America

2012-01-14T06:57:00.000-08:00

Forget all the Class Warfare and Republican vs. Democrat arguments. The real battle in this country right now is Capitalism vs. Socialism. It is a war of ideology. Obama wants to increase the size of Government and further the expansion of the Nanny state. What happened to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness? The Constitution doesn't guarantee that citizens of this country will be taken care of by others, but that all have the opportunity and freedom to put their hand to the plow and make a way for themselves and their families and to have the freedom to worship the way they want and to bear arms to protect what they have.

The Federal Government is NOT the answer to solving the ills of society and never will be. Name me ONE Government agency that is effective and operates with fiscal efficiency. The Constitution was created to put the primary burden of the social intervention of Government on the states. The states have to do so annually within their budgets. The Federal Government isn't capable of managing that and has been forced for decades to raid the Social Security funds, increase taxes, print more money and borrow from foreign governments just to kick the can down the road.

Rick Perry recently put forth an idea that I have been touting for several years: a part-time Congress. I am glad to see that idea beginning to get some attention. Of course I realize there is no way under the current structure that the “representatives” that are there now would ever vote themselves out of a career. It would have to start with term limits, which should have been in the Constitution from the beginning. The founding fathers saw no reason to put it in there because the original design WAS part-time representation. Back then Congress convened annually for a few months to take care of government business and then went back home to their farms and businesses.

Much of the problem on the Hill today is because all of our so called leaders spend way too much of their time congregating together and furthering the agendas of their crony supporters, instead of advocating for the rights and freedoms of their constituents. With today’s technology, why can’t they work primarily from an office in their home state? They would be more accessible and in tune with the voters. They could do committee meetings by conference call. They could receive proposed legislation by email and actually take the time to READ it before voting on it. They could then convene once or twice a year to debate and vote on the proposals. That was the original design of our representative government, without all the technological advances we have now.

Over the last 50 years we have grown into a culture of those who produce, and those who consume. The consumers now outnumber the producers. That is not sustainable and will eventually bankrupt this country. Where will the masses find their support when that happens? You might want to learn how to plant a garden and learn some principles of self-sufficiency. Isn’t that what the founding fathers had in mind to start with? Everyone work hard to provide for yourself and your families and the Government will guard the borders and waters and protect your freedoms and liberties. That philosophy is barely visible today. We don’t need a new vision for America; we need to restore the original one.

I think it is time we put some new leadership in charge that will treat the Government like a business and start making the tough decisions that aren't driven by political gain. Like Entitlement Reform, Illegal Immigration, Social Security Reform, Tax Reform, etc. We should shut the entire Federal Government down and start over from scratch with the original Constitution and Bill of Rights and tell every American, "If you don't like it, the gates to Canada and Mexico are open for one way traffic."

The Disenfranchised Un-pickers

2012-01-11T18:08:00.000-08:00

The first primary of 2012 in New Hampshire went as most people expected with Mitt Romney winning with a double digit margin of victory. Not a surprise, since he has lived in New Hampshire for awhile and was Governor of bordering state Massachusetts. The surprise was the fact that Ron Paul finished second and Jon Huntsman finished third. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich finished virtually tied for fourth with 10% each. Rick Perry received less than 1% after skipping the state.

What is beginning to infuriate me is the fact that there seems to be so much emphasis being placed on the early states picking their choices. Why Iowa and New Hampshire? Do they represent the views and values of the rest of America? Are they the pulse of the Republican Party?

Why is it that two states that have traditionally been “blue states” get to have such an impact on picking who the rest of the country will get to vote on for their nominee? Iowa has 7 delegates and has only gone Republican once (2004) since Reagan was President. New Hampshire has 4 delegates and has gone Republican twice (1988 and 2000) since Reagan. In 1988 they picked George H.W. Bush, who won in a landslide against Michael Dukakis. In 2000 they surprisingly picked George W. Bush over Al Gore, but didn’t vote to re-elect him in 2004.

Not only that, Iowa allows voters to register and participate in their caucus the day of voting. New Hampshire allows Independents and Democrats to vote in their primary. Many pundits use these facts to explain how Ron Paul did so well in both of these states. We aren’t even sure what percentage of the voters were registered Republicans. Is that fair to the people in the “red states” that actually are?

Why can’t all primaries be on the same day? Let’s stop all this nonsense and overspending of money and resources on a few people in a couple of small states that aren’t even solid Republican voters. If candidates didn’t have to put so much focus on the early races they might be able to stay in the race long enough to garner the support they need to make a viable run at the office. Divide up the delegates based on the percentage of votes and see who gets the most in ALL of the states combined.

We have already seen Michelle Bachmann and Herman Cain exit the race due to the results of the primary process in Iowa. They were probably the two most conservative candidates in the race. It’s not fair that the early states get to have such a large impact on picking who the rest of us will get to vote for on Super Tuesday? Who will be left on the ballot by then?

South Carolina and Florida are next up. South Carolina is the first “red state” to have its primary and should be the first true barometer for where the constituency is leaning. Florida has always been a swing state and with 25 delegates is the fourth largest state in electoral votes. With the momentum from “sweeping” the first two contests to carry him into these primaries it is possible that Mitt Romney may have successfully run off all challengers by the time Super Tuesday arrives. I don’t know about you but that possibility makes me feel like a disenfranchised un-picker, since I may not have any say as to who the nominee is. This system needs to change so that the “true voice” of the people can be heard.

Do You Hear What I Hear?

2012-01-05T21:16:00.000-08:00

The 2012 Presidential Election Cycle has officially begun with the recent Iowa Caucus and the upcoming New Hampshire primary. Election years always make my blood pressure harder to regulate. I can’t help the fact that I am passionate about this country. The last Presidential race and then the 2010 mid-term elections took a toll on me that I frankly didn’t think I would recover from. Yet, here I am again all fired up with another election year.

What is that sound I am hearing? It is the footsteps of all those political surrogates and volunteers marching out of Iowa and on to New Hampshire or South Carolina. The people of Iowa have had their chance to speak, after being courted by all the Republican candidates for the past 6 months. What do the voting results really say about this year’s race? The answer depends largely on which ear you listen to. I try to be unbiased, listen to both sides and think independently, but it is honestly hard to hide my conservative leanings. So what am I hearing about this year’s race so far?

Let’s start from the top with the “not so clear winner” Mitt Romney. Most pundits didn’t expect him to win, so the fact that he did was a bit of a surprise. I don’t consider a winning margin of 8 votes or 25% much to celebrate about. Especially when you consider he easily has the best financed campaign and a four year head start on the field. He basically garnered the same base of support he had four years ago and has remained steady while the other 75% of the voters danced with multiple partners and struggled to pick their date to the prom.

First we had Michelle Bachmann, who won the Iowa straw poll a few months ago and seemed to be the darling of the tea party conservatives. She stood her ground in the debates and successfully landed a few good blows to some of her opponents. She was probably the main reason Tim Pawlenty exited the race early. Her thunder seemed to dissipate with the entrance of Rick Perry. Perry quickly surged to the top only to later falter after a couple of poor debate performances. Now Bachmann is suspending her campaign and bowing out of the race. I hope she keeps her options open because I think she would be a pretty good Attorney General for the next President.

Rick Perry entered the race and became an instant top tier candidate primarily because of two things. He is very outspoken about his faith, which speaks to the evangelicals in Iowa and his 10 plus years of executive experience as Governor of Texas. Perry is quick to point out that Texas has continued to thrive economically during the recession and has created more jobs than the rest of the country combined during his tenure. While that may be true, it has happened because of policies that were in place before he took the reins. Texas is a right to work state, with no state income tax and business friendly laws. Perry has not polished his message enough to overcome a couple of debate blunders that caused him to slip dramatically in the polls. Perry has vowed to move forward and has strong financial backing, so don’t count him out.

When Perry slipped, Herman Cain thrust upon the scene with his 9-9-9 plan and common sense approach that quickly resonated with voters. The conservative base quickly got behind him thinking it had found an outsider with the charisma and leadership necessary to lead the country. Unfortunately, Mr. Cain succumbed to an onslaught of allegations of sexual misconduct. Most were never substantiated but didn’t have to be. The barrage effectively ran Mr. Cain out of town and sent the conservatives into a frenzy.

Next up to the plate, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. Due in large part to stellar debate performances, Newt emerged as the new flavor of the week. The man definitely has the awareness and tenacity to handle the task at hand. His ideas are clear and concise on every major issue in the campaign and his directness and candor reflect the experience and wisdom of a man confident in his ability to lead. With over 30 years of public track record and many past transgressions, it wasn’t long before the negative ads began whittling down the pillars of strength that had been erected to portray Newt as the frontrunner. Finishing fourth in Iowa was a huge disappointment after having a near double-digit lead a few weeks ago. Newt is marching on and promising to take the gloves off for the next round.

Finishing third in Iowa was Texas Congressman Ron Paul. With a large faithful and passionate following of supporters, Paul has been holding his own against the other top tier candidates. His stances are the most unique of any candidate. His Libertarian views on State rights, the Federal Reserve and Constitutional Law have been embraced by many and are the core principles behind his support. His foreign policy views and a few odd statements he has made concerning Iran, illegal immigration, and the legalization of marijuana have kept a large number of conservatives from getting behind his candidacy. He has a loyal following of about a quarter of the party but will continue to struggle to attract the necessary broad support it takes to win the nomination.

The surprise of Iowa was former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. Losing the Iowa caucuses by a mere 8 votes was a victory by any definition. Rick was underfunded compared to most of his rivals. His surge happened at the right time and his primary support came from the fact that he worked the hardest on the ground, covering all 99 counties of the state. This stealth operation snuck up on the competition and caught them totally off guard. That won’t happen again. The scrutiny will surely intensify moving forward. Will the reliance on grass roots effort carry him to continued success?

Here is my take on the current pulse of the race. Romney is being called the “25 per center” by Obama strategist David Axelrod. He has a point when you consider that four years ago he got about the same percentage and four years later the state isn’t much fonder of him even with his frontrunner status. Why is it Romney can’t seem to break through the threshold into the 30% range? That is an interesting question to ask, especially in Iowa. Many pundits make statements that he is viewed as too moderate, which is why he is enjoying a double-digit lead in more moderate New Hampshire. If that is the case, it shows enough vulnerability to be a concern to the Romney campaign. After all, Iowa has been a blue state in 7 of the last 8 elections.

Most veteran pundits offer the common strategy of winning the independent voters as a key to victory. They also claim that the majority of those independent voters are moderates. If that is the case, then Romney should have won Iowa in a landslide. The fact that he didn’t should dispel that theory. If you add up all the votes of Santorum, Paul, Perry, Gingrich and Bachmann you have 75% of the vote. All of those candidates are considered more conservative than Romney. It is clear that the conservatives far outnumber the moderates, at least in Iowa. The only reason there was not a clear and decisive winner is the division of the conservative vote among five candidates.

Until a clear choice emerges from among those five to unite the conservatives, Romney will continue to be at the top. If the Republicans really want to win in November, they need to unite behind the strongest of the five and merge their strengths into a winning platform of ideas that address the primary concerns of the people. Will that happen in South Carolina, Florida or beyond? Stay tuned, it could get interesting.

Don't Raise The Ceiling, Open The Door

2011-07-19T21:38:00.000-07:00

Don’t Raise The Ceiling, Open The Door

So what is the real fear for this Administration if the Debt ceiling is not raised? That we can’t pay our obligations? That grandma won’t get her Social Security check? That single moms won’t be able to feed their babies? The answer is no, although that is what they want the public to believe. What they are really afraid of is their shopping spree will end and when the costs of Obamacare kicks in there won’t be any money to fund it. To that I say, “You should have thought of that before you crammed it down our throats.” Now you want us to allow the Govt. to borrow more and go even deeper in debt. Where does it end?

I’ve been a millionaire in my life, on paper at least, before I made some bad investment decisions and lost it. I’ve also been bankrupt. I’ve lived in the upper tax bracket and I’ve lived paycheck to paycheck. What that has taught me is “DEBT IS HAZARDOUS TO YOUR WEALTH”. My successes and failures only affected me and my family, because I was gambling with my own money. I guess you could say I’ve paid millions for my education in balancing a budget. The lessons aren’t any different than many families face every month; learning to live within our income.

My wife clips coupons, shops at thrift stores, yard sales and flea markets all to stretch the spending power of every dollar I make. The thrill of bargain hunting keeps her focused and determined to provide everything we need for as little as possible. In twenty-four years of marriage we have never had a single credit card. Yet through the peaks and valleys we have never gone hungry or not had a roof over our head. My hard work and her thriftiness has always been enough to sustain us.

This country was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom and the PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. Happiness is not a Constitutional right. The freedom to pursue our own course towards our destiny is. The problem with the mindset in the Federal Government today is the ideology of social justice. The current Administration believes that it is their responsibility to level the playing field and that Government is the answer to every social ill in America. While that may sound like a noble cause it is an impossible task to accomplish. The Govt. is trying to be Robin Hood, but it really is the Hood that keeps Robbin’ the producers in this country to fund its agenda. That is unsustainable. You can’t solve problems with other people’s money, because eventually you run out of other people’s money. That is where we are today. The number of producers in the system are outnumbered by the recipients and that gap is going to continue to widen as more baby boomers retire and fewer young producers enter the system.

Here are some facts and the truth that they aren’t telling us. The Federal Govt. collects an average of around $200 Billion dollars, per month. That adds up to $2.4 Trillion dollars a year. That is close to the amount that they want to increase the debt ceiling. In simple math terms, that means THEY are spending almost twice as much as THEY are bringing in. That is irresponsible spending. They also accumulated unprecedented amounts of debt without even passing a budget for over a year. How can a Govt. run without a budget? Quite well actually, when there are no restraints on spending and no limits to the supply of money. This Administration is backed into a corner, because the money supply is almost gone and they don’t want or know HOW to restrain spending.

So they use scare tactics to convince the people that the Govt. tap is going to get shut off and have devastating impact on the everyday lives of all those well deserving recipients at the trough. It will be so horrible when the Govt. can’t fulfill its obligations to take care of the widows, feed the hungry, and help the downtrodden survive. Since when was that the Government’s responsibility anyway? Nothing makes me more nauseous than hearing Obama quote the book of Matthew as his justification for “social justice.”

I’ve read the book many times and have yet to read anywhere in there about the Government being the answer. God is a jealous God you know.

So will defaulting on the debt stop the funding of the current entitlements? Let’s look at some more facts: The interest on the national debt right now is about $20 billion per month. That’s only 10% of the revenue brought in each month. So how can you default if the interest payment is that low? The remaining $180 million can also easily cover Social Security and Medicare payments as well. There is even plenty of money to pay for all of our current military expenditures, although that is an area we are way over committed on. That all adds up to roughly 70% of Government spending. The remaining $60 Billion should then be prioritized on an as needed basis. This is where the sweat begins to develop on the brow of our current leaders. These are the real decisions that they don’t want to make.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said, “Prioritizing Government payments won’t work because it would spur deep cuts in other disbursements and still cause investors to shun U. S. Treasury securities.” Isn’t that exactly what needs to happen? Let me ask you a question. If you were China or any of our other “lenders”, which would make you more nervous about getting paid back, continued increase in debt or reduction in debt? That is pretty much a no-brainer. Of course, what do you expect from someone who can’t even do his own taxes right?

There are only two possible solutions to the debt issue. It’s the same solutions every household in America faces daily. We either have to spend less or earn more. It’s really that simple and always has been. The problem is we have two solutions, one from each side of the argument, and both sides’ stubbornness and posturing is not creating any real plan that both sides can agree on that really addresses those tough decisions that neither side wants to make. Nobody can agree on where to cut spending.

“The United States now borrows about 40 cents of every dollar it spends, prioritizing payments without raising the debt ceiling would force the U.S. to cut 40 percent of all government expenditures. Such spending cuts would have painful implications for people in every walk of American life.” – Tim Geithner, Secr. Of Treasury.

Again more scare tactics, this time directed at military and their families, veterans and government employees. I am not an anti-war libertarian, I believe in a strong military defense. However, do we really need 700 military bases across the globe? Do we really need over a 100,000 troops spread across the Middle East and Africa? Cut the budget, “Open the Door” and bring them home. Give them some much deserved time off with their families and then send them to our borders to “defend” our country.

Now let’s look at Government employees. Are all of them necessary? Are all of the agencies they work for even necessary? Make the tough decisions and audit every single department of Govt. and cut the budgets by at least 10%. When you add up all the employee benefits including holidays, sick days and vacation days, the Govt. probably operates at about 90% staffing already. Wouldn’t paying 10% of the Government employees unemployment be much less strain on the Govt.? Make the tough decision and “Open the Door”.

Why won’t they make these cuts? Because, it would make the Unemployment numbers move above 10% with an election coming up. We can’t fire that many people. If we can run the country without them, why are there in the first place? “Open the Door,” and this time hand them a shovel so they will be qualified to get one of those jobs CREATED by this Administration.

The one area we didn’t discuss is on the revenue side. Of course the quick answer from the left side of the aisle is always increase taxes and stick it to those greedy, wealthy people. I don’t think anyone can argue that increasing revenue should also be a major point of discussion in this Debt Debate. The real debate should be trying to figure out how to raise revenue without having a negative effect on the economy. Raising taxes on the wealthy 5% of Americans who make over $200,000 would help, but would not solve the problem. There aren’t enough of them to pay off the debt even if you taxed them 100%. Besides, most of us either work for or sell products and services to all those wealthy people. Encourage them to spend it.

The revenue source that would provide a continuous stream of income would be to create REAL jobs. Create more taxpayers. How do you do that? For starters, open up drilling and REAL energy exploration like Natural Gas conversion and Clean Coal technology. How fast could we pay off the debt if we had all the money we spend on foreign oil going back into our economy? Reduce the employer matching portion on a new employee for the first year to encourage businesses to train and expand their workforce. We have to get people back to work on REAL jobs so they can pay taxes and spend money, which creates more jobs.One last thing. Where is all that money WE gave to the banks to bail them out? They need to loosen up and loan some of that money out for business expansion and home buying. Both of those will create additional jobs.

Well, gotta go for now. Someone is at the Door.

Will the leader of the Tea Party please step up?

2010-07-17T17:08:00.000-07:00

After pondering whether or not I wanted to step into the fire on this issue, here is my response to the NAACP. I AM NOT a leader of ANY tea party organization. Although I do admit to at one time being on the board of a 9/12 Project group and currently on the board of Athens Brigade, a non-partisan poll watching organization.

Personally, I have no problem with the fact that the NAACP is requesting Tea Party leaders to repudiate racism. However, they are missing one major point. The "Tea Party" is not a National Organization and has no "Leader." The Tea Party is not a "Federally Funded Non-Profit Organization" that gets to elect leaders to draft divisive resolutions and use the media to spew racially divisive rhetoric.

I have attended many rallies and events, some “tea party” events, some “9/12” events, etc. What little fringe activity I have witnessed were from outsiders who were sent to infiltrate and discredit the event. They were quickly addressed peacefully, without incident. Although I am sure someone conveniently captured the moment on film and made it to be more than it was.

What the NAACP really wants is for someone to step up and claim leadership of the Tea Party Movement so they can brand them and put a bull’s-eye on their back. If you want repudiation of racism by tea partiers, ask any of them. We all think racism is disgusting. Right now we're disgusted that the NAACP is stirring this up just days after the New Black Panther Party was let off the hook for "documented, blatant racism."

Civil War II: Will history repeat itself? Part 3

2010-07-14T16:58:00.000-07:00

Last week we looked at some early disputes over state rights and sovereignty that date back as early as the Bill of Rights and the Tenth Amendment. Depending on which side of the aisle that your political philosophy is influenced by, this issue has different meaning. There have always been disputes between the parties about the size and scope of the centralized federal government and the responsibilities and powers of the individual states to govern inside their own borders.

The Tenth Amendment states: “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.” After the ratification of the Constitution, an amendment limiting the federal government to powers "expressly" delegated was presented, which would have denied “implied powers.” When the Tenth Amendment passed and was ratified, the word "expressly" did not appear in it, and therefore the Tenth Amendment did not amend the Necessary and Proper Clause.

The Supreme Court rarely declares laws unconstitutional for violating the Tenth Amendment. In the modern era, the Court has only done so where the federal government compels the states to enforce federal statutes. In 1997, the Court ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act violated the Tenth Amendment because it required state and local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks on persons attempting to purchase handguns. Since the act “forced participation of the State’s executive in the actual administration of a federal program,” it was unconstitutional.

