Tax cuts or stimulus 2?

First off, the use of tax cut is a misnomer. It is not a tax cut; it's just maintaining the existing level of taxation. Tax cut sounds better on sound bites and it's easier to rally people around, "tax cuts for the rich, that don't need it" even if it's inaccurate. "Maintaining existing tax levels for every American" just doesn't have the teeth to rally opposition. Even if they attacked it as the "continuation of Bush era tax cuts" that doesn't sound as bad either. According to the arguments against, the extension will cost the government an estimated $70 billion in revenue; however, not only was it never the government's money in the first place and why does the bill cost over $850 billion? That’s more than the failed stimulus that was passed shortly after Obama was inaugurated.
Let's see if we can find out how this bill costs as much as a stimulus package. First, we must understand the political system. Congressmen often attach unpopular bills or bills that don't stand a chance to pass on their own merit to wildly popular or very important bills; obviously to increase the chance of their bill passing or hope of stopping a bill from passing. This is how earmarks, or pork barrel politics, are passed and that is what is happening to the tax bill now in Congress. Let's take a look at some of the spending that was piled on the tax bill. Of course there was the addition of the unemployment extension and the earned income credit and even college scholarship provision. Does all of that add up to $850 billion? Not yet, let's see what else was attached to the bill. How about ethanol subsidies, commuter subsidies as long as you use public transportation and of course you can't forget about the green energy. Did we hit our mark yet? Let's keep adding on. More incentives for developing hybrid vehicles, biodiesel fuel, coal and energy efficient appliances. Tax incentives for Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi to jump start economic activity.
If the $70 billion figure is accurate, which history has shown the exact opposite effect on tax revenue when marginal tax rates are cut. The Melon tax cuts of the 1920's, the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960's and the Reagan tax cuts of the 1980's have shown economic growth in all instances. If you compare the Reagan tax cuts to the Clinton tax hikes you can see government revenue rising under tax cuts and declining under tax hikes. So if history tells us tax cuts increase revenue, instead of maintaining existing rates shouldn't we be cutting taxes more? This just shows that DC hasn't changed and it's all about rewarding politicians for their votes at the expense of the tax payer. Where are we going to get $850 billion, the United States is broke?

Please see my examiner article for links. Thanks for reading.

Political payback delayed

Harry Reid's payback to political contributors was delayed. While the DREAM Act passed the House of Representatives, the bill didn't fare as well in the Senate. In the Senate, the DREAM Act was attached to a defense bill along with the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" bill. The DREAM Act was set to make over 2 million criminals living in our country illegally a path to citizenship. Once a citizen, they would be eligible to sponsor their entire family for citizenship, at least tripling that figure of 2 million. Illegals supporting the bill claim they can't get a job after they graduate college because of their immigration status, they mean they aren't supposed to be here and employers are following federal laws which prohibit the hiring of illegal aliens. Illegal aliens also claim they are unable to serve in the US military, last time I checked a US citizen had to have a waiver if they had a criminal background, even if they were allowed to enlist. Illegals don't have a criminal background, they are still criminals. Other supporters of the bill cite the point that they were children when they were brought here and it's not their fault. That is accurate to a degree, it may not have been their fault, by why does it make it my and every other taxpayers financial responsibility. If the federal government was enforcing their own laws, they children would have been deported along with their criminal parents. The United States is the only country that takes such an easy going attitude towards an illegal immigration problem. Some countries use their military, some build fences and some jail people illegally in their respective countries to curb immigration issues.
Reid's payback to the casino industry might have to wait as well. While the Internet Poker bill hasn't been officially defeated, Reid has not been able to rally enough support for the bill as a stand alone, so he's looking to attach it to the tax cut bill. That means that it is very likely the bill could pass. It shows what a sad state our political system is in, when payback to political contributors causes controversial issues to be attached to bills designed to stimulate a struggling economy, only to try and ensure passage. Opponents to Senator Reid's bill claim they will not allow it to be attached to the tax cut bill.

Please see my examiner article for sources.

Elections over, time for payback.

Last month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was reelected to the United States Senate over Republican candidate Sharron Angle by a sound margin. Harry Reid is wasting no time continuing his agenda during the lame duck session before the new Congress is seated in January. I'm against a lame duck session of Congress for the simple reason that some of those politicians were just voted out of office but now they are there with no regard for the people. Even before Reid was back in DC, he was promising to use the lame duck session to further his political agenda. The federal government doesn't have a budget for the upcoming year and Reid is more concerned with paying back his political allies.
Rumor around Nevada is that the Hispanic vote may have put him over the top, others say the casino unions gave him the victory, either way, Reid is doing everything he can to payback those that propelled him to another six years in the Senate. United States government has no budget, no worries. United States taxpayers are facing the highest tax hike ever, not a problem. Let's hurry and pass the DREAM ACT and allow casinos to operate on line poker rooms.
The DREAM ACT is set to reward criminals by giving them free citizenship. The only catch is they have to be living here illegally, breaking the laws of the country they want to join. They don't even have be consistently living in this country, they can be given exceptions by the director of homeland security. So immigrants can illegally invade our country with their children and the punishment is free citizenship, free education, free welfare and even free medical care. Well it's not quite free, every tax payer has to cough up the money for the influx of approximately 2 million new "citizens". With our country already struggling financially, the additional burden will pile more debt, increasing the burden on every single American.
The Internet Poker and Game of Skill Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act of 2009 is another bill that Senator Reid is pushing during the lame duck session. Online gambling was basically outlawed in 2006 when Congress passed a law making it illegal to use credit cards for placing wagers. This new bill would allow casino operators to operate online poker rooms. Casino operators and a Senator for Nevada, is it possible there could be a conflict of interest? It's not like the casinos donated to Reid's reelection, oh wait they did. On line poker is a $25 billion a year industry, how nice of Reid to push a bill that would benefit his political contributors.


For a list of references, please refer to my examiner article of the same name.

Nevada legislature faces a full schedule

The Nevada legislature will start the 76th session on February 7, 2011 and faces nearly 600 bill draft requests (bdr) to consider. The Nevada Legislature only meets every odd year and the session only lasts 120 days which means our elected officials will have a very busy spring in Carson City. The agenda for the 120 day session has been released and with nearly 600 bdr, it will almost certainly mean there will be another special session to complete all of the legislative business.
I began browsing the list of bdr to see what our legislators would be working on this year. The bdr are packed with bills about renewable energy, education reform, health insurance, gun rights, public works, new bureaucracies, campaign finance and reform and I even saw a bill where Nevada would recognize our sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
I'm very interested in some of the bills, at least what I have been able to find. As I work my way through the some 600 bdr, I will share what I find with you. Some of the descriptions were enough to peak my interest, I have been unable to locate the text of the bdr and if I can't locate them, I will contact the sponsor to obtain additional information. These bills can have a much larger impact to the residents of Nevada than federal legislation and the public officials are more accessible than most federal officials. I want to encourage all Nevadans to get involved with the political process, especially on the state and local level. To correct the unsustainable path our country is currently on, we need to look to the states, not the federal government. The states need to rein in the federal monster; the United States Constitution limits the federal government to 18 enumerated powers, leaving everything else to the states. The people need to reclaim control of our "public servants" and hold them accountable for destroying the American Dream.

Obamacare to hurt employment in Nevada

Much has been speculated about Obamacare, or if you prefer the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, from the implications that the federal government can mandate US citizens to buy a product offered by a preferred list of vendors to the massive tax increase that will begin to appear as more parts of the bill come on line. One thing that hasn't been mentioned is the impact on employment or should I say unemployment.

Nevada has been among the nation's leaders in the awful statistic of unemployment rate, currently around 14%, well above the national average. Senator Reid campaigned on how much he helped the country, to bad he forgot to send any assistance to Nevada. In fact, Congress has done nothing to stem the tide of unemployment; they only seem to care about "saved" jobs, which no one has been able to measure. Now with Obamacare will there be any light at the end of the tunnel of high unemployment? It doesn’t look like it. Obamacare will put a burden on business with a whole new slate of penalties, taxes and regulations. This increase in cost will most likely be offset by cutting the easiest area to save money, labor costs. Another cost to business is providing an approved plan and approved employer contribution and those businesses will face a tax of approximately $2,000 per employee. A bill designed to help small business, will actually hurt expansion; as soon as an employer crosses the threshold of what the government determines as a small business, they could be burdened with the tax for every employee, not just the new one. This could be as much as $45,000 imposed on a business for doing well and trying to expand.

The effects of Obamacare would even be to create a disincentive to work. As the Nevada Policy Research Institute points out, by increasing the value of leisure and decreasing the value of labor it puts the low end worker (400% of federal poverty level) in a high implicit marginal tax bracket, effectively 53% to 62%, obviously a serious deterrent to work. But how many jobs are we talking about? In Nevada, estimates are around 6,700 jobs lost, most of them on the low end scale. Nevada doesn't even account for 1% of jobs nationwide, where the losses are estimated between 670,000 and 788,000 and a permanent increase of about .5% to the nation's unemployment rate.

It's not a surprise that the supporters of this bill would like to keep this information from the public with a majority of Americans against the bill and a number of states expressing their sovereignty by challenging the legality of Obamacare.

For references and links for the above article, please check my article in the Las Vegas Examiner.

Leadership roles have been chosen

It didn't take long for the democratic majority in the Nevada Assembly to name the Speaker-elect. On November 3, John Oceguera was elected speaker. The democrats kept control of the Assembly but lost the supermajority required to override an executive veto.
Speaker-elect Oceguera wasted no time naming leadership posts for the upcoming legislative sessions. Marcus Conklin was named majority leader and Debbie Smith was named chairwoman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee and as speaker pro tem. William Horne will be the majority whip, Kelvin Atkinson will serve as senior chief deputy whip and Peggy Pierce and David Bobzien will be chief deputy whips. Whips are high ranking members of the party and their job is basically to count votes and rally support.
Because of the democratic majority, the Speaker of the Assembly gets to appoint the committee chairs, which of course will all belong to the majority party. There will be 20 new members of the 42 person Nevada Assembly meaning that the training classes for incoming freshman will be pretty full. Not all members are new to politics, Maggie Carlton is a freshman Assembly member but was a member of the state senate for 12 years. The number of 20 is a little misleading, it sounds like nearly half of the members were replaced but 10 of those had been termed out and 7 of the 10 were elected to the state senate.
Speaker-elect Oceguera has called for a spirit of cooperation between the parties in the assembly this session and for lawmakers from all counties and regions of the state to continue to work together. It's nice to hear but I feel it's just political, two years ago the democrats took control of the state senate for the first time in nearly a decade and this year the assembly lost it's supermajority and the executive branch stayed in republican control. Nevada has a history of both parties working together, if you look at the make up of our state legislature it's no surprise.

Twas the night before

Twas the night before the election and all through the states, not a candidate was sleeping not even their mates. Attack ads were placed in the media with care, in hopes that voters beliefs they share. Radio, television and a newspaper or two, ads designed to attract voters anew. Campaigns that have been running for more than a year, attacking, misleading and playing on fear. Hoping to stall the rising tide, abandoning those they'd just hitched a ride. TARP, stimulus and bailouts for some, printing and borrowing with deficits to come. People are starting to see what's taking hold, a socialist nanny state of FDR's mold. Too many taxes and a fed way to big, 'limit the monster' they say 'we can't afford the vig.' Election day is near heed what we say, 'listen to the people or your jobs you'll pay.' Voters will wake and head to the polls, the direction of the country will begin to unfold. Tax and spend and more of the same, this admin last admin which one is to blame? The people are coming their voices to be heard, stop what you're doing your spending is absurd. Read the Constitution the law of our land, the powers are limited easy to understand. Powers designed to keep the fed small, with life, liberty and justice for all. The elites in Washington the people they ignore, cast your vote and show them the door. Our country is headed down a dangerous track, the people will speak 'we want our country back!'

Border Security

A lot of attention has been made this election season on the topic of immigration. Those on the right have been promoting border security and deportation as a means to reduce the tide of illegals flowing into the country. Those on the left have been promoting comprehensive reform, amnesty and punishing the employers of illegal aliens. There are a few problems with those ideas. There is a legal way to become a citizen or even a documented worker. It might take a while, but to be a citizen of this country is worth the wait. I constantly hear about this comprehensive reform, I've never heard what it means though. My only thought can be that the libtards are using "comprehensive reform" as another word for amnesty. Amnesty is one of the worse things we could do to our country. Americans are having trouble finding jobs and the libtards want to magically overnight add 12 million more people to the job hunt, that sounds like a great idea (sarcasm added). A weak argument claims that these illegals do the work that Americans won't do. Americans can't do the work because an illegal is doing it. We have programs like social security and medicare that will be swamped with new beneficiaries as 12 million people enroll on these failing programs. Libtards want to give amnesty to 12 million people on the basis that they will become loyal democratic voters. They figure if they give them social security, medical care, welfare, food stamps and all the other entitlement programs America offers for it's citizens, they will automatically vote for the party that got them citizenship. I'd say it would be a safe bet, at least for the first few years. The worst part about illegal aliens is most of them are already receiving entitlement benefits reserved for American citizens. It amuses me that one of the libtard answers to curb illegal immigration is to punish the employers who hire illegals. The government already requires businesses to check the immigration status of all employees. An I-9 has to be filled out by the employer and signed by the employee under the penalty of perjury that they are legally in this country. I'll be the first to admit, there are employers out there that knowingly hire illegals but that's only half of it. What about the illegals that lie and have forged or fake identification? How can we expect employers to act as immigration officials when immigration officials don't? According to the federal government, you can't ask someone to prove they are legal.

I feel the biggest area we need to fix and quickly is border security, not only because of the illegals coming across looking for work or a better life but because of the drug cartels that are smuggling drugs, humans and God knows what else into our country. Drug cartels have taken over parts of the United States, in response, the federal government sends signs down to warn US citizens that foreign criminals are controlling this part of OUR country and that we shouldn't go there. Instead of sending National Guard troops, increasing Border Patrol agents or even building a fence "the admin" decides that signs would be better. Signs, really? Better than armed troops, I think not. Drug cartels are targeting county sheriffs of US states. Drug cartels are sending armed groups of assassins to secure US soil to make sure no shipments are hijacked. These are heavily armed and highly equipped mercenaries that have one mission, don't let anything happen to the shipments. US consulate was gunned down by cartel gangs. US citizens have been killed by cartels on US soil and the gov't hasn't even spoke to Mexican officials about it. It took a couple of weeks before Mexico even started an investigation. Another problem is other gov't bureaucratic departments. Department of Interior and EPA require such extensive studies and reports it takes months of paperwork and investigative studies to allow our agents access to areas that illegals are using to cross the border.

"The simple truth is that we've lost control of our own borders, and no Nation can do that and survive. We ignore America's lost sovereignty at our own peril." Ronald Reagan. I hate to say this, but maybe we should look at some immigration policies from around the world. Mexico uses it's military to pick up and deport illegal immigrants and it's a felony to be in the country illegally. 2 years for the first offense and 10 for a second offense and even those who aid illegals are classified as criminals. They are just as tough on legal immigrants. If you can't sustain yourself, provide to the economy, mentally unstable or are a criminal you can't stay in Mexico as a LEGAL immigrant, let alone illegally. I don't want to become northern Mexico or even southern Canada, I want to stay the United States of America, I want our government to enforce our immigration laws. I want our government to deport and prosecute those that break our laws and most importantly, I want all US citizens to be safe from drug gangs from neighboring countries when they are on US soil. We should not put up signs warning US citizens of danger, we should put up a sign in Spanish that says "Usted está entrando en los Estados Unidos, este país es protegido por la fuerza llena del ejército de Estados Unidos. Retroceda ahora o enfrente el consecuencias."

