The Roots of Socialism in America

I listen to students and young people comment on politics or society and wonder “how could they possibly believe what they are saying?” It dawned on me that to be able to draw reasonable conclusions, these young minds would have to have been properly educated and have access to all of the facts and not just the select few that suit the political agenda of the educator. While frustrating, there are reasons for this apparent lack of common sense.

The roots of socialism in America are found much as they were in Europe; a revolt against the harsh working conditions of the industrial revolution. It was Karl Marx, a philosopher, political economist, historian, political theorist, sociologist, communist and revolutionary, whose ideas are credited as the foundation of modern communism. Marx summarized his approach in the first line of the first chapter of The Communist Manifesto, published in 1848: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”

Marx argued that capitalism, like previous socioeconomic systems, will inevitably produce internal tensions which will lead to its destruction. Just as capitalism replaced feudalism, he believed socialism would, in turn, replace capitalism, and lead to a stateless, classless society called pure communism. This would emerge after a transitional period called the "dictatorship of the proletariat": a period sometimes referred to as the "workers state" or "workers' democracy".

While Marx remained a relatively obscure figure in his own lifetime, his ideas began to exert a major influence on workers' movements shortly after his death. This influence gained added impetus with the victory of the Marxist Bolsheviks in the Russian October Revolution in 1917, and few parts of the world remained significantly untouched by Marxian ideas in the course of the twentieth century.

Teddy Roosevelt would never be known as a Socialist but he did espouse many ideas that were Socialist in nature. He considered himself a progressive and while he did believe in American Imperialism and a strong world military presence, he also believed in heavy government regulation, government control of wages and the redistribution of wealth for the public good.

On the heels of the Russian Revolution, Communist and Socialist movements found an audience in the American Labor movement. The Socialist Party of America was a coalition of local parties based in industrial cities. Even though by 1912 they claimed more than a thousand locally elected officials in 33 states and 160 cities, the party was factionalized. The conservatives, led by Victor Berger, promoted progressive causes of efficiency and an end to corruption. The radicals wanted to overthrow capitalism, tried to infiltrate labor unions, and sought to cooperate with The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). With few exceptions the party had weak or nonexistent links to local labor unions.

Once the stock market collapsed in 1929 forcing enormous numbers of people into unemployment, the communists surged once again and began to organize rallies and marches in support of workers and workers rights. In March, 1930, hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers marched through New York City, Detroit, Washington, San Francisco and other cities in a mass protest organized by the Communist Party’s Unemployed Councils. In 1931, more than 400 relief protests erupted in Chicago and that number grew by 150 in 1932. The leadership behind these organizations often came from radical groups like Communists and Socialists, who wanted to organize “unfocused neighborhood militancy into organized popular defense organizations.” Workers turned to these radical groups until organized labor became more active in 1932, with the passage of the Norris-La Guardia Act.

While Communists and Socialists did gain a foothold in these turbulent years, Walter Philip Reuther the president of the United Auto Workers (UAW) would soon change that. As a prominent figure in the anti-Communist left, he was a founder of the Americans for Democratic Action in 1947. He had left the Socialist party in 1939, and throughout the 1950s and 1960s was a leading spokesman for liberal interests in the CIO and in the Democratic Party.

Labor unions eventually eliminated the public connections between the unions, Communism and Socialism. They traded those links for something less troubling in the public eye, the progressive arm of the Democratic Party which espoused many of the same ideals as Socialists without the negative connotations; what some would call “Communism light”. Now the real work to transform the nation could begin under the American flag and right under the noses of the American people.

Nikita Khrushchev, the Soviet leader 1958 to 1964, had once made a statement is a speech saying that he would “bury” America. Some thought that meant that he meant military action or that he would launch a nuclear attack to bring about his prophecy. That raised even more fear among average Americans during the cold war even though war was hardly his intention.

Khrushchev was perfectly willing to let America move to the left incrementally; here a little, there a little. When speaking about FDR’s New Deal, Khrushchev said, "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism.”

Changing terminology and calling socialist programs “compassionate conservativism” doesn’t change the nature of the beast itself. Redistributing the wealth to win votes will produce the same devastating end as redistributing the wealth because you are an outright socialist.

From 1959 until 1989, the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) received a substantial subsidy from the Soviet Union. Starting with $75,000 in 1959 this was increased gradually to $3 million in 1987. This substantial amount reflected the Party's subservience to the Moscow.

Yuri Alexandrovic Bezmenov, now known as Tomas David Schuman, was born in 1939 in the former Soviet Union and worked as a journalist for Pravda. In this capacity, he secretly answered to the KGB. His true job was to further the aims of communist Russia After being assigned to a station in India, Bezmenov eventually grew to love the people and culture of India, while, at the same time, he began to resent the KGB-sanctioned oppression of intellectuals who dissented from Moscow's policies. He decided to defect to the West.

Bezmenov/Schuman is best remembered for his Pro-American Anti-communist lectures and books from the 1980s. From his writings and speeches Mr. Bezmenov said: “Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate and open. You can see it with your own eyes.... It has nothing to do with espionage. I know that intelligence gathering looks more romantic.... That's probably why your Hollywood producers are so crazy about James Bond types of films. But in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is NOT in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85% is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is: to change the perception of reality of every American that despite of the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country.

It's a great brainwashing process which goes very slow and is divided into four basic stages. The first one being "demoralization". It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least three generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism.

The result? The result you can see ... the people who graduated in the 60's, dropouts or half-baked intellectuals, are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, and educational systems. You are stuck with them. You can't get through to them. They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern. You cannot change their mind even if you expose them to authentic information. Even if you prove that white is white and black is black, you still can not change the basic perception and the logic of behavior.”

Thanks to the soviet doctrine in “ideological subversion”, America now has over 10,000 avowed socialist professors teaching in our universities that continue the practice of indoctrination. We also have over 70 members of Congress that consider themselves socialists or progressive socialists. In fact, Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, the authors of the Climate Bill (cap and trade) are two of the Progressive Socialists in Congress which a great reason to oppose that Bill all by itself.

Paul

Joe Sestak and Occam's Razor

It’s the Friday before a Holiday weekend so it must be time for the White House to clear up some troubling events with a minor press release. This is how the Obama Administration has always dealt with such issues. After all, the number of people available for comment is scarce and the stories that will be written will hit the papers and television news over the weekend when relatively few people are paying attention.

A brief press release issued this morning by White House Council and long time Obama associate, Bob Bauer, to answer the growing question about Congressman Joe Sestak’s claim that a White House official offered him a job if he would agree to abandon his primary challenge against Senator Arlen Specter. Bauer’s statement said that Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel used former President Bill Clinton as an intermediary to offer Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.) an unpaid, executive branch advisory board position to “avoid a divisive Senate primary”. Bauer denied rumors that Sestak was offered a nomination as Navy secretary, and said all discussions were “consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements.”

If this statement is correct and the White House acted in a manner “consistent with the relevant law and ethical requirements”, why did it take ten weeks and a media storm before the White House would respond to this controversy and why did the White House contact Congressman Sestak’s office as well as Sestak’s brother and campaign manager, Richard Sestak, before issuing this statement? According to Bob Bauer, the White House has “concluded that allegations of improper conduct rest on factual errors and lack a basis in the law". In other words…..we looked at the issue and everything is fine so just trust us. Really?

For the past ten weeks, Joe Sestak has held firm in his account of the exchange. He said not once, but a number of times that he had been contacted by a member of the Obama administration and he was offered a high-ranking administration job in exchange for dropping his primary bid. When asked about the rumors that he was offered the nomination for Secretary of the Navy, Sestak declined to elaborate, saying that doing so would be just getting into politics. Now that the White House has contacted Sestak and his campaign manager prior to today’s press release, Sestak’s account is now mysteriously saying something completely different.

Sestak released his own statement today saying "Last summer, I received a phone call from President Clinton. During the course of the conversation, he expressed concern over my prospects if I were to enter the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and the value of having me stay in the House of Representatives because of my military background," Sestak added. "He (President Clinton) said that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel had spoken with him about my being on a Presidential Board while remaining in the House of Representatives. I said no."

"I told President Clinton that my only consideration in getting into the Senate race or not was whether it was the right thing to do for Pennsylvania working families and not any offer," he continued. "The former President said he knew I'd say that, and the conversation moved on to other subjects."

Was Sestak having a “Blumenthal moment”? If you recall, Democrat Dick Blumenthal who is running for the Connecticut Senate Seat has been accused of lying about his military service by hinting that he was a Viet Nam veteran. Blumenthal has since apologized and even though there are at least eight different occasions that this happened on film, he simply said he “misspoke” a few words that were taken out of context. The few words were silly things like “in Viet Nam” instead of “during Viet Nam” and “when we returned from Viet Nam” instead of “when my duty with a State-side reserve unit was over”. You know….easily mistaken comments. Could Sestak have simply misspoken a few words, confusing a “high ranking administration job” with a “non-paid appointment to an advisory board”? Perhaps he also confused Bill Clinton with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when he said he was contacted by a member of the Obama administration? Let’s face it….those high pressure jobs add years to your looks so maybe it was an honest mistake now that Hillary has added a few more wrinkles and some gray hair.

I am a huge fan of Occam’s razor. Occam’s razor (or Ockham's razer) is a theoretical principle proposed by 14th-century English logician, theologian and Franciscan friar William of Ockham that "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" (entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem). In essence; that the simplest solution is usually the correct one. In this case, before we can arrive at the simplest solution we must identify the actual questions.

The obvious questions are:

1- Why did the White House refused to comment on this matter for ten weeks?

2- Why was Bill Clinton asked to “intercede” on behalf of the White House?

3- Why did Representative Sestak refuse to elaborate on the issue beyond his initial statement for the past ten weeks?

4- Why was Representative Sestak’s office and campaign manager contacted before the White House press release was issued?

5- Why has Representative Sestak’s account of the incident changed so drastically?

The simplest solution to all of these questions is that the press releases from both the White House and Joe Sestak are lies meant to cover up the true nature of the offer made to Joe Sestak and the identity of the person that made that offer. I’m sure the White House contacted Sestak after his initial statement and told him of the legal ramifications of his allegations. Sestak has nothing to gain by causing the White House embarrassment by further implicating them in what was obviously a criminal act. After all, Sestak is now the Democratic candidate for Specter’s Senate seat and will need the support of the White House and the DNC if he has any hopes of succeeding this November. That easily explains Sestak’s reluctance to elaborate on the offer that was made.

The dismissive non-response to the press’s questions issued by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tells me that they initially believed that this would all fade away after the primary, but to their surprise, it didn’t. Legal analysts were scouring US code looking for possible violations of law and the ramifications of those laws being violated meant someone was going to have to be sacrificed if there was any truth to Sestak’s story at all. Since this was fast becoming an issue that could affect the upcoming elections, fellow Democrats joined in the call for explanations and that could not be ignored. Some way had to be found to “help” Joe Sestak back away from his claims without damaging his race for the Senate but the real trick was that it had to be done in such a way that the White House was also clear of any wrong doing.

Ten weeks seems like a plausible amount of time for legal council to review the incident and issue recommendations. I'm sure those recommendations included the need to portray a series of events where someone that was not a member of the administration (Bill Clinton) would speak with Sestak only to suggest that his chances for success in the primary were limited so he should just drop out of that. “Oh by the way…Rahm Emmanuel would like to place you on a Presidential Advisory Board as a non-paid advisor while you retain your all important seat in the House of Representatives.” No government employee and no promise of power or money would skirt all of the problems. While that scenario certainly plays well with respect to the laws against using the power of a government office to interfere with a primary or general election, it does not sit well with the good Congressman’s previous and frequent statements.

As convoluted as this story is, it certainly does not play well with respect to Occam’s razor either. It makes no sense that the White House would risk the political damage of letting people believe that they were stone-walling the issue for ten weeks if Sestak’s original story of the attempted bribe were not true. It makes no sense that Joe Sestak would suddenly change his story so drastically on the day of the White House press release and risk his chances in the November election if he were not coached by the White House that this was the only acceptable way out of this for the both of them. It makes no sense that the White House would attempt to entice Sestak with a non-paid position on an advisory panel when the man was running for the United States Senate. Knowing that Sestak is not one of the wealthier members of Congress like Kerry or Kennedy, that wouldn’t fly at all so they further complicated the story by adding that he was told he could serve on that board and keep his seat in the House; something that Congressional rules currently prohibit. Curiously, Joe Sestak has been avoiding any direct interviews in the wake of the statement he released today that directly contradicts his previous assertions.

About the only part of the story that makes any sense is the Bill Clinton connection. Billy misses the limelight (not to mention access to female White House aides) so he doesn’t mind being drawn into something like this. Actually, Clinton was the perfect name to use in place of Rahm Emmanuel. He is not a member of the White House staff nor is he a paid employee of the Obama administration and if this ruse fails and an investigation is forced upon the White House, we all know that Bill Clinton has no problem lying to special prosecutors, Grand Juries or to the American People.

Paul

The First Press Conference in 308 Days!

Today was a special event. Using the “top fill” method, the leaking blowout preventer in the Gulf of Mexico oil spill was reported to be finally closed off just hours before the President’s scheduled press conference. Well, almost. As it turns out the reports of success are extremely premature and while the flow appears to have slowed somewhat, the procedure is far from over and the results are even further from guaranteed.

The estimates of the oil gushing from the deep water well has steadily risen since the April 20th accident which claimed the lives of eleven BP employees and is now estimated to have leaked up to a million gallons of oil per day into the Gulf of Mexico. With the amount of oil released equaling anywhere from twenty to thirty times the oil spilled by the Exxon Valdez accident of 1989, this disaster represents the worst petroleum spill in US history and questions are now being raised as to whether it also represents the worst Federal disaster response in our history as well.

Even though this was President Obama’s first regular Press conference in three-hundred and eight days, the oil spill and the efforts to contain it sidelined many of the expected questions and consumed ninety-five percent of his one hour appearance. Continuing his administration’s favorite line, Obama maintained that while mistakes were made the Federal government was on top of the situation from day one. Unfortunately, for that to be true, one would have to count the Coast Guard team that rescued workers from the platform and performed the search for the eleven men that had lost their lives in the early hours of the disaster.

The first Oval Office meeting on the platform explosion occurred on April 22nd, two days after the first reports came in. While the Obama administration already knew about the deficiencies in the MMS (Federal Minerals Management Service) as well as the dangerously cozy relationships between MMS employees and the oil companies they were charged with overseeing, the government opted to rely heavily on surveys and reports assembled by BP to assess the scope of the damage and the potential for environmental impact. This reliance would prove disastrous as the estimates of the oil escaping the damage blowout preventer valve began to rise with each passing day.

MMS chief, Elizabeth Birnbaum, reportedly resigned this morning but insiders speaking under terms of anonymity claim she was ousted to satisfy critics of the MMS oversight of American oil producers. Of course Birnbaum couldn’t leave without taking a perfunctory swipe at the Bush administration by saying that she hopes the reforms that Interior Secretary Ken Salizar is implementing will resolve the flaws in the system she “inherited”. Inherit is one of those words that is curiously misused when it is applied to politics. You can inherit blonde hair and green eyes but can you inherit your grandfather’s fifth grade education? No; of course not. You have complete control over the course and direction of your life because you have personal command of all of those choices.

Ms. Birnbaum was the Director of the MMS, not a third level supervisor without discretion or autonomy. She assumed that position in July of 2009 with a report in hand that clearly described the scandalous behavior that had become part of the department’s culture over the years and it was her duty and responsibility to address those failings. The report detailing the improprieties and criminal acts rampant within the MMS was issued in September of 2008 leaving the former MMS director scant little time to address those issues before the election of Barack Obama. The lack of scrutiny given to the MMS was certainly a failure of the Bush administration but the tales of MMS mismanagement goes back beyond 1997 and well into the Clinton Administration as well. When she assumed control of the MMS, Birnbaum had the benefit of a report that gave her a clear map of those failings and she should have acted immediately on the information it contained; information that the Bush and Clinton administrations did not possess at the time. She did not act on that report so if she inherited anything, perhaps it was a case of congenital procrastination.

Then again, why should we expect Burnbaum to accept responsibility when the hallmark of the Obama administration is the pointing of fingers at the previous President? It doesn’t matter that this administration is eighteen months old now or that the problems that Obama claims to have inherited were the ones his campaign said he had a clear plan to correct. Today Barack Obama stood before the Press Corp and boldly accepted the responsibility for not moving fast enough to fix all the broken things that Bush left him. Yeah, that figures. We will probably be listening to the same old trash about the mess that Obama inherited as we approach the November 2012 election too.

What Obama didn’t inherit from Bush was the growing perception among Americans that he is focused on an ideological agenda and as long as the things he feels are important remain undone, the economy, the environment and the social, not to mention racial cohesiveness of the nation will be swept to the side and let for another day. Of course, our Campaigner in Chief feels that perception is a terrible mischaracterization of his efforts. After all, his administration was on this oil spill from day one! I saw it myself as he took to the golf course and basketball court to show how the hole in ocean floor could be easily plugged if the right size ball were only used. Then there was that stop for wings and beer that was all over television….maybe we could apply the same artery clogging fats used to fry the wings to clog the well shut too. Finally, he went on four trips to raise campaign funds for Barbara Boxer but while he was there, he did speak about the oil spill possibly in the hopes that one of those wealthy Democrats in attendance might have a good idea that BP hadn’t thought of.

The bare facts are that the national contingency plans that were automatically activated on the first day of the incident were required by existing law and were not the result of direct action from the Obama administration. Despite administration pledges for full support and available resources, it was a full nine days before Secretary of Homeland Security Napolitano announced the incident was a spill of national significance, ten days before Secretary of Defense Robert Gates activated the Louisiana National Guard and the Justice Department sent a team of lawyers to monitor the spill (yeah, that one confused me too) not to mention it was a full twelve days came and went after the initial explosion before President Obama made his first inspection of the area. Try as you may, you just can’t blame Bush for that, now can you?

Paul

The Consistency of Inconsistency

Wow…where do I begin? The most transparent administration this nation has ever seen is about to hold it’s first press conference in more than three hundred days; Eric Holder announced that the Justice Department is beginning the process to challenge Arizona’s immigration law but refuses to investigate allegations that a member of the White House may have committed a felony in offering Representative Joe Sestak a Federal position in exchange for abandoning his primary challenge against Senator Arlen Specter or perhaps the wink and nod given to SEIU protestors by Maryland police when they amassed 500 people on the private property of a Bank or America attorney to protest housing foreclosures?

The news is abuzz with the announcement that President Obama will hold a general press conference before departing for another tour of the Gulf coast to review the steps taken to halt the major oil spill there. This would not ordinarily be news but the President’s last open press conference was more than three hundred days ago. Three hundred days ago, the healthcare bill had not passed, the Fort Hood massacre had not occurred, the failed terror attacks on a flight bound for Chicago and in New York’s Times Square were months in the future and Arizona had not passed its controversial Immigration Law.

Some would argue that the President is not the coach of a sports team or the spokesman for Gillette but consumed with the matters of State and has little time for such things. I think the responses issued for the President by the White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, says more about this administration’s disdain for the media than it does about the President’s busy schedule. The Gibbs press appearances usually take one of three distinct tracks; he refuses to answer, blames the Republicans or accuses the Tea Party of distorting the truth. In fact, the President does not hold press conferences because he and his advisors believe the press is a distraction; that if the truth were printed it would represent a danger to his agenda.

This disdain for the press can be witnessed in the White House’s handling of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagen. They have refused to allow the press access to Kagan for the usual round of interviews and instead, provided the press with a copy of an interview conducted by a White House staffer. Kagan was asked only the questions that she could answer without jeopardizing her nomination and her answers were as innocuous as the questions were. Is this free press? Of course not but this administration is not impressed with the Constitutional guarantee of a free press nor is it restrained in its obvious attempt to manipulate that fundamental guardian of freedom. Obama’s own appointee to the newly created position of Chief Diversity Officer within the FCC, Mark Lloyd, was not ashamed to comment that if Hugo Chavez had not restrained the free press in Venezuela that his “amazing” revolution could not have occurred; a lesson apparently not wasted on Obama and his thugs.

Lloyd is not the only member of the Obama administration that believes the First Amendment is a problem. Rahm Emmanuel, Obama’s Chief of Staff, was quoted as saying the First Amendment is “highly overrated” and Cass Sunstein, the Regulatory Czar, says the First Amendment needs to be “reformulated” to “reinvigorate processes of democratic deliberation, by ensuring greater attention to public issues and greater diversity of views.” In other words, if a majority of American’s are opposed to their Progressive views on governance then there should be legal methods available to them so as to silence a portion of that majority and provide the illusion that there are just as many supporters. In the end, all I really expect from the President during this press conference is more smoke in mirrors and a shameless attempt to use the oil spill to try and sell his cap and tax, energy bill. After all, Rahm Emmanuel said “never let a good crisis go to waste.”

Eric Holder has become just another caricature in the Obama circus as his Justice Department seems to have lost the meaning of justice. As Attorney General, Holder is supposed to be the highest law enforcement officer in the United States but his political and ideological prejudices have prevented him from effectively discharging those duties. He spoke out against Arizona’s immigration law and commented that he was contemplating legal action to block it weeks before he admitted that he had never read it. Justice?

Holder’s Justice Department refused to act against Black Panther Militants that positioned themselves outside polling places wielding clubs during the 2008 Presidential election. The official statement made by the department is that there was a “lack of evidence” that there was any attempt to interfere with the election. I’m not sure what evidence they need but I’m sure civilians in combat boots holding police style batons within five feet of the front door of a polling place is in that book somewhere. Justice?

Holder’s Justice Department also refuses to investigate charges that a member of the White House offered Representative Joe Sestak a position within the administration in exchange for dropping his primary challenge against Senator Arlen Specter; a challenge that Sestak won handily. This charge, if true, represents a fundamental violation of United States law and the person or person’s involved would have committed a felony if found guilty. The election process is one of America’s most prized rights and any attempt to tamper with that process must be met with the full weight of the law. Of course, if the Justice Department doesn’t recognize that loitering in front of a polling place armed with a weapon is tampering with the electoral process then why should their muted reaction to this surprise us?

Now we have the Washington DC police spotted escorting fourteen buses loaded with SEIU thugs on their mission to torment an attorney in the employ of the Bank of America. The official statement was that this was a lawful protest staged by union members outraged by the flurry of recent home foreclosures but is it? Five-hundred “protestors” exited the buses and congregated on the lawn and front porch of the Bank of America attorney with signs and bull horns. This was a private residence on a small suburban street so whose attention was this protest meant to gain? The only member of the media invited to the “protest” was a blogger that contributes to the liberal rag-sheet, The Huffington Post so it certainly wasn’t for the benefit of the press. It wasn’t a march down Main Street so it wasn’t for the benefit of the public. Was it an expression of the forces that SEIU could assemble meant to intimidate the opposition? That’s what it looks like to me.

While the DC police say that “trailing” assembling protestors are done in the interest of public safety, what the Maryland police did, or did not do, was far more disturbing. The protestors were in clear violation of Maryland law regarding disturbing the peace but Maryland police focused their attention solely on trespass laws. For someone to be in violation of the Maryland trespass law, the property owner would have to request that the trespasser leave the property and the trespasser would then have to refuse before the police can lawfully act. However, the ordinances preserving the peace prohibit any one or any group from entering private property and creating a disturbance through loud noises or threatening gestures. Other residents of the area say they overheard police telling the besieged attorney that they were concerned that police involvement would further incite the mob.

The official comment from the Maryland Police Chief was that the officers dispatched to the scene arrived as the protesters were dispersing and did not witness the activities that were alleged by the neighborhood residents. They categorically deny that the officers said anything about being fearful of inciting the mob and that the acts that the police witnessed were peaceful and within the bounds of the law. Really? Five hundred people carrying signs can walk across your lawn in Maryland, scream over a bull horn, frighten your neighbors and children and no violation of law has occurred?

DC police said they called Maryland police as the caravan of school buses crossed into Maryland and the Maryland police took over from there. Now we are supposed to believe that the mob found parking for fourteen school buses in a quiet suburban neighborhood, discharged their passengers, organized the group and concluded their protest all in the minutes between that call and the arrival of the responding officers? It sounds to me like the SEIU got a free pass by Maryland police. Could that be because of the pressures that unions are facing as Cities and States are asking for concessions as they wrestle with devastating budget shortfalls? Could it be that since SEIU represents thousands of municipal workers that some police organizations may see them as kindred spirits deserving of their respect and assistance? If so, where does that place the public in this new alliance of self-serving special interests?

This incident is also deserving of investigation by Federal authorities but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Former SEIU President, Andy Stern, is still a frequent visitor to the White House and an Obama advisor which pretty much guarantees the SEIU a pass from the so-called Justice Department too.

Paul

Obama - Eighteen Months and Counting

We are approaching the eighteen month mark of the Obama Presidency and what a ride it has been. Despite Candidate Obama’s criticism of the deficit under the Bush administration, President Obama has presided over a quadrupling of deficit spending and has to date, added a whopping $2.36 trillion dollars to the national debt. The White House’s own calculations show that the spending levels outlined in the President’s budget will add another $9.7 trillion dollars to the national debt over the next ten years. That assumes of course, that we have a budget.

While the Federal government has been busy involving themselves in matters in which they have absolutely no constitutional authority such as healthcare, internet content and taking control of auto manufacturers, Congress has failed to focus on the things they are mandated by law to do such as securing the US borders, overseeing Federal agencies and adopting a budget. Of course, if you have no budget, you don’t have to make the hard choices of what to cut to keep it in balance. Instead, the Federal government continues to address spending by passing bill after bill that extend current spending levels and raising our debt ceiling to keep the cash flowing.

The Obama administration’s contribution to the national debt will shortly equal what Bush spent in the last four years of his presidency. Since his inauguration, Obama has raised the national debt 20% as a percentage of GDP (the entire national economy or Gross Domestic Product) and current calculations show that we will owe 100% of GDP by the year 2015. George Bush added $4.36 trillion to the debt during his entire eight years in office and even though Obama spoke harshly about the fiscal irresponsibility of the Bush administration, President Obama is now poised to far exceed that measure of irresponsibility within the next two years. Moody’s has already warned that America is on the verge of losing its triple A bond rating if we do not reign in our current spending craze. The loss of that rating would require us to pay higher interest on our existing debt and an increase of just a couple of points on a twelve trillion dollar debt would spell financial ruin for the nation but the spending continues unabated.

So what else has the last eighteen months brought us? The Obama administration has brought deep divisions between every race and economic strata in the country. The tactics used to promote their Socialist agenda has created an atmosphere of controversy that has pitted entire groups of people against each other. As the administration tries to gain support for its dangerous and short sighted energy bill, they have gone as far as suggesting it is a race issue; that minority communities are unfairly burdened with a disproportionate amount of industrial pollution. They have taken the seriousness of the civil rights movement of the 1960’s and are trying to frame every aspect of their agenda in terms of racial and economic justice. They are shamelessly using low income and minority communities to forward this agenda; an agenda that will drive those communities deeper into poverty as a very few of the Progressive elite sit back and watch their wealth and power multiply. Of course, since those elite Progressives are friends of the President and the Main Stream Press, those fat cats will be exempt from the same scrutiny used to examine the earnings of Wall Street executives.

Unions and former 1960’s radicals have been instrumental in writing the Stimulus bill, the Healthcare Bill and the Energy Bill. The language in those Bills has funneled billions of tax payer dollars into special projects that benefit the interests that helped write the bills. The President has already thumbed his nose at hard working Americans by issuing an executive order giving preference to Union contractors in government projects costing more than $25 million dollars. That order effectively blocks 80% of private contractors from those projects simply because their employees have not unionized. Under the Healthcare Bill, hospitals are only eligible for Federal funds for training programs if their staffs are unionized; clearly a gift to Andy Stern and the SEIU for their help during the election. Of course Union preferences won’t mean much if we continue on the path of national bankruptcy. After all, you need to have money to fund projects and training programs.

The Obama administration has adopted a policy of sheer luck where counter-terrorism is concerned. Catastrophe has only been avoided because the weapons training that our latest would-be assailants received was flawed and the devices they used failed to detonate. Still, Obama plans on only adding an additional 100 people to review and update the no-fly list but needs 17,000 new IRS agents to make sure you buy healthcare insurance. Our Attorney General, Eric Holder, has problems using the term Radical Islam in connection with these failed terrorists but Director of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano has no problem using far more troubling descriptors when it comes to defining the dangers posed by Tea Party protestors. In fact, the only danger the Tea Party represents is that they mean to block the President’s agenda and that is something the current administration will not tolerate.

Cass Sunstein, Obama’s “Regulatory Czar” has even suggested that our government use tactics once reserved for the Soviet KGB and discretely infiltrate Tea Parties and other groups that protest the administration’s plans. Sunstein would also like to see the government use its power to organize information campaigns to counter the Tea Party message and promote the President’s agenda. Excuse me, but isn’t that called propaganda? If you don’t believe this administration has no problem using propaganda to gain support and power, take the case of Obama’s latest Supreme Court nominee, Elena Kagan. The White House has impeded any attempt by the press to gain access to Kagan for an interview. They even contacted a school where Kagan’s brother teaches and “suggested” the school deny news access to Kagan’s brother. Instead, an unnamed White House staffer conducted a sanitary interview of Elena Kagan and that is the only material that has been given to the press. What are they hiding? Even Kagan’s thesis has been scrubbed from the internet; a thesis that clearly said she lamented the failure of Socialism to gain momentum in the United States.

The past eighteen months has brought America closer to financial ruin that at any other time in history. The programs and policies of this administration have depleted our ability to respond quickly to additional economic downturns and have placed us dangerously close to the point where we may not be able to afford to adequately defend ourselves. While the Feds corral militia groups in Michigan, North Korea has been acting with impunity against South Korea, apparently unafraid of a meaningful American response. While Congress launches a harsh campaign against Toyota because of safety concerns, Iran continues on the path to nuclear arms without a worry in the world. While the Mexican drug war continues to spill over the border into Arizona and Texas, the Obama administration is seeking to seize private property in Vermont to strengthen our border with Canada.

Obama refuses to answer questions about the radical past of his closest advisors. He refuses to answer questions about why his campaign spent nearly a million dollars to seal documents and information about his past. He refuses to answer questions about why his Social Security number was part of a group of numbers reserved for residents of Connecticut, a State in which he never resided and why that number was issued a full three years after his first known job at a Hawaiian ice cream shop. He refuses to answer questions about why his application for student aid was filed stating he was a foreign student of Indonesian patronage. He even refuses to answer the question about why the birth certificate he submitted to the Federal Elections Commission, a birth certificate issued in 1961, has no State seal and shows his father’s race as African when African is neither a race nor a nation; nor would it have been used as a description of race in 1961 America.

We have a long way to go before November 2012….I only hope the nation can survive that long.

Paul

Mythbusters

The discussions we just had on the Constitution will be useful as we gauge what is happening now, against what should be happening within the framework of the Constitution but as we enter the 2010 campaign season, I also want to expose some myths surrounding modern “political speak” in that context to begin our next segment.

Myth one – FDR’s policies and programs ended the Great Depression.

False - Since President Obama’s proponents are touting him as the new FDR, this myth is the first that needs to be debunked. Nothing can be further from the truth. FDR’s programs were nothing more than keep busy government works projects that kept most at or below the poverty level; actually very similar to today’s Stimulus bill. World War Two sent millions of American men to war taking them off home relief and placing them on the front lines to defend the nation and during the war years, the country’s economy shifted to war production. Since general provisions were limited by the war, a combination of rationing and the tax structure were used to prevent runaway inflation. At the conclusion of the war, nearly every manufacturing center around the world had been destroyed in the fighting except for those located safely within the borders of the United States. From 1945 through the late 1050’s, if you wanted to buy anything, you had to buy it here and that is what ended the Great Depression.

Myth two – Reagan’s tax cuts and policies of “trickle down economics” failed and ultimately quadrupled the National Debt.

Partially true - First of all, to gain the tax cuts Reagan wanted to stimulate the economy, Reagan had to agree to the TEFRA act (Tax Equity and Reform Act) of 1986. Before the Reagan tax cuts, the tax on the wealthiest Americans were roughly 50% (already down from the top marginal tax rates of 80% to 95% during the world war two years). TEFRA eliminated many of the deductions that high earning American’s used to reduce their taxable income. You may want to note that even after the marginal tax rates for the top earners began to climb during the first Bush administration, none of the deductions eliminated under TEFRA had been restored. The only mistake Reagan made was in phasing in his tax cuts over a period of a few years. This stalled the economy for a further two years as business held back, waiting for the goodies that were coming.

Now to the bare facts: OMB figures indicate that the explosion of the economy directly related the Reagan tax cuts resulted in a tripling of revenues to the United States Treasury. Unfortunately, the Congress immediately wrote legislation that spent $1.34 for every new dollar they received. Admittedly, part of that was to fund the military expansion that Reagan insisted was necessary for the security of the nation; but a great deal were pork barrel projects injected into the legislation. Don’t forget, Reagan asked for the line item veto to be able to weed that reckless spending out of the legislation but Congress refused to offer him that power. If he were to move forward on the agenda he felt was vital to the nation, Reagan was given no alternative but to sign these pork laden bills into law. President Clinton was eventually given the power of the line item veto and never used it to weed out frivolous spending. In all fairness, neither did the second Bush administration.

Myth three - Deregulation created the mortgage crisis of 2007.

Partially true - Deregulation certainly allowed for the lapse in accountability that made this possible but to find the roots of the crisis, we need to travel back in time to the Clinton administration. During the Clinton administration there was a push to expand the “American Dream” of home ownership to a segment of the population where it had never existed before. That “push” was in the form of the Federal government fining banks that would not issue what were traditionally considered high risk loans to allow low income people access to home mortgages.

That practice drove the median prices of homes skyward since the law of supply and demand was now challenged by an artificially created marketplace. Those that already owned homes took advantage of the lenient lending terms and free flow of cash to refinance their mortgages based on the inflated value of the property, in essence turning their homes into an ATM machine with a garage and two and a half baths. Many took adjustable rate or interest only loans because they were cheaper thinking they would get into a conventional loan later. They took the difference in cash with some, purchasing additional properties with the idea that property values would continue to go nowhere but up.

Well, you knew it would happen sooner or later but an awful lot of those high risk loans started going sour. Banks that saw trouble on the horizon packaged these loans and sold them to investors. They sold them as securities thinking that the good paper would offset the bad paper, because property values always go up. Well that might have worked if property values weren’t artificially inflated and if property owners hadn’t already cashed in on that.

The net result was due to the high rate of loan failures (the high risk ones the government had forced on lenders) property values plummeted. When it came time for the ATM people to refinance, their home were worth substantially less that the principal they already owed. Unfortunately, the cash they withdrew from the “ATM” was already spent. You already know the story from there.

Myth four - The Stimulus plan (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009) is responsible for the creation of millions of jobs.

False - Again, no; only a portion of the $800 billion allocated in the stimulus bill has actually been distributed. As opposed to The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 which consisted of tax rebate checks put into the hands of tax payers, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 doled out money to the States and Cities. As a note, The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 consisted of roughly $152 billion given back to the tax payers while The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 scripted over $800 billion to fund projects administrated through the States and Cities. They still haven’t figured out that we spend money far better than they do.

In my home town of Phoenix, the stimulus money they received was used to purchase additional traffic enforcement cameras; cameras that will likely be voted out of existence in the next few years as referendum ballots opposing them gain ground. Well that put a lot of people to work, now didn’t it? Much of the stimulus money in other areas was used to fund other previously committed spending like roads or transportation projects.

The facts: much of the stimulus money was used to fund projects that were already awarded to contractors (no new jobs) or was used for “make work” jobs, some of which lasted a total of 36 hours, less than a full work week, before these people were once again, unemployed. The “new jobs” were far less than temporary and the balance of what they claimed credit for, were jobs that had already existed.

As a note, The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 only failed because people used the money they received to satisfy existing personal debt. In essence, the government had already taken too much and waited too long only to give too little back.

So where am I going with this and is there a common thread? Those of you that have read my work before already know there must be something that ties all of this together. That “thread” is the Federal government’s inability to affect positive change through the manipulation of the free market system. Every time they have tried they have failed and failed miserably. Partly, because they are following an ideology that mainstream America does not share and partly, because they have still been divided amongst themselves for years.

The nation’s capitol has become nothing more that a battlefield of the extreme right and the radical left with the bulk of the nation, meaning you and me, caught in the crossfire. Accusation is met with counter-accusation and whatever party is in control tries to force their agenda through while accusing the other of having no vision and no alternatives.

Since there is apparently a lack of common sense solutions in Congress, let’s see if we can’t frame the real issues and identify some reasonable solutions for them. I know, I know….we are just regular people. Truthfully, I can’t think of any better reason to try since the “professional” legislators have made such an unholy mess of things already. Besides, this is still our country….isn’t it?Paul

The World Apology Tour Continues

No world apology tour would be complete until the Obama administration apologized to China for perceived human rights abuses right here at home. Assistant Secretary of State and left wing screwball, Michael Posner, spoke candidly about his meetings with Chinese officials. The meeting included Posner’s suggestion that Arizona’s new anti-illegal immigration law represents a disturbing trend within the United States and an illustration on how America must address its own human and civil rights issues. Posner also spoke about the U.S. treatment of Muslims implying that our post-9-11 policies amount to a procedural mistreatment of Muslims and that those policies are themselves, a human rights concern.

Arizona Senators Jon Kyle and John McCain drafted an open letter to Posner demanding an apology saying that "To compare in any way the lawful and democratic act of the government of the state of Arizona with the arbitrary abuses of the unelected Chinese Communist Party is inappropriate and offensive." Just the idea that we would apologize to China for exercising our right as a sovereign nation to secure our borders is ludicrous. Our laws are based on due process and Constitutional practices that protect human rights while China secures its own borders with iron bars and lead bullets. Add to that that China is one of the world’s worst violators of human rights even if we can’t come right out and say it. After all, you can’t anger your banker, now can you?

Of course, the Obama administration only apologizes for America and not to America so Kyle and McCain will undoubtedly have a long wait. The State Department immediately defended Posner's comments. Spokesman P.J. Crowley disputed the notion Posner was apologizing to China when he was actually "standing up" for America by demonstrating how debate works in a "civil society." Crowley did, however, support the Obama's administrations concern of the Arizona law, stating, "There is, as many have said, real concerns about -- that this Arizona law will inevitably devolve into racial profiling. That would be a fundamental challenge to human rights around the world.” Of course, when Crowley was questioned as to whether or not he had actually read the Arizona statute, Crowley had to admit he had not.

Crowley is in good company. Attorney General Eric Holder spoke forcefully about his concerns regarding the Arizona law and how the Justice Department was considering filing suit to block its implementation. Curiously, as he was being questioned about his concerns by Arizona Senator, John McCain, Holder sheepishly admitted that he had not actually read the bill and that his concerns were based on what he had seen about the law on television. Well, isn’t that refreshing! CNN and MSNBC are now the legal research arm of the United States Justice Department. We are going to save a fortune in tax payer dollars now that we can eliminate all those high-priced attorneys and legal aides in Holder’s Justice Department. Apparently, all we have to do now is install a bank of televisions in Holder’s office. In fact, why stop there? Why not let Judge Judy adulate Federal cases and close the Justice Department altogether.

Department of Homeland Security chief and former Arizona Governor, Janet Napolitano, was also questioned by John McCain after she voiced her concerns about Arizona’s illegal immigration law and again, admitted that she had not read the law either but “knows of it”. When a high government official takes a stance on something as delicate as immigration or involving State’s right, I expect that they should have more than a vague idea of what the issue is before they speak out for, or against it.

Arizona has been left to deal with what has become a full-fledged border town drug war. The police are outmanned and out-gunned by Mexican drug runners and American citizens are being accosted while their properties are routinely violated by roving gangs of Mexican nationals. Despite numerous calls for assistance to fight a growing and dangerous wave of illegal border crossings, the Federal government has been deaf to this plea for help prompting Arizona to act unilaterally. Instead of fulfilling their Constitutional obligation to combat an ongoing foreign incursion onto American soil, the Federal government is now in the process of invoking eminent domain to seize five acres of private farm land in Vermont to strengthen the border between the United States and Canada. While border security is a high priority, the Obama administration is, as with everything else they have done, taken America 180 degrees in the wrong direction.

Mexican President Calderon joined with Obama this week in denouncing Arizona because of the illegal immigration law which is laughable since Mexican law is far more punitive and unforgiving than anything Arizona is attempting. Mexican law prohibits any form of assistance until a person’s immigration status has been confirmed. According to Mexican law, even Mexican police, medical and emergency services can be withheld until you prove that you are in that country lawfully. Of course, I don’t hear a whimper from the Obama administration about the danger that policy represents to human rights but the administration’s outrage really isn’t about human rights or immigration now is it?

So why has the Obama administration spoke out so harshly against Arizona’s immigration law? The law is taken directly from Federal immigration policy and Arizona lawmakers have actually strengthened the safeguards that protect innocent people from being needlessly harassed. The law requires that the police must have already stopped, detained or arrested someone under suspicion of a crime and the officer must have a reasonable suspicion that the subject is in the country illegally before they can be questioned about their immigration status. The laws goes even further in providing protection against racial profiling by requiring that the officer’s suspicion must be based on something other than race. The corresponding Federal law offers no such protection against racial profiling.

The reason the administration is so dead set against this law is because it is based on the State’s right to self determination and affirms the Tenth Amendment protection of the sovereignty of the States. To allow the Arizona law to stand would pose serious agenda difficulties for an administration that is attempting to harness the States under the yoke of Federal control. This is only the first real challenge to Obama and his band of radical friends and Socialist advisors. The truth is the Constitutional authority for a State to enact immigration policy within that State’s own borders has already been tested in the Supreme Court, and our highest court recognized the State’s right to craft that policy.

Despite the precedent established by the Supreme Court, the Obama administration has made fighting Arizona’s immigration law a gilt edge priority because it is based on the State’s Tenth Amendment rights. A victory for Arizona in this will set the stage for additional State challenges against the Healthcare Bill, the UN gun control initiative and a national energy policy. This is about power and they have already lied about the intent and scope of the immigration law to broker as much opposition against it as possible. Fortunately, Arizona has the weight of law, the hammer of truth and the power of public support behind her as she enters the arena. This is still the United States and we still live under the rule of law. Obama may think that the Federal government has the authority to impose its will simply because they are the giant in this battle but they have obviously forgotten the story of David and Goliath. Well, Arizona is ready with the sling of truth and stone of the Constitution.

Paul

Reagan Was The Real President of Hope and Change

There are so many assaults on one’s senses today, where can you reasonably begin without feeling that you’ve left something out? For a President that promised hope, I don’t think I have ever seen an atmosphere as thick with hopelessness as I see in America today. Even during the darkest days of the Carter administration when American hostages were being held in Iran and the economy was in turmoil, people still believed there was something that could be done with the right leader at the helm.

