Democracy in a Can

Democracy in a Can

Democracy faded in America when political ideologues put party before country. Enervated by egregious forces which sought to displace American Idealism with corrupt policies the nation moved into an abyss that stifled free enterprise and will. Under “their” plan only a few would profit over the many who are subjugated by impenetrable legislative disasters. Presently taxes and health care initiatives oppress a population with a burden which gridlocks our wallets and our personal safety. In order to see the light once more cultivation of a mindset is needed to unify and not divide a nation which had eight prior years of catastrophic reign. Those who lost their way in the 2016 election are touring with a nonsensical rationale that something bad happened on that day. From this perch an intervention took place, whether divine or terrestrial, which moved us out of our stagnated environment. The swamp is being drained but the shadows of prior alligators are ever so present. There are two ends to the tunnel. Let us hope the nation moves to the end that invigorates and enlightens our future.

Mark Davis MD, platomd@gmail.com

Hayek on Implementing the "Mandate of the People"

"Yet agreement that planning is necessary, together with the inability of democratic assemblies to produce a plan, will evoke stronger and stronger demands that the government or some single individual should be given powers to act on their own responsibility. The belief is becoming more and more widespread that, if things are to get done, the responsible authorities must be freed from the fetters of democratic procedure....  Hitler did not have to destroy democracy; he merely took advantage of the decay of democracy and at the critical moment obtained the support of many to whom, though they detested Hitler, he yet seemed the only man strong enough to get things done."  --F.A. Hayek

In this section of quotes from F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom," discusses how a true agreement on what the "mandate of the people" means is actually quite elusive, but the government will feel the need to take action regardless and take steps to centrally manage the economy to fulfill the people's "mandate."

Recall that it is not the government's job to select a common end for the people.  To be free, citizens must be allowed to select their own ends ("...within these spheres the individual’s system of ends should be supreme and not subject to any dictation by others. It is this recognition of the individual as the ultimate judge of his ends, the belief that as far as possible his own views ought to govern his actions, that forms the essence of the individualist position." -- F.A. Hayek).

--Against All Enemies

(Emphasis is mine.)

"We can rely on voluntary agreement to guide the action of the state only so long as it is confined to spheres where agreement exists. But not only when the state undertakes direct control in fields where there is no such agreement is it bound to suppress individual freedom.
[...]

The people may have agreed on adopting a system of directed economy because they have been convinced that it will produce great prosperity. In the discussions leading to the decision, the goal of planning will have been described by some such term as “common welfare,” which only conceals the absence of real agreement on the ends of planning. Agreement will in fact exist only on the mechanism to be used. But it is a mechanism which can be used only for a common end; and the question of the precise goal toward which all activity is to be directed will arise as soon as the executive power has to translate the demand for a single plan into a particular plan. Then it will appear that the agreement on the desirability of planning is not supported by agreement on the ends the plan is to serve.
[...]

The inability of democratic assemblies to carry out what seems to be a clear mandate of the people will inevitably cause dissatisfaction with democratic institutions. Parliaments come to be regarded as ineffective “talking shops,” unable or incompetent to carry out the tasks for which they have been chosen. The conviction grows that if efficient planning is to be done, the direction must be “taken out of politics” and placed in the hands of experts—permanent officials or independent autonomous bodies.
[...]

The delegation of particular technical tasks to separate bodies, while a regular feature, is yet only the first step in the process whereby a democracy which embarks on planning progressively relinquishes its powers.
[...]

Yet agreement that planning is necessary, together with the inability of democratic assemblies to produce a plan, will evoke stronger and stronger demands that the government or some single individual should be given powers to act on their own responsibility. The belief is becoming more and more widespread that, if things are to get done, the responsible authorities must be freed from the fetters of democratic procedure.
[...]

It is important to remember that, for some time before 1933, Germany had reached a stage in which it had, in effect, had to be governed dictatorially....
Hitler did not have to destroy democracy; he merely took advantage of the decay of democracy and at the critical moment obtained the support of many to whom, though they detested Hitler, he yet seemed the only man strong enough to get things done."

Hayek, F. A. (2010-10-22). The Road to Serfdom (pp. 103-109). University of Chicago Press - A. Kindle Edition. 

Connect to AAE
   Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
   Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies ("Follow")
   YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/AAEnemies ("Subscribe")
Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

America: Welcome to Serfdom

"Although we had been warned by some of the greatest political thinkers of the nineteenth century, by Tocqueville and Lord Acton, that socialism means slavery, we have steadily moved in the direction of socialism. And now that we have seen a new form of slavery arise before our eyes, we have so completely forgotten the warning that it scarcely occurs to us that the two things may be connected." --F.A. Hayek

America, welcome to Serfdom!  F.A. Hayek warned us about socialism in his 1944 book "The Road to Serfdom," and now here we are.  Follow the links below to see some past posts on Hayek's wisdom regarding our current socialist state of affairs in America.

Hayek on Individualism, Social Causes (4 Nov 12)
Hayek on Planning and Democracy (3 Nov 12)
Hayek on Policies that Foster Monopolies (8 Oct 12)
Hayek on Competition (4 Oct 12)
Hayek on the Meaning of Socialism (21 Sep 12)
Hayek on Hitlerism (8 Sep 12)
Hayek on Communism and Fascism (3 Sep 12)
Hayek on the Meaning of "Freedom" (20 Aug 12)
Hayek on the Decline of Classic Liberalism (18 Aug 12)
Hayek on Individualism (22 Jul 12)
Hayek's Warning: Socialism Means Slavery (18 Jul 12)
Hayek on National Socialism (16 Jul 12)
F.A. Hayek: The Road to Serfdom (7 Jul 12)

--Against All Enemies

Against All Enemies Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies (Click "Like")
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.

Smart economic policies push states to top of business-friendly list

 

Commentary by James H. Shott

“Regulation and litigation are the bane of business,” according to CNBC in its 2012 America’s Top State for Business survey. “Sure, some of each is inevitable. But we graded the states on the perceived ‘friendliness’ of their legal and regulatory frameworks to business.”