Eminent domain, this land is my land

In most elections the candidates in the major races garner most of the attention; sometimes the ballot questions can have a much bigger impact than the winner of an election. There are a four statewide questions and one county advisory question. The first one I want to discus is state question #4, relating to eminent domain.
Eminent domain is basically the right of the government to take property from a private citizen for public use. Legally it's a lot more complicated and if you have ever had to go through an eminent domain preceding I'm sure you would agree. There are two sections in the Nevada Constitution under Article 1 that deal with eminent domain, section 8 and section 22. Both sections basically explain how the government can take private property. They are required to provide just compensation and the burden of proof to prove public use is on the side of the government.

By looking over the Nevada Constitution, specifically the sections relating to eminent domain, the eminent domain clauses appear to be very good. They were overwhelmingly passed by voters in two consecutive elections and have many safeguards in place to ensure, as fair as eminent domain can be; the private property owner is protected. This was put into the Nevada Constitution by the People's Initiative to Stop the Taking of Our Land (PISTOL) in response to the federal government's abuse of the eminent domain clause and the City of Las Vegas' abuse of the eminent domain clause. The PISTOL clause limits the transferring of private property for anything other than public use; it also contains language on establishing fair market value and just compensation. Passage of question 4 would broaden the power to use eminent domain to transfer property from one private party to another, extends the limit the government has to actually use the property, from 5 years to 15 years. The PISTOL initiative was adopted to provide citizens the power to fight against the government and protect their private property.

With all the work that has gone into protecting the property of rights of Nevada citizens, it would be detrimental to begin to erode those strengths now. Vote no on question 4, let's keep the government out of our property, when need to stop the unconstitutional taking of our property.

Only verbal jabs in this debate

Last night, Senator Harry Reid and Sharron Angle had their made for TV debate. The debate was carried on stations throughout the state, on CSPAN and in a few foreign countries. Because of the actions of the public at the last gathering, the public was not allowed to this debate. Supporters of both candidates had areas on the sidewalk and sections in the parking lot to voice their support. Security was tight to get in, so I arrived a little early and Vegas PBS did an excellent job checking everyone and getting us into the studio and to our seats.

In opening statements, Senator Reid stressed his number one job was to create jobs and pointed to the stimulus, small business tax credit, financial reform bill and Obamacare as ways he created jobs. Angle countered by pointing out the Reid was a career politician that was for big government even though big government has failed to live up to it's promises.

On immigration, Reid used "undocumented" where Angle used "illegal" to describe the illegal immigration problem. Angle was tough on border security and Reid is for amnesty or as the democratic talking point calls it, comprehensive immigration reform. Reid constantly towed the party line and continued the attack on the evil insurance and banking industries and continuously referred to Angle as extreme.

Angle pressed the Senate Majority Leader on the financial reform bill, the bill that had no impact on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a player in the housing bubble, and the need to audit the Federal Reserve. Reid, several times, tried to reach across the aisle with references to Senator John McCain and President Ronald Reagan on issues like social security and its solvency. The highlight might have been Angle's comment to "Man up" on his dodging the answer regarding social security.

Another area I felt where Reid struggled was on the Department of Education, or as he referred to it, Department of Energy. Angle is for a reduction in the DOE; Senator Reid tried to defend it by naming several programs that are administered on the state level, not needing the federal funding where Angle pointed out the need to keep that federal money on the state level instead of Washington getting its cut.

In their closing remarks, Senator Harry Reid tried to come off as pro business, after bashing them throughout the debate. He came off as sounding as if he was saying he was for us poor little people. Sharron Angle stood up proudly for American exceptionalism and promoted free market and more freedom. In my opinion, Sharron Angle out debated Senator Reid. Reid towed the party line and stayed along the democratic talking points that we have been hearing for the past few months and are seriously wearing thin.

The Liberal Lie

The democratic propaganda machine is working overtime this year for the mid term elections. Most political strategists are predicting big wins by the republicans, fueled mostly by the Tea Party. Like most campaigns, everything is shaded to the left or right and gone is the days where candidates debated issues and we are now in the age of the attack campaign. Budgets and deficits are among the top issue on the campaign trail and no one, at least politicians, wants to face the inevitable, tough decisions need to be made to try and save the country.

Elimination of the Department of Education - The DOE has a budget of over $100 billion and does not teach a single student. Most school funding comes from the state and local levels, not the DOE and every state has a department of education. Since the creation of the DOE in 79, school and student achievement has been going in the wrong direction.

Elimination of the Bureau of Land Management - Created within the Department of the Interior in 1946 and has a budget of over $1 billion. Shouldn't the Dept of Interior manage the land, why is another level a bureaucracy needed?

Elimination of the Department of Homeland Security - Created after the horrific incidents of September 11 has a budget of $56 billion. Is there really a need for this department, don't we have the FBI and local law enforcement agencies? We have DEA, ATF and a few more alphabet agencies with law enforcement officers, couldn't they just share the info between each other? While we are on it, we should eliminate the DEA and other federal law enforcement agencies, after all we do have the FBI.

Housing and Urban Development - Created in 1965 with a budget of nearly $50 billion, this department does the same thing that all the state HUD agencies do, can you say duplication?

If you just scroll through the list of federal bureaucracy you can see the layer upon layer of duplication, especially with state agencies. Take a look at that list and you can find endless agencies that could be eliminated. That alone would not do the trick, entitlements and defense comprise most of the budget and areas of those should be trimmed back. Social Security, for example, will pay out more this year then it receives. How is that a sustainable program that should be left alone? It needs to be looked at. Retirement age should be raised, people are living longer now than they did 50 years ago and that's causing a strain on the system. Another problem with the system is the payments didn't stay in a private account, it went into the general fund for the corruptacrats to spend as they see fit. Medicare and medicaid are so filled with abuse and fraud, clamping down on those programs would potentially save hundreds of millions of dollars.

If the corruptacrats in Washington were serious about balancing the budget and reducing the deficit, it could be done. It would take a reduction in spending and eliminating wasteful programs and bureaucracies.

One thing that seems to be constantly overlooked by the libtards is the concept of states rights. The right of the individual state to govern itself. Libtards always throw racism into the states rights. "If you're for states rights, you want to go back to segregation because you're a racist." I think most libtards should agree with the states rights argument, after all they could create a socialist utopia within a state. States rights doesn't mean racism, it means freedom from a central government controlling lives while thousands of miles away. If the people within a state want to socialize medicine, they can. If the people of a state want to ban hate speech they can. If the people of a state want to ban firearms, they can. The thing most libtards seem to miss is the Constitution applies to the federal government, not the states. Conservatives, Tea Partiers, Beer Partiers, Libertarians and other groups are screaming about the federal government overstepping their constitutional enumerated powers. They aren't saying that we need to eliminate all government, they are saying we need to limit the federal power grab. If the people of a state want the state to control every aspect of their lives, they can vote that way. I wouldn't live there and the wonderful thing about America is I could move to another state or work to elect different people in my state, a state where people want to live the same way I do. Federalism is a wonderful system, 50 states living side by side, each one living by it's own rules, not bullied by a central government to submit it's sovereignty, not forced by a central government to fund bankrupt neighbors or bribe neighboring states to make everyone follow along.

It just goes to show that libtards aren't interested in freedom, they don't think rationally. They want to control your life, every aspect down to the clothes you buy and food you eat. It's done for your own good, because you are too stupid to make decisions for yourself. Everything is done for the greater good based solely on emotion and knee jerk reactions, no rational thought involved; in fact, the libtards would say no rational thought allowed.

The basis of freedom and liberty is simple and Andrew Wilcow says it best. My freedom includes my right to be free from you. Why should I be responsible for someone else's irresponsibility?

Is big brother watching?

As I was reading an AP article written by Lolita Baldor, picked up by the Las Vegas Review Journal, it made me think back to when I was in school. This article is about the Obama administration's push to allow law enforcement agencies easier access to internet spying, or as they call it eavesdropping. The article made me think about the history textbooks with the pictures of the big brother propaganda campaign. Was our own government really spying on its own citizens? That was a question that no one, outside the government could really answer, unfortunately we don't have to ask that question anymore.