Maybe that is where Reagan really made his mark. People not only believed in his abilities, but because of his inspiration we could believe in our own abilities as a nation again. The hostages held in Iran for nearly four-hundred and fifty days were released as Reagan took the oath of office which we took as a clear indication that the world knew this President was not going to allow America to be disgraced by petty dictators and radical theocracies. The economy rebounded as Reagan released the restraints of regulation and the shackles of punitive taxation; the military took on the shine and precision of well oiled and meticulously cared for machine and our cities began to shed the decay after decades of neglect.

Critics would later criticize Reagan for quadrupling the National Debt but the numbers speak for themselves. Under Reagan’s policies, revenues to the Treasury had tripled. Not because of tax increases but because of the economic expansion brought on by tax relief that rewarded entrepreneurs for the risks they took reinvesting in America. The debt did quadruple but only because of congressional fiscal mismanagement which according to OMB records, spent $1.34 for every new dollar in revenue the treasury collected. Reagan continually asked for the line-item veto to enable him to eliminate the pork that bloated every spending bill but that was something Congress would not grant to Reagan. In the end, if Reagan wanted the appropriations he felt were critical to the nation’s well being, then he had to sign the bills and accept the additional spending Congress had irresponsibly sewn into them.

The line item veto was eventually granted to President Clinton in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which he signed into law and put to the test at least eighty-one times throughout eleven pieces of legislation. We will never know the full value of the line item veto as it was struck down by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in February of 1998. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court in June of that year. Similar legislation was requested by President George W. Bush in 2006 but failed to pass a vote in the Senate. A recent move to reinstate the line item veto was begun by Republican Senator John McCain and Democrat Senator Russ Feingold in 2009, but never gained the support it needed to move forward. So much for the conscience of Congress.

After Reagan’s second term, the National Debt had climbed to $3.2 trillion dollars which represented 55% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). However, inflation had dropped from 13.9% under Jimmy Carter, to 4.67% when Regan left office in 1989. When 1990 began, we had a six-hundred ship navy, an air force that guaranteed superiority in any theater it would be tested and the best equipped and trained military that the world had ever seen. The economy was vibrant with every indicator showing steady gains. The Soviet Union was straining under the weight of trying to compete with capitalism in an open arms competition and would fail only a year later. From every gauge I use to measure success, it appears that America got an awful lot in return for its three trillion dollar investment.

I truly believe that Ronald Reagan will go down in history as one of the greatest Presidents this country had ever had the good fortune to elect. That is, unless the same revisionists that have slandered Thomas Jefferson and Christopher Columbus have the opportunity to re-write his accomplishments as well. Beyond the economic and military legacy he left, I still insist that his greatest gift to this nation was the faith he instilled in us. He spoke from the heart and I can’t remember a time that I had cause to question his words. He was truly, the “Great Communicator”. Is there anyone under the age of forty that doesn’t recall the challenge he shouted out in Berlin? “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” echoed through the hearts and minds of the world. Is there anyone that doubted his sincerity as he eulogized the crew of the ill-fated Challenger spacecraft? For all his critics, was there anyone that has ever doubted his loyalty and love for the United States?

What has changed? I remember when I was a boy, we went to the World’s Fair and the biggest attraction was the “World of Tomorrow”. We clamored for a glimpse into an amazing future and the wonders that technology and innovation promised us. We saw the Space Program grow from a single man perched precariously atop what was in fact, a ballistic missile, to the towering Saturn V rocket that brought America to the moon and back. Movies like “2001 a Space Odyssey” took us to explore the outer planets and Carl Sagan’s documentary “Cosmos” introduced us to the wonders of the Universe. Technological advances had taken the cords off our phones and put the power of computers on our desk tops. To all appearances, the promises of the future were coming true. But what did we give our children?

It began with the television shows of the late 1980’s. As if Hollywood were revolting against Reagan for ruining their vision of utopia as capitalism rebounded and communism fell, the youth were targeted with one show after another. Father didn’t know best anymore, now parents were portrayed as witless idiots while their children kept the family on track. Actually, that began back in the ‘70s but those shows were directed at adults in an attempt to show them the evil of their bigoted and selfish ways. This was different. These were shows for kids, about kids. Then the disaster movies came; the post apocalyptic adventures of Mad Max and Robo-Cop. One film after another that told our young adults that their future would be a barren wasteland in which survival itself, was their only job. Now we have the “environment-gone-wild” movies where the adults have finally destroyed the planet and now mother earth was revolting against us.

No wonder our kids are disillusioned. No wonder they have no interest in school or responsibility. After all, why bother? The earth is doomed and according to the latest big screen calamity, we won’t make it past 2012 anyway. Now they are completing the picture by telling school children that the earth is in peril because of global warming. Oops! I meant Climate Change. Ever since the data has been showing a cooling trend they changed the name or people might actually question the science behind the claims. Why would anyone want to do this to our children?

The only reason I can think of is to complete the work of demoralization that began decades ago. Those misguided students of socialist doctrine that have now become the teachers, still believe that utopia lies just beyond the greed of capitalism. If the youth can be shaped early enough then it isn’t just a thought, it is a core belief; nearly a religion. The climate crisis is being presented to them in such a way that we don’t have the luxury of thinking about what to do. We must follow the only clear path and that is the complete reversal of our industrial society or we face certain doom. I intend to take that apart tomorrow piece by piece but first there is a more pressing need.

Despite everything we are being told, there is hope. Sane and reasonable actions can bring America out of financial crisis but it will take hard work, a lot more Reagan Republicans and solid capitalistic principals. We can ill afford more progressives in our government regardless of whether their names are suffixed with a “D”, an “R” or an “I”. Those principals have already given us a national debt that is about to top twelve-trillion dollars, which is 98% of the GDP. For perspective, the next largest debtor nation is China and their debt is at 23.5% of their GDP. Our greatest challenge is that the progressives in Congress coupled with the Marxists in the White House have placed America up for sale. It is critical that nothing passes this legislative session until the system of checks and balances are safely restored.

Most important is the time you invest with your children. Restore their sense of wonder for the future and encourage a courageous desire to explore the unknown. Give them the knowledge and hope that their future is not written for them but by them. Empower them with free thought and for God’s sake, break down the rote memorization of social doctrine that the left has been brainwashing them with. Be understanding; they have been using our children’s worst fears to obtain their devotion. You must be their “Reagan”. You must give them the hope and faith that Reagan gave you and your words must have the same weight of truth because above all else, that is really what made Reagan the great communicator.

Paul

Atlas Shrugged - The Next "Story of Us"?

When Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” was published in 1957, it was considered a work of science fiction. The theme of “Atlas Shrugged”, as Rand described it, is "the role of man's mind in existence." The book explores a number of themes that Rand would subsequently develop into the philosophy of Objectivism. She was sharply criticized for her ideas and her philosophy of “Objectivism” was denigrated as selfish and regressive in the light of the needs of the general public.

Despite these charges, “Atlas Shrugged” achieved enduring popularity and has maintained consistent sales in the following decades. In the wake of the late 2000s recession, sales of Atlas Shrugged have sharply increased, according to The Economist magazine and The New York Times. The Economist reported that the fifty-two-year-old novel ranked #33 among Amazon's top-selling books on January 13, 2009.

What is the new-found interest in this book? “Atlas Shrugged”, originally called “The Strike” by its working title, portrays an America much like we see today. Overbearing government regulations, distributive policies and a generally accepted point of view held by public officials that radical progressive action must be taken for the good of all and anyone opposed to those policies are disgraced and openly chastised.

In the book, one by one, leaders of industry were disappearing, leaving their businesses deserted and their workers displaced. The book does take an odd turn when those business owners begin to reappear as Objectivist pirates seeking to topple the existing system to establish a new government that promotes the virtues self-reliance for the good of their progeny.

No one really believes that pirates will begin raiding the United States in retaliation for government intervention and oppressive taxation but Atlas is apparently beginning to shrug. New York and California have been seeing a trend of wealthy citizens fleeing the latest round of taxes that have been unfairly levied on them. The computer age no longer necessitates that these people congregate in major centers of commerce since the internet itself, has become the lifeline. The point is, there is no longer any status associated with a Park Avenue address, particularly if that address comes with a personal income tax rate of nearly 60%, now that Healthcare Reform has actually passed. Is it really that bad? Well, the latest figures show that out of eight and a half million people in New York City, a little over forty-three thousand pay more than forty percent of the City's tax revenues. That is obscene by anyone's standards.