While some states, counties and municipalities are friendly to businesses, others employ policies that drive them away. Among states, Texas and California epitomize these two extremes. With its free-market economic reforms of the last several years Texas has created more than 410,000 jobs since the recession began in 2007, while California has lost nearly 900,000 over that same period. Once again, Texas tops the CNBC list, the third time in five years, besting last year’s winner, Virginia, which dropped to third place.

If a state wants to create jobs, what should its governor and legislature do? Well, they could seek the wisdom of a professor of sociology, a police officer, or a pathologist, an NBA star, or a Nobel Laureate in physics, all knowledgeable people in their field. But to find out how to encourage job creation, you might get the most useful information from employers about what they look for in choosing a suitable environment in which to operate, and then make the state’s environment as close to what they told you as possible.

This common sense prescription desperately needs to be applied at the federal level, where anti-business policies that have kept the United States in recession-like conditions for the last 41 months thrive. Perhaps someone in a position of power in Washington will take notice of how states work to attract or repel business and it will serve as a wake-up call, although recent history argues strongly against that happening.

In answer to the question of how to create jobs, one CEO told Chief Executive Magazine the following: “Do not overtax business. Make sure your tax scheme does not drive business to another state,” he said. “Have a regulatory environment and regulators that encourage good business—not one that punishes businesses for minor infractions. Good employment laws help too. Let companies decide what benefits and terms will attract and keep the quality of employee they need. Rules that make it hard, if not impossible, to separate from a non-productive employee make companies fearful to hire or locate in a state.”

Businesses also seek an environment with consistent policies and regulations that allow them to plan for a significant period into the future, as well as an overall positive attitude toward business and a productive work ethic among its population.

None of that seems particularly radical, and in fact seems very logical. It just makes sense to keep taxes and regulations from impeding job creation, and during times of high unemployment to at least relax those that get in the way. Destructive federal policies have been in effect and stifling job creation throughout President Barack Obama’s term. In February 2009 the unemployment rate shot through the 8.0 percent barrier that the president assured us would never be breached, and it remains above that mark today.

The top five business friendly states in the CNBC survey are: Texas, Utah, Virginia, North Carolina, and North Dakota, while the bottom five are: Mississippi, Alaska, West Virginia, Hawaii, and finishing last, Rhode Island.

Most of the highest ranking states share features like lower tax burdens, governments more amenable to allowing economic growth, little or no union labor, and, as it turns out, state governments dominated by Republicans.

Of the top 10 states in the survey, seven have both Republican governors and legislatures, and of the bottom 10 states, six have Democrat governors and legislatures. Of the top ten states, only two have Democrat governors and in the top 20 there are only five Democrat governors.

It is also worth noting that Republican leaders in the high ranking states support economic policies that mirror the national Republican platform.

Obviously, facts illustrating which political party has policies that generally foster a better job creating environment will not please Democrats, but it is what it is. Of course, policies that promote a positive business environment are not necessarily restricted to Republicans, and Colorado’s business-friendly Democrat Governor John Hickenlooper proves the point: His state sits eighth among CNBC’s top states. It just happens that Republicans generally promote policies that encourage job creation, economic growth, and wealth creation, whereas Democrats, who adhere to liberal, or so-called “progressive,” values generally promote policies that obstruct these things.

It is not difficult to find the answer to the question, “in times of high unemployment and economic stress, which political party will be most likely to create an atmosphere that will allow the private sector to correct these problems?”

And once that answer is found, everyone who cares about creating jobs and improving the economy must vote for candidates that support policies like those adopted by the states at the top of the CNBC survey that will make it possible to improve the economy and create jobs, and finally turn Mr. Obama’s stagnated economy into a recovering economy.

Cross-posted from Observations

More federal government control has made things much better, right?

 

Commentary by James H. Shott

Most Americans probably have at best a foggy concept of the degree to which the federal government intrudes into their lives, and just how many people are paid to conduct that intrusion from dozens, perhaps hundreds, of departments, agencies, bureaus, divisions, boards and other bodies.

In March of this year the U.S. Census Bureau reported that as of March 2010, the last year for which complete data exist, there were 3,007,938 total federal employees, 2,583,768 of them working full-time, with a payroll that month of $16.2 billion.

Depending upon whom you believe, federal employees either make lots more than their private sector counterparts (according to Republicans and other small government advocates) or lots less than private sector employees (according to Democrats and federal employee union leaders). Looking at total wages and benefits, the Republicans and small government advocates are closer to right, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

A CBO report in January of this year concluded that federal employees with no more than a high school education and those with a bachelor’s degree averaged higher total compensation than their private sector counterparts by 36 percent and 15 percent, respectively. But where benefits are concerned, the lower the education level of the federal employee, the greater the disparity in paid benefits. “Average benefits for federal workers with no more than a high school diploma were 72 percent higher than for their private-sector counterparts,” while those “whose education ended in a bachelor's degree were 46 percent higher” than for similar workers in the private sector, whereas workers with “a professional degree or doctorate received roughly the same level of average benefits in both sectors.”

We euphemistically refer to federal government employees as “public servants,” but increasingly it seems that it is we who serve them. And just what is it that they are up to?

Many of them are madly creating rules and regulations with the force of law and enforcing them. Most of them were not created by Congress, the only government branch empowered to create laws, and Congress is not even specifically aware of many or most of them, except when someone writes a letter of complaint. Furthermore, all of this regulating and penalizing often occurs without oversight by anyone besides other bureaucrats.

“A man’s home is his castle” is a phrase that once represented America’s personal freedom, meaning that people enjoyed the position of rulers in their homes, and others had no right to enter without the householder's permission. That is no longer true; now, Washington is in charge.

This situation has become so perverse that attorney and author Mark Levin describes it thus: “America has become a society in which the people are wise enough to select their own leaders, but too incompetent to choose the right lightbulb.” In his brilliant book “Ameritopia: the Unmaking of America” he cites as one example of the degree to which the feds have become entangled in our day-to-day lives the government’s involvement in the food industry where “the federal budget for regulating nearly all aspects of food, from production to consumption, exceeds the entire country’s net farm income.”