There are many laws on the books that require implementation by State Government. However, the difference is states aren’t forced to participate, but are rather “encouraged” to do so through funding directives. Almost all policy regarding education for example requires the states to implement them and the funding for education is based on objectives set forth by the federal government. Other examples are the speed limit law, DUI laws, etc. and those cases the “withholding” of funding for roads and infrastructure for non-compliance is used as an incentive to participate and implement those laws.

In the last couple of years especially, we are seeing quite a bit of legislation and policy that is “unpopular” by the majority of citizens in this country. The recently passed health-care legislation created a major awakening of the people as to the scope of government control. Add other proposals such as cap and trade, immigration reform, financial industry reform, stimulus bills, bailouts, and government takeover of companies and industries and you have widespread unrest and concern in society.

If you look at approval polls, the people’s confidence in Congress is at all-time lows. They simply don’t trust the decision makers in Washington. That is why interest in “nullification”, “state’s rights”, and “state sovereignty” are gaining traction. People sense that the “rejection” of the federal government at the state level may be the best avenue to take. The following are examples of recent activity among the states along these lines:

In 2009-2010 thirty eight states introduced resolutions to reaffirm the principles of sovereignty under the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. These non-binding resolutions, often called “state sovereignty resolutions” do not carry the force of law. Instead, they are intended to be a statement to demand that the federal government halt its practices of assuming powers and imposing mandates upon the states for purposes not enumerated by the Constitution of the United States of America.

The Tenth Amendment Center, an organization seeking to promote the concept of state sovereignty, has gathered information on various actions taken by state legislatures in protest to federal actions. The organization is bipartisan. The movement has quietly gained support in a number of states.

§ State Sovereignty Resolutions ("10th Amendment Resolutions") – During 2009, "state sovereignty resolutions" or "10th Amendment Resolutions" were introduced in the legislatures of 38 states; in seven states the resolutions have already passed (Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Tennessee). As of April 2010, resolutions were introduced or reintroduced into the legislatures of 19 states; so far this year the resolution has passed in five states (Alabama, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming).

§ State Sovereignty Bills ("10th Amendment Bills") – In 2010, (Georgia, Michigan, Missouri, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma) Tenth Amendment supporters have introduced "State Sovereignty Bills" (one step beyond the Resolution stage discussed above), which would mandate action against what the state legislature perceives as unconstitutional federal legislation; none have made it past the introductory stage.

§ Firearms Freedom Act Legislation and Federal Gun Laws Nullification – As of April 2010, resolutions have been introduced in the legislatures of 27 states that would "declare that any firearms made and retained in-state are beyond the authority of Congress under its constitutional power to regulate commerce among the states". The legislation passed in Montana and Tennessee in 2009 and in Arizona, Idaho, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming the following year. South Carolina has taken the issue one step further: in 2010 a bill was introduced which would effectively nullify all gun registration laws within the state.

§ National Health Care Nullification – As of March 2010, legislators in 30 states have introduced legislation which would declare certain provisions of any proposed national health care bill to be null and void within the state; the legislation passed in Arizona, Idaho, Utah, and Virginia. Such provisions include mandatory participation in such a system as well as preserving the right of a patient to pay a health care professional for treatment (and for the professional to accept it) outside of a single-payer system. Arizona's legislation passed as a proposed constitutional amendment, to be submitted to the voters in 2010. On February 1, 2010, the Virginia Senate took a stand against a key provision of a proposed federal health care overhaul, passing legislation declaring that Virginia residents cannot be forced to buy health insurance. On March 17, 2010, Idaho Governor C.L. "Butch" Otter signed a bill requiring the Attorney General to sue the Federal Government if Idaho residents are required to buy health insurance.

§ State Sovereignty and Federal Tax Funds Acts – As of March 2010, legislators in three states have introduced legislation which would require businesses (and in some cases, individuals) to remit their Federal tax payments to the state Treasurer (or equivalent body) for deposit into an escrow fund. If the state Legislature determined that a portion of the federal budget was not constitutional, or if the federal government imposed penalties or sanctions upon the state for creating the fund, then the money would be withheld.) None have advanced beyond the introductory stage.

§ "Sanctuary city" – another form of protest against enforcement of immigration laws, several United States cities have declared themselves "sanctuary cities", whereby they have ordered the local police department to specifically not work with United States Customs and Border Protection officials to arrest persons illegally residing within the boundaries of the city, and to not inquire as to a person's immigration status, even if the person was arrested.

§ “Immigration Enforcement”—Of course, in the last few months the Arizona Immigration Law has created a national stir on both sides of the issue. Arizona passed a law that basically gives local and state authorities the ability to enforce “federal immigration law” already on the books and to require documentable proof of citizenship be carried by individuals at all times. When the bill goes into effect any person pulled over or interrogated by authorities can be required to provide “their papers.”

We will pick up here next week in the conclusion of this series and also look at “state militias.” Stay tuned.

Civil War II: Will history repeat itself? Part Two

2010-06-20T16:19:00.000-07:00

In part one of this series I wrote about the effect slavery had on the Civil War and compared our current issue of illegal immigration and some of the effect it is having on society today. We also looked at the division of the country and how the issue of slavery and states’ rights caused the first Civil War. Now, let’s define states’ rights and their origin and how it applies today.

The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution collectively are what is known as the Bill of Rights. These amendments were adopted as a single unit two years after ratification of the Constitution. There were many disagreements among the early leaders of this nation after the original drafting of the Constitution. Many were dissatisfied with the limited guarantees of freedom listed in the Constitution. That led the founding fathers to further expand and highlight personal rights as well as define boundaries and limitations on the federal government in these first 10 amendments.

For over 200 years the interpretation of the Constitution has been debated. One of the first major debates was between cabinet members under George Washington’s Presidency. Andrew Hamilton, Secretary of Treasury, and Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, disagreed on the clause giving Congress all powers "necessary and proper" for carrying the specified powers into effect. Hamilton used his interpretation to establish a national bank and his desired financial program. However, in the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson discovered a bar to congressional legislation of that kind: no power to establish a bank having been delegated to Congress, that power must have been reserved to the states. President Washington sided with Hamilton and signed the bills that Congress passed to enact Hamilton's plan. Eventually Jefferson withdrew from the Washington administration.

Jefferson and James Madison organized opposition to it and thus created two political parties with differing views on the subject, The Federalist Party and the Republican Party. The Federalist Party was willing to exploit the "implied powers" of the Constitution, while the Republican Party demanded a "strict construction" of the document. This continues today in the Democratic Party’s continued philosophy of the expansion of the federal government and the Republican Party’s philosophy of less federal government and more state’s rights to govern themselves. That is still the core battleground of political debate in Washington today on most issues and legislation.

The Republicans, still convinced that much of the Federalist legislation was unconstitutional, were further outraged when, in 1798, Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which provided for the fining and imprisoning of those who uttered anything "false, scandalous, and malicious" against the government, the Congress, or the president. The Republicans felt that was a flagrant violation of the First Amendment, which stated that Congress “should pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press.”

There was also disagreement concerning what agency should have the power to decide the question of constitutionality? The Constitution vaguely gives the Supreme Court the power to decide, and the Republicans denied that the Court could rightfully assume that power. They argued that the state legislatures should decide and ably expounded their views in two sets of resolutions, one written (anonymously) by Jefferson and adopted by the Kentucky legislature (1798--1799) and the other drafted by Madison and approved by the Virginia legislature (1798). These resolutions asserted the following propositions: The Federal government had been formed by a contract among the states. It was a limited government, possessing only specific delegated powers. Whenever it attempted to exercise any additional, undelegated powers, its acts were "unauthoritative, void, and of no force." The parties to the contract, the states, must decide for themselves when and whether the central government exceeded its powers. The state legislatures must serve as "sentinels" to watch out for unconstitutional acts. And "nullification" by the states was the "rightful remedy" whenever the general government went too far. The resolutions urged all the states to join in declaring the Alien and Sedition Acts null and void and in demanding their repeal at the next session of Congress, but none of the other states went along with Virginia and Kentucky.

State rights and strict construction were usually the arguments of the party out of power (and have been throughout American history). As long as the Republicans were outsiders, they remained strict constructionists, but once Jefferson became President, they used the full powers of the Federal government to further the agrarian interests they represented. Indeed, they used much more than the rightful and constitutional powers, according to the Federalists, who now adopted the state rights point of view. So, political debate over the power of government is as old as government itself. When you have two opposing schools of thought with legitimate points of view you can have effective and productive government as long as the balance of power and checks and balances are in place. Anytime one party gains too much control and power we lose that balance. That is happening today with strong opposition from the majority of Americans right now that believe the federal government is over-reaching its power.

The first threat of state secession from the union came during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison. The Federalist Party disagreed with the Louisiana Purchase and the War of 1812. The leader of that opposition, Daniel Webster, tried unsuccessfully to get New England to secede. Jefferson, after his retirement from the presidency, joined in opposing the Federalist-minded judges as "sappers and miners" who were undermining the Constitution. Now doesn’t that sound familiar? That is a major part of the argument today between “conservatives” and “liberals.”

Former vice-president John Calhoun was another early leader in the philosophical battles over governmental control. While a Congressman from South Carolina he favored the War of 1812 and advocated protective tariffs, internal improvements at Federal expense, and a national bank. Calhoun was the early architect of a system for state resistance to unconstitutional laws. He refined and elaborated the doctrine of sentinelship that Jefferson and Madison had begun. His theory focused on the assumption that the people (not the government) in each state were sovereign and, in their sovereign capacity, had ratified and thus given validity to both the state constitution and the U.S. Constitution. They had done so, he argued, through their delegates in specially elected conventions. In this ratification process he discovered the procedure for dealing with questions of constitutionality. A state convention--not the state legislature as in Madison's and Jefferson's proposal-- could nullify a Federal law. That law would remain null and void within the state until three-fourths of all the states had ratified a constitutional amendment specifically giving Congress the power in question. If they should ever do so, the nullifying state would still have a recourse--secession. Just as a state could "accede" to the Union by ratifying the Constitution, it could "secede" by repealing its ordinance of ratification.

In 1832, South Carolina put nullification to the test when a state convention declared all protective tariffs, particularly those of 1828 and 1832, to be null and void within the state. Calhoun having resigned the vice presidency, presented the case for the nullifiers before the Senate, Daniel Webster, now a senator from Massachusetts, debated the opposing view. Webster contended, "The truth is, and no ingenuity of argument, no subtlety of distinction, can evade it, that, as to certain purposes, the people of the United States are one people." According to the new Webster, a state might secede from the Union, but only on the basis of the right of revolution, not on the basis of any constitutional right. While remaining in the Union, however, a state could not nullify congressional acts, for nullification was no right at all, he maintained.

President Andrew Jackson, agreeing with Webster, denounced nullification as treason and asked Congress for authority to use the army and the navy to enforce the laws. Though the nullificationists had sympathizers in other Southern states, not one of those states officially endorsed the South Carolina stand. Calhoun claimed a victory for nullification when Congress passed and Jackson signed a compromise bill for gradually lowering the tariff. Calhoun came to realize that a single state, unaided, was powerless to interpose against Federal authority. So he set about cultivating a spirit of unity among all the slave states. According to Calhoun, slavery occupied a special place in the Constitution, and in his theory of state rights. He insisted that it was the only kind of property that the Constitution specifically recognized (though, in fact, the document did not mention slavery by name; instead referring to "free Persons" and "all other Persons" and to a "Person held to Service or Labor"). Therefore, nullification could be used to defend or strengthen slavery but not to attack or weaken it. We will pick up here in part 3 of this series next week.

Not enough time to think

2010-06-12T15:13:00.000-07:00

People have recently accused me of being a conspiracy nut, primarily because I haven’t completely accepted the provided documentation of citizenship by our President. Why can’t we see the original birth certificate? What about his college transcripts and some of his thesis? I’m not even convinced that he wrote his books. I’m an author, and I’ve never had to use a teleprompter. I am capable of writing and speaking my own independent thoughts from my heart. Of course, I’m not so naïve to not know that all Presidents have used speech writers and some are better at delivering other people’s thoughts than others.

As far as being a conspiratist, let me go on the record to deny it and also say that I resent being accused as such. Those who think that are probably a bunch of left-wing progressives with ulterior motives. They say I am a narrow-minded bigot, too set in my ways to change. Well, I'm not narrow-minded, I respect even the wrong opinion of others. I don't claim to always be in my right mind, but I'm always right in my mind. They misunderstand the meaning of change. As Rudy Giuliani said during the 2008 Presidential campaign, “Not all change is good.” Some things don’t need to change. What they call progress is really much of what they accuse me of, narrow minded conspiracy theories developed around flawed scientific evidence with enough intellectual dialect to make it sound plausible to the easily deceived non-thinkers in this society. Man that sounded pretty deep, even for this old redneck to come up with.

What’s a real scary thought is there are almost as many of them as there are of us. They are everywhere, having infiltrated all levels of society. They have taken over our education system and have rewritten our history to their liking. With the mainstream media on their side they have unbridled influence across not only this country but across the world. Is anyone allowed to even develop there own thoughts anymore? Most just swallow the propaganda pills and drink the kool-aid.

Like most men I spend some time each day in the thinking room. Some choose to read, while most of us use our “alone” time to think. Maybe that’s why they call it “Stinkin’ Thinkin.” They built a monument to all us thinkers you know. I saw it in a magazine once, a naked man sitting in that same position, head in his hand, looking like he was thinking up a storm. It’s hard to just sit and think without their perversive presence having an effect on you.

I remember a couple years ago, I took my family out to one of those fancy restaurants in the city. You know the kind, they had real silverware wrapped in a hanky big enough to use as a bib. No mason jars for glasses tonight for us. I wasn’t even sure what some of the dishes were on the menu. I saw one waiter delivering a steak to a man and his steak was still on fire. I asked my waiter what it was, it had some French name. Looked like a steak to me. Anyway, after stumbling through the menu and ordering something with an American name I had to , you know, go. Bad. So off I go to the thinkin’ room.

This country boy had never seen such a fancy bathroom. They had an attendant hand you a towel and if you wanted one a newspaper or magazine of your choice. I don’t read much of the mainstream scoop so I passed, found an empty seat and sat down to take care of business. They had music playing, so it was kinda hard to sit there and pontificate on the current events of this world. You know all those conspiracy theories about the New World Order, the Bilderberg Group and the Federal Reserve.

Then I started to get up a little, reaching forward to get some toilet paper. (Some liberal elites would call it "tissue") Now this is the part that startled me. As I lifted up just a tad, I heard the toilet behind me flush. I looked down to see if I had accidentally pushed the lever. But, there was no lever! I looked all round and couldn’t find a flusher. As I was moving around, it flushed again. Every time I started to get up, it flushed.

Well, I’m no dummy, I’ve been to the big city. I realized that there must be a hidden window somewhere, or one of those two-way mirrors like the government always uses. What really gets me is this: Who would be so desperate for a job, that they would be willing to sit all day in some closet with some sort of push button remote control, flushing commodes? I then realized that there are a lot of immigrants around here, probably most of them illegal. Now, I don’t go along with the crowd that complains that the illegals are stealing all of our jobs, at least not this one. I mean, what real American would be willing to sit in a bathroom all day just to flush a commode?

Let them do it. They’re willing to get dirty and do the jobs that we real Americans won’t stoop to.
Another thing I wonder about: Do they only hire men to flush the men’s commodes and visa versa? That seems like a big waste of money. How do they make sure that the homos and perverts don’t sneak in? They’d like it. Besides, what is it about the people of America? Are they getting so uppity (I’d say lazy) that they can’t even flush their own commodes?

Anyway, I have had trouble thinking in public restrooms ever since that night. The poor attendant could probably tell I was shaken. He asked me if I needed to splash water on my face or even better, my choice of men’s fragrances lined up on the sink. I said no thank you; I just shook his extended hand and went back to my fancy meal.

My wife was upset when the bill came, she is pretty frugal you know. I explained to her later why it was so high, that this restaurant hired extra staff to attend to the restrooms. She was disappointed that she didn’t get the opportunity to check out the powder room. I’ll bet it was a sight to see. Of course, women don’t spend as much of their time thinking. They always take a friend to talk to.

I don’t know if I have discovered one of the reasons why so many of our young people don’t think for themselves or not. I know one thing for sure. I have taught my boys to be independent like their old man. They can handle flushing for themselves. I think too many people today need to flush some of the junk they allow to enter their minds by a world full of liars and deceivers. I’ll just keep doing my part to call it like a see it, hope some of you see it that way too.

Civil War II, Will history repeat itself? (Part 1)

2010-06-09T20:13:00.000-07:00

We have all heard the phrase that “history repeats itself.” The growing disgruntlement in America begs to ask that question, are we destined to repeat history? Is America divided enough to make another Civil War possible? We all hope not, but the climate in society gives little certainty to appease the question. In the five decades I have lived in this great country, I have never seen such widespread dissension among the people. What concerns me right now is, unlike the Civil War of the 1860’s; there are multiple issues that are causing the people to rise up in anger toward Government.

In the Civil War, the primary issue was the abolishment of slavery and the control of land in territories. That split the country geographically down the middle between the North (Union) and the South (Confederacy). The original seven states that seceded the Union and formed the Confederacy were South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. They were later joined by North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee and Arkansas.

The victory of the North in the Civil War effectively ended the slavery of Africans in the United States. At the time the war ended, ninety-five percent of the African population in this country lived in the South. After the war many began migrating to the North to establish their newly established freedom. The issue of slavery as a whole has been around since Biblical times. Even the Jews and Israelites have been slaves multiple times in history to Egypt, Rome and other nations and kingdoms. Today, open slavery continues in African nations like the Sudan and others.

Why was slavery so important to the southern states that they were willing to fight for it? The simple answer is: profitability and prosperity. The majority of slaves worked on farms and plantations in the South. This supplied cheap labor and increased productivity. The demand for labor during the expansion of this country and the shortage of available workers created a market for workers in the south. Most immigrants coming from Europe settled in the North. Thus, slave traders began shipping slaves from Africa to fulfill the labor need. The moral problem slavery creates is that no person has the right to “own” another person as property or a possession. This created not only racial segregation but class separation.

Many have argued over the years that even in slavery most of the Africans were in a better situation than if they had stayed in Africa and that many of them would not have survived in their home country. While that may be true, limiting their freedom and opportunity and their treatment as a “lesser class” of humanity is wrong. That racial tension still exists in this country almost 150 years later as a result. That issue alone is what makes the recent election of Barrack Obama as President of the United States of America a historic moment. It is also causing friction along racial lines as the disgruntled citizens who disagree with the recent and current direction of this country are being labeled as racists. That is totally unfair and unwarranted if you take a look at the issues from a logical and realistic perspective.

The election of Barrack Obama as the first African-American President was a historic event and should have been an opportunity to improve race relations in this country. Although I personally don’t care for hyphenated nationality classifications, Obama has as much right as anyone to wear that label since his father was Kenyan and his mother a white American. The media latched on to the fact that with Obama being bi-racial his Presidency could be a positive move in righting the wrongs of the previous generations and a form of reparation to the injustices of slavery. That divide has not been bridged as many expected, but it has nothing to do with race. It has more to do with policy, ideology, and fiscal philosophy.

The first major issue that stirred up opposition to the current Administration was the Health Care Debate. That has been a volatile issue of debate for decades in Washington that has always failed because of the wide gap between the parties ideals of the role and scope of Government. I am not going to get back into that debate in this series, feel free to read my previous series “Government should take a chill pill,” for my take on that issue.

https://feed.examiner.com/examiner/admin/EntryController.cfm?data=R0I5QmtTc0VIeTRxZ2dzbW82Ry9DQkQzOThsNUdwdUpxdWVGNEppMHRXZz0%3D

More recently, the passage of the recent Immigration Law in Arizona that will basically give local and state authorities in that state the right to enforce Federal law that is already on the books has stirred up more racial tension toward illegal immigrants. This is a very serious issue that needs to be dealt with because it has as much impact on this country as slavery did during the Civil War era. The issue in this case again is not about race or being against immigration. To many, it is about national security and to others it is about the enslavement of a workforce of non-citizens who are providing “cheap labor” to employers in this country.

Although many might say comparing undocumented workers to slaves is farfetched, it is really not. Why would a company rather hire “immigrant labor?” The answer is cost. If I own a business and hire a citizen not only do I have to pay them at least “minimum wage” but I also have to pay matching social security and Medicaid, unemployment and worker’s compensation insurance, and offer benefits ranging from sick days, vacation days, and in many cases offer health insurance and other fringe benefits. It is simply more profitable and cost efficient to use cheap labor. So do I hire citizens, immigrants, or outsource labor to workers in foreign countries?

When the economy was robust, society overlooked these labor issues and accepted them as a necessity to fill job vacancies. With approximately 12 million illegal immigrants in this country and nearly 30 million unemployed or under-employed citizens, that justification is no longer valid. So the debate over amnesty is no longer warranted from the viewpoint of a shortage of available workforce.

Of course, many will tell you it never was. For Democrats it is about increasing their voter pool, ensuring their grip on power. On the other hand, if you view this issue from a logical, realistic point of view there are identifiable pros and cons. Is it realistic to actually believe that rounding up all those “illegals” and deporting them as possible? Well, it might be if we hired as many INS agents to enforce the law as we are hiring IRS agents to enforce the Health-care reform bill. If it is not possible to round them up and ship them back across the border, why not identify them and document them so we can tax them and have them contribute toward the burden they are creating to our nation? They would no longer just be consumers of resources.

Of course, the first thing that needs to be done is plugging the hole in the border and stopping the continuance of illegal immigration into this country. That issue has been dealt with in the past about as effectively as BP has dealt with the oil spill. It is one of the primary responsibilities of the Federal Government and is a matter of National Security. Maybe turning that issue over to the states is the best way to deal with it since it has direct impact on their society and they are more intimately involved in the situation. Giving them the tools and support to deal with the problem should be the first step. Seal the border first, and then we will discuss what to do with those already here.

If we turn that responsibility over to the states do we give them the ability to form their own “border patrol” or “State police?” According to the Constitution, the states already have the right to form their own “militia.” That is where we will pick up in part two of this series, States Rights.

The Right To Remain Silent (Conclusion)

2010-05-16T11:41:00.000-07:00

This November election cycle will see all 432 seats in the House of Representatives and one third of the seats in the US Senate come up for re-election. According to recent polls, 82% of Americans are unhappy about what is going on in Washington. Being an incumbent in this year’s race is a volatile position to be in. It is vital that “We the People” not only vote, but get involved in the political process. The call to “clean house” has been gaining momentum over the last year. The entire power structure of Congress could be dramatically altered based on the outcome of the mid-term elections at both the federal and state levels. There are also many Governor races and state races as well. Typically, a “Non-Presidential” election will have a much smaller turnout. The ability to get out the vote will determine the winners and losers.

In the second part of this series, we laid a foundation of steps necessary in preparing to get involved in the election process. Having set up a secure communication network and mapping out the target areas for canvassing, the next step is deciding how to approach your canvassing efforts. Do you do a Voter Registration Drive or take a survey to gather data about the issues and candidates in your area, or both. Depending on the organization you are operating under there are certain election laws you are subject to. So contact your local election board if you don’t have an informed member and get caught up on the do’s and don’ts. It is important to understand that you have to remain unbiased and non-partisan and make sure you handle the information correctly.

There are organizations out there that can help you. Two of the ones I recommend are based here in Nashville, they are A Line in the Sand and Athen’s Brigade. These two organizations are uniquely different but can provide your group with tools necessary to accomplish your goals. A Line in the Sand has a campaign called “The Corinth Project.” It is a system to help get churches involved in the Voter Registration process as well as putting together “Voter guides.” A Voter guide is a pamphlet or flyer listing the candidates and issues in your area and where each of them stand. This also has to be done as non-partisan and unbiased. Many churches are afraid to get involved in the political process because of fear of losing their non-profit status. The IRS actually encourages churches to get involved the Voter Registration process. They just have to stay within the boundaries. A Line in the Sand provides information to pastors and churches to help them get involved while staying in compliance. For more info visit www.alsministries.com

Athen’s Brigade is a new organization started recently for the specific task of training, equipping, and empowering people to work the polls on Election Day. That requires two main things: availability for one entire day (Election Day) and some training. There will be many in your group that will not be able to commit an entire day. They can still get involved by becoming a precinct watchdog. The mission is simple, to assure that EVERY single voter be allowed to cast their vote without fear or intimidation of any sort. Having a team of trained people communicating and reporting suspicious activity could make a big difference in this election cycle. By volunteering to be a watchdog, people can commit to two or three hour shifts, have some fun and get to know the people in their community. For more info go to: http://www.athensbrigade.com/

Both of these organizations can provide a central contact point for your local group to get involved in the primaries and general elections. The primaries in most states are in August, so the time to get involved is NOW. There are other organizations out there to help you. The main thing is do something. I applaud all of you out there who have worked so hard this past year with the TEA parties, 9/12 projects, etc. Without all the ground work you have laid, the upcoming task would be insurmountable. You made an impact in the mood of the nation and awakened the “silent majority.” However, even with the tide and momentum having turned, it didn’t stop the Healthcare bill from getting passed. That may have been the crown jewel of this administration’s agenda, but they still have additional legislation to cram through before November.

That’s why I say: “Enough of the rallies and enough of the talk. It’s time to get “boots on the ground.” We need to set aside our differences, find common ground, and swallow our pride and egos. Uniting for the cause is a must to build the network. Once established, developing this type of campaign network will prove invaluable in upcoming elections as well. The experience will also empower you to identify, develop, and elect leaders to local school boards, city councils, board of aldermen, etc.

If none of these activities suit you, there are still ways to get involved. Hosting town hall events or luncheons to give the candidates an opportunity to engage in promoting their platform, having organized debates for multiple candidates to attend and interact, etc. or finding volunteers to transport elderly and handicapped citizens to the polls. One final way we should all get involved is to put our money where our mouth is. Find a local candidate or organization that you like and donate money to help them.

If you are out there and you are one of those who are unhappy with the direction of this country, getting involved is the only way to bring about the type of change that more closely resembles the society first envisioned by our Founding Fathers. If you don’t get involved, you have no right to verbally express your discontent, you will only have the “Right to remain silent.”

The Right To Remain Silent (Part 2)

2010-04-30T17:38:00.000-07:00

In part 2 of this series I want to begin to lay out a strategic plan of action for all the conservative groups out there that have risen up over the last year. As we talked about in Part 1 of this series, becoming less visible to the media and public eye is one key consideration. That will reduce opportunity for infiltration from the opposition.

Most of the groups out there know about each other. The first thing they should do is to reach out to each other and hold a joint meeting to share ideas and concerns, exchange contact information, and establish a secure communication system with each other. Facebook and other social sites are too visible and too easy to penetrate. This will allow pertinent information to be shared covertly. They should be very protective over who they allow to have access into the inner sanctum.

Secondly, they should map out geographical areas that each group’s members can effectively cover in canvassing operations. Any successful campaign involves some door to door neighborhood interaction. Besides, we all need to get to know our neighbors; this is a good way to do it. The least intrusive way to begin an open dialogue about politics with someone you don’t know is by doing a non-partisan survey or voter registration drive in your neighborhood. It will not only give you the opportunity to share information about local candidates and issues, but will help you gauge the demographic makeup of your neighborhood. This can help in targeting areas that need additional effort to pull in the vote.

Next, do similar activities in the local business community and visit local churches, fraternal organizations and chambers. I will give you more specific information concerning churches in the next segment of this series. One of the primary concerns of the people in this year’s election is, of course, the economy and jobs. Survey the local business leaders about what their concerns are. They are the backbone of every community and provide the majority of jobs in this country. Ask how they are doing. Are they growing, downsizing, or sitting in a holding pattern? Sharing and centralizing all of this gathered data will help the leaders of each group as they develop their game plan for the remainder of this election cycle.

The next topic is to find out about current legislation being proposed at the state and local level that may affect your community. Are there going to be any referendums on this year’s ballot on Election Day? If so, what are they? Gather information about the pros and cons so you can not only inform your community but also find out where your local candidates stand on the issues. This will be important in the vetting process and help differentiate the candidates. It is not enough to just get rid of the bad apples currently in power; you have to also choose the right candidates to replace them with. Otherwise you just replace rotten fruit with more rotten fruit.

Most political analysts are predicting a major shift this year from Democrat to Republican. Trust me, they may act like they aren’t paying attention to what the “movement” is doing, but they are. There may be candidates who have entered the race just to be a spoiler. There will be some who have conveniently switched parties recently to take advantage of the momentum on the right. This is where vetting is critical, especially in the primaries. Make sure that the “Right” candidates emerge from the pack.

The struggle for power is big business and the money influencers will play a major role in determining who becomes the “most visible” candidates. That person may not be the right choice. Again, this is where communication between the groups and the leaders is important. What almost happened in New York with an independent candidate and later did happen in Massachusetts, New Jersey and Virginia in recent elections was largely because of people getting informed about who the candidates were, and who were behind them. “The People” spoke loudly. Although the mainstream media and the Democrats downplayed it or misconstrued it, they got the message loud and clear. You can be sure they are developing their own strategies for the upcoming elections and they have the advantage. Their network is already established from the last election and they have the advantage of media bias.

The momentum and public sentiment is clearly on the side of Republicans this year. However, this election is far from decided and is not an automatic conclusion. It is going to require the same kind of concentrated effort to overcome this current hierarchy of power as it did to create it. Stay tuned for further instruction in Part 3 of this series.

The Right To Remain Silent (Part 1)

2010-04-23T17:53:00.000-07:00

Last week was the one year anniversary of the “TEA Party” movement and many gathered at hundreds of locations on Thursday to again rally and voice their opinions on “Tax Day.” The movement, which started out as an anti-tax movement (Taxed Enough Already), has grown into a widespread group of common people, of all races, who are concerned about the direction of the current Government.

All citizens of this country have First Amendment protection to assemble and voice their opinions. However, if you listen to Main Stream Media, who also stand on the First Amendment for their freedom of speech and freedom of the press, you get painted a picture that the “Tea Partiers” are just dissenters who are un-American and racists and are primarily upset because of the first “black” President of the United States. Bob Schieffer said just that yesterday on Face the Nation. The media, like the members of Congress, just aren’t getting it.

This has nothing to do with the color of skin of the man sitting in the White House. This about the “Agenda” of the people in control of this country right now, and that includes many on both sides of the aisle. They are no longer listening to their constituents. Almost two-thirds of Americans were opposed to the Health Care Reform Bill, and they pushed it through anyway. God gave each of us two ears and one mouth so we could listen twice as much as we speak. The representatives who have lost their ability to listen have disqualified themselves from further representing the people.

Why is it that during the Bush Administration it was okay for those who disagreed with the President to speak out, but now if you disagree with what’s going on in Washington you are racist or un-American? It’s as if we no longer have the “Right to Free Speech”, we only have our Miranda Rights, the “Right to remain Silent.” There seems to be a concentrated effort to “silence” the voices of the dissenters by downplaying and ignoring the substance of their discontent. President Obama publicly ridiculed the people at the rallies by saying that they should be thankful for the tax cuts they received. He doesn’t get it; this is no longer about taxes.

There has been evidence of infiltration from leftist groups at many of the rallies, with suspicious insurgents showing up brandishing inflammatory signs with racist or hate slogans. Others have created disturbances and violence to attempt to portray the movement as violent extremism. Even former President Clinton unjustifiably compared the participants to those involved in the Oklahoma City bombing.

There are some in the Tea Party movement trying to form a national organization to unite the groups and form an alliance to further the cause. Some national conservative leaders are calling for the groups to tone it down. I agree with the latter. Continuing to hold events in the public forum keeps the movement not only visible but easy to attack. Why continue to give them ammunition to display in the media to discredit the movement? There is a definite need to unify, and for many reasons. However, because of infiltration, it needs to be done carefully and covertly. The passion and common message has already developed over the past year. It is no longer an anti-tax movement. It is a “We the People want Our Country back” movement.

The current Government has crossed the line and overreached beyond its scope of power and trampled on the Constitution in doing so. Worse yet, they have done so with such arrogance and defiance of the will of the people, who are fed up and determined to do something about it. It’s now time for a “Call to Action.” Enough of the public protests and rallies, at least for now. Enough of the social ranting on Twitter and Facebook. It’s time to develop a game plan to impact the elections in November. That is step one to taking back this country from the current bunch of tyrants and socialists.

This is the first part of series of articles to lay out a game plan to take advantage of the movement created by the Tea Party movement to develop a true, grass roots movement to make a difference in November. Stay tuned for further instruction. If you disagree with this article, please continue to ignore us and tune out.

Is Barack Obama King of Kings (Part 4)

2009-07-25T14:23:00.000-07:00

As I release this article and continue our series on the appointment of czars, there is continued debate going on in Washington over Healthcare Reform. We will begin looking at that next week. As I researched about my next subject, Kenneth R. Feinberg, who is the Pay Czar, I found conflicting information. I saw a couple of articles claiming that Mr. Feinberg was only 31 years old, drives a foreign car, and has no executive experience. Fortunately, I dug a little deeper and found evidence on the contrary.

Mr. Feinberg is actually 63 years old, born October 23, 1945 in Brockton, MA. He obtained a history degree from the University of Massachusetts and got his law degree from New York University. He worked for five years as an administrative assistant and chief of staff for U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, and as a prosecutor for the U.S. Attorney General. Before founding his own firm, The Feinberg Group, in 1993, he was a founding partner at the Washington office of Kaye Scholer LLP.

He specializes in mediation and alternative dispute resolution and was appointed by President George W. Bush to be the Special Master of the U.S. Government's September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. Before that assignment, he was appointed by federal district judges to help resolve several difficult product liability lawsuits. He played central roles in resolving cases involving victims of asbestos, Agent Orange and the Dalkon Shield, a birth control device that injured more than 200,000 women. He oversaw the Virginia Tech victims’ fund as well. He was also one of three arbitrators who determined the fair market value of the Zapruder film that captured the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, resolving a dispute between the heirs of Abraham Zapruder.

With his many years of experience in arbitration and mediation I don’t question Mr. Feinberg’s credentials or his motives. He worked for nearly three years on 9/11 project Pro Bono. I respect his service to this country in that regard. So, if I don’t have a problem with Mr. Feinberg, what’s the problem here?

Here’s the problem I have with the appointment of a “Pay Czar.” I don’t think the Federal Government should be involved in taking over Wall Street and the entire financial markets. As I mentioned in a previous article, the TARP bailout was just a big “Ponzi scheme” for Goldman Sachs. Why were some companies bailed out, while others were allowed to fail? The Government picked the winners and losers, on what criteria? The argument for AIG was they were “too big to fail”, yet Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns, much larger than AIG, were allowed to fail. It has to do with who would benefit from the failure.

The appointment of Feinberg is an attempt, at least in appearance, to throttle the ridiculous spending and compensation going on. We shouldn’t have given them the keys to safe to begin with. Of course some people who have actually earned bonuses as compensation for selling toxic assets are getting completely shut off from justified commissions. They need to look at the abuses at the top and all the ties to Goldman Sachs. I could spend days talking about this. Maybe I’ll go further into it at a later time as more is revealed.

I also don’t believe the White House has any right to step in and fire CEO’s of Private Corporations without approval of the Board of Directors, stockholders, or creditors who are invested in the company. In the Chrysler and GM bankruptcies the labor unions were moved to the front of the line in the settlement process. That is not only unprecedented but rewrites the rule of law concerning lien holder rights. There was no purpose in giving the UAW stock in the company except paying off the debt of electoral influence and support. We also have government officials and new CEO’s and czars, who have no clue how to build a car, not only running auto manufacturing but also dictating dealerships nationwide.

Why are some dealers who have been successful for decades shown the door, while others are rewarded? Is this based on profitability or location? There have been many reports and stories about favoritism based on political affiliation. These dealerships are small local businesses with employees and economic impact for their communities at stake. They have decades of customer and vendor relationships and many are pillars of the communities they are located in. Who has the right to tell them they have no choice but shutdown or worse yet hand over the keys to a new proprietor of someone’s selective choosing.

Ford chose not to file bankruptcy or take any bailout money and actually reported a profit this past quarter. Why weren’t Chrysler and GM allowed to fail and reorganize into profitable corporations? Because this is not about profit, it is about to control; controlling the design and manufacturing of cars that will leave a smaller “carbon footprint,” in the name of Global Warming. All this is making me nauseous. I think I’ll go lay down. Maybe I’ll wake up and realize this was all a dream, or nightmare. See you when I wake up. Are you awake yet?

Is Barack Obama King of Kings (Part 3)

2009-07-22T19:10:00.000-07:00

As we continue this series on the appointment of czars I need to give you a prerequisite. The information you are about to read is not only alarming but shocking in many instances. It would take volumes to unveil to you all of the information I uncovered in my research. I am only scratching the surface. Feel free to do your own due diligence in verifying this information. I am confident it will lead you to many more paths of concern. We left off in Part 2 with a list of the current czar positions appointed by our President, Barack Obama. Let’s take a look at probably the most alarming to date: our new Science Czar, John P. Holdren. Let’s first look at Mr. Holdren’s extraordinary resume’ and credentials:
According to Wikipedia: Holdren was previously the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, director of the Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program at the School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Director of the Woods Hole Research Center. He earned his bachelor's degree from MIT in 1965 and a PhD in plasma physics from Stanford University in 1970. He taught at the University of California, Berkeley for more than two decades. His work has focused on global environmental change, energy technologies and policies, nuclear proliferation, and science and technology policy.

Dr. Holdren served as chairman of the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) from February 2007 until February 2008. He was the founding chair of the advisory board for Innovations, a quarterly journal about entrepreneurial solutions to global challenges published by MIT Press, and has written and lectured extensively on the topic of climate change. He was unanimously confirmed as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy on March 20, 2009. He has authored over 20 books, including many on climate change, and countless articles over the last four decades. He has also won numerous honors and awards. In 1969 he advocated (with Paul R. Ehrlich) substantial spending for expansion of nuclear power on the grounds that nuclear plants generate electricity without greenhouse gas emissions.

All of this is very impressive on the surface and regardless of your stance on “Global Warming,” most would consider him as very qualified. So where is the cause for alarm?
As far back as 1969, overpopulation was of major concern and interest to him. Again writing with Paul R. Ehrlich, Holdren claimed that, "if the population control measures are not initiated immediately, and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come." In 1973 Holdren encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States, because "210 million now is too many and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many" In 1977 he co-authored (with Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich) Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment, which discussed the possible role of a wide range of solutions to overpopulation, from voluntary family planning at one extreme, to enforced population controls at the other extreme. Here are just a handful of quotes from the book that are alarming:

“Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.”
“It would even be possible to require pregnant single women to marry or have abortions, perhaps as an alternative to placement for adoption, depending on the society.”
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
“All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons.”
Here is a quote from Ben Johnson of Front Page Magazine in an article he wrote in February of this year:
“Some critics have noted Holdren's penchant for making apocalyptic predictions that never come to pass, and categorizing all criticism of his alarmist views as not only wrong but dangerous. What none has yet noted is that Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed "surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee the "de-development" of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and enforce world population limits. He has castigated the United States as "the meanest of wealthy countries," written a justification of compulsory abortion for American women, advocated drastically lowering the U.S. standard of living, and left the door open to trying global warming "deniers" for crimes against humanity. Such is Barack Obama's idea of a clear-headed adviser on matters of scientific policy.”
It appears by all of these statements that Holdren has a greater concern for the environment than the human race; even suggesting population control as a way to save the environment. Nearly all totalitarian regimes in history implemented population control. Is that what this entire “Global Warming” scare is all about? Without Congressional approval or a vote of the people can this man declare an environmental crisis that requires population control? One of the major areas of debate on the Health Care Reform issue is the rationing of care for the elderly; weighing the costs of medical procedures and treatment against the life expectancy of the patient. That sounds like more population control.
This next statement is an opinionated statement on my part:
“Isn’t that a form of abortion of the elderly? Couple that with abortion of children and you have genocide. Does that concern anyone, it sure does me. God created the heavens and the earth and all creatures in the air, land and sea. He is the giver and taker of life. We can’t control our own stubborn wills and selfish desires let alone control the environment. I believe in Global Climate Change, it’s called WEATHER. It’s going to change whether we do anything about it or not. Attempts to control population growth alone is playing God, let alone trying to control the weather. Maybe these scientists need to spend more time studying why the temperatures on Venus and Mars is rising. Is that proof that there is life on those planets? Who is causing their climate change? Maybe Al Gore has a vacation home there. We don’t have Global Warming, we have Universal Warming and it’s caused by the SUN.”
Take a deep breath, Jeff. …..Sorry, I had to vent for a moment. Join me for the next episode of this ongoing look into the world of czars. I’ve got to go take a blood pressure pill.

Is Barrack Obama the King of Kings? (Part Two)

2009-07-21T07:16:00.000-07:00

This is part two of the series on Czars. In this part we will look at the history of czars in this country, the reaction from more Congressional leaders, and look at more of these czars and who they are. First let’s look at the past appointment of czars.
In all fairness to our current President, he is not the first to appoint czars. Presidents from Roosevelt to George W. Bush have appointed so-called "czars". Reagan appointed a couple during eight years in office. Clinton appointed eight or nine in his two terms. George W. Bush appointed a dozen in two terms as President. They were usually appointed to head up special task forces or to work across agency lines to accelerate necessary action. We all know how ridiculously slow our government moves things through all the red tape. So, the purpose of appointing czars is to expedite things or at least give a sense of urgency to certain issues.
Everything our government has done for the last year, and that includes the end of the Bush administration, has been rushed and given extreme urgency, even passing bills without reading them. After all, it seems everything in this country is in crisis; much of which has been created by the same leaders who are now rushing their solutions through the legislature. It is hard to fix problems with the same minds that created them.
Our founding fathers designed our government with checks and balances so fast, irrational changes would be hard to implement without serious debate and discussion. These checks and balances have always kept the balance of power in check in Washington. Regardless of which party is in control, history has proven that the system works best when one party controls the White House and the other party controls Congress. Of course right now one party has complete control of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives. That is what is creating much of the urgency in Congress right now. They have waited for many years to be able to push their agenda through with no resistance.
Of course they claim it is all being done with bipartisanship. Eight votes on the Cap and Tax Bill from across the aisle is not bipartisanship. What was the urgency of the bailout last fall? We were told it had to happen NOW or we were doomed. The TARP bailout will go down in history as the biggest money grab conspiracy ever. The urgency was the impending change of administrations. This was Bush’s last opportunity to funnel money to take care of his crony Hank Paulson, and all his buddies at Goldman Sachs. It also gave the Democrats a final negative banner to hang over Bush’s presidency. Although the Democrats were responsible for passing it, the blame goes to Bush. It happened under his watch.
There is no question this country is in a Recession and is inevitably headed into a Depression. That is all we have heard for the last year, “It’s the worst since the Great Depression.” Yet, now that the economy is becoming more and more the responsibility of our current President, we are told by our Vice-President that “We underestimated it.” To which our President responded with, “We didn’t have correct information.” How can the economy be worse than what you have told us for the last year?
How is appointing all these czars going to fix it? Is that why we need so many of them? Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, has been a very vocal critic of President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy. Byrd says these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch. In a recent letter to Obama, Byrd complained about his decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staffs have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”
What does this mean? It means that Obama is appointing czars to oversee and run sections of government designed by our Constitution to be handled by the legislative branch. This is undermining our Constitution and usurping the authority of Congress, and the people of this country. We are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The idea of unelected and unvetted czars running everything from car companies to the California water supply violates the spirit if not the letter of the law.
In only six months in office, President Obama has appointed almost three dozen czars to his administration, dealing with issues that range from drugs to the automotive industry. Is a “domestic violence” czar or an “urban affairs” czar really necessary? Are all of these czars appointments vital to our future? Of course they aren’t. The creation of these positions may be designed to expose some major problems with our government bureaucracy. Will that make things better or worse? Will it make things easier to get done or harder? Here is a list of Obama’s current and prospective Czar positions:
1.Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra, 2. Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske, 3. Copyright Czar: Not appointed yet. 4. Energy Czar: Carol M. Browner, 5. Car Czar: Ed Montgomery. 6. Terrorism/WMD Czar: Gary Samore. 7. Health Care Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle.8. Education Czar: Not appointed yet. 9. Economic Czar: Paul Volcker. 10. Mortgage Czar: Not appointed yet. 11. Urban Affairs/Housing Czar: Adolfo Carrion. 12. Guantanomo closure Czar: Danny Fried. 13. Great lakes Czar: Cameron Davis. 14. Stimulus accountability attorney). 17. Intelligence Czar: Admiral Dennis Blair. 18. Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein. 19. Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg 20. Iran Czar: Not appointed yet. 21. Tarp Czar: Herb Allison. 22. Middle-East peace Czar: George Mitchell. 23. Science Czar: John Holdren. 24. Green jobs Czar: Van Jones. 25. Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke. 26. Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration. 27. Mideast policy Czar: Dennis Ross. 28. Information Czar: Vivek Kundra. 29. AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley. 30. Faith-based Czar: Joshua Dubois. 31. Climate Czar: Todd Stern.
Each of these czars earn six figure salaries and have staffs and expense accounts paid for by the American people. Many of them are now overlooking departments that are already handled by Congress or a Cabinet member. Is their existence really necessary? Is our government that incompetent? Will this improve efficiency or slow things down even further? Is Obama creating a buffer between him and Congress? If so, is that for more accountability and “transparency”? Or is this a power move to set up a shadow government and team of kings and rulers to dictate the policies and agenda of Obama? We deserve answers to these questions, since we are the ones paying for it. Stay tuned as we dig a little deeper into who some of these appointees are and their backgrounds. We need to watch this closely as we move forward through the next three and a half years of this administration’s term in office. The results will definitely determine our combined futures.
Jeff Senters

Is Barrack Obama the King of Kings? (Part One)

2009-07-16T07:31:00.000-07:00

Today is the first part in a series on Czars. This is a hot topic in the media right now, because in a little less than six months as President, Barrack Obama has hand selected over thirty “czars.” Which will rule over various issues, including the private sector. So what is really going on in this administration?
President Barack Obama is in the process of seizing unprecedented power in America. He is completely ignoring the checks and balances built into our system of government. He is also undermining our freedoms and trampling on the Constitution as if it were a trivial document.
Where is the media coverage of all this? Unless you watch Fox News or listen to talk radio you probably have heard very little about this, or you heard it spun to portray Obama as making positive changes to impact our society. The mainstream media is still so enamored by his charisma that they can’t see beyond their euphoria. According to the Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, "Obama is standing above the country, above the world, he's sort of God."
Back to this issue with czars; What is a czar? According to Wikipedia: The word “czar” is a Slavic term with Bulgarian origins used to designate certain monarchs. Originally, the title Czar (derived from Caesar) meant Emperor in the European medieval sense of the term, that is, a ruler who claims the same rank as a Roman emperor, with the approval of another emperor or a supreme ecclesiastical official (the Pope or the Ecumenical Patriarch). I know Obama recently visited with the Pope, was that to dicuss the approval of all these czars? I don’t think so, since they were already appointed before that visit. Besides, our government doesn’t answer to the Pope, it answers to the people, at least it used to.
In Russia and Bulgaria the imperial connotations of the term were blurred with time and, by the 19th century, it had come to be viewed as an equivalent of King. In imperial Russia, czars ruled the country and had complete power. They were imperial monarchs who were eventually overthrown by the Bolsheviks in the communist revolution. The communists who succeeded the czars ruled for over 70 years until it finally collapsed because of corruption and its own failed economic policies.
Many conservative talk show hosts have labeled Obama and his agenda as Socialist, or Marxist. He is definitely “Remaking America” as he promised. He is establishing his own imperialistic government and completely ignoring the Constitution of the United States, the United States Congress, and a vote of the people. None of these czars were vetted or approved by Congress, or the people. They answer directly and only to Obama, yet they and their staffs are paid for by taxpayer money. Obama is intent on amassing as much power as possible in the executive branch of government. Which is why so many czars are being appointed. According to U.S. Congressman Jack Kingston (R-GA), the czars are part of a separate government structure that “is outside of the Constitution and the authority of Congress.”
So, if Barrack Obama views himself as the “Emperor” and he is appointing all these Czars or Kings, doesn’t that make him the “King of Kings”? As a Judeo-Christian nation, that question ought to make you cringe. I am hoping it will open your eyes. Am I going overboard and blowing this out of proportion? Consider this, Obama himself called these men czars, not liaisons, not overseers, not cabinet members or secretaries. Does anyone know who these people are and what their qualifications and agendas are? No we don’t, nor does Congress.
To say that the Obama administration has been aggressively accumulating as much government power as possible is an understatement. Without a single vote cast they have taken over private corporations, even entire industries. From Wall Street to Detroit, major entities are now owned by the federal government. This government intrusion into the free market system is unprecedented in American history.
Who gave the President all this power? The answer is, nobody, and that same nobody has offered up no resistance or rebuttal whatsoever. We have absolutely no idea what type of people the President is appointing to what will soon be the most powerful positions in government.
With no vetting or examination of their record, radicals and communists like Van Jones can slip into these offices with no opposition. Jones, the “Green Jobs czar”, is a self proclaimed communist, who worked as a black radical and has a long history as a left coast community organizer and anarchist. In 1992, Jones rioted after the Rodney King verdict and was arrested. Instead of changing his ways and becoming a law abiding citizen, Jones was “radicalized in jail.” Upon his release, Jones started a utopian organization that advocated communism and central planning. Eventually, he became a proponent for extreme environmentalism and “green jobs.”
This is just the first czar we are taking a look at. Have you heard about any of this from the mainstream media? Of course not; Fox News is spending a great deal of time on it right now thanks to watchdogs Sean Hannity and Glen Beck. The public is uninformed about this and I think they need to know, they have a right to know. Many aren’t going to find out, because they listen to the wrong people. They are blinded in the euphoria and deception of our ‘Historic President.” He is definitely going to be historic, because at this rate, he is going to be our last President. He will soon be King.
Jeff Senters

Is the TARP Bailout already profitable?

2009-07-16T07:29:00.000-07:00

Remember last fall, right in the middle of the Presidential campaign, when we were told that the TARP bailout was absolutely necessary to prevent a total collapse of the financial markets? We were told that it could actually be profitable for the taxpayers. We were told that the money would be used to purchase toxic assets at huge discounts and that those assets would later be sold to make a profit. All this was necessary to keep the Banking System from collapsing.
There were no strings attached to most of the money that was funneled into those institutions. As large bonuses began being paid out, along with some extravagant spending by some of these institutions, people got upset and after voicing their dissatisfaction, some strict regulations were inserted into the plan, including compensation limits for executives.
Some of these institutions began realizing the amount of control they would be giving over to the government and tried to give the money back. At first they were denied the ability to pay it back. President Obama recently announced that some financial institutions will be allowed to repay Troubled Asset Relief Program dollars. He said the massively expensive TARP bailout has made money for the federal government. "It is worth noting that in the first round of repayments from these [TARP recipients], the government has actually turned a profit," he said. Indeed, TARP supporters have long held out the hope that the program might be profitable.
Don’t hold your breath. Rep. Barney Frank, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, wants to spend those TARP profits rather than returning them to the taxpayers. Frank introduced a bill called the "TARP for Main Street Act of 2009." This bill proposes that the profits from the program be immediately redirected toward housing proposals favored by Frank and some fellow Democrats.