The tax exodus not a new trend; in 2006, the rate at which college graduates were escaping New York had risen 127% and the same problems plague California as job prospects evaporate and taxes climb skyward. The real problem for these two bastions of liberal politics and “social responsibility” is that the vacuum created by those that are leaving is being filled by people that do not possess the same earning power so state and city tax revenues have been steadily falling as well. Heaven forbid these states would re-evaluate their commitment to redistributive policy. No, they would prefer to find new revenue sources to fill the void.

The next tax adding to the burden is the so-called “millionaires tax” to fund part of the healthcare reform bill. The truth is the millionaires tax kicks in at income levels well below a million dollars and when combined with the existing tax burden experienced by New York residents, the top marginal rate will effectively be 57%. Since the exodus has begun, New York Governor David Patterson has been insistent that New York must adopt a tax system that is at least competitive with neighboring states and in fact, should consider tax incentives that encourage businesses to relocate to New York, not flee in fear. These ideas have not met with much favor among the more liberal members of the elected elite in New York and in fact, have cost Patterson his position as Governor of New York as the power brokers in NY politics pushed him out of the race.

Anyone looking at the unemployment figures knows that the stimulus plan hasn’t produced the economic results the government had hoped for. The first mistake was the stimulus money was doled out to recipients that understand job creation as poorly as the Federal government does; the Cities and States. It was spent in the worst possible ways with New York again, leading the pack. When comparing the number of jobs that were claimed to have been created directly through stimulus expenditures against the amount of money that was spent, the national average was seventy-three thousand dollars per job with New York reportedly spending nine million per job. As with any short term infusion of capital, the results are bound to be short term as well so we can imagine that those extraordinarily expensive jobs will disappear when the money does.

So why has the stimulus plan failed to deliver? Once again, Atlas is shrugging. Business owners are cringing as they look at the antics and bribes used in Washington to pass healthcare that are now being dusted off to pass the climate bill. Back door meetings and massive spending bills with threats of more taxes, penalties and mandates do not encourage small business to expand, let alone re-hire those that were laid off in last year’s economic downturn. Additionally, if the mandate for private business participation under the current healthcare proposal is fifty employees, how many companies with forty-nine employees will resist expansion and stay right where they are? How many companies with fifty-two employees will downsize to escape the mandates and worse yet, how many will decide that the benefits of operating a business in America just don’t make sense anymore?

The stock market hasn’t rallied yet either. Not only have the threats of increased capital gains taxes dissuaded participation, with the Federal Reserve running the printing presses on overtime, not even Treasury Bills look safe anymore. We also have a new ominous specter; the threat of direct government interference in business. 60% of General Motors is now owned by the Federal government, which should make any advocate of capitalism nervous. There have been executive salary caps placed on banks that received Tarp money and while the legality of that was still under debate, the government announced its plan to cap the executive salaries of all financial institutions since they fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal government. Following that logic, who is safe? After all, don’t all corporations fall under the regulatory jurisdiction of the Federal government at one level or another?

So what happens if Atlas truly does shrug? What would happen if owning a business became a liability as the Federal government placed more of the burden of America’s social programs on their shoulders in the form of new mandates? What happens if the wealthy decide that leaving New York or California doesn’t offer enough protection against confiscatory taxes? Will they leave the country? The “top one percent” that the Obama regime keeps targeting certainly has the means to do just that. In fact, many have the resources to pull out of the game entirely and live quite comfortably for the rest of their lives on what they have already accumulated. What would happen to the great plans of progressive politics if the top one percent stopped earning a taxable income and just started living? What would happen if the “top one percent” suddenly became people with incomes of one-hundred thousand dollars, eighty-thousand dollars or maybe fifty-thousand dollars when the real wealth in America decides they are not playing anymore?

Some argue that Europe has had massive social programs and progressive taxes for years and business still thrives there. Really? Greece is now on fire because the bills have finally come due and the rest of Europe is now teetering on the brink of fiscal disaster since all of their economies are tied together. The only real advantages Europe has is that European trade agreements favor those at home as does their patent process. Also true is that much of the European infrastructure is fairly new when compared to America’s. Don’t forget that much of Europe was destroyed and rebuilt after World War II. We don’t have that luxury and our older industrial centers find it continually harder to compete with our modernized competitors. Most of Europe has never embarked on the self destructive path of paying its people to stay home that began with Johnson’s “Great Society”.

We have created a new class of subsidized dependents. These are people that have been subjugated by an unfair social services system that demands that you either collect all from the government or get nothing. Fear of losing housing, healthcare and a meager cash allowance keeps them neatly enrolled in the system and insures that they will continue to vote for the people that promise the money will keep coming. After all, when you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on Paul’s support. As unemployment increases and the wealthy “shrug”, who will keep these programs in place? We cannot print much more money or the world financial institutions will lock American currency out of the global economy. What will we do if Atlas does shrug?

Paul

The Farce of the Climate Scare

Even though it is painfully obvious that we are having difficulty determining if America can even afford the massive nine-hundred billion dollar healthcare that the administration recently forced through Congress, other factions in the Senate have already begun discussing the Climate bill, recently renamed “The American Power Act”, as well. The damage the healthcare bill will inflict on our economy will pale in significance compared to the harm that the American Power Act will mean for all Americans. Well, almost all Americans. It appears that Al Gore and his closest friends are prepared through their investments, to turn millions into billions once this bill has passed into law.

But why are we even considering this? The scientists and organizations that have demanded immediate action have been caught red handed falsifying data in order to support their global warming theories and Mr. Hanson of Nasa’s Goddard Space Center still refuses to release the data that he based his report on even though his peers have been unable to duplicate his findings. In fact, the data is so flawed that the proponents of the climate bill have changed the name of the crisis from “global warming” to “climate change” rather than have to answer for earth’s recent cooling trend.

I’ve stated in previous posts that the urgency of a global catastrophe fits very neatly into the general criteria laid out by neo-socialists; those that have already stated their strategy to use a crisis, man-made or otherwise, to destabilize the global economy. The enormous amount of resources that would be required to stave off certain doom in a global environmental crisis would devastate capitalism and bring about the collapse of the current geopolitical balance of power. This is nothing new; in fact, it is little more that a revision of the Cloward-Piven strategy that we have barely remained one step ahead of since it’s inception in 1966. Cloward-Piven was directed at the United States but the eco-socialists are attempting this now on a global scale.

If you don’t believe it, then why is it that democracies and republics of the western industrial nations are the only ones being pressured to join this circus? China and India have already stated they have no intention of damaging their economic growth with restrictions on industry even though their carbon emissions are far greater than that of the United States and there is no hue and cry from the global environmental movement demanding their participation. Much of the third world is not required to participate by the basic provisions of the latest U.N. sponsored climate accord and in fact, they would receive monetary assistance and technological support under these accords that would allow them to industrialize. With that in mind, what is this but a blatant attempt by the UN and eco-socialists to disassemble the United States and distribute our wealth and industrial might evenly around the globe.

Of course, environmentalists accuse those that dismiss the validity of global warming, climate change or whatever the next name will be, of being ignorant and standing in the way of saving countless millions from doom. I think it’s more than fair that we look at the claims these same people were making forty years ago and examine their track record for accuracy.

U.S. Senator Gaylord Nelson (D-WI) founded “Earth Day” in 1970 to bring awareness to the impending global catastrophe that man’s ignorance had wrought upon the earth. Was Mr. Nelson a climatologist or an environmental expert? Uh, no; as you might have already guessed, he received a Bachelor of Arts from San Jose College but eventually completed law school in Wisconsin.

Environmentalists and sympathetic scientists from around the world gathered for Earth Day to make the public aware of what we had done to the planet and to convey the urgency with which we must act before our mistakes consume the planet and all life on it. Below are a series of quotes taken from the hysterical pleas being made all through this event; quotes that adequately display how wrong these people were then, and remain to be now. Quotes that show just how far they are willing to go to make you believe we must enact their radical agenda right now or face doom. Bear in mind when you read these quotes that they are forty years old and frame the core beliefs of the environmental movement in 1970.

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something."Kenneth Watt, ecologist.

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”George Wald, Harvard Biologist.
“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist.

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day.

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist.

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist.

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day.

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University.

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”Life Magazine, January 1970.

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”Kenneth Watt, Ecologist.

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.”Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist.

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”Martin Litton, Sierra Club director.

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any."Kenneth Watt, Ecologist.

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”Sen. Gaylord Nelson.

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”Kenneth Watt, Ecologist.

It’s time to stop fooling around with these people. The climate crisis is nothing more than a concocted event and the voices of the 30,000 scientists that can prove that it is false must be heard; not suppressed. What is clear is that the data used by environmentalists to stake their claim of climate change was not misinterpreted, it was deliberately crafted to yield those results and when tested, they are the only ones that have come up with the results they say are proof positive. The real question is what is the political machine driving this attempt to crush the free market and democracy?

