There is hope for the future

Once again I will pop out of nowhere, fire off a post and return to normal life.  This time I am cheating a bit.  The following is an essay written by a student in a public high school.  There is hope that despite all efforts to indoctrinate, some students can see the truth.  Let’s call the author…….nephewkharma?  It is long but it was an assignment and I think you too will be a bit more hopeful for the next generation.

Why Deregulation Works Better Than Regulation

In his book, Arguing with Idiots, Glenn Beck writes as if he is having an ongoing conversation with a friend whom he has dubbed an idiot. One particularly amusing passage comes in his chapter about Capitalism where the idiot makes the argument, “We need a new kind of capitalism, one where the government has more control.” To which Beck responds, “Thanks for buying the book, Stalin.” While the exchange was intended for humor, it also makes a point. With that statement Beck says that there is no room for government in private enterprises and business, and he is right. While government regulation is generally harmful to the economy, deregulation provides for a much more profitable economy. There are several proofs of this. One is how regulation is harmful to the economy by restricting a company’s ability to adapt and placing hardships and financial burdens on the working class. Another proof is that deregulation brings more profits and companies to the market and is beneficial to consumers and the working class. Finally, there is proof in the fact that while the New Deal and other government programs were failures, private sectors achieved far greater success. When the facts are examined, it is hard to believe that anyone still believes in regulation of business.

The first fact to be examined is how regulation restricts a company’s ability to adapt to a changing market and to consumer needs. The airline industry is a prime example of regulatory harm to companies. This is because it has experienced complete regulation until 1978, when it was partially deregulated (Hamrin 245). While it was regulated the government controlled prices. The result was that airports couldn’t adjust prices, and the prices set by the government were too low to cover some basic maintenance costs. They had to close a few gates, which limited the number of carriers they could bring in, which cut their profits even more (“Airline Deregulation: The Concise”). Conditions would have been better if the government had allowed them to set their own prices, as will be shown. Yet the prices would not have been too high, because competition in the market would have driven them down. They would have started off initially higher than government prices, just so that the airports could cover the maintenance cost of the gates. After they had a steady income, they would have been able to open more gates. The additional gates would bring in additional carriers, bringing in more profit. Competition in the market would make them lower their prices so that consumers would choose them over their competitors, and the increased profit from the additional gates would allow them to. As previously stated, the airline industry is a great example of how regulation hurts businesses, but it is not the only example. Another prime example would be the United States housing market and the crash.

Many people say the collapse of the housing market was caused by a deregulated, free-market economy, but when the facts are examined the opposite holds true. The United States housing market was far from deregulated. The government wanted to increase home ownership to paint a better picture of the economy and the American dream, and so they began to regulate and set interest rates. (“Price”) According to economist Walter E. Williams in his paper, “The House that Uncle Sam Built,” interest rates provide potential investors with clues and signals as to whether or not to invest. When the investors saw the low-interest rates, they believed this was because the public was becoming more interested in the housing market, when in reality the rates were artificial and manufactured by the government to entice people to buy homes. Investors then made mistakes in investing in the market when public interest was not as high as they were led to believe, and these investing mistakes led to the housing crash. So it is quite apparent that if the government had left the housing market alone and allowed the economy to run the way it should, the housing market crash, which many cite as the cause of the global recession, would never have happened. Interest rates would have been based properly off of market factors, and that many investors would not have made bad investments in the market at the same time, which is what caused the crash. Rather, any poor investments would have been spread out, not doing as much damage to the market. Regulation hurts business in more ways than this, however. It also causes numerous other problems.

Among these problems is a decreased competitiveness between companies, which is essential to operating a business in a free-market economy. Once again, the airline industry is a prime example. As previously stated, airlines were very heavily regulated up to 1978. When deregulation finally came, some of the larger companies that had existed under regulations were hurt by their lack of competitiveness. Up until this point, these companies were not used to having to handle competition. The government had regulated almost everything in the industry, including prices, flight times, and carriers providing which flights. When competition came, large companies such as Braniff had no idea how to change their business plans to be competitive with smaller, more localized airlines. They had plans built around the fact that they flew at these prices at these times, and they were the only ones who flew at those times. So when smaller companies came and offered flights to the same destinations at the same time, but with lower prices or quicker routes or both, Braniff did not know how to properly adapt. Reliance upon government regulation caused Braniff and several other companies to collapse when smaller carriers entered the market (“Airline Deregulation: Lessons”). Without government regulation, these companies would not have become dependent on the government for support. They would have been able to properly adjust their plan and cost structure to compete with the smaller companies. With previous regulation taking away all competition, they had no idea how to do this, nor would they have been able to because of their business structure and cost structure. Because of this, their companies collapsed, costing many American jobs. Regulation does more than just decrease a company’s competitiveness; it also places hardships on many people.

The group most affected by government regulation is the consumers. For this example, the automobile industry is a good reference. From 1967 up to 2001, there were government regulations in the industry that mandated certain safety features, among other things. In that period of time, average cost of a vehicle rose about twenty-two thousand dollars. The mandated safety equipment was expensive, and the only way companies could compensate for costs was to raise the price of their vehicles. Now if the government hadn’t stepped in, the prices would not have gone up that high. Some argue that prices would still have risen, and although that may be true, we’ll never know for sure, but it is true that government regulations and requirements contributed to about a third of vehicle cost increases. (“Price”) So while the regulations maybe made cars a bit safer, it also placed an economic burden on the consumers. If the market had been deregulated, but people wanted safer cars, they could have opted to pay the higher price for the more expensive car. Instead, the government mandated the safety regulations and therefore indirectly took that choice away from the public. The automakers had to raise the prices, placing a burden on the consumers. Another example of how regulation places a burden on the working class can be found in the electricity industry in Texas. In 2001, the electric industry was regulated in Texas. The government deregulated the industries, and prices plunged. The average price of an electric plan in 2009 after deregulation was substantially lower than the average in 2001. Across the board in all companies and in all companies’ plans, every single rate for every plan went down (“The Success”). Obviously, the deregulation helped the market immensely. It is important to deregulate fully, as the Texas electric industry was. If an industry is only partially deregulated, there will only be partial success. Full deregulation has many benefits, as does even partