Posted on 06/28/2009 5:13:32 PM PDT by David Isaac
My fellow Freepers, I may have hit upon a way to help educate those of our fellow citizens, who can, and do read. What I intend is a newspaper, a newspaper similar to the ones printed in the 1700s, which helped ignite the Revolution. It is all about the issues concerning the governance of we the people. It worked then, perhaps it could work now.
The mind-numbing speed with which we are approaching total socialism, has left me somewhat stunned. Its coming in such large increments that one can hardly keep up with the changes. I had hoped to get this printed and distributed before these abominations could come up for a vote. Obviously, that will not happen.
The content of The Spark will be as close as possible to 100% local origin. Local authors, both conservative and liberal (if any can be found that are willing to enter into debate based on facts), are essential. Local political parties and even local schools will be able to have some input. Local financing will help keep everything local.
One of my original thoughts was to cover the printing costs through local individual donations, sponsors, as it were, whose name could be published in a prominent location in the paper. The sponsors should also help with distribution, which could be augmentented by placement of the paper, wherever allowed, in places both public and private. The ultimate goal would be to have The Spark as an insert in the local weekly newspaper. That could only be accomplished if there were sufficent interest in the community and the printing costs met by sponsors or additional advertising revenue generated by interested parties.
Local papers, if demand can be shown, should be more than willing to accept this insert, especially if there can be a variety of viewpoints expressed. Large newspapers are dying because.... they should. Local papers are having a difficult time finding content worth reading. Many people joke about spending two minutes reading the entire paper, before it goes in the bottom of the birdcage.
Somehow, some way, we need to reach people with some semblance of the truth. The level of ignorance out there is mind-boggling. Pavlov would be proud of the conditioning job that has been done on at least two generations of our school-kids. We need to do something, because there will be no crash-cart to revive this patient, our country, if it flat-lines.
Please give any feedback that you can. I am proud of being a member here since 2000 and am constantly amazed at the breadth and depth of knowledge of Freepers. There are mony of you out there that have prodigious accumulations of facts (Backhoe, Cindy, and several others), that could be a great resource for persons who want to start a fire in their own little corner of the world. Please read/skim the attached file, which is quite lengthy due to the fact it was written to fill four tabloid size pages.
I have to find a way to get at least a couple of hundred printed before our local Tea-Party, July 4, where I plan on giving every attendee a copy. I live in a very small town, that has a feisty 72 year-old lady who has organized for us, a tea-party. I attended the one in Lansing, in April, 5,000 people. Thank you for listening. The following is quite lenghty.
The Spark Number 1 vox populi July 4 , 2009
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing (Edmund Burke)
THE SPARK (thespark@yahoo.com)
First the name. The title, The Spark, goes back at least a century, but not in this country. In Russia, it was known as Iskra, and was the official organ of Russian Communist Party. It preceded even Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, though later the name was continued by Trotsky, after the split in the party, instigated by Lenin. The irony, if this Spark could be used in this country to stop Socialism, as it was used in Russia to advance it, would be marvelous. This Spark was conceived as a source of political news, so that we might better know what OUR elected representatives are doing in Washington. It is an absolute necessity for people, for local communities, to have a say in what our elected officials think is best for us and this country. We cannot really have anything to say, if we know nothing about what is actually going on in Washington. The media have that pretty well covered, anyway. Only one time in recent memory has there been an outcry from the people, that very effectively headed off a very bad bill. Almost exactly four years ago, Congress tried to pass an amnesty bill, basically giving all illegal aliens in the country, the chance to become U.S, citizens rather quickly, a whole lot more quickly than the usual road to citizenship. It was called the McCain-Kennedy Immigration Bill (it was one of the nails in the coffin of the McCain for President Campaign). People called, e-mailed, and wrote, in such numbers that Congress backed down on that particular issue. That is the kind of action that was needed when the first bailout bill made the scene, last year. Though it is possible that people were in a state of shock, at seeing such a massive socialist bill coming from a Republican administration. While we cannot stop what has already happened, we can certainly stop what is coming and also stop the the insane spending. Politicians always take silence to mean assent and why should they not. The Preamble to the Constitution of the United States starts with the three word phrase, WE THE PEOPLE, because the people were meant to be the ultimate power in this country. We the common people, for some reason, know little and say even less. This must change, or we risk losing something that a lot of people have fought for and died to protect. The Spark is meant to be a continuous town-hall meeting, where information and opinions are shared, discussed rationally, and hopefully, some course of action decided upon. Our courses of action are rather limited on the Federal level, while at the state level, we still have the rights of initiative, referendum, and recall (initiative – people petition to propose a law for the vote of the people, referendum - people petition to stop a proposed law by vote of the people, recall – petition to remove an officeholder by vote of the people). At the federal level we only get to directly affect our representatives every two, four, or six years. Still, our representatives are quite heat sensitive. If they hear from a sufficient number of the people in their district, or state, they can have a change in their viewpoint about specific issues. There are quite a few political observers who will testify that the number-one concern of our Senators and Congresspersons, is to get reelected. They spend a very significant amount of their time raising funds for the next election. To some, it would seem that merely voting in a way that reflects the opinions and values of their constituents, would be enough to ensure reelection. There are more than a few people, and everybody knows some of them, who do not think or feel (if feeling is more important than thinking) that there is anything to be concerned about at the moment. Well the rest of us appreciate their complacence and depth and clarity of thought, we are nonetheless quite concerned about the present and the future, and fully realize that our problems stem from what we have lost of and from the past. We realize that we must come together, educate ourselves and each other, through whatever means possible, and this paper is just one possible means, determine where we stand, and let all others know where we stand, including those we are paying to be our voices.