The government feels that since communications technology has changed so rapidly, that they need to have access to all American's internet traffic, emails and social network sites. It seems all the encrypted technologies frustrate the government on their ability to spy on people. The rationale is they need to eavesdrop on conversations involving terrorism, crimes or other public safety issues. Now who determines what constitutes a public safety issue? It appears the new regulations would mandate any company that provides any sort of communication services would be required to make unscrambled texts of phone calls, e-mails and computer traffic readily accessible to law enforcement agencies. This includes places such as Twitter, Facebook, My Space, Skype and all other social networks. All of this compliance wouldn't come without cost, the cost to retrofit the software to comply with new regulations; I'm sure the government would be more than happy to spend tax payer money on systems making it easier for them to spy on us. Law enforcement claims it needs the wiretaps to obtain information critical to obtain convictions and supporters of the new regulations say it would not expand law enforcement authority and would only involve legally authorized intercepts.

This is nothing more than a power grab by the federal government and law enforcement agencies to invade the privacy of United States citizens. They hide these intrusions into our privacy behind the banner of safety, they need to spy on citizens to catch terrorists and other criminals. How are they going to know who is a criminal or a terrorist without listening in and reading everyone's private information? These proposed regulations severely infringe on the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The worst part is this is just the tip of the iceberg. The federal government, the courts and law enforcement agencies have been stealing our liberties from us for a long time. It didn't start with this administration and it didn't start with the USA PATRIOT Act from the last administration. It's been happening slowly, so we don't notice and it's been hidden behind the veil of fear and public good.

More politics as usual

The more "change" that comes to Washington, the more it stays the same. The Defense Bill was blocked the other day. The party of "No" came through for us again. I like the moniker of "Party of No". They have stood against the socialization of our health care system, they stood against the cap and trade legislation, they stood against amnesty for illegals. They have said no to some very important legislation that could cripple our country. Beware of the lame duck!

The democrats once again had to attach some very questionable bills to the defense bill in hopes that 1. it will pass with the other bills or 2. they can use it as campaign fuel in the upcoming elections.

If the democrats really wanted to reach across the aisle, why would they try and sneak extremely controversial legislation into a simple bill to fund the military? The democrats aren't really concerned with anything but pushing the progressive agenda. They must hurry, they are about to lose control of Congress, beware of the lame duck!

We need to go back and get involved in local politics and hold those members accountable, from the local level we can advance to the state level. Once at the state level then we can hold the federal government accountable for their actions and work to correct the abuses of the federal government. The states created the federal government, not the other way around.

Revive the Constitution

There are several things that we can do to bring back the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the land. The first thing we need to do is become an informed citizenry. The American people have become fat, dumb and happy and most people can't tell you which Congressional district they live in, let alone their state and county districts. Most people have stopped paying attention to politics, leaving it to the politicians and that's where we began to stray off course. They figured out we weren't watching what they were doing and took advantage of us. We must become informed about the issues and policies and the politicians who want to represent us. We must follow what they do and hold them accountable for their actions. We need to relearn our history, not the fancy smancy history that those who subvert our Constitution want us to learn, but the actual, not always popular history. We need to learn what the Constitution says and make sure the politicians live up to it. Another thing we can do to help revive the Constitution is focus on a local level. We need to elect Constitutional following candidates on the state and local level. What we must remember is that the states and the people gave the federal government power and we are responsible for keeping them in check.

One way to keep the feds in check would be an Article V convention. Article V of the US Constitution spells out how the Constitution can be amended. The first is by 2/3 vote of both houses of Congress and ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures (38 states). This has been the only method used to date but there is another, 2/3 of the states (33 states) can call an Article V convention to propose amendments to the Constitution, which still must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. We need to push our state legislatures to invoke an Article V convention. The Constitution has been subverted and we need to bring it back. The "necessary and proper" clause needs to be clarified, the "commerce" clause needs to be reigned in, it's for interstate commerce, not intrastate or production. "General Welfare" is not a clause, it's a two words in a clause. It's a shame when politicians stand up in front of the media and claim the "good and plenty" clause gives them power, or the "general welfare" clause allows them to steal our liberty. The "commerce" clause has been abused and now Congress uses it to justify just about anything. I was waiting for the libtards to use the "commerce" clause as justification for health care or financial reform, but they didn't. Instead they just laughed off questions about where in the Constitution they were given power to do what they want. Many even said they don't worry about what the Constitution says. Elected officials that have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution not knowing what or caring what it says, this is what we are up against. Career politicians that care only for themselves, ignoring the restraints of law imposed on them by our Constitution.

We need to repeal the 16th and 17th Amendments, they allowed for the federal government to directly tax it's citizens (which has gotten much more progressive over the years) and allowed for direct election of Senators, ignoring the fact that Senators were designed to be the states voice in the federal gov't and a check against the feds consolidating too much power. With the addition of a couple of words we could clarify the necessary and proper clause, it clearly implies that it refers to the enumerated powers, but some have even subverted it. The commerce clause is clearly defined, we just need politicians and judges that have the spine to stand up for the Constitution. We need to elect officials that believe in term limits and respect the limited power of the federal gov't.

We need to become informed and vote! Communist Russia, with only one candidate on the ballot, had nearly 98% voter turnout and we generally average about half of that on Presidential elections and around 35% for midterm elections. That's just for federal elections, generally local elections draw even less. It just goes to show how little people think about politics. It's a shame that the sheeples in the country don't pay more attention to something that can so drastically effect their lives. They sit on the sidelines and don't realize that the gov't is overstepping its role in our lives, they only notice when they it directly effects their lives and then they complain. We need to stand up at any intrusion against anyone and take our country back. Don't be a sheeple, be a patriot! Stand up for what you believe in and make sure you let your elected officials know what you think. It's never been easier, there are websites that will tell you your state and federal officials, my favorite is congress.org, you can send letters, emails and phone calls, it gives you all the info. There are also websites that will send you emails that let you know how your reps voted and upcoming bills.

"When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson.

Return to the Constitution

The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. It was carefully constructed to protect individual liberty and had built in checks to keep the government from overstepping it's enumerated jobs. The states had a voice, the people had a voice and when they got out of hand, SCOTUS was there to keep them in line. The checks and balances were not only built into the government, but the citizens had checks as well. The 1st Amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any law that limits free speech, freedom of the press, the right to assembly; giving the citizens at large the right to speak up against their government, elected officials and the laws and policies. The states used to have voice, but the progressives took that away. State legislatures used to elect Senators and their job was to protect the states interest on the federal level, since the states created the federal government. The Founders knew that the federal government would never limit their own power, that's why their powers were limited in the Constitution.

Just as the Founders had anticipated, Congress repeatedly tried to over step their bounds and the Supreme Court was there to keep them in line. Congress usually relied mainly on 3 clauses to justify their overstepping of granted powers. The first is the "General Welfare" clause, which is not a power granted by the Constitution. General Welfare being mentioned in the preamble does not give it force of law. Article 1 Section 8 does mention general welfare, but it is mentioned with the power to tax, provide FOR common defense and general welfare of the United States. That doesn't mean providing defense and general welfare, only the means, through it's limited powers. The second clause is the "Necessary and Proper" clause. This clause allows the Congress to pass laws that are necessary to carry out it's limited, enumerated powers. Congress has taken this as an elastic clause, stretching the meaning to imply anything that has a justifiable end. The last and often most abused is the "Commerce" clause. Congress is allowed to regulate trade between foreign countries, Indian tribes and between the states. Congress has abused this by claiming that anything that can effect commerce falls under this clause.

For the most part, SCOTUS rejected these unconstitutional power grabs by Congress. It was after FDR threatened to "pack" the courts with new appointments, including "assigning" junior justices when any justice of the Supreme Court reached 70, potentially raising the number of Supreme Court justices and creating and appointing federal judges at all levels below. I haven't figured out why the court rolled over, but they did and allowed Congress and the socialist President to greatly expand it's power. FDR appointed more Supreme Court justices than any President except for Washington, so I guess in a sense he did get to "pack" the court. It took nearly 60 years for SCOTUS to find it's spine.

The Constitution is written in plain English and is available for all to read. I get irritated by those that say it's a living document, in a sense it is, it allows for itself to be amended. The liberal sense, they mean it's living so they can reinterpret the meaning to fit what they want it to mean. "the admin" claims it is a document of negative liberties (in a sense he's right) because it tells what the federal government can't do to you, "the admin" feels it needs to say what the government must do for you. In America, we do for ourselves, or at least we used to. The other irritating item is those that claim the Constitution is a racist document, they often cite the 3/5 compromise. They claim the Founders were racist because they listed slaves as 3/5 of a person in census counting for determining Representatives to Congress. Actually, the northern states argued that slaves should not be counted, southern states wanted slaves counted. The result was the 3/5 compromise. Anyone that thinks the Constitution is a racist document needs to read up on Fredrick Douglass.

What can we do? Can we do anything?

America, the Beautiful

I've traveled all over this great country, I've stood at Plymouth Rock and the site where the first American Flag was raised in Alaska. I've been to the beaches of Hawaii and the swamps of Florida. I've been to the plains of Texas and the mountains of Colorado. This may seem a little ethnocentric, but I believe that the United States of America is not only the most beautiful place in the world but also the greatest place in the world to live. The United States of America is the last bastion of freedom and liberty in the world. If we lose it here, there is no other place on earth. I wish I could take credit for that, but that's from President Reagan, and he was right.

The United States of America was an experiment, created 234 years ago by a small group of independent colonies. Representatives from the 13 colonies gathered together to form a brand new government system unlike any the world has ever seen. The colonists, since crossing the pond, had enjoyed a life of limited government (partially because of the distance), freedom and liberty. When the colonies revolted against the crown, they were trying to conserve their way of life. The Founding Fathers were the original conservatives, unlike those who would want you to believe they were radicals or revolutionaries.

America is not only beautiful because of the diverse scenery you can see as you travel across, but because of the freedom and liberty she provides for her citizens. The Founding Fathers were wise beyond their time. They carefully crafted the Constitution. The colonies saw the need for a limited federal government to control a few interstate issues, the federal government was limited in what it could do. The Founders knew that the federal government would never reign in their power, they left most of the power to the state governments. A system of checks and balances was installed to keep one branch from overstepping it's power. The states created the federal government and wanted to make sure it didn't infringe on their liberties. In the federal system, not only did the executive, judicial and legislative branches have checks and balances over each other, but the legislative branch had a peoples representation and state representation (until the progressives got their way with the 17th Amendment).

For the most part, the system worked liked it was supposed to with each branch keeping the other from overstepping its enumerated powers for nearly 100 years. That has changed though, executives overstepping, legislators using positivism laws and the judiciary legislating and interpreting from the bench. Slowly, they are chipping away at our liberties. Taxes, welfare programs, zoning laws, eminent domain, mandating the purchase of products, censorship, illegal search and seizures, illegal detainment, gov't breaking laws to enforce laws, bribery, crony capitalism, regulating diets, regulating private enterprise, regulating the environment, unregulated central bank, federal bureaucracies, political correctness, etc., etc. "The admin" is now working to suspend free speech with the "fairness doctrine" and "net neutrality". Before you say, 'that won't happen in America, the 1st Amendment guarantees free speech' look at the Patriot Act. Bush II enacted the Patriot Act after the tragic events of 9-11, while it may have good intentions, it had terrible effects on our liberty. The Patriot Act violates the Constitution in several areas, it allows federal agents to write their own search warrants, no need to prove to a judge the need for a warrant. One of the biggest infringements is the Patriot Act makes it illegal to speak out if the fed's are investigating you using the Patriot Act. You can't tell your spouse, your attorney, the press, anyone or you are guilty of a felony.

While America is still the most beautiful country in the world, it is slowly turning into the drab brown and grays of socialism. The Founders would not recognize the America we live in today. With everyday, with every election, the career politicians are stealing our liberty and giving it to someone else. The Founders envisioned a country ruled by it's citizens. It was an honor to serve the government, but you served your term and went home, back to the people you represented. The power of the federal government continues to grow unchecked. They have hijacked the Constitution and subverted it to serve themselves and their ideology. It's time for the people to stand up and take our government back! "When people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people there is liberty." "A government that governs least, governs best." "Government doesn't solve problems, government is the problem."

Who am I?

I've been holding this for a little while, I had to do my research and make sure what I was posting was accurate. We all know that everything on the internet must be true or else it wouldn't be on the internet (sarcastic tone implied). This is a little quiz, don't cheat and scroll to the bottom for the answer, read all the way down first.

I was born in one country, raised in another.
My father was born in another country.
I was not his only child.
He fathered several children with numerous women.

I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no interest in me.
My mother died at an early age from cancer.


Later in life, questions arose over my real name.

My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a legitimate, reliable birth certificate.

I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult, disguising myself as someone who really cared about them.

That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my life and I embarked on a new career.

I wrote a book about my struggles growing up.

It was clear to those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my father abandoned me as a child.

I became active in local politics in my 30's then with help behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for national office in my 40s.

They said I had a golden tongue and could talk anyone into anything.

I had a virtually non-existent resume, little work history, and no experience in leading a single organization.
Yet I was a powerful speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they were small roofing tacks.

I drew incredibly large crowds during my public
appearances.
This bolstered my ego.

At first, my political campaign focused on my country's foreign policy......

I was very critical of my country in the last war and seized every opportunity to bash my
country..

But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views on the country's economy.

I pretended to have a really good plan on how we could do better and every poor person would be fed & housed for free.

I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this mess.

It was the free market, banks & corporations.

I decided to start making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others who did well, the plan was clinched tight.

I called mine "A People's Campaign" and that
sounded good to all people.

I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside the traditional path of politics & was able to gain widespread popular support.

I knew that, if I merely offered the people "hope", together we could change our country and the world.

So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted minorities".

My true views were not widely known & I kept them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader.

I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and examined those people I associated with.

I'm glad they didn't.

Then I became the most powerful man in the world.

And then the world learned the truth.

*Who am I?














Adolf Hitler.

Tax increases

"The admin" has repeatedly stated that he would not raise taxes on people making less than $200,000 a year. He has broken that promise a few times but his biggest may be hidden in the death care law. Your Congressmen probably missed it hidden away in the 2000 page beast of a bill, especially since most didn't even bother to read it. They make jokes about what's the point if they don't have a team of lawyers, nice joke since you don't have to abide by it. Remember, the death care law doesn't come into effect until 2013 but that doesn't stop the taxes from starting in January 2011. Here are some of the "hidden" taxes that will effect everyone, rich and poor, middle class and elitist alike.

Three great waves coming...

http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171

MAKE SURE ALL YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY UNDERSTAND JUST WHAT THE OBAMA "CHANGE" IS GOING TO DO!!!

In just six months, on January 1, 2011, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect.

They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves.

On January 1, 2011, here’s what happens... (read it to the end, so you see all three waves)...

First Wave:

Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families.

These will all expire on January 1, 2011.

Personal income tax rates will rise.

The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed).

The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent.

All the rates in between will also rise.

Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phase out, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.

The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:

The 10% bracket rises to an expanded 15%

The 25% bracket rises to 28%

The 28% bracket rises to 31%

The 33% bracket rises to 36%

The 35% bracket rises to 39.6%

Higher taxes on marriage and family.

The "marriage penalty" (narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income.

The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.

The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level.

The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax.

This year only, there is no death tax. (It’s a quirk!) For those dying on or after January 1, 2011, there is a 55 percent
top death tax rate on estates over $1 million. A person leaving behind two homes, a business, a retirement account, could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones. Think of the farmers who don’t make much money, but their land, which they purchased years ago with after-tax dollars, is now worth a lot of money. Their children will have to sell the farm, which may be their livelihood, just to pay the estate tax if they don’t have the cash sitting around to pay the tax. Think about your own family’s assets. Maybe your family owns real estate, or a business that doesn’t make much money, but the building and equipment are worth $1 million. Upon their death, you can inherit the $1 million business tax free, but if they own a home, stock, cash worth $500K on top of the $1 million business, then you will owe the government $275,000 cash! That’s 55% of the value of the assets over $1 million! Do you have that kind of cash sitting around waiting to pay the estate tax?