The original TARP legislation required that ALL money made from the program "shall be paid into the general fund of the Treasury for reduction of the public debt." Frank, however, wants to spend the money instead of paying down the debt. His proposal would take $1 billion from those dividends and apply it to a trust fund created by Frank for low-income rental housing. The unfunded trust was established as part of last year's bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In addition, Frank is also proposing to take $1.5 billion from TARP dividends for a so-called "neighborhood stabilization" fund and $4 billion to subsidize people who are delinquent on their mortgages, and to "stabilize multifamily properties that are in default or foreclosure."Spending the dividend payments now, as Frank proposes, would reduce the chance that TARP might ever be a break-even deal for taxpayers. As of June, 17 troubled institutions have not paid their dividends, much less repaid the TARP money itself. And last week, the Wall Street Journal reported that three other institutions were not paying dividends. But now, Frank is proposing that dividends be spent immediately.

Such people are not serving Christ our Lord; they are serving their own personal interests. By smooth talk and glowing words they deceive innocent people. – Romans 16:18 -- NLT

Republican critics have charged that these measures might allow federal dollars to be distributed to activist groups like ACORN (The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now). For those of you who may not be aware, that is exactly how this whole housing mess got started.

The CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) originally drafted by President Jimmy Carter back in the 70’s was designed to “encourage” banks to lend money in lower income areas of urban cities in this country. The CRA was later expanded by both President Clinton and Bush to encourage more home ownership among minority and lower income families. To accomplish this, ACORN applied pressure to banks to make loans it would normally not make. Meanwhile, political pressure was also applied to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase these “Subprime” mortgages from lending institutions to replenish the money supply.

These initiatives were successful in the short-term, but the risks were not properly covered because most of these “Subprime” products were not protected with Mortgage Insurance. Enter into the arena a new word into finance and investing, “derivatives.” These were premiums added onto these products to make them easier to bundle and sell. This “derivative market” is what largely caused the demise of Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and others. The Government stepped in before it took down AIG. Largely to protect all the pension funds controlled by AIG, including the one for federal lawmakers.

I could spend many more pages going deeper into all this, but won’t at this time. The main point I am trying to get across is this. There were people who were warned about this problem the first time around. They repeatedly denied there were any problems with Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. We know where that ended up. We, the taxpayers, are now the proud owners of those organizations.

You have been deceived by the fear you inspire in others and by your own pride. You live in a rock fortress and control the mountain heights. But even if you make your nest among the peaks with the eagles, I will bring you crashing down," says the LORD. – Jeremiah 49:16 –NLT

Now these same people want to start this all over again. I guess with a $10 Trillion plus federal debt load a mere $6 Billion is just a drop in the bucket that no one will miss. Why not scrape it off and help some more pet projects of the power brokers controlling Congress. The law they themselves created less than a year ago I guess doesn’t matter. It’s bad enough they gave away so much money without any rules, but now they don’t even want to play by the rules on the rest of it. When is this total disregard for the law going to stop? Not until we clean house in Washington. Get involved before it’s too late.

Jeff Senters

New Deal: Is it Stimulating the Economy?

2009-07-16T07:27:00.000-07:00

http://www.examiner.com/x-16218-Nashville-Religion--Politics-Examiner~y2009m7d10-New-Deal-Is-it-Stimulating-the-Economy

Are you still waiting for the stimulus to kick in and for the economy to rebound? Trillions of dollars have been spent by our government but where are the signs of recovery? Warren Buffet, billionaire investor, says he doesn’t see recovery in sight.

Although I have always been an eternal optimist, all these recent “changes” have dampened my enthusiasm. In the past you could count on Americans to step up, work harder and pull it out. I don’t see that happening. Unemployment is still rising and will be at 10% soon, foreclosures continue to increase at alarming rates, gas prices have been inching upward again and are approaching $3 a gallon, where is the relief?

America has been the most prosperous and successful nation in history. Her greatness displayed by her generosity and charity for decades all around the world. Her character revealed by defending human rights and freedom across the globe and humanitarian aid wherever catastrophe or famine strikes. This country is the envy of the world, not the enemy of the world.

Yet our President is traveling all over the world apologizing for our past. What has America done that requires an apology or a standing down during upheaval and injustice? Why aren’t we standing to support freedom fighters in Iran? Oh, but that would be meddling. We seem to be meddling into Israel’s affairs. We seem to be meddling into the banking, insurance and auto industry.

What do you expect to see when our government is blind to the past and racing toward changing the entire foundational structure of this country, which took centuries to build. America voted for change, and the change has been coming at lightning speed.

The trillions the current administration is “Pumping into the economy,” is not going to work for several reasons. Number One: We don’t have the money.We have to borrow money from foreign countries, primarily China, to stimulate our economy. Here is what the Bible says about this:

“The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender.” – Proverbs 22:7

Do we really want to be dependent on borrowed money from a Communist regime like China? We not only are mortgaging the future of our kids and grandkids, but we are selling them as slaves to China. The only economy being stimulated by that arrangement is China’s.

Number Two: What we are not borrowing, we are printing. Yes, some of that money will eventually flow through the economy. However, will it go where we need it to go to provide growth and stability for the future? Although many find the cause of Robin Hood noble; on a large scale, taking from the producers and giving it to the non-producers stifles growth.

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not take first from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half will take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it up.” – Adrian Rogers 1931-2005

How is free enterprise suppose to bounce back without any incentive in the system to do so? The rules for business are changing daily as the government takes more and more control of the free enterprise system. Are these bailouts and controls saving the impending demise or assuring it? Each liberal policy change implemented further stifles any profitability or growth.

The markets have always bounced back in the past, but the rules of investing have dramatically changed. What has always brought us back in the past no longer matters. How can we make lasting change to our standards of living and improve the lifestyles of the less fortunate? Do we expect those who we are demonizing and blaming for what’s wrong in America to pay for it? Why should they? What incentive do they have to hang around? They can afford to look for greener pastures to graze on and why shouldn’t they? We complain because we are losing jobs overseas. That’s because we are penalizing profitability and success in this country.

Why should a wealthy business owner with several plants, factories, stores, etc. in this economy, who has several thousand employees, continue to trudge along and watch their shrinking legacy? Why not just cash in the chips and ride off into the sunset or fly off with what’s left to retire in the tropics? Most of them love this country and would gladly do their part to help grow this economy. That’s hard to do when there is no incentive or freedoms to re- invest their money back into the free enterprise system. The only way to pull out of this recession or depression is to put America back to work. That won’t happen if you handcuff the free enterprise system and redistribute the money to the wrong places that won’t create more jobs than the implemented policies eliminated.

The “New Deal” didn’t bring us out of the last depression, the War did. The War united this country and put her back to work. Stealing the realized dreams of the prosperous will not fulfill the fantasies of the undriven non-producers. Nor will it provide any stable future. It will only produce a future of increased dependence. Is that not the definition of welfare, which is just another form of slavery?

We need to free up the credit markets to small business and encourage them to succeed and expand. That will put America back to work. Working Americans spend money. That stimulates the economy for further growth and expansion. History documents this clearly. There is nothing wrong with repeating what has worked in the past.

Pray for your country. Let’s get motivated and join together in unity for a common cause. United we stand, divided we fail. This is not about race, color or ethnicity. It’s about Patriotism and fighting for a country worth fighting for by each person doing their part. Rally the troops, let’s rebuild this country, not redesign it.

Jeff Senters

What Is A Patriot?

2009-07-13T20:01:00.000-07:00

The Patriot
By Jeff Senters

This is the first installment of an ongoing column dedicated to the voice of the enlightened Patriots in this country. Defining a Patriot should be easy, but lately some have tried to redefine it.
A Patriot is someone who believes that the forefathers of this country laid a foundation of traditional values that produced the greatest and most successful society known to man. A society built on freedom, liberty, and independence; with a moral compass based on the fear of God and the truth of the Holy Bible. Despite what some would claim, this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values.
A true Patriot believes this foundation should never be compromised, but is beginning to realize that over the last few decades it has been shaken and sometimes completely ignored. The entire culture of this country has been altered and is headed in a direction that could permanently reshape our country into resembling the very cultures that our forefathers fled from.
Our forefathers fled to get away from government monarchy and dictatorship, to get away from taxation, Marxism, Communism and Socialism, and to get away from religious oppression. They set out to create a country where every individual had the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of prosperity and happiness; based on opportunity, hard work, and the respect of each other’s individual freedom.
These are the core beliefs of a Patriot. These traditions have nothing to do with race, ethnicity, religious doctrine, political affiliation, hierarchy or genealogy. Everyone except the Native Americans were immigrants who wanted a fresh start. The society that developed had a common moral fiber and sense of community that created a nation of revolutionary leaders. The best term to describe those early pioneers is “Patriots.”
They would not only stand up and fight for their freedoms, but would also fight for the freedom of others. They embraced the idea that we all may have differences, but our common ground is worth fighting for.
They voted from their conscious and their heart, regardless of the letter behind the politician’s name. They supported their political leaders based on character, not because they were characters. Look at our leaders today, do they fit that mold?
We have leaders today who say it is our “Patriotic Duty” to pay more taxes. They think those who produce more should give more to help those less fortunate. Using their profits to provide economic growth, commerce and jobs is not enough, they should be willing to sacrifice even more for the common good. That is redistribution of wealth in its simplest form.
How about the leader whose very name conjures up images of a purple dinosaur driving an Oscar Meyer Weiner mobile? He is quick to point at others, because he knows his involvement in past decisions undeniably contributed to the recent collapse of the financial markets. Rather than apologize, he does what most politicians do, place blame on others to detract attention away from himself. We need to uncover his tracks and put him on a stick at the next bonfire roast. That would be the Patriotic thing to do.

Jeff Senters
A Modern Patriot