And that is just for our food.

Here’s a test: Before reading further, make a list of the things in your most personal space – your home – that government at some level doesn’t regulate. It will not be an impressive or long list.

Now that you have completed the test, here are some of the things in your home about which you have little to say, courtesy of Mr. Levin: washing machines, dryers, dishwashers, dishwashing detergents, microwave ovens, toilets, showerheads, heating and cooling systems, refrigerators, freezers, furnace fans and boilers, ceiling fans, dehumidifiers, lightbulbs, certain renovations, fitness equipment, clothing, baby cribs, pacifiers, rattles and toys, marbles, latex balloons, matchbooks, bunk beds, mattresses, mattress pads, televisions, radios, cell phones, iPods, and other digital media devices, computer components, video recording devices, speakers, batteries, battery chargers, power supplies, stereo equipment, garage door openers, lawn mowers, lawn darts, pool slides, toothpaste, deodorant, dentures and virtually everything one could put in a medicine cabinet.

Things are not improving under President Barack Obama. Dr. Robert Moffit, writing for The Heritage Foundation, reports that “[s]ince President Obama took office in 2009, federal agencies have issued 75 major regulations with an annual additional cost to the economy of $38 billion. Taken altogether, the Small Business Administration last year estimated that the total cost of America’s regulatory burden reached $1.75 trillion—more than twice what Americans pay in individual income taxes,” and more than the annual budget deficits each year since 2009. And that is just from the federal government; state and local bodies also contribute.

And if it isn’t bad enough that these multitudinous rules and regulations stifle productivity and make things cost a lot more, some of them are manifestly stupid. In order to close down a business, Milwaukee, Wisconsin requires purchasing an expensive license, submitting a pile of paperwork on the inventory to be sold, and a fee based on the length of the "going out of business sale."

What has happened to the “Land of the Free” and the self-reliant spirit that made this country great?

Cross-posted from Observations

Reflections on a National Disaster

Dear US Reader:

Repealing ObamaCare will be a HUGE task for Americans. Can we do it now that the damage has been done?

There is no doubt that the Obama Regime has so damaged the US that it will take generations to repair those damages and recover. Some of the damage is permanent.

I remain of the opinion that the US will not survive another two decades as a single fifty-state entity. The differences are much too great for Americans to continue to live together in harmony as we have in the past. The wounds are too great and much too deep.

Mr. Obama has delivered on his promise to “fundamentally change America.” In his short time in office he has manage to drive a wedge between us that can never, in my opinion, be extricated.

I now reluctantly accept that Obama is a “transformational president.” The physical evidence is such that I can no longer deny it. All one has to do is look about. American went from a constitutional republic to a socialist state in just a few months under Mr. Obama’s Marxist rule.

Next time you have access to a dictionary, please look up the word “socialism.” The definition you see there will match what Obama has done to America to a “tee.” I checked several dictionaries before I used the word in the first article I wrote about the changeover in America to socialism.

Our friend and fellow blogger, Alan Caruba, has been reflecting on what has happened in America and the near impossibility of repealing ObamaCare and turning back the damage Obama and his minions have done to the once great constitutional republic called America. It is a sobering, thoughtful article, which will certainly have you mulling over what it means to have lost the freedom America has enjoyed since we gained our freedom from Great Britain. It is a must read for every American worried about the future of America. You will find Mr. Caruba’s piece directly below.

J. D. Longstreet

******************

Reflections on a National Disaster
By Alan Caruba
**********************
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There never was a democracy that did not commit suicide.” -- John Adams (1835-1826)

There is no question in my mind that I have lived long enough to see everything the nation once stood for in our own eyes and in the eyes of the world begin to disintegrate and fail.

John Adams, for those who slept through history class, was America’s second president, and one of the Founders who participated in the writing of our Constitution. If you worry about deals made behind closed doors, you are herewith reminded that the Constitution was written behind closed doors. Though the room in Philadelphia had its share of lawyers, the man who presided over the process was a soldier and farmer called George Washington. Others included farmers, physicians, and even clergymen.

Along with Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the sharpest mind among them was that of John Adams. After the ratification of the Constitution, he warned that “a Constitution of government once changed from freedom can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

The healthcare bill is freedom lost forever. I hope I am wrong, but I now doubt it will be repealed, nullified by the states, or reversed by the Supreme Court. While it is true that most constitutional scholars believe it is unconstitutional, taking and twisting the Commerce clause beyond recognition, I believe the damage has been done.

I freely admit that, before the vote, I remained hopeful that, even if enacted and signed, it could be overturned, but I am now less confident of that. In retrospect, the entitlement society that began in the depths of 1930s Great Depression and has been expanded ever since has proven to be the slow poison that will undo our constitutional system of government.

Conservatives have long warned against the excesses and delusions of liberals, but we have also seen self-identified conservatives like former President George W. Bush preside over the expansion of Medicare with a prescription program that defied any manner of funding at a time when Medicare and Social Security was known to be going broke.

In 2005, Bush did try to mend the system for the vast redistribution of wealth by campaigning to allow workers to divert some of their Social Security into private accounts as a hedge against old age and illness. When Nancy Pelosi said this was a plan to unravel public pensions, the voters decided they didn’t like that idea.

I confess I have tried in my mind to dismiss the Speaker of the House as just some lunatic, fringe advocate for liberalism run amuck, but like a lot of Republicans today, it is clear that she was underestimated (along with the Senate’s Harry Reid) for her political skills.

She engineered a political victory that has not only restored President Obama’s reputation as a leader on the domestic front, but has set in motion the destruction of America’s frail financial foundations.

Few believe that the U.S. can continue to borrow the billions necessary to maintain Social Security and Medicare. The alternative, of course, is to tax all Americans to such an extent that it destroys the middle class and drives more corporations offshore.

Speaker Pelosi eat, drank, and breathed Democrat politics from birth. Her father, Thomas D’Alesandro was a congressman and mayor of Baltimore. Her brother was also a mayor of Baltimore. She made her first public speech at age seven at her father’s swearing in ceremony.