WAKE UP AMERICA
The government now owns and/or controls several of our largest private enterprises. This is both unbelievable and unconscionable. The President of the United States has fired the head of General Motors and cut the advertising budget of Chrysler by fifty percent. The government owns major stakes in our largest banks and AIG insurance. Nationalization of business and industry is purely and simply, socialism. (Fascism, which describes other recent government actions and many that are on the way, is closely related) Of great concern, is that half of our “adult” population does not see this as wrong, and many even see it as necessary. This speaks volumes concerning the effectiveness of our education and media establishments. A recent Rasmussen Poll found that only fifty-three percent of Americans polled believed that capitalism is a better system than socialism (some did not know...?). Someone owes the people an explanation of how such woeful ignorance can exist. We are told that all of this has come about because of corporate greed and mismanagement. A relevant question would be, what venture has the government ever successfully managed? If you can think of one, would you please let the rest of us know. Government was viewed, and rightly so, by the founders as a necessary evil. That is why the Constitution was written, to limit the power of the federal government. Government is supposed to facilitate interstate commerce, not own it. We, as a nation and people, are in very serious trouble. The government, over the last century, has assumed the responsibility of taking complete care of many (which they would like to change to ALL) of its citizens, which can only be done by taking wealth from one and giving it to another.. The government was never supposed to take care of us, but instead was charged with maintaining a framework of laws that would allow us to take care of ourselves. As a nation we have done sufficiently well taken care of ourselves, but very poorly indeed, taking care of our fragile republic. Common citizens do not want to be bothered keeping tabs on everything that is going on in Washington, or our state capitols. We elect whomever happens to be on our chosen party's ticket and they are supposed to deal with all the problems. It would seem, to quite a few of us, that they have been far better at creating problems. The key to beginning to solve our problem, is information. If anyone would like to describe what we get from the alphabet soup of network and cable news channels, the wire services, the flagship newspapers, or most radio news, as useful information, a lot of us would beg to differ. If everyone truly had access to totally accurate information about what the government was doing, it is hard to imagine the country being in the trouble that it presently is. Of course, there are enough differences of opinion that we would find ourselves debating every word in the preceding sentence. But, it is our opinion that if we get enough news from enough sources and kick it around sufficiently, we will find quite a few things to agree upon. If we were to possess good information, the next task would be to do something, to take some sort of action. Mostly that would involve simply speaking up. We need to let the rest of the people in our community know how we feel. Sadly, the majority of business owners in our communities, do not consider it wise to come down on one side of an issue or the other. Unfortunately, push is coming to shove here and we are all going to have to take a stand. Our politicians do understand the meaning of the word NO, they just do not hear it from enough of us at the same time. It is time to take notice and to serve notice. When politicians have reason to fear for their jobs, they can have remarkable attitude changes. But they have nothing to fear if we remain divided and we remain quiet.
A quote from C. S. Lewis, author of the Chronicles of Narnia: “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
WHERE LEFT MEETS RIGHT
On the political spectrum, we have on one end, the extreme left, in the middle we have what is called the “center” (which some consider to be mythical), and beyond that we have the extreme right. Right? Nope, Wrong! That is just one of many incorrect descriptions of the differing, and often opposing philosophies of governance. Another incorrect description is that on one end we have Socialism (Communism) and on the other Fascism, with democracy in the middle. Uh uh. The correct representation is when totalitarianism, or total government control, is on one end and anarchy, or no government control whatsoever, is on the other end. When the government has total control, it means very little, to those under control, what anyone might call it. Though complete anarchy has appeared at various points in history, it never worked out very well for very many for very long, and exists nowhere today as a governing principle. It would be tough to count all of the things that have been written about the differences between Socialism and Fascism. Nobody can ask the 6 million Jews slaughtered in Hitler's camps or the 12 million Ukrainians starved to death by Stalin, the subtle or even marked differences between the two governments. The difference between the two is really quite small, under Socialism the government actually owns the factory, under Fascism they control the factory without technically owning it. On the real political spectrum, Fascism is just a hair away from Socialism. On a side note, countries under these two systems have been responsible for more deaths from murder than all the deaths from all the wars in the history of the world Where does America belong, on such a scale? That would depend a lot on the point in time. When America was founded, we would have been not too far from the zero control end of the scale. We have drifted toward more government control over time, especially in the last century. Placing the political parties on such a scale, is where this gets interesting. Over the last few decades, the Democrats have called themselves liberals, though some of them are reviving the centur-old “progressive” label. Just looking at the word liberal, one would be inclined to think of the less government control end of the scale. Which is actually where real liberals, the ones from 300 years ago, belong. People should do some research on what liberalism really was and the influence it had on America's Founding Fathers. Now to place Democrats, their leadership more than the foot soldiers, on the scale, where should they be? Do they favor less government control or more? Hmmmm. And the Republicans, a party whose members once believed their party was based on principles. Where would they be placed today? Judging by their more recent Presidential candidates, one would have to guess they would be placed fairly close to their opposition (?). The Libertarians actually are fairly close to the total liberty end of the scale, bordering on anarchy some claim. But, if one had to get close to one end of the scale or the other, which end would you most likely choose? The “center”, oh that magical center, that if only we could get to, everyone would be happy. The center, where so many of our politicians tell us we belong. Well, on this particular scale, the center is about halfway to totalitarianism. And now that we have arrived at that particular point, where now is the center? A good guess would be, about three-quarters of the way to totalitarianism. Funny thing about that center, every time you arrive, somebody moves it. There may be a lesson there for somebody who believes that compromise will win the day. It really is quite simple, you either favor more government control or you favor less, though there may be some who think it is jut right, right now. Most of us know which we favor, we are just having a hard time finding a candidate who will actually move in that direction instead of only telling us they will.
TWEEDLEDEE AND TWEEDLEDUM In Wonderland, Alice met two chubby little twins, portrayed by Lewis Carroll, as being exactly alike in every way including actions. Of late, it is rather difficult to tell the Democrats and Republicans from one another, especially in the area of deficit spending. Oh, they look different to most people, but actions do speak louder than words. It would take a lot of imagination, or perhaps none at all, to think that either one of our two political parties could have caused all the damage to this country that has occurred over the last century, while the other party was blameless. If one of the parties was as bad, as the people in the other party make them out to be, the”good” party would absolutely destroy them in the elections. The idea that one, and only one party is controlled by “big money” is patently absurd. What greedy capitalist swine would be dumb enough to control only one of the two parties? The return on investment (large campaign contributions), when investing in a “public servant” is so great that one is better off covering all the bases. The “recent” spending spree by Congress, was started by the Republican Party (though deficit spending is not a new phenomenon). The Democrats were successfully able to label them as big-spenders in the 2006 Congressional Elections, in which the GOP suffered substantial losses. This spending, among other things, effectively turned off large portions of the Republican base, as well as motivating the Democrats to vote against them. Also, It was George Bush and his Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, who initiated the government takeover of private businesses. It is impossible not to mention those three GOP Senate stalwarts, Spectre (who is finally where he belongs), Snowe, and Collins, who made the “stimulus”(?) package a reality, by reaching across the aisle. Speaking of Presidents, has anyone noticed that in the last several elections, we seem to have a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledummer. The one you dislike the least is the one for whom you finally decide to vote. In the last 50 years, only Kennedy and Reagan have at least seemed to be Presidential material. Political parties, like governments, are a necessary evil. The main problem with parties is that people substitute straight-party voting for reasoned decision making. This kind of “voting” was exactly what concerned James Madison, our fourth President, who was the principle author of the U.S. Constitution), who was very much against having what he called “factions”. But then again, with the choices we are given, who can argue over reasons. The vast majority of Republicans, until recently, were quite sure that their party was the party of fiscal discipline. Perhaps they were, who knows. The Republican National Committee is now hearing from a lot of folks who are telling them they won't be seeing another penny from them. There is considerable rancor among the conservatives in the party, who do not feel that moving left is the way to win elections. If the leadership continues in that direction, they will be leading far fewer people, and that they cannot afford. There has been no such uprising on the Democrat side......yet. Though one of their policy ideas seems to have bothered one of their old warhorses. One-time Presidential candidate George McGovern, who in '72 was considered too far to the left for a great number of Democrat voters (Nixon won by a very large margin). McGovern was heard recently in radio ads denouncing one of the left's pet projects, “card-check” which would do away with the secret ballot in elections where workers would be voting on whether to unionize or not. The one-time Senator thought that such a thing would be undemocratic (ironic, huh). It's even been said that most union members don't like it either. But then, it's all about what the leaders want. Union leadership is little different from political party leadership and corporate (but not 100%) and United Nations leadership, should be included as well Yet those Democrats and Republicans who lead Congress and the Administration do not seem to think like the Democrats and Republicans we know as our neighbors and friends. It is indeed difficult to fathom what our current crop of leaders is thinking, on either side of the aisle. The people that we talk to every day do not seem to be our enemies, though our party leaders would like to make it seem as though they were. The dialogue between people has been poisoned by the talking points thrown out by the parties to make it appear that they are different and the differences are worth fighting over. If we do not determine what our common priorities are, our differences will prove to be our undoing. There are certain principles of government that we can agree on, and right now those principles are being violated, left and right. We absolutely must get our government back on the right track, and very soon, or face a very dismal future. Half the voting public will have a much tougher time accomplishing this, than would the whole voting public, but it could still be done.
At present, all articles are the product of David Isaac (that will be changing) thespark@yahoo.com
POLITICS ARE DIRTY?
Politics is how the nation's business gets done. It is also how business gets done at your place of work, or at your church. It is the process by which groups of people arrive at decisions which affect part or all of that particular group. It is neither clean nor dirty, but can be either, depending on the behavior of the people involved. It is more than possible that the practitioners of the art in our nations capitol, are quite happy that the majority of the population considers politics too dirty to discuss. The truth is, we are rather calloused to the behavior of our elected and appointed officials, who seem to get away scot-free after committing things that would land most of us in jail. Then there is the old joke, 'those who like laws and sausages, should not watch either of them being made'. Problem is, if we don't watch, we deserve what we get. Another old saw states that the two things that should not be discussed among friends and family, are politics and religion. There are plenty of people that can testify to the problems that may arise. But if we do not discuss politics, who does. At his point it would be important to point out the difference between being political and being partisan. If one person complains that the government is harming the country and members of both parties are at fault, they would be making a purely political statement. On the other hand, if one holds that the harm against the country is the fault of just one party, that would be a partisan political statement. If one believes that neither party is doing any harm, that would be a delusional statement. So, business owners, hopefully you can see that being “political” may be safe(r), after all. If there are any among us that cannot speak up, please do not complain when you are stung. If politics are too dirty or too dangerous to talk about, then those who really are dirty and dangerous are the only beneficiaries. We must discuss, amongst friends, enemies, families, and even perfect strangers, those things that are so vitally important to us all. What your government does, affects everything in your life. If you let these people go the direction they are going, they will eat your lunch....., your dinner, and your children's future.
Samuel Adams: “it does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men.
CAPITALISM AND SOCIALISM
N-O - B-R-A-I-N-E-R, that is the best way to describe this particular choice. In reality, however, it is only a no-brainer if you actually know the differences and the history of the two economic philosophies. In what school or in what media outlet, have you heard that capitalism is a wealth creator and socialism a wealth destroyer? Which one made this country great? Which socialist countries are doing, or have done well, now or in the past? The simplest and perhaps most telling question to ask here, is, how many people have died trying to escape from a capitalist country into a socialist country? How many people have died trying to get to Cuba from Florida? From West Germany into East Germany? From Hong Kong into Communist China (when Hong Kong was British territory)? If socialism is so great, why do people risk their lives and the lives of their families, to escape from socialist countries? Today's socialists have the same answer they had a hundred years ago, socialism has just not been done right yet. In the mid-nineteenth century, Karl Marx wrote that Communism would not be able to work in Russia. Lenin disagreed and nearly single-handedly bestowed his brand of Communism on Russia in 1917 (it was actually a coup of the original revolution that occurred while Lenin was still in exile in Germany). Marx at least got one thing right, you can't “share the wealth” if there is no wealth. (Hmmm, seems like that “share the wealth” thing was mentioned in someone's Presidential campaign.) Socialism destroys wealth by destroying the incentive to produce. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is the classic line, or slogan, from the Communist Manifesto, published in 1848 by Marx and Engels. This means that everyone works, as hard as they are able, to produce goods and services, which are then divided among the people based upon what they require to survive (survive is the operative word here, under socialism, people survive, they do not live). Socialism destroys wealth by destroying the incentive to produce, beyond the bare minimum, that is. If you were to receive the same pay, no matter how hard you worked, why would you work any harder than you absolutely had to. This concept has actually been employed in some segments of our economy (guess where). Actually though, some people do work hard under those circumstances, because that is their nature. But that work ethic can be driven out of people over time. Suppose, in the old Soviet Union (which had a Communist system , for those of you who went to school during and after the 70's), there were two men, Yuri and Igor, who worked side by side in the factory. Yuri and his wife could not have children. Igor and his wife had ten children. Yuri believed in an honest days work, while Igor spent half his morning in the bathroom and most of the rest of his time schmoozing with the Communist Party operatives who were in charge of pretty much everything. On pay-day Yuri would get 150 rubles, one hundred for him and 50 for his wife. Igor was paid 650 rubles, 100 for him and 50 for his wife and each child. How long would Yuri continue to bust his hump, doing his work and making up for the work that Igor was too busy to do? This example is not all that unreal, maybe not the huge difference in pay, but the equal pay for unequal work. Also the financial rewards for having children do not occur only in communist countries. Socialism is the great leveler, not by bringing everyone up to the highest level, but by bringing everyone down to the lowest level. Spreading the misery is a much more true description than is spreading the wealth. None of this takes into account all of deaths that occur in socialist countries, compared to those in capitalist countries (and please remember, Nazi was short for National Socialist, which was the official name of Hitler's political party). There is some argument over the total number of millions, murdered by those in power in socialist countries. For Russia, Stalin in particular, the number ranges from 20 million upwards, with some estimates at 100 million. For China, almost all by Chairman Mao, some say higher than 100 million, while more sympathetic estimates are closer to just 20-30 million. Pol Pot, of Cambodia, killed 2 million, but he had a much smaller population to work with. People with glasses were often targeted, because their presumed intelligence was seen as a threat to the regime. Socialist leaders worry about people who are smart enough to know what is going on. It is difficult to imagine someone coming up with a logical argument for selecting socialism over capitalism. Of course, that argument would be much more appealing if big business were to act in such a way, that any alternative would look relatively good. Hold on! They seem to be doing just that. However, a lot of the seemingly foolish and/or greedy behaviors of the private sector have been a direct result of actions by the government. For some reason, your elected officials, and the media, would rather you did not know who was really at fault. For a Russian view of what is going on in this country, please google Stanislav Mishin and read “American Capitalism Gone With a Whimper”.