Higher tax rates on savers and investors.

The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011.

The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011.

These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave:

Obamacare

There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare. Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011. They include:

The "Medicine Cabinet Tax"

Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription, over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).
The "Special Needs Kids Tax"

This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts (FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children.

There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.

Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington , D.C. ( National Child Research Center ) can easily exceed $14,000 per year.

Under tax rules, FSA dollars can not be used to pay for this type of special needs education.

The HSA (Health Savings Account) Withdrawal Tax Hike.

This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.

Third Wave:

The Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011, they'll be in for a nasty surprise-the AMT won't be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired.

The major items include:

The AMT will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year.

According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress' failure to index the AMT will lead to an explosion of AMT taxpaying families-rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million. These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level. The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear.

Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or "depreciate") equipment purchases up to $250,000.

This will be cut all the way down to $25,000. Larger businesses can currently expense half of their purchases of equipment.

In January of 2011, all of it will have to be "depreciated."

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses.

There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the "research and experimentation tax credit," but there are many, many others. Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs.

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced.

The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available.

Tax credits for education will be limited.

Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses.

Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut.

Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed.

The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families.

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed.

Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to $100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA.

This contribution also counts toward an annual "required minimum distribution." This ability will no longer be there.

And worse yet?

Now, your insurance will be INCOME on your W2's!

One of the surprises we'll find come next year, is what follows - - a little "surprise" that 99% of us had no idea was included in the "new and improved" healthcare legislation . . . the dupes, er, dopes, who backed this administration will be astonished!

Starting in 2011, (next year folks), your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or governmental body of some sort.

If you're retired? So what... your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get.

You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year.

For many, it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse.

This is how the government is going to buy insurance for the15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases.

Not believing this??? Here is a research of the summaries.....

On page 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001,
as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002 "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income."

- Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters.
- Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what is above.

Why am I sharing this? People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November!

Even More Reform

I should jot down notes when I start ranting, I always seem to forget something. I forgot to mention all of the Congressional reforms that I thought need to happen.

A big one, that ties into limiting the Congressional "session", is there should be no lame duck session on Congress. Who's interest is really being looked out for at that time. They don't listen to us when in office and up for reelection, why would they when they get voted out? The only reasonable excuse for a lame duck session would be to cram an unpopular agenda further down the peoples throat. I think we have a real possibility to see that happen this year, after November. Hopefully, the American people will send the libtard, progressive's to the retirement home. The mood of the country (long time incumbents losing in primaries, the number who said they weren't seeking reelection) appears to be anti establishment. That could potentially make most of Congress lame ducks and they would not hesitate to cram more of the progressive agenda through before they leave their "Congressional Service" for retirement. They shouldn't spend as much time as they do in Washington DC, let alone after the people have spoken (voted).

Along with repealing the 17th Amendment, we need to repeal the 16th Amendment as well. The 16th Amendment allows Congress direct taxation upon the people, there is no apportionment or census enumeration, just tax income from whatever source. The 16th and 17th Amendment were states' rights killers. Those two Amendments took virtually any "voice" the state had in the federal government. The states created the federal government, not the other way around. The states should fund the federal government, not the other way around. The federal government should have to receive money from the states to carry out it's limited, enumerated powers. The Founders believed that the states were sovereign, with the exception of the limited power they gave the federal gov't. The federal gov't controlling the purse strings is kinda like the employees controlling them, or a kid in a candy store. The federal government takes money from the states and the residents of those states and decides which states will receive the money and how much. The federal government can make the states cave in to their will. If you don't comply with what we tell you to do, we will withhold federal funds. Where did the fed get that money in the first place? A government that governs locally governs best. Keep the politicians close, they are more accountable. We could eliminate several wasteful federal departments, the Dept of Education, the Dept of Agriculture, The Dept of the Interior, HUD, HHS, Labor, Homeland Security, EPA and OSHA. All of these functions could easily be done at the state level for a cheaper cost. If you don't like the laws in one state, you can very easily move to another state but when all laws become federal, there is no where to escape to.

There are two ways to Amend the United States Constitution, it is found in Article V. The first way is 2/3 of both houses of Congress vote to propose an amendment; the other, which has never been used, is 2/3 of the state legislatures call a national convention to propose amendments. Congress obviously won't propose a balanced budget amendment so we need to rally the states to call one. The mounting debt is slowly killing our country and a balanced budget amendment would be one way to work towards our economic futures. States already have balanced budgets, why shouldn't the federal government have to live within a budget (that goes back to FDR taking us off the gold standard). An amendment convention would be great, we could propose to repeal the 16th & 17th amendments and propose a balanced budget amendment, term limits and even an amendment to make Congress have to live and abide by the laws they pass. We could reform their pay, pensions, health care. Remind them who's in charge and that serving in Congress is a service, not a career.

Campaign finance reform needs lots of work, first they need to stop using taxpayer money to fund political campaigns. Organizations that receive federal money to redistribute for social programs should not be allowed to spend that money on elections. There should be a cap on the amount spent, no matter the source (unless as above), that is strictly accounted for. This would allow more normal people to run for public office. But this topic could fill an entire blog or two.

Remember November, recycle Congress and push your state legislatures to call for an Article V convention!

Congressional Reform

I have been hollering about the need to recycle Congress. Congress has stopped listening to the people that put them there. It's time for We the People to take control of the government that works for us! I'm not just ranting about how bad they are doing in DC, I have some ideas that would correct the problem. It's not going to be easy, it's going to be really tough but not impossible. The first thing We the People need to do is to become involved, much like the Tea Party has these past couple of years. We also need to educate ourselves, in our history and the workings of the government and the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all three branches of our government have slowly been subverting it, applying liberal interpretations of a document that's clearly written in plain English. We need to research these people that want to serve us and our country, find out what they are really about. We need a politically educated voting body, that's active and outspoken. Some of the most vicious political debates happened before the United States even became a country; now all you can hear are the insults and negative campaigning, not what the candidates believe in or their plans to fix anything. Make sure you are registered to vote and let your politically educated voice be heard. With all this technology it is very easy to contact your state and federally elected officials and let them know where you stand and where they need to stand to keep your support.

One of the first and most important, we must install term limits. Find candidates that support term limits and elect them and hold them accountable. The Founders envisioned a citizenry legislature, where serving was a service, not a career. There might be a few good arguments on why there should not be term limits, but those don't hold a candle to the multiple arguments supporting term limits. The longer they stay, the more out of touch they become with their home districts. They become to entrenched with the lobbyists, PAC's and fundraisers. They are corrupted. Lord Acton famously said that Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely and we see that in Congress. Not only do they make Washington DC their new home but more times than not, it seems that they forget where they came from and who put them there. They make alliances with other members, not their constituents.

Another area that I feel is of the utmost importance, with regards to Congressional reform would be the election of Senators. We need to repeal the 17th Amendment to the Constitution. Our system of government is a representative republic, the Founders carefully instituted a government that was set up so each branch could check and balance the other. Additionally, our system is a confederation of many states and the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution clearly show that the several states created the federal government. The Founders, in their infinite wisdom, even provided for a state voice in the federal system through the bicameral Congress. They set up the House of Representatives, based on population elected by the people and the Senate based on equal state representation elected by the state legislatures. This was designed to give the states a voice in federal matters, since the states created the federal government. Each state was allowed 2 Senators, regardless of size, representing that each state was equal in the Union. Those that support the direct election of US Senators are directly against States' rights. There is no more state voice in the federal government, who's looking out for the interest of the state as a whole?

Another area in need of reform is the length of sessions. Does anyone know who long a session of Congress is? 10 months? 9 months? Congress is limited in it's powers to a very specific list of items (check previous blog for the powers) so why do they need so much time in session. We need to keep our elected officials closer to home, so they know what's important to us, the people they are representing. Take Nevada for example, our legislature meets only for about 4 months a year, the Texas legislature meets once every two years. The states have much greater responsibilities than the federal government, but they require so much more time together? Sounds corrupt to me. A government governs best when it's closer to the people. It's a shame that you can only visit your federally elected officials one or two days a year, when they decide to make themselves available to the public.

We need to take away the elitist status that Congress has bequeathed upon itself. Congress is paid an enormous amount of money per year, they have expense accounts, staff allowances, posh retirements and aren't held to the same standard as normal citizens. Members of Congress avoid paying taxes, use their status to gain favors and grant favors, they hold themselves above the laws that they create and force them upon the citizens. We need to serious cut back on the cost of Congressmen, they should be paid a stipend only when Congress is in session (and not the drawn out, bloated 10 month session) very limited expenses and staffing and that's it. They should get no pension or tenure or life time payments. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career; serve your time and go home. These elitist have their own medical insurance, separate from "the common folk" and they don't even contribute to social security. No wonder they never want to leave, who would? You have Congressmen serving into their 90's, well over the social security retirement age of 65. Congressmen are supposed to be citizens, let them act and participate like every other citizen, no special benefits, no voting themselves pay raises and other special perks.

Congressmen stand before us, asking for our vote and they are responsible for most of the problems that we face. They force banks to lower their lending standards, which in turn helps lead to the housing crisis; they force health care down our throats, against a majority opinion of the public. They stand before us claiming they want a balanced budget, or to lower taxes, create jobs, cut the deficit and it's all up to them. They play politics instead of following the Constitution, why should they worry about "the common folk" they have their cushy retirement and never have to come back and see the people they "serve".

We need to hold these elected officials accountable. Contact them, it's never been easier with a site called congress.org. Enter your zip code on the home page and it will tell you your federal and state officials. It comes complete with web forms for very easy composing and sending. I have used it several times and have always received a response. It's time for We, the People, to take back our government. It was created to protect our rights and liberties, not take from one to give to another.

FDR, the overrated.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is often heralded as one of the best Presidents in the history of the United States. The progressive media and propaganda peddled to school children have perpetuated that myth. The progressive want you to believe that the New Deal and the Great Society programs helped the country but that is not entirely accurate, just popular. Over the course of 6 years FDR created 34 new government agencies, bureaucracies and acts. All of that spending to create jobs resulted in an average unemployment of 18% over those 6 years. "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle." FDR's quote sounds very similar to "the admin's" quote about paying taxes as being American. The Bill of Rights were rights bestowed on us by our Creator, so when FDR came up with the 2nd Bill of Rights did he think he was our Creator? FDR issued executive order #6102 in 1933 which ordered every American to turn in their gold, in any form within 3 days or face $10,000 fine and/or 10 years in jail. How very American of the great FDR. Biographers have even claimed that FDR was the dumbest (economically speaking) Presidents of all time. He had no economic experience and his policies showed that. All of the New Deal spending did nothing to decrease unemployment or bring the country out of the depression. In fact, Henry Morgenthau (FDR's Treasury Secretary), acknowledged that FDR's spending didn't create any new jobs. Testifying in front of the House Ways and Means committee in 1939 he said, "We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and now if I am wrong...somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises...I say after eight years of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started...and enormous debt to boot." Trying to help farmers raise prices, FDR had to cut supply and the stockpile of existing crops; so in the middle of a depression with people starving, he ordered the slaughter of 6 million pigs and 10 million acres of cotton and the public sector jobs created by New Deal displaced private sector jobs. The National Industrial Recovery Act was designed to keep wages high but actually created legally sanctioned cartels that established wages, hours and minimum prices. FDR's New Deal hurt business which in turn delays recovery, mounting taxes on labor costs contributed to high unemployment. Business was afraid to invest because of the uncertainty on what the government would do next. Another "boost" from FDR was the National Labor Relations Act, or the Wagner Act which excludes people to inflate wages, distortion of the labor market, work rules that discourage efficiency and innovation. New Deal supporters say that the massive spending projects provided jobs and economic stimulus, but the taxes to pay for those projects were taken from the private sector and that inhibits private sector job creation. These projects were also extremely wasteful, since there was no profit loss incentive. Another area where you can how useless the distribution of "stimulus" money. The South, who were the poorest in the country, received the least assistance from New Deal projects. Western states received large amounts of WPA money. Researchers have determined that political factors could account for 80% of New Deal spending. Western states where FDR's margin of victory was slim received the lion's share of money while the democratic south that gave FDR a 67% of the vote received little money, even though they could use it the most. WPA workers were intimidated through the threat of job loss to change political parties and donate to reelection campaigns. The FDR regime closed down radio stations that spoke out against him, launched FBI investigations into conservative organizations and smeared members of the America First Committee as Nazis and traitors.

The Supreme Court became an opponent of FDR, rightfully so, they struck down the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act. So FDR made designs to pack the court with new activist judges that saw things his way.

Don't agree with what you are reading above, then check it out for yourself.
Gary Dean Best - Pride, Prejudice and Politics: Roosevelt vs Recovery.
Richard Epstein - A Common Law for Labor Relations: A Critique of the New Deal Labor Legislation.
Lewis S Feuer - American Travlers to the Soviet Union 1917-32: The Formation of a Component of New Deal Ideology.
John T Flynn - The Roosevelt Myth.
Robert Higgs - Regime Uncertainty: Why the Great Depression Lasted So Long and Why Prosperity Resumed after the War.
Jim Powell - FDR's Folly.
Robert Shogun - Hard Bargain: How FDR Twisted Churchill's Arm, Evaded the Law and Changed the Role of the American Presidency.

I know there are some out there, that won't even read this, won't check the sources or any of the information, just attack me or change the topic. Most likely, they won't even respond because they can't deny the facts presented above and that would kill the "great" image FDR has. The progressive/liberal media has watered down history to show only what promotes their agenda and are killing the American Spirit in our coming generations.

545 vs 300,000,000

Most people with email have probably already seen this, it's not mine but regardless of political ideology you must agree with it. Ask yourself, if this is accurate who are those clowns in DC doing this for? Recycle Congress!

545 PEOPLE--By Charley Reese

Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them..

Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?

Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.

You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.

You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.

You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.

You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.

I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.

Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.

What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits..... The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.

The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.

If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red ..

If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ

If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems.

Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.

Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.

They, and they alone, have the power..

They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.

Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees...

We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!

Charley Reese has retired but was a columnist for the Orlando Sentinel for nearly 3 decades and penned this in 1985 and has been updated a few times, most recently in 2008.

Liberalism, good for America?

If you look at the origins of modern liberalism, it doesn't sound all bad, in fact it sounds very similar to libertarians party platform.

Liberalism is a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties; specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class). The main problem with liberalism is that they consider the government as an important part in righting the social inequities. The big government, liberal movement is generally characterized by the government taxing and spending. Liberalism has evolved far from it's classic beginnings, now liberals want the government to control every aspect of our lives because we are not capable of making the right decisions for our lives. Their reach has exceeded the righting of social inequalities and moved into straight babysitting, even though the children have all grown.

You can see the liberal hypocrisy just by looking at what liberalism "stands" for and the actions of the liberals. They "care" about civil liberties but continue to take liberties away from the people. Liberals even have trouble staying on the same side of an argument. Pelosi fears the rhetoric from "crazy" right wingers, but a couple years earlier the rhetoric was just fine. Liberals hate the filibuster and the 66 supermajority, except when they need to use it and just a couple of years ago they were all anti-war, now you don't hear a peep from them. Let's look at reconciliation, when Bush used reconciliation the libs came unglued, now it's there best friend. How about Pelosi and Reid talking about draining the swamp and being the most fiscally sound Congress, what a joke. Rangel dodging taxes, Kerry dodging taxes, corporate vacations, $100,000 liquor bills for the Speakers tax payer funded jets and all this while they tell us that it's American to pay our taxes, and un-American to protest.

All of this and we still have people that call themselves liberals, it's amazing. Maybe someone can explain it to me, it just doesn't make sense.

What is a Progressive?

Progressives like to say that to be progressive means they are looking for progress. They never say what they want to progress to. Do they even know? Progressives are a sneaky bunch, they will only tell you what you want to hear and they have overtaken the democratic party. While they have not entirely taken over the republican party, there are some RINO's creeping around. The first openly progressive president was Theodore Roosevelt followed by Taft, who was actually a progressive light, and the worst of the bunch (possibly worse than FDR) Woodrow Wilson. I'll post about the best and worst Presidents in a later blog. This is about the progressives as a whole, their party platform.

There have always been dark periods of history, even in the United States. One of those dark periods in United States history was the Progressive Era. The progressive movement has been around for a long time, the Progressive Party surfaces and disappears once the American people catch on to the real agenda. Now the Progressives are using Rules for Radicals to pass their agenda. The Progressives have slowly over time, chipped away at our liberties, slowly so Americans don't realize what's happening.

The first problem with the Progressive agenda appears in the first line of the platform, talking about a "sense of justice". At the end of the declaration, it tries to hide it's real agenda "This country belongs to the people who inhabit it. Its resources, its business, its institutions and its laws should be utilized, maintained or altered in whatever manner will best promote the general interest." It states right there clearly that the government should control everything within the country in the name of the general interest. The second item on the agenda is to amend the constitution to make it easier to amend to fit "progressive" needs. The progressive agenda also attempts to destroy state identity in favor of federal collectivism, consolidate federal power in a central location. Again the main interest of the progressive's is to create social and industrial justice. Progressive's also believe that profits from business should be sent to the people, not kept, destroying any profit motive business might have. Progressives called for strong federal control of business and business trade. Progressives believe that government bureaucrats can run lives better than the person themselves. Farmers don't know how to farm, businessmen don't know how to run business and laborers don't know how to labor; the government must step in and show them the way. Progressive also believe that all land and water should be controlled by the government because left in the hands of settlers, they would be wasted because the settler doesn't know how to use the land, only the government does. Progressive don't believe in the court system, the government knows better than judges. Progressives want everything decided by the people, the reason being they were creating a nation of dependents, if the government controlled everything the citizens are dependent on the government to provide them with everything they need to survive. The progressives also wanted to destroy patents, the inventor had no right to his invention; the government would know how to better utilize his invention. Progressives believe that the government should oversee private investment and establish a bureaucracy to streamline federal agencies to eliminate duplication (abolish state agencies in favor of federal).

I included most of the beliefs of the progressives, the ones I left out have already been adopted through legislation and the handful of progressive Presidents. Among these is popular election of Senators, a direct attack on states rights. The states, who created the federal government, lost their voice in federal affairs. Progressive tax rates and inheritance taxes. The department of Labor to look out for the "worker" at the expense of the business, EPA, SEC, Dept of Education, Dept of Interior and the tons of other federal bureaucracies that now exist.

The goal of the Progressives is complete control, they have been slowly centralizing power and with health care and cap & trade now being pushed they are closer than ever. The progressive agenda closely resembles the ideas and goals of communism, which I will briefly get into next.

Karl Marx, the "founder" of communism established the 10 planks of communism as a test to determine whether a country was practicing communism. The first is the abolition of private property for public purposes (progressives feel the land should go to the "greater" good). The second plank is a heavy, graduated income tax (this has already been implemented in the United States and is a big favorite of progressives). The third is abolition of inheritances (progressives have implemented this under social justice, those that die with more than they needed shouldn't be able to give it who they want). Fourth is confiscation of property of immigrants and rebels (look at the terrorist laws, eminent domain, IRS confiscation, RICO laws). The fifth plank is a central bank (we call it the federal reserve, another progressive item shoved through because the government knows best). Sixth on the list is control of communications (although not officially a progressive party platform, this has been done through the FCC, USDOT, etc.). Next is factories and farmland under state control (I think the progressives just straight borrowed that one from Marx). Eighth is equal labor for all (just like the heavily union supported progressive party). Ninth plank is combining agriculture with industrial to eliminate town and country (progressives feel the same way, balance out the population). Finally is free education (another one take directly from Marx, I think). Education should be readily available but not sponsored and regulated by a bureaucrat thousands of miles away.

Comparing the progressive party side by side with the communist party and it's pretty obvious that the two are interchangeable. Americans have been rejecting the progressive agenda for nearly 100 years, they keep changing their name but the platform remains the same. Total control. I wonder if they will come back as the Populist Party.

The progressive agenda isn't about progressing with the changing times, it's about progressing towards communism.

Populist Party

As a semi tea partier, semi beer partier (look it up on facebook, it's Mike Church's group)I was a little offended by the tea party and populist party being mentioned in the same breath. The tea party has even started to irritate me, going national. I first joined the tea party for the reason most of the others did, our eyes were opened to the infringement of government to our liberty, the very freedoms we hold so dear. I'm not talking about the election of Barrack Obama, well not entirely. Prior to the election in November of 08, while researching candidates I stumbled upon all sorts of stuff about Obama's radicals ties. In pointing out those radical ties, the most common argument for Obama was really just an anti Bush argument. All those anti-Bush arguments had merit, but it wasn't merely the previous admin as much as Obama likes to blame it. There has been a constant tear on our liberty basically since the beginning of this great country, but that's for another rant.

The Populist Party began in the 1870's with a loose confederation of farmers' alliances who believed that the economic downturn was a result of the governments monetary policy. They attempted to influence the existing political parties and when their growth was so rapid, the Populist Party was born in 1892. Their platform is surprisingly similar to some other's that I recently blogged about. Graduated income tax, plenty of paper money, government ownership of transportation and communication, direct election of senators (I still say repeal the 17th Amendment), postal banks, pensions, immigration reform but their main goal was to replace the Democrat Party. The Populist Party grew very rapidly with representatives from the farmers of the west and south added to the industrial unions of the east. While the party grew, both established political parties battled for the Populist vote and the democratic party ended up with most of the populist vote, the combination of union wage earners and farmers didn't stay together as city and country couldn't stay mixed. While very short lived, much of the platform is creepily similar to progressive/communism/socialism goals. It wouldn't surprise me, that when the America rejects progressive's that they will resurface as Populist, the People's Party. It has just such a lovely ring to it.

Socialism, happening in America

What most of us learned in school about socialism is that it was half communism and half capitalism. Some industries were owned and controlled by the state and others were left to private industries. Socialism is just a gateway to communism. Once industries become state owned and controlled, private initiative is destroyed. Unless the people become enlightened, much like what is happening in Europe right now. Europe is starting to lean conservative, granted it's not like American conservatism, but it's a step in the right direction.

If you look up the meaning of socialism, you get a bunch of references to Karl Marx and central planning. Doesn't sound like what I learned in school. What I found was basically communism by another name. If socialism controls the means of production under central planning, what's that make communism?

The 2008 - 2009 Socialist USA party has the following platform:
Worker and community ownership of all corporations, minimum and maximum wage, full employment for those who want to work and a guaranteed annual income, central banking, steeply graduated income tax, graduated estate/luxury/capital gains tax, compensating community's for base and social service closures, expanded welfare and unemployment (thought there was full employment) programs at guaranteed livable wage, closing military bases foreign and domestic, total disarmament of the United States, democratic control of unions including voting in supervisors, support militant, united strikes, abolish right to work, lower the voting age to 15, sex ed in schools, abolition of parental consent, guaranteed income for artists, free childcare from infancy, school boards accountable to the students, rent control, renters unions, end to all home foreclosures, banning transportation downtown (except mass transit), federally funded auto insurance, abolition of CIA, NSA, FBI, homeland security, open borders (but get rid of NAFTA), amnesty (not really because open borders), free access to mass media, free legal services to all, community release programs and no new prisons, no supermax prisons, prisoners right to unionize, replace police w/conflict resolution people, decriminalization of drugs, government control of mass media, public ownership of farms and elimination of farm debt and return of foreclosed farms.

Wow, what a paradise. Do you need to read it again to catch all the similarities in that platform and the 10 planks of communism? My big question is, who's going to pay for all these wonderfully planned communities?