I opened with a quote by John Adams and will close with one by Thomas Jefferson:“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”

Americans, however, have long since abandoned the principles of the Constitution, a small and limited central government, for a behemoth that now controls our very lives through a bill that vastly expands the federal government and gives it the power to intervene between our physicians and ourselves.

We have been betrayed by an insurance industry that will be happy to rid itself the high risk and costly need to provide health insurance while continuing to prosper from life, property, and other forms. We have been betrayed by the pharmaceutical companies now salivating at the prospect of future profits funded by the taxpayers. The American Medical Association supported healthcare reform; a betrayal.

Even the States, many of which now want to protect themselves from even greater unfunded mandates, have long since abandoned their sovereignty by allowing the federal government to control education, highways, environment, and a myriad of other local responsibilities.

None of the institutions of government, not the executive, not the Congress, and probably not the courts will uphold a Constitution now distorted beyond recognition. Despite the usual talk of a new revolution, of midterm elections to return power to the Republican Party, the People are essentially defenseless.

Tell me I am wrong. Then tell me why.

***************

Alan Caruba blogs daily at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/. A business and science writer, he is the founder of The National Anxiety Center.© Alan Caruba, 2010

The Return of Slavery to America!

The Return of Slavery to America!
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
*******************************

Isn't it ironic that it is a black man, an African-American, (Well, at least half African-American, anyway.) as President of the United States of America, ushering in the return of SLAVERY to America? Doesn't it just strike you as W R O N G, somehow?

Of course, it’s wrong. It doesn't make much difference who the President is when a government goes to the dogs, as the United States government has done over the past year. But it DOES make a difference when that President is leading an entire nation into slavery to HIS government!

It has been said you cannot find anyone to defend slavery -- but it is easy to find many who will defend socialism. This really puzzles me as socialism IS slavery by another name.

The Obama Regime and the so-called Democratic Party, of which he is the head, have forsaken their old political philosophy and adopted, wholesale, the philosophy of the Socialists and Marxists and Communists of the world. They call themselves "Progressives” which has been the code word, for decades, by which communists identify themselves to one another.

It was no accident, and it was not the fates, that caused the US economy to nose dive when it did. No, I am convinced it was planned. It was supposed to break the American spirit to make it easier for Obama's socialists to take over the country and ram socialism down our throats before we had a chance to react. And it almost worked. Almost.

A little less than half the country balked. We smelled a rat. Those of us, of a certain age, as they say, had seen this all before, in Hitler's Nationalist Socialist Party in Germany, in the Bolshevik revolution in what became Soviet Socialist Russia. We had seen the people worship Hitler and Lenin, and we saw the people worship Obama in the very same manner. We were not fooled for a single moment. We KNEW OBAMA WOULD LEAD THE US TO DESTRUCTION. And he is doing just that!

Socialism IS Slavery! With slavery you have NO CHOICE. With socialism you have No CHOICE. Socialism takes what you have by force. Think about it! We fought a war over this very thing! Now we are embracing it? Hell, NO! Not Me! Not Now! Not EVER! And I am not alone. I'm just one of the few making all the noise about it.

Some one has written that socialism is slavery as a government enterprise. Whoever said it was spot on!

Herbert Spencer, an English philosopher, prominent classical liberal political theorist, and sociological theorist of the Victorian era said: "All socialism involves slavery. That which fundamentally distinguishes the slave is that he labours under coercion to satisfy another's desires." Mr. Spencer was right.

It is a sorry state of affairs when the black community in America migrates back onto a plantation. However, THIS time, their white brothers and sisters, their Hispanic brothers and sisters, and their Native American brothers and sisters have joined them on the plantation. The "Big House" is the White House, which has, (gasp!) a BLACK SLAVE MASTER ensconced therein, like a king! This time it is Uncle Sam’s Plantation! How WRONG is this? How "turned-around" is this?

Of course it is wrong! This is America! The land of the free! Not quite! Make that the "Land of the FORMERLY FREE!"

The very nature of the beast (in this case the beast is Man) is freedom. There is a longing within the breast of man to be free. Ever since The Creator, Himself, instilled "free-will" into his creation, man has craved, coveted, and sought freedom, even freedom from God, his creator. Yes, man can be denied freedom, for a while, but soon he will rebel against his masters and he will do whatever it takes to secure his freedom again. Many of those who are advocates of socialism never seem to understand that. Those that DO understand it understand that socialism is slavery and their intent is to enslave their fellowman.

A very wise person once said: “The purpose of Liberty is Individual Freedom; the purpose of socialism is slavery. The two philosophies are diametrically opposed. Yet they are the only choices available to humanity. Freedom or Slavery. And if one studies slavery, e.g. U.S.S.R., China, Rumania, Albania, Cuba, Attila the Hun, you will inexorably discover the core evil of socialism.” Truer words were never spoken.

As each day passes the socialist government of the US is forging more chains to bind the American slaves. They will continue to enslave their fellowman as long as we allow it. And therein lies the key to regaining our freedom as Americans and as human beings. We have the power to stop them. The question is: Do we have the will?

The election of November 2010 will provide the answer. If the election is allowed to stand, which I have serous doubts about, then we must toss out every incumbent politician on every ballot for the US Senate and the US House of Representatives -- and -- we need to look for their sympathizers, lower down on the ballot, and toss them out, too.

We can no longer compromise our freedom by allowing those in office now to remain in office. They must go.

The next eleven months will be critical for America. America will live or die depending upon the results of the election of 2010. The America of the Founding Fathers, the America of the Constitution, cannot survive with the current crop of leaders we have in Washington today. Socialism will slowly rot the heart from America as it does all nations experimenting with it.

With every poll one thing becomes ever more clear. Americans want SMALLER government and fewer services from that government, which will, of course, result in lower taxes and less intrusion into our lives by that same government.

We can have a smaller government but we will have to fight for it. If we do not the America of 50 states will exist for a few more years, but only a few. States will begin declaring themselves independent. That is what the recent sovereignty movement among the states was all about. It is preparation for secession from the US.

Washington had better understand. There is SERIOUS disagreement between the states and the federal government. Just as my ancestors did, nearly 150 years ago, the people of the states are instructing their state legislatures to prepare, to get ready, to go it alone without assistance from the federal government. And just as Washington did, 150 years ago, Washington does not believe the American people, would turn their backs on them and form a new country of their own. Well, Washington was wrong then and Washington is wrong now. I may not live to see that day arrive, but never fear, it is on the way and Washington will be just as surprised when the first couple of states pull away as they were in the 1860's.

We can save America. But we cannot save America with the government we have now. The Socialist government America has today is a death sentence for the country. It will be a slow agonizing death. Like cancer it must be cut from the body if the body is expected to have any chance of survival.

The sooner America purges our current socialist government from our country, the sooner we can be about recovery. But -- without the purge -- America will surely die.

J. D. Longstreet

"To the Barricades!"

"To The Barricades!"
US Rogue Congress Must Be Thrown Out In 2010.
A Commentary by: J. D. Longstreet
**************************
America has now had the opportunity to see what a socialist government can do to America. We have seen the current US government -- made up of Socialists, Marxists, Communists, Progressives, and a mere sprinkling of real Democrats -- nearly cause the collapse of the greatest nation ever to grace the globe. In a matter of months they brought America to its knees in humiliation before the world. They managed to do what all of America's enemies have never been able to do. America nearly capitulated.

But, thanks to the old moss-backed conservatives in the hinterlands of the nation continuously shouting the alarm and rallying the apathetic citizenry, Americans found their spine and during the past couple of months they have been rousing their fellow Americans, lovers of freedom, to fight back. The battle was joined and those conservatives who would not bow, who would not surrender the freedom, the liberty, our forefathers fought, bled, and died to preserve for us, have managed to fight the rogue government of the US with a vigor they have not experienced in a very long time. And we must keep it up.

Much has yet to be done to roll back as much of the government intrusion into our daily lives as we possibly can. Much has yet to be done to repair the damage to the democratic representative republic done by the socialists in Washington. If we are to prevail completely, we have no time to lose. We must begin reconstruction immediately.

The most important election in the history of the United States is coming up in November of 2010. Do not be surprised if the socialist government of the United States makes a massive effort to stop the elections scheduled for November of 2010. There ARE ways to do it and I expect them to try anything they can to remain in power.

Under Article one, Section four, Clause one, of the US Constitution, the Congress has broad authority to postpone elections in the event of a national emergency situation. DO NOT KID YOURSELF: The US Congress DOES have, by statute, the power to "postpone" the elections scheduled for November 2010. The Supreme Court has already ruled on that power.

Think about it. In this era of terrorist attacks and with the national economy on the ropes, how difficult would it be to FIND a national emergency, or... God forbid... create one, in order to declare a national emergency and "postpone" the elections. For an interesting read on this question go: HERE.

We must not be deterred. We must demand that free elections in the United States be allowed to happen in November of 2010 -- and -- WE must be prepared to go to the polls in great WAVES of voters fueled with righteous indignation at the way our democratic representative republic has been shoved aside by a power hungry leftist elite bent on paving the way for the United States to join in a one world government, or global governance.

Some are saying the Democratic Party is worried because their own polling is showing they could lose 30 seats in the House of Representatives TODAY!

With 60% of the electorate against the healthcare bill the socialists in Congress are determined to pass into law OVER our protestations, is there any question the democrats stand to lose many more than 30 seats in the House? Is this impetus enough for the incumbents to begin thinking of some way to postpone the inevitable?

The American electorate has begun to stir. The sleeping tiger is twitching, and when fully awake, its roar is devastating.

Many months ago, I wrote that the one thing the democrats could be counted on to do was "overreach." NOW you see what I meant. They cannot help themselves. Their lust for power is overwhelming and they are slaves to it as much as any drug addict is a slave to the drug of his/her choice. They train much of their young lives in our leftist universities to "Make a Difference" and they emerge as the "best and the brightest" believing their own propaganda and they make it their life's work to SAVE us from ourselves by running our lives for us from the cradle to the grave. After all, THEY are smarter they we. THEY know what is good for us and what is not. How dare we question their right to dictate our lives?

They become socialists/communists but they refer to themselves as communist party members have for decades: "PROGRESSIVES."

And they have control of the US Government from the White House to both houses of the Congress. This must change or the United States cannot survive.

We conservatives must work as we have never worked before to re-claim our country. Our national legislature must, once again, truly be representative as it was meant to be.

We have roughly one year to save the republic.

Those in charge in Washington can already see the handwriting on the wall. They know they have only until next November to get their way with their socialist ideas. They will be working furiously during the next eleven months, or so, to ram through the Congress as much of their program as they possibly can. It will be up to conservatives to stop them, to bottle them up, to confuse their plans, until we can vote them out of office next November.

These are perilous times for the republic. Once made aware of the danger, my expectation is that Americans will rise to the occasion as we always have when our nation is in peril.

That Southern Gentleman, planter, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army and first President of the United States of America, George Washington, once said: “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” President Washington also said: “The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves.”

So, what is it to be fellow Americans -- free men or slaves? If we are to be free men we have one year to secure our freedom. Just one year.

J. D. Longstreet

Those greedy corporate CEOs and their absurdly high salaries

Commentary by James H. Shott

Corporate CEO salaries have been a target of criticism for a long time, and that criticism increased during the mortgage banking collapse, when bank CEOs also became targeted for doing a lousy job.

The heads of large companies do make huge salaries, as shown by this sample from the 2008 AFL-CIO CEO Pay Database: Robert A. Iger, The Walt Disney Company, $51 million; Lloyd C. Blankfein, The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., $42.9 million; Mark V. Hurd, Hewlett-Packard Company, $34 million; and Rex W. Tillerson, Exxon-Mobil Corporation, $32 million.

There are a few reasons for this criticism, including envy and not understanding how businesses work. However, some people who understand perfectly well how businesses work also think CEOs are overpaid. People wonder how CEOs can be worth multi-million dollar salaries.