This space in the future will be utilized by the County's two political parties. Whether it will be utilized to trumpet national party talking points, debate issues brought up by readers or themselves, or to even tout party candidates or officials, will be open to discussion. But a great degree of latitude will be extended to both and perhaps third party representatives could contribute as well.
OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS
Persons opposing the philosophical viewpoint, which will be painfully obvious to some, of this issue of The Spark, are not only welcome, but necessary, if communication for all is to succeed. If you are of the liberal, progressive, or even green persuasion please contribute. Actually, someone who could do so on a regular basis would be great. Counterpoints could also be done from e-mails, regular mail, phone-calls, or even conversations on the street. Comments will be appreciated.
FINANCIAL MELTDOWN
People have seen their retirement savings disappear before their very eyes (on a personal note: I have a whole life policy, and yes I do know it's not a good investment, that was supposed to be worth a certain amount when I reached retirement age. It is worth less than a third of that amount today). Where are our bailouts? We are probably small enough to be allowed to fail. Only the people that caused the problem are too big to fail. Corporate greed, that is what caused the meltdown, according to the politicians and their pets in the media. Many people on the streets have taken up the chant, which is their idea of participating in the political process. Actually greed did play a very large role, but only shares the blame with something just as, or more ugly, and that is government. What actually caused the meltdown is a very, very tangled web of financial shenanigans that should have never been allowed to happen. In fact, Congress helped set the table for this financial disaster, ten years ago by passing a law, the 2000 Commodity Futures Modernization Act, that specifically denied Congress the right to oversee and regulate the financial derivatives market. This “bill was actually a rider that was stuck onto the 2000 Appropriations Bill. A year Earlier, congress had passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, which allowed the merger of banks, brokerage firms, and insurance companies. Gigantic financial institutions were the results and giants do not always play nice. Both laws were authored or co-authored by Senator Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas). It should be illuminating that both bills were enthusiastically supported by Larry Summers,Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration, and his able assistant Tim Geithner, the current Treasury Secretary. So there was “bi-partisan” support for these two bills that opened the floodgates for foolishness(?) and greed, on the part of financial executives. It should be noted that Wall Street Banks spent some $5 billion on lobbying for these bills. In an aside, there are two words mentioned in the preceding paragraphs that are of special significance. The term modernization, is best understood as meaning, throw out the laws based on painful lessons learned from the past (the law against derivative trading was a result of damage from the Panic of 1907). Bipartisan means that two different groups of people who, as a rule, place the interest of the people last, have agreed on something. It would be wise to duck when hearing either word. It would be wiser still, to do some serious questioning. The “derivatives” (specifically, credit default swaps) mentioned above, are similar to the bets made with a sports bookie. Neither the person selling these derivatives nor the bookie, is required to keep on hand, the assets required to pay off the winners who bet against the house. One has turned out to be a bit more serious than the other. If the bookie got caught short he would leave town or maybe wind-up with a new pair of cement shoes. The derivative trader, on the other hand, may just come out of his little problem, filthy rich (emphasis on filthy). An example of one such lucky fellow would be Joseph Cassano, who worked for AIG, in London, as head of their Financial Products Group. As head of this group, Mr. Cassano was busy selling financial products called credit default swaps. The bets being made were on whether or not people who held mortgages on their homes would default on those loans. It appears that several other financial institutions felt that the loans in question would go into default. As it turns out, they did indeed. The housing market finally taking a dive, combined with astronomical energy costs, put many mortgage-holders in a bind from which they could not escape. Our Mr. Cassano had, unfortunately, for AIG and American taxpayers, taken the position that the homeowners would not default. His cash shortfall was roughly half a trillion dollars (500 billion), which in some circles would be considered a serious screw-up. There was, however, a two million dollar fund in the bank to cover those losses. After this earth-shaking loss, Mr Cassano, was asked to retire by AIG. In the eight years that he was the head of the Financial Products Group, he took home 280 million in salary and bonuses, 35 million a year. That is a pretty good wage for costing the company 500 billion. His contract also stipulated that he be paid a million a month, as a consulting fee, until the end of his contract year. Where was the anger of the politicians, regarding the compensation of Mr. Cassano? Everyone should remember the anger that was directed at several other AIG executives, when they were to receive their bonuses, amounting to a total of 150 million. Those bonuses were written into their contracts, which were agreed to by the very politicians who, very vehemently and later, expressed their anger at such “greed”. People's very lives were threatened by the masses who were inflamed by the rhetoric of hatred that was poured onto the heads of those executives. While the president and congress-critters, were expressing their outrage over said bonuses, AIG was very quietly paying off, what can be described as gambling debts, covering Mr. Cassano's losses. What was the media concentrating on while AIG was handing over tens and tens of billions of dollars to foreign banks and several financial institutions here in this country, why, the executive bonuses of course. Which should be the bigger story, the millions or the billions..hmmm..? And that was taxpayer money that was being given away by the dump-truck load. The above story is just one example. The meltdown involved much, much more and was decidedly more complex than can be described by one example. The intention was to show where a lot of the blame lies for this country's financial disaster. It was caused by things that Congress did and things they did not do, the stupidity and/or cupidity of the “wizards” of the financial sector, and to a certain extent the media for not being on top of this thing, and then misdirecting blame when the bubble burst. Where were the adults, when all of this crap was transpiring?
MOMMY, WHAT'S A TOXIC ASSET?
A toxic (meaning poisonous) asset would seem to be something that no one would be willing to touch. How does something become an asset if no one would, or should, touch it? One would have to go to the source of almost everything that has been poisonous to American commerce, our own government, the best government money can buy. In 1977, President Carter signed into law something called the Community Reinvestment Act. The idea, as stated above, was to allow persons, who normally would not be able, to own their own homes. According to the law, the banks were supposed to follow good banking practices, while making these loans. It is difficult to label making loans to people who are definite credit risks, as sound banking practices. The toxic assets in question, are mortgages that resulted from this legislation. The banks were required by law to loan to persons who had, historically, been unable to get a traditional mortgage (traditional in the sense that banks normally would have to believe that there was some way in which the person could make the payments). The term “ability to pay” had to be stretched quite a bit in order to make these loans. In the first 15 years of this law, there were loans made, but not all that many. It would take another act of Congress, this time during the Bush (Sr.) Administration, to really get the ball rolling. In 1992, Congress passed the Federal Housing Enterprises Regulatory Reform Act, which established finite quotas for loans to the “disadvantaged”. In the law, were penalties for not meeting those quotas, though the exact numbers were left a little vague, opening the door to all kinds of chicanery (but that”s another story). Another surge in these types of loans happened in 1999, due to demands by the Clinton Administration. Still, the amount of loans would not have amounted to very many, without a little help from a pair of quasi-government entities, quaintly called FannieMae and FreddieMac. As of 2008, Fannie and Freddie owned or guaranteed half of the U.S. $12 trillion mortgage market. With these two entities buying up or backing loans made to under-served markets, the number of such loans went through the roof. Of course a lot of these loans were made by newly created mortgage companies, who used very “creative” loan packages to get more people into their own homes. One of these companies, Countrywide, was also known to give below market loans to quite a few politicians (more about that later). The mortgages made in this manner, were part and parcel of what became know as “toxic assets”. They also would probably fall into what are called “troubled assets”, the basis of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which most people will recall was started by Henry Paulson, Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush. Who in their right mind would create an “asset” that was immediately termed toxic or troubled? The answer would be politicians, who consider scoring political points much more important then the financial health of the entire nation. Then again, would kind of person would bet a half-trillion dollars that those mortgages would continue to be paid off? Fannie and Freddie would eventually have to be bailed-out by the taxpayers. There were warnings about their financial situation years before their collapse. Concerns raised by the Bush Administration,early on, were brushed aside by many people in the Congress, most notably by Chris Dodd, Barney Frank (though Mr. Franks ongoing affair with a high-ranking official of Fannie, was dismissed as a possible reason for his views on the matter), and the entire Black Caucus. The fact that Freddie and Fannie have made campaign contributions probably had little to do with it, as well. The top recipient of campaign cash was Dodd, followed by Senators Obama and Kerry (though Sen. Obama had only three years to score his, the others had ten years). To be even-handed, the next three leading recipients were all Republicans. They got peanuts compared to what Fannie and Freddie officials made. Former Clinton Administration official, Franklin Raines, as CEO of Fannie Mae, made $90million from 1998 to 2003. Most of his money came in the form of bonuses, which were the result of cooking the books to make it appear that there were more profits than actually existed. Other employees were given huge bonuses based on the same fraudulent numbers. This is exactly like the Enron scandal, with a couple of minor differences, not nearly as much publicity (most people never heard a word about it) and no jail time for the criminals (though Raines had to cough up $24million). As a matter of fact, member of Congress were praising the work of Mr. Raines and proclaiming the Fannie and Freddie were in great shape. The question at hand is this, were the toxic assets the result of government meddling in the economy or by the greed of the private sector? Would there have been such a thing as a toxic asset, if the government had not demanded that banks make bad loans?
GLOBAL WARMING (where?)
“Global warming. It is a hoax. It is bad science. It is high-jacking of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history.” So wrote John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel. Al Gore says there is a consensus among scientists concerning global-warming, that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing the planet to get much warmer. Well, if there is a consensus, it would be that Al Gore is very wrong. “Over 650 dissenting scientists from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 231-page U.S. Senate Minority Report -- updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus”-- features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 250 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007.” (From the US Senate Comittee on Environment and Public Works) This is over 12 times the number of scientists who wrote the original IPCC report that was the basis for Al Gore's “theory”. Al Gore, in his movie, uses a graph that compares world temperature and carbon dioxide levels, to prove that carbon dioxide causes temperatures to rise. But actually when one looks at the graph a little more carefully, one sees that actually rising global temperatures lead to higher levels of carbon dioxide and that there is an 800 year lag in the increase. So there is no history of carbon dioxide causing global warming. The truth is, water vapor causes 95% of global warming while carbon dioxide's effect is in the 3.6% range and of the 3.6%, only 3% of that can be attributed to man. Doing the math, man-made carbon dioxide accounts for one ten-thousandth of total climate-change. The naturally occurring climate change, which has affected this earth for billions of years, dwarfs our puny contribution by a factor of millions to one. Gore and a large number of our politicians have called for the U.S. To ratify something called the Kyoto Protocol (or Treaty), which calls for the reduction of carbon dioxide, by 30%, but only by developed countries like the U.S., Western Europe, and Japan. China is excluded, as are all other “developing” countries and, of course, the vast majority of the worlds countries which are designated as “third world”. These third world countries do have a stake in the game and guess who would pay the compensation. “We want compensation from the developed nations that are polluting the atmosphere through emission of greenhouse gas.” Hasan Mahmud, Bangladesh's State Minister for Foreign Affairs ( Philippine Star Feb. 4, 2009) A quote from Dr. S. Fred Singer (atmospheric physicist, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service): “There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures – one-twentieth of a degree by 2050.” One-twentieth of a degree, and WHY, again, is there such a rush for everyone and everything to go “green”? It could be about the polar bears. Everybody has probably seen the clip from Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, with the poor little polar bear, all alone on a little piece of ice, floating in the sea. It is an integral part of the global-warming nightmare. There is, however, one minor problem with this heart-rending portrayal, polar bear populations have been going up, not down. Canada did a survey of polar bears in their eastern Arctic region. In the Davis Strait area, the population has gone from 850 in the middle 80's to 2,100 today. That is a very inconvenient truth, Mr. Gore. Oh, one more thing, the antarctic ice-cap is actually growing not shrinking. One would have to wonder why figures in government, the media, the entertainment industry, and a great many people from the corporate world, still carry on as if global warming is reality. This contrivance of Mr. Gore has been preached in schools around the world and probably where your children attend. There were reports in England, of children being unable to sleep because of nightmares about global warming. Mr Gore is reported to have told school children in this country that they should not believe what their parents tell them if they do not believe as he does. Once again, where are the adults? Lest some of you think that the deniers of global-warming are all a bunch of right-wing whack-jobs, there is at least one environmental activist (who could not possibly be called a left-wing whack-job) who believes that we are actually entering a period of global-cooling. In the Berkeley Daily Planet (1-21-09), Steve Tabor writes that global-warming is over. He naturally assumes that this happened because people like him were able to curb our emissions of carbon dioxide enough to change the climate, even though science would seem to say that is not even remotely possible. If a possibility fits your philosophy, then it quickly changes from a possibility to reality.
WHY? And WHERE?