Paul

The Green Movement - Eco Terror or Socialist Plot?

Out of all the nooks and crannies that socialists have infiltrated in our society, the environmental movement has proven the most productive. It has everything they need. Armies of passionate followers that can be easily swayed by tainted studies laced with falsified data as well as the urgency of crisis they need to force entire nations headlong into self-destructive legislation and international pacts under the guise of saving the planet Neither of which are acts that are designed to save the planet. It wasn’t always that way. Many environmental groups began life to protect endangered species, prevent deforestation and to insure our air and water were free of dangerous chemicals and poisons. It was only in the last 30 years that the “green” movement added political activism into their repertoire.

The groups that were formed around the environmental movement are now funded in large part by the same people and organizations that fund socialist efforts as well as the extreme left of the Democrat party and other progressive movements. One of the more notable “contributors’ is our old friend, George Soros. It seems that wherever there is a movement to defeat Capitalism in general and American Capitalism in particular, you always seem to find George and his check book. Another familiar donor to anti-American / anti-Capitalist environmental organizations is the Tides Foundation.

Established in 1976 by California-based activist Drummond Pike, the Tides Foundation was set up as a public charity that receives money from donors and then funnels it to the recipients of their choice. Because many of these recipient groups are quite radical, the donors often prefer not to have their names publicly linked with the recipients. By letting the Tides Foundation, in effect, "launder" the money for them and pass it along to the intended beneficiaries, donors can avoid leaving a "paper trail." Such contributions are called "donor-advised," or donor-directed, funds.

In 1996 the Tides Foundation created, with a $9 million seed grant, a separate but closely related entity called the Tides Center, also headed by Drummond Pike. The Tides Center functions as a legal firewall insulating the Tides Foundation from potential lawsuits filed by people whose livelihoods or well-being may be harmed by Foundation-funded projects. (Such as farmers or loggers who are put out of business by Tides-backed environmentalist groups.) In theory the Foundation's activities are restricted to fundraising and grant-making, while the Center focuses on managing projects and organizations; in practice, however, both entities do essentially the same thing.

The Tides Center's Board Chairman is Wade Rathke. Wade is also a member of the Tides Foundation Board. If you recall, Wade Rathke was a protégé of the late George Wiley, founder of the National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO) and a devout follower of Cloward and Piven. Maya Wiley, daughter of George Wiley, currently sits on the Tides Center's Board of Directors. In addition to his work with the Tides center, Rathke also serves as President of the New Orleans-based Local 100 of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and is also the founder and chief organizer of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). Isn’t funny how the same names keep popping up when the discussion is radical socialism?

One particularly notable donor to the Tides entities is Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry. From 1994 to 2004, the Heinz Endowments, which Mrs. Kerry heads, gave the Tides Foundation and Center approximately $8.1 million in grants. Until February 2001, Mrs. Kerry also served as a trustee of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which also gave Tides numerous six-figure grants. I case you haven’t guessed; George Soros also infuses money into the Tides Foundation. The Tides Foundation funnels money into hundreds of projects for the radical left including several dozen for the stated purpose of environmental sustainability. All of this draws Senator Kerry’s involvement with environmental legislation into serious question. With that kind of money changing hands, there must be a trade off. Has Kerry been promised a “soft landing” when the eco-activists finish tearing our Constitution and economy to shreds? Will these deals leave the Heinz-Kerry fortune one of the fortunate “untouchables” in a post-America, Socialist elite club with George Soros, Maurice Strong and Al Gore?

Getting into the groups themselves, Greenpeace must top the list. Founded in 1970 as a loose assortment of Canadian anti-nuclear agitators, American expatriates, and underground journalists calling themselves the "Don't Make a Wave Committee", Greenpeace, is today, the most influential group of the environmental Left. Its stated mission is to "use non-violent, creative confrontation to expose global environmental problems, and force solutions for a green and peaceful future." After a schism in the late 1970s, the various organizations originally comprising Greenpeace have today united into 41 affiliates and two main branches, Greenpeace USA and the Amsterdam-based Greenpeace International.

One of the founders of Greenpeace was Irving Stowe (1915-1974) who was also on the executive board of Canada’s New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party are Democratic Socialists that advocate many radical ideals including the abolition of the Canadian Senate. While they have never attained power over the Canadian Federal Government, they have had sufficient success in several provinces to be able to exert considerable political pressure.

Another of Greenpeace’s founders, Patrick Moore, left Greenpeace in 1986 after what he saw was a shift to a radical political ideology. He said in a statement that “Greenpeace today is motivated by politics rather than science and that none of his "fellow directors had any formal science education". In the 2007 film “The Great Global Warming Swindle, Moore commented: "See, I don't even like to call it the environmental movement anymore, because really it is a political activist movement, and they have become hugely influential at a global level.”

A prime example of socialists that discovered the environmental movement as a vehicle for their agenda is the group “Socialist Action”. Socialist Action is a nation-wide group of revolutionary socialists. In their own words: “We fight for a society organized to satisfy human needs, rather than corporate greed. We seek to revitalize the anti-war, labor, student and other social movements, and to bring activists together from different backgrounds into a revolutionary party that can successfully challenge the wealthy elite. As socialists we seek to understand the theory of Marxism, but as an activist group, we also seek to put those ideas into practice. Join us in the struggle to make a better world!”

Christine Frank of Socialist Action says: “We need to build a powerful and uncompromising environmental movement led by working people in alliance with other oppressed groups in society. In addition, we must infuse this new movement with eco-socialist principles that go beyond the maintenance of capitalism and its suicidal and genocidal policies and advance toward a zero-waste, democratically planned socialist economy that is green and sustainable and puts planetary and human needs before profits.”

Elmar Altvater is another Marxist that discovered the environmental movement could be used to further socialist policies. Mr. Altvater gained fame as one of Germany's most important Marxist philosophers, who strongly influenced the political and economic theory of the 1968 generation of radicals and is a renowned critic of "political economy" and author of numerous writings on his desire for globalization and his disgust of the free market. He suggests that there is only one “realistic alternative to oil imperialism; a shift from dependence on renewable energy sources, on the radiation energy released by the sun (and its derivatives such as photovoltaic, water, wave and biotic energy etc.), or on volcanic and geothermal energy”. He argues that “A society based on renewable instead of fossil energy sources must develop adequate technologies and above all social forms beyond capitalism.”

The Bullitt Foundation was established in 1952 by Dorothy S. Bullitt, who also created the King Broadcasting Company in Seattle. Denis Hayes, who was the national coordinator for the first Earth Day in 1970, is currently the Foundation's President. Hayes is a strong supporter of leftist political candidates, groups, and causes.The Bullitt Foundation, whose stated mission is "to protect, restore, and maintain the natural physical environment of the Pacific Northwest for present and future generations", directs its grants almost exclusively to radical environmental organizations whose ultimate goal, as writer Michael Berliner explains, is "not clean air and clean water, rather . . . the demolition of technological/industrial civilization." This philosophy is certainly aimed at using the environmental movement to further the group’s advocacy of destroying capitalist industry in favor of the establishment of socialism in the western nations.

Take your pick. When you research environmental groups, 90% are considered political activists and obtain funding from the same “progressive” sources. All have left-wing policies and many believe that only socialism will give society the tools it needs to stave off environmental disaster. The fact is that the United States has meaningful tools in place to prevent the irresponsible release in pollutants coupled with crippling fines and criminal prosecution for violators. In a socialist society, these safeguards would disappear as productivity drops, industries are lost and revenues to fund enforcement and remediation dwindle.

You must remember that wherever environmentalists have won the day, economic disaster followed closely. The logging industry in the Pacific Northwest was decimated in the 1990’s by the environmental campaign to preserve the spotted owl. Even though logging was banned in vast areas of the Pacific Northwest because this was purported to be the spotted owls “critical habitat”, in February 2008, a federal judge reinforced a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service decision to designate 8,600,000 acres in Arizona, Utah, Colorado and New Mexico as critical habitat for the owl as well. It just so happens that is prime cattle grazing area so is this just a move to cripple yet another U.S. industry to drive us deeper into financial crisis a la Cloward-Pivens?

Last summer, half a million acres of fertile California farmland in the San Joaquin Valley have turned to dust after the water used for irrigation was reduced by 90% to save the endangered “Delta Smelt”. The smelt was not being further endangered by falling water levels, but because they were being drawn into the pumps. All technical suggestions to alleviate that from happening were dismissed in favor of denying water to the farms. These are the same farms that provide 15% of all the produce consumed in the United States. These examples, as with so-called “global warming”, display that only one conclusion can be reached and that is, the “real inconvenient truth” is that this is not about the environment at all but about progressive socialism, political power and who will ultimately wield much of the power in the “New World Order".

Paul