The short answer is that this is America – at least for a little while longer – and people are able to make as much as they can. Businesses want the best talent they can find, and they’ll pay what they must to get the right person to run the company.

Here’s one example:

Rex Tillerson’s company, Exxon-Mobil, is the world’s largest publicly traded company, the world’s largest refiner and marketer of petroleum products and also among the world’s largest chemical companies. It provides a job for 30,000 Americans and 80,000 people worldwide.

Exxon-Mobil had total income of $477.3 billion in 2008, and spent $395.6 billion on operations and other expenses. Some of the same people who get upset with CEO pay also get upset with the amount of money Exxon-Mobil earned in 2008, and for the same reasons. The company’s profit was $45.2 billion, which is a lot of money. But considering that Exxon-Mobil had $477 billion in income, $45.2 billion really isn’t excessive; only about 8.9 percent.

The company paid taxes of approximately $120 billion, more than twice its profit, and paid its shareholders $40 billion in dividends. Mr. Tillerson was in charge of the company and responsible for its performance. He did his job well. How much is that performance worth to shareholders?

If you still think Mr. Tillerson and his fellow corporate heads are overpaid, remember that corporate CEOs are not the only ones making a lot of money, even though they are the ones whose incomes are most frequently criticized. So do professional athletes, entertainers, and TV personalities, including some news anchors.

The top five athletes last year, for example, were also highly paid, and because of their success attracted lucrative endorsements from product manufacturers: Golfer Tiger Woods earned $100 million; boxer Oscar De La Hoya, $43 million; golfer Phil Mickelson, $42 million; auto race drivers Kimi Raikkonen and Michael Schumacher, $40 million and $36 million.

Salaries in the world of entertainment also boggle the mind. Take movie actors: Matt Damon made $26 million for The Bourne Supremacy; Johnny Depp takes home $20 million per film; Nicole Kidman gets up to $17 million per film; and George Clooney routinely collects more than $15 million per film.

On television, the highest-paid person on the 2008 prime-time series list is Charlie Sheen at $825,000 an episode, and with money he gets from owning a stake in his show, he makes nearly $20 million a year. David Letterman gets $40 million annually, and American Idol’s Simon Cowell’s annual pay is $36 million.

We even see that some of the people that deliver the news have seven- and eight-figure annual salaries, like CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric at $15 million; Matt Lauer, NBC Today co-anchor, $12 million; ABC News’ Diane Sawyer makes $12 million; Meredith Vieira, NBC Today co-anchor, $10 million; NBC Nightly News anchor Brian Williams takes home $8 million, Anderson Cooper of CNN is paid $5 million; and MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann gets $4 million.

These CEOs, athletes, entertainers and news people are among the best in their respective fields. Their pay is not based entirely upon their performance, however, because some CEOs drive their companies into the ground; some athletes make horrible mistakes and lose instead of win; some movies and TV shows do not do well, despite the stars that appear in them; and news anchors often produce lousy ratings. Some high earners in every career field have notoriously bad personal problems, and some have committed crimes.

Because of the expectation of high levels of performance, these folks are in high demand, hence the high paychecks, sometimes in spite of embarrassing personal problems or criminal involvement.

Tampa Bay Rays owner Stuart Sternberg sees no problem with big salaries in sports. "People should be able to make what they make," he said. That idea applies equally to everyone in America, even CEOs.

Maybe we should make thoughtful judgments about the value of what each of these people produces. Which of them contributes the most to the society at large; which is the more valuable: a movie, a television program, a winning team or athlete, a news program or a business that provides useful products or services, jobs and that pays taxes to support government activities?

Viewed in that light, a CEO running a successful business deserves more than contempt and resentment.

Does the US have a REAL President --- or Not?

Does the US have a REAL President --- or Not?
By: J. D. Longstreet

************************

The story continues to bubble just below the surface of the consciousness of the American electorate primarily because the Mainstream Media is so deep in the tank for Obama that they refuse to cover it. But it is there, nevertheless, and eventually it is going to break through and chances are very good that it will create chaos when it does.

The question of whether or not Obama is legally qualified to even be President of the US has never been answered. Many lawsuits have been filed in an attempt to answer the question. Many have been dismissed, for one reason or the other, but many are still in the queue waiting for a ruling and eventually that ruling will come.

The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

The question that really troubles many of us is why the President doesn’t just present the evidence that he is a natural born American citizen and put it all to rest? It seems so simple. Yet, reports have it that the President has legal teams, all over the country, fighting all attempts by citizens to get to the bottom of what could turn out to be a constitutional crisis for the country. Some reports say that huge sums of money have been spent, already, just to stop the release of that birth certificate from the state of Hawaii. Why not release that certificate and put this whole thing to rest?

Obama’s reluctance to produce proof of his American citizenship certainly leads one to question a lot of things about the President. For instance: What is his real name? Was his father an African, an Arab, or a Muslim? (Find more on this
HERE.)

See, the problem here, over and above the obvious, is… this may happen again. We need to have laws that clearly describe what it means to be a natural born citizen of the US and laws that clearly delineate the steps one MUST go through in order to prove one’s eligibility to be President of the US.

Unknown to a great many Americans is the fact there is just such a movement in Congress that would require presidential candidates to verify their eligibility to hold the highest elected office in the United States --- not to mention the office of Commander-in-chief of the Armed Forces of the US. Congressman Bill Posey, a Republican of Florida, filed the bill --- HR 1503 --- an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. H.R. 1503 would "require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution." You can read up on the story HERE.

Last week, Congressman Bob Goodlatte, a Republican of Virginia, signed onto the bill. You can read the story on this HERE. The bill was referred to the US House of Representatives’ “Committee on House Administration,” where it remains. I would urge my congressman to get behind this bill and get it passed.