After reading just a sampling of the reasons why global-warming should be regarded as a hoax, there should be a question that arises. WHY? Why have so many people spent so much time and money, and possibly scientific reputations, on something that can be so easily proven fundamentally incorrect. Some of the world's great hoaxes have been perpetrated purely because of someone's perverse sense of humor. That is most likely not the case this time. At the bottom of a lot of seemingly mysterious happenings, is an old and very common denominator, money. Al Gore, who was by no means wealthy after his 2000 Presidential run, today, is worth at least a hundred million dollars. As a “senior advisor” to Google, he has gained stocks worth $30million (seriously, who wouldn't want a senior advisor who hap personally invented the internet). He also is on the board of Directors for Apple Computers, which has netted him another $10million in stock. But the real money is in trading carbon credits. He has set himself up to make a killing 9 not that he is doing that badly already) if Cap and Trade legislation passes Congress. He is already making money in Europe, where most of Europe has decided to fall in line with the Kyoto Protocol. If you wish to see a real shell-game in action, you need to take a look at the trading of carbon credits. One of Gores companies was co-founded with Henry Paulson, G. W. Bush's Treasury Secretary, who gave us the first bailout program (TARP). The really disturbing part in all of this, is that it is based on global-warming, a very shaky foundation. The kicker is, Al Gore, like so many other crusaders for causes which will “better” mankind, the talk is much more important than the walk. Gore's electric bill, at his modest 20-room house and pool-house, was 20 times the national average. Also, the zinc mine (which produces oodles of pollution) on his family's farm in Tennessee, provides him with a nice little bit of income. Why so many scientists would be on this bandwagon is hard to explain. One possibility is the effect of grant money. If grant money is plentiful for those who write articles that support global-warming and not available to, or withdrawn from those who do not, the result would not be hard to determine. In actuality this was pretty much the case. Who grants the grants? Though the advocates of this sham have changed the name from global-warming to climate-change (even through some of those thick skulls, actual temperature readings and trends were able to penetrate), the stampede to do something about “climate-change” continues. While the world goes into a cooling period, these geniuses want us to use less fossil-fuel energy. This could be a concern for those of us who like to be cool in the hot weather, warm in the cold weather, and get to work and back. Perhaps Mr Gore will invent teleportation. Another big question is WHERE is our “unbiased” media, as all of this going on? Not one reporter has doubts about the accuracy of the “science” of the global-warming mongers? How many films have been made prophesying world calamities because of man-made carbon-dioxide and how many presenting a different point of view. Al Gore got an Oscar for making a film, that is not even allowed to be shown in some places because of the inaccuracies it contains. He also garnered a nobel Peace(?) Prize. These last two sentences say quite a mouthful about the Academy and the Nobel organization.
This space could be utilized by students of our different high-school government and/or history classes, for research projects, position papers, or even debates between student groups. Our younger adults should most definitely be exposed to the issues dealt with in this paper. (editors note: this idea would be much more effective if high school Government courses were again taught to seniors, most of whom would be of voting age. The shifting of that class to grades lower than 12, was at best, misguided, at worst, idiotic. Rant off)
THE FIRST AMERICAN NEWSPAPER
Few could tell you the what, when, where, who, and why of the first American newspaper(s). They little resembled todays newspapers, but rather took the form of a political tract or pamphlet. Benjamin Franklin, one of the most intelligent and wisest (yes there is a difference) men who have ever lived, is credited with being among the American colonies' first journalists. His newspaper had no fashion, entertainment, or sports section, only an editorial page, where the opinion(s) of the editor is displayed. It seems Mr. Franklin was less than happy with the way the colonies were being governed and felt the American subjects of King George deserved better treatment. He had the bizarre notion that governments did not always act with the best interests of the citizens, or subjects, in mind. A notion that many in our country do not share, which is rather odd for the birthplace of the CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. Through Franklin's newspaper, and others, including one by Thomas Paine called Common Sense (which actually was called a pamphlet), our forefathers were stirred to action. These writers knew that if the people were given the facts about what was going on, they would surely know what to do. George Washington, our first President (it is no longer safe to assume that everyone knows that fact), once said that the American Revolution would not have been possible without these works, specifically, Common Sense. These authors and others, as well as orators, such as Patrick Henry, persuaded the American colonists that they had no choice but to violently overthrow the government imposed upon them by the King of England. Today, that option is unthinkable. What is required is a revolution in thinking, figuring out who actually is in charge of the government (hint: we the people). But thinking requires information, information about how our government is SUPPOSED to work and about how it IS working and being worked. We need another American newspaper, modeled after Franklin's, all politics, all the time.
TEA PARTY? Quote (not exact) by Thomas Jefferson: When the people fear the government there is tyranny, when the government fears the people there is freedom. You may recall hearing about something called a tea party (there was somewhere between 20 and 30 of them in Michigan, 5,000 people in Lansing, on a work day). Then again you may have heard nothing about them. The mainstream media seemed to be of two minds when deciding how to cover this story (local media did a much better job). In some cases they decided to ignore, as much as possible, these demonstrations of frustration with recent government policies, as well as the direction government has been taking for the last several decades. Perhaps if this had all been organized by Code Pink or ACORN, it would have been noticed by the big three networks. When the tea parties were given a measure of attention, it was almost exclusively negative. Some “reporters” actually verbally attacked the participants and attempted to point out the errors in their thinking. The very quotable “experts” (government and other celebrities) said that the protests were all organized by the GOP and big-money people. Nothing could be further from the truth, as both Democrats and Republicans were being held to blame for our current problems. Ms. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, called it “astro-turfing” (manufactured grass-roots activism) and who would know more about such things. One of our political parties has consistently used staged and financed “protests” as a reason for policy decisions, for decades. She just forgot which one. One particular celebrity and one commentator are deserving of special recognition. Jeannine Garafalo (TV star) and Anderson Cooper (CNN) were discussing the tea parties, on April 15th. Garafalo stated that the protests were not about taxes and spending, but rather a gathering of people who hate having a black President. She probably does not mingle enough with “the little people” to know that such an assessment is patently absurd. She and Mister Cooper called the protesters “a bunch of teabagging rednecks. It will be left to Mr. Cooper to define the term “teabagging”, since he would be the expert on such things (it is difficult, at times to remember who the “haters” are). The tea parties were very much a protest, a protest of a government that seems to be reaching too far and spending our and our children's future. The vast sums we are spending today, can only lead to economic disaster. The interest, alone, will equal a very substantial portion of the entire Gross National Product. This insane spending as well as intervention into the private sector has made made a large number of people more than a little nervous. The protesters were grandparents and grandchildren, business owners, laborers, and housewives, the complete spectrum of average Americans. And yes, there were some black Americans there, as well. The idea that there are no black conservatives is utter hogwash. There are at least a dozen such that the vast majority of the protesters would be very happy to have as their American President. It is only about “race” to those who profit, politically and/or financially from dividing persons by race. Close to a million people turned out for tea parties around the country. If you went to one, or know someone who went, you know the truth about the kind of people who felt it necessary to speak out. They are not the kind of people who would normally go to a demonstration and therein lies their problem. These protesters have watched their values and what they consider to be the nation's values, slipping away for the last four decades (or longer). Hopefully, the next demonstration will be much larger.