As we mentioned above there are numerous lawsuits still pending on this issue. At least one of those suits asked the question of whether or not the President was, indeed, born in the state of Hawaii, as he insists, or rather some place outside the United States. If it turns out he was born outside the US, Obama's American mother, would have been too young (at the time of his birth) to confer American citizenship on her son under the law at the time. (Confusing enough for you?) Still other lawsuits are looking at the possibility of conferring citizenship through Obama’s father, a Kenyan, and a British subject. That would confer dual citizenship on Obama, and, constitutional experts say the constitution does not allow anyone holding dual citizenship to be eligible to stand as a candidate for President of the United States.

There is no need for this confusion. Obama can clear the air, once and for all, by producing proof of HIS birth within the United States, in particular, the state of Hawaii. The Congress can stop this from ever happening again by passing HR 1503 and tacking it onto the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 as an amendment.

Do I think it will happen? No, I do not. Why? That’s simple enough to answer. It won’t happen because those same groups of people who form the infamous “Shadow Government” do not want it to happen.

Like many Americans, I thought the “Shadow Government” was only a creation of the conspiracy nuts. But, such stunts as this have certainly pushed me much closer to believing in the existence of a group of powerful, wealthy, families who pull the strings of governments all over the globe for their mutual benefit. Their supreme goal is Global Governance… or as we used to say: “One World Government.” The current President of the United States is a Global Governance adherent. That fact makes him one of them and, as such, his continued occupancy of the Oval Office must be assured.

J. D. Longstreet

****************

Conservative+UN+Global+Governance+Obama+Socialist

Just 100 Days To Take America From Democracy To Socialism!

Just 100 Days To Take America From Democracy To Socialism!
Obama Leads USA Onto Ash Heap Of History In Record Time!
By: J. D. Longstreet

**********************

While the Mainstream Media fawned for several days over the wonders the Messiah Obama has wrought in his first 100 days in office as the USA’s First Socialist President, we have been near to nausea! There is nothing like a leftist/ socialist President to bring out the sycophant lapdogs of The Left and have them howling in unison. And that is, I think, a good description of the MSM’s reporting on the miracles of Obama, “The One”, the past few days on all the media they control, which is darn near all the media.

The MSM reminds us so much of a child who thinks he, or she, is so much smarter than his parents… until he grows up. And they find, as a famous writer once said: “The older I get the smarter my Dad gets”! Eventually those in America’s media will grow up, but, upon adulthood they will be replaced with another group of young leftists right out of the cookie-cutter leftist journalism schools at our leftist universities and leftist colleges in America. That’s the way it works, dear reader. There is NEVER a shortage of leftist journalists because the left has factories where they are made!

The Messiah image of Obama continues to be polished and held up into the light so that it sparkles and blinds the beholders so they do not see what is behind that eye-scorching dazzle.

But, there will come a time in the not too distant future when the truth of the empty suit that is “The Obamissiah” will become evident

It is the young, the inexperienced, the ignorant, and the leftist/socialists among the American electorate who support this man. And that is frightening. Why? Because they are present in such vast numbers. To know that your country is ruled by such lightweights is a scary thing. Add to that the evidence of Obama’s efforts to move the US farther to the left, and deeper into socialism and secularism and you have a formula for disaster for this formerly great country.

Redistribution of the nation’s wealth, universal healthcare, embracing the global warming hoax, plans for nuclear disarmament, nationalization of America’s financial system and auto industry, and the list goes on. What else do you need before you will accept that Obama has taken America, in 100 days, from a democratic nation to a socialist nation? There it is.

Of course, we haven’t mentioned Obama’s request to have the “IHS” on the stage at Georgetown University’s Gaston Hall covered before he would speak there on April 14th. That, alone, should tell you all you ever need to know about the man. (For those few of you not versed in the Christian faith… “IHS” is a symbol for the name of “Christ.”) You can read the story on this and what Representative John Fleming, Republican of Louisiana had to say on the floor of the US House of Representatives at CNSNews.com HERE.

In the article, at CNSNews.com, Representative Fleming is quoted as saying: “I have a concern about the very sharp turn to socialism that’s happening in our government.” Fleming is further quoted as having said: “Where you see socialism, you see a decline in Christianity and religion in general.” The Congressman is on the money with those remarks.

America has problems today, dear reader, that makes our financial problems pale in comparison. America is on the extreme verge of losing her soul! What, you may ask, is the causation of this dilemma? LUST, POWER, and GREED. Put another way: The lust for power, and the greediness of the political left to lay claim to all of it!

One hundred days, and one man, was all it took to bring America down. The socialist/communists have always said they would bring America down from INSIDE. They have succeeded.

Joe Stalin once said: "America, is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." Soviet dictator Krushchev once said: "We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism (socialism), but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses (Incrementalism) of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism".

When you “look up” socilaism in your dictionary you will see that socialism is defined as the last stage before full blown communism. THAT’S how close we are today.

One hundred days was all it took. One hundred days.

J. D. Longstreet

*******************

Conservative+UN+Socialist+America+Patriot+Freedom

The Inherent Fallacies of Socialism

Conservatives well understand the shortcomings of socialism, and have been fighting against efforts of American liberals to move the US even closer to a socialist state.

Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher put it succinctly when she noted that “the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money,” which is how socialism works; taking from some and giving to others.

The late Dr. Adrian Rogers, a pastor and conservative writer also had some pertinent observations about socialism. Dr. Rogers enumerated four principles about socialism that are so plainly sensible that one wonders how any intelligent human being can fail to understand them. He said that:

What one person receives without working for, another person must work for but not receive.

The government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from somebody else.

When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is about the end of any nation.

You cannot multiply the wealth by dividing it.

Most, though not all, of those who support socialist principles are people who have not worked for and earned anything, and/or who feel that the world owes them something. These people have a dramatic misunderstanding of the American ideal, do not accept personal responsibility for their own lives, or lack the courage to try to succeed in life.

They seem to be a growing faction in the United States today, and will eventually be the downfall of a once great nation.

Freedom’s Dream is Not Dead! ... by J. D. Longstreet

Freedom’s Dream is Not Dead!

J. D. Longstreet

******************************

Now let’s see: Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, and yes, even Lebanon, to some degree. All these nations are on their way to becoming democratic.