When you put a frog in boiling water, it will jump out. But if you put the frog in cooler water and slowly turn up the heat, the frog will die. (An old, old line, of which the accuracy is suspect, but it still makes a very good point)
A Declaration of Independence When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for the people to stand up to their political leaders and declare that they will no longer tolerate the destruction of the greatest form of government to have ever existed on this earth, and to restore that government to its original foundation, respect to the opinions of their fellow citizens requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to such actions
We still hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and property. That to secure these rights, our government was created, deriving it's just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever our government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right, as well as the duty, of the people to remove, by their still existing right to vote, those of our political leaders who trample the very principles upon which our government was founded. New political leaders, who possess an understanding of the term, limited government, and who have a grasp of what the Constitution actually states, need to be elected and elected at the very first opportunity.
The vast majority of people of this great nation have, historically, been slow to anger, tolerant to a fault. But present circumstances demand a large measure of anger and communicating that anger to those who have ignored the common citizen for far too long. Americans have for far too long ignored what their government has been doing and also undoing, because they have faith in the system that was given to them so long ago, by a few dedicated men, blessed with unprecedented wisdom and courage. It would be nearly impossible to list all of the actions taken by the government, in all three branches, that have eaten away at our republic and the freedoms it provides, but it is necessary that several of the reasons stirring the anger of the no longer silent majority be presented for all to hear.
The government has seriously damaged the relationship between rights and responsibilities, neither of which can exist without the other. They have made large segments of the population totally dependent upon government handouts which, by necessity, must be extracted from the productive members of society, robbing some of their self-respect (personal responsibility) and others of their property.
Through the courts, because of the lack of tort reform by the Congress, the people have been relieved of the responsibility of watching out for their own well being. No behavior is too stupid to not be financially rewarded by the rest of the population.
Also, mostly through the courts, they have taken the legitimate fear of the tyranny of the majority, and twisted it into a nearly absolute tyranny of the minority over the majority.
The government(s), through the schools, a myriad of social agencies, and through the media, have assumed the responsibility, belonging to parents, of teaching personal values to our children, which far too frequently are at odds with our own values.
They have created a tax structure that is an absolute disaster, which benefits a few and punishes the many. With a small donation to a member or members of Congress, an enterprise, industry, or even an individual can gain for themselves millions or billions in tax breaks.
Our governments, at all levels, have passed laws that prevent Americans from practicing elements of their own culture because it may make persons from other cultures uncomfortable.
They have allowed our southern border to become a joke, allowing in millions of illegal aliens (immigrants would be the term for persons who move here legally), who have overwhelmed our public service mechanisms and driven scores of hospitals into bankruptcy.
They have mismanaged both Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. leaving both on the verge of bankruptcy.
The government has severely weakened our intelligence gathering and analyzing capabilities, by restricting who our agencies can deal with and erecting a wall of separation between the FBI and the CIA which hinders their cooperation, sometimes with very bad results.
The government has meddled in private enterprise to the point of actually destroying and/or crippling parts of, and at times whole, industries. They have been doing this for a century, though presently it appears to be magnified.
They have not allowed private enterprise to develop our petroleum resources, which are the largest in the world, causing severe damage to our economy and contributing to our current financial meltdown, as well as feeding the treasuries of terrorists.
At the same time, they have, with our tax revenue encouraged the development of alternative fuels, which have not only been proven to produce more pollution but are ridiculously expensive compared to our energy resources readily available..
The number of Congresspersons and persons who work for the executive branch who have purposefully avoided paying their taxes is far above an acceptable level, with zero being the only acceptable number.
Some members of Congress and Federal judges have wandered from their oaths of office so far as to have cited foreign law as the basis for their decision-making.
The present administration has 16 czars, persons in absolute control of specific parts of the government or economy, who answer to no one but the President himself. Even the longest serving Democrat in Congress has called these appointments unconstitutional.
They have moved the respectability for the census from a politically neutral government organ, into the office of the President, which can be the most political place on the planet. The census can very easily be abused to further consolidate power in the White House.
In its first year, the present administration will burden the country with two trillion dollars in additional debt. That is roughly $6500 for every man, woman and child, $26,000 for a family of four, and that is added to the existing debt.
They are engaged in making enemies of friendly nations and appeasing enemy nations. Though this has been done in the past, the present words and actions are noticeably more serious. The insults to England alone, are more than shameful.
Over the years the government has made its own citizens enemies, enemies of the state and of each other (the Department of Homeland Security issued a paper declaring whole categories of people as possible enemies, including returning combat troops and people with Ron Paul bumper stickers) People have come to fear the government and with good reason. Instead of uniting Americans, the government creates and then feeds from dissension among various groups.
One of their greatest crimes has been their own cynicism and the cynicism they have created in the people at large. They have been caught lying, stealing and cheating so often that the people have come to accept it as a fact of life and have given up trying to change the way their representatives conduct themselves and the nation's business.
All of these acts are deplorable enough, in and of themselves, but what is planned for the future is far more frightening. The breakneck speed being applied to the wholesale changes in the way government works, is appalling. In a few years, few will be able to recognize what once was the greatest form of government ever bestowed upon mankind. And bestowed, it was, by the truly greatest generation. We have allowed, bit, by bit, the dismantling of the American Constitution. Edmund Burke was credited with saying that all that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Which would seem to imply that we need do something and do it quickly.
What is needed is not an armed rebellion, which would be vain in both senses of the word, but a revolution in attitude. We, the most tolerant people on this earth, must refuse to tolerate any longer, the behavior of those we have chosen to be our leaders. Just as there were intolerable acts over two centuries ago, there are intolerable acts today. This seemingly mindless rush toward socialism, fascism, or whatever brand of totalitarianism we are headed for, must be stopped.
It will not be stopped by compromise, electing one or the other of our two parties, or believing that everything will work itself out in the end, because it has always seemed to, in the past. There have been several countries and empires across the centuries where this sort of thing could never happen, but it certainly did happen, and several times this century.
We can only restore this country through responsibility, our responsibility to be watchers and protesters, so that our elected officials are held to their responsibility of actually representing WE THEPEOPLE. In order to do this, we need to take back one or both of our two political parties, or form a new party. In order to accomplish that we need to stay completely informed of what has, is, and will be happening at all levels of government, at all times, disseminate that information to the people, and lead others in protest or encouragement, when deserved, of our elected officials. To this end, we the people, must dedicate our precious time, what money we can afford, and our firm belief in what was intended by the Founding Fathers and incorporated in the Constitution of the United States of America.