So “war solves nothing”, huh? Care to rethink you position on that? I thought not. When one entrenches oneself into self doubt as deeply as the peaceniks have, it is nigh impossible to extract them. So, we will simply overlook them, as we have always done. They line the fringes of our society, anyway.

No one likes war. But, contrary to what the peaceniks tell us, war does bring change for the better. Ask the Brits, the French, the Germans the Belgium’s, the Jews…. and the list goes on. (The French may still be too arrogant to admit it, but, regardless of what they tell themselves, the remainder of the world knows they exist as a nation only because of the efforts of US and allied servicemen in two world wars.)

War changes things. The Middle East, for better or for worse, is changed forever. The US has a beachhead in the Middle East and we will be there forever. We are not going to leave. As the democracies begin to shape up, and form up, and freedom begins to spread, those who hold the dictator’s reins now will find themselves out of a job. Those who would hold the Middle East back in the 14^th century will find they, alone, are left in the past. The people are going to move on to liberty and freedom. One a people have tasted freedom. It is not possible to strip them of it again.

Now we can only hope that liberty will blossom, and bloom, in the Middle East. If it does it will be the US to thank. The US took a stand in the Middle East when the rest of the world would not. The US alone had a vision of a free people who would seek after democracy. Old Europe, now irrelevant, stood on the sidelines as history passed them by. There they will remain. What they do, or say is of no consequence to anyone but themselves. It is sad to see a continent commit suicide.

In the meantime, America marches on. Ronald Reagan’s dream of America as a great “shining city on a hill” is in deep peril with the current administration of socialists in charge both in the White House and in the Congress. Among conservative Americans, Reagan’s dream still perseveres. We conservatives still believe that Reagan’s dream is, in fact, the last hope of a world, which lost its way. We include America among those nations that have lost their way today. It is truly sad.

J. D. Longstreet

href="http://technorati.com/tag/Conservative+Democracy+Socialism+Reagan+Dream" rel="tag">Conservative+Democracy+Socialism+Reagan+Dream

The Will Of The Congress Will Be Done

~Snooper~

Harry Reid stated just the other day that the will of the Congress will be done. That sounds "Rather" definitive to me and has an air of inevitability. It is also very unconstitutional. Therefore, his very statement is grounds for impeachment proceedings against him. Where in the United States Constitution does the Senate Majority Leader get his validity and his finality of this statement "Congress will work its will"? Nancy Pelosi tries to explain it all here...

"Ever since yesterday's vote, House leaders have been in frequent communication with each other and the White House to find a plan that can win strong bipartisan approval in the House. Many Members have offered ideas to modify the emergency bill narrowly defeated yesterday, and we are discussing those recommendations.

"The Senate has made a decision about how to proceed and what can pass that body. The Senate will vote tomorrow night and the Congress will work its will.

"House Democrats remain strongly committed to a comprehensive bill that stabilizes the financial markets, restores confidence, and protects taxpayers, and we hope Congress can agree on legislation in the very near future."

Incredible. She repeated Reid's statement thereby confirming that both leaders of either House will see to it that the "will of Congress" is that which will be accomplished and not necessarily the "will of We The People". This is unacceptable by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, whether or not anyone of any moral fortitude will actually call them on this blatant unconstitutional statement remains to be seen. I fully doubt it because not only are there none in either House capable of calling them on this garbage, there are none willing to step into the lion's lair. Regardless, this needs to be taken note of, does it not? It is the very epitome of that which is wholly wrong with our "Republic". If we were a "Democracy", the issue would be a non-issue. However, we were formed and based upon a Representative from of government.

Congress is charged by our very Constitution to serve The People and not Congress. They serve IN the Congress to SERVE the people, period. We don't elect them to office to have them turn around and take over nor to make friends with each other. I don't care if they have any friends "across the aisle" or on the same side of the aisle. I care about them being "friends" with their constituents of their prosepective Districts and not those of another District.

I wrote an article on this many moons ago. Initially, it was a two-part article and was eventually tailored down into one and was posted at Digital Journal. The original two-part pieces are located here and here with the merged pieces here. The Digital Journal version is located here. As a teaser;

[...] First, there is the Trustee form. This is where the elected official, theoretically, listens to the constituents and is trusted to use their best judgments to make decisions for or, in the stead of. (not a good plan)

Second, there is the Delegate representative who votes the way their constituents would want them to vote, whether or not the representative agrees with the majority of the constituents. (majority rule)

Third, there is the Politico representative which, flip-flops between the Delegate and Trustee forms of representation, depending on the issue(s). (not a good plan) [...]

Our Founding Fathers selected the DELEGATE form of Representation but through the decades of socialist indoctrination, Congress has morphed into a merged version of the TRUSTEE and POLITICO forms of Representation which is pretty much no Representation whatsoever. This morphed form rears its ugly head as revealed in such statements made by Harry Reid and confirmed by Nancy Pelosi. My essays ended thusly;

[...] This MUST be reversed before it is too late. Should a Leftinistra (a member of the socialist liberal) gain the Throne of American politics, we will be very close to another American Civil War. I make this statement because our country has not been this split since 1861. And, look what that bred. [END]

And I am serious. Take a look around you, if you are paying attention and can turn the television off, and find out for yourself. We have not been this politically split in decades, have we? I am not trying to sound like an alarmist as others have accused me of being. Was Paul Revere an alarmist or was he merely trotting around giving folks a heads up? Don;t get me wrong...I am no Paul Revere but I recognize that something is very seriously wrong when the two most powerful leaders in the House and Senate make statements as they have and no one calls them on their idiocy.

When will enough be enough? When it is too late? If so, what then my friends? What then?

The Crypt has an interesting post and interestingly enough, The Crypt is part of Politico. How ironic is that? Behold:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) says she's voting yea despite receiving 85,000 calls against it -- out of 91,000 total calls.

Is that incredulous? No matter the WILL OF THE PEOPLE, Diane Feinstein is going to ignore her constituents.

Simply amazing. The vast majority say no to the bail-out and she is going to tell them to shut up and please the vast minority.

Where do we go from here and what do we do about it people?