A Declaration of Independence
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for the people to stand up to their political leaders and declare that they will no longer tolerate the destruction of the greatest form of government to have ever existed on this earth, and to restore that government to its original foundation, respect to the opinions of their fellow citizens requires that they should declare the causes which compel them to such actions
We still hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and property. That to secure these rights, our government was created, deriving it's just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever our government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right, as well as the duty, of the people to remove, by their still existing right to vote, those of our political leaders who trample the very principles upon which our government was founded. New political leaders, who possess an understanding of the term, limited government, and who have a grasp of what the Constitution actually states, need to be elected and elected at the very first opportunity.
The vast majority of people of this great nation have, historically, been slow to anger, tolerant to a fault. But present circumstances demand a large measure of anger and communicating that anger to those who have ignored the common citizen for far too long. Americans have for far too long ignored what their government has been doing and also undoing, because they have faith in the system that was given to them so long ago, by a few dedicated men, blessed with unprecedented wisdom and courage. It would be nearly impossible to list all of the actions taken by the government, in all three branches, that have eaten away at our republic and the freedoms it provides, but it is necessary that several of the reasons stirring the anger of the no longer silent majority be presented for all to hear.
The government has seriously damaged the relationship between rights and responsibilities, neither of which can exist without the other. They have made large segments of the population totally dependent upon government handouts which, by necessity, must be extracted from the productive members of society, robbing some of their self-respect (personal responsibility) and others of their property.
Through the courts, because of the lack of tort reform by the Congress, the people have been relieved of the responsibility of watching out for their own well being. No behavior is too stupid to not be financially rewarded by the rest of the population.
Also, mostly through the courts, they have taken the legitimate fear of the tyranny of the majority, and twisted it into a nearly absolute tyranny of the minority over the majority.
The government(s), through the schools, a myriad of social agencies, and through the media, have assumed the responsibility, belonging to parents, of teaching personal values to our children, which far too frequently are at odds with our own values.
They have created a tax structure that is an absolute disaster, which benefits a few and punishes the many. With a small donation to a member or members of Congress, an enterprise, industry, or even an individual can gain for themselves millions or billions in tax breaks.
Our governments, at all levels, have passed laws that prevent Americans from practicing elements of their own culture because it may make persons from other cultures uncomfortable.
They have allowed our southern border to become a joke, allowing in millions of illegal aliens (immigrants would be the term for persons who move here legally), who have overwhelmed our public service mechanisms and driven scores of hospitals into bankruptcy.
They have mismanaged both Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. leaving both on the verge of bankruptcy.
The government has severely weakened our intelligence gathering and analyzing capabilities, by restricting who our agencies can deal with and erecting a wall of separation between the FBI and the CIA which hinders their cooperation, sometimes with very bad results.
The government has meddled in private enterprise to the point of actually destroying and/or crippling parts of, and at times whole, industries. They have been doing this for a century, though presently it appears to be magnified.
They have not allowed private enterprise to develop our petroleum resources, which are the largest in the world, causing severe damage to our economy and contributing to our current financial meltdown, as well as feeding the treasuries of terrorists.
At the same time, they have, with our tax revenue encouraged the development of alternative fuels, which have not only been proven to produce more pollution but are ridiculously expensive compared to our energy resources readily available..
The number of Congresspersons and persons who work for the executive branch who have purposefully avoided paying their taxes is far above an acceptable level, with zero being the only acceptable number.
Some members of Congress and Federal judges have wandered from their oaths of office so far as to have cited foreign law as the basis for their decision-making.
The present administration has 16 czars, persons in absolute control of specific parts of the government or economy, who answer to no one but the President himself. Even the longest serving Democrat in Congress has called these appointments unconstitutional.
They have moved the respectability for the census from a politically neutral government organ, into the office of the President, which can be the most political place on the planet. The census can very easily be abused to further consolidate power in the White House.
In its first year, the present administration will burden the country with two trillion dollars in additional debt. That is roughly $6500 for every man, woman and child, $26,000 for a family of four, and that is added to the existing debt.
They are engaged in making enemies of friendly nations and appeasing enemy nations. Though this has been done in the past, the present words and actions are noticeably more serious. The insults to England alone, are more than shameful.
Over the years the government has made its own citizens enemies, enemies of the state and of each other (the Department of Homeland Security issued a paper declaring whole categories of people as possible enemies, including returning combat troops and people with Ron Paul bumper stickers) People have come to fear the government and with good reason. Instead of uniting Americans, the government creates and then feeds from dissension among various groups.
One of their greatest crimes has been their own cynicism and the cynicism they have created in the people at large. They have been caught lying, stealing and cheating so often that the people have come to accept it as a fact of life and have given up trying to change the way their representatives conduct themselves and the nation's business.
All of these acts are deplorable enough, in and of themselves, but what is planned for the future is far more frightening. The breakneck speed being applied to the wholesale changes in the way government works, is appalling. In a few years, few will be able to recognize what once was the greatest form of government ever bestowed upon mankind. And bestowed, it was, by the truly greatest generation. We have allowed, bit, by bit, the dismantling of the American Constitution. Edmund Burke was credited with saying that all that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Which would seem to imply that we need do something and do it quickly.
What is needed is not an armed rebellion, which would be vain in both senses of the word, but a revolution in attitude. We, the most tolerant people on this earth, must refuse to tolerate any longer, the behavior of those we have chosen to be our leaders. Just as there were intolerable acts over two centuries ago, there are intolerable acts today. This seemingly mindless rush toward socialism, fascism, or whatever brand of totalitarianism we are headed for, must be stopped.
It will not be stopped by compromise, electing one or the other of our two parties, or believing that everything will work itself out in the end, because it has always seemed to, in the past. There have been several countries and empires across the centuries where this sort of thing could never happen, but it certainly did happen, and several times this century.
We can only restore this country through responsibility, our responsibility to be watchers and protesters, so that our elected officials are held to their responsibility of actually representing WE THEPEOPLE. In order to do this, we need to take back one or both of our two political parties, or form a new party. In order to accomplish that we need to stay completely informed of what has, is, and will be happening at all levels of government, at all times, disseminate that information to the people, and lead others in protest or encouragement, when deserved, of our elected officials. To this end, we the people, must dedicate our precious time, what money we can afford, and our firm belief in what was intended by the Founding Fathers and incorporated in the Constitution of the United States of America.
Sounds like a great idea, but we will have to avoid Fairness Doctrines.
Does the “Fairness Doctrine” apply to print? Our local paper is conservative. They get letters to the editor complaining about it all the time. A good, simple, one page broadsheet would be fabulous.
1. No one reads newsprint anymore.
2. No one is going to read the thousands of words you posted here, never mind on a printed page.
3. Can you write better tham Mark Steyn? People want to read short, to the point, witty essays. Not treatises.
I don’t think the fairness doctrine was made for newspapers, but the libs will add that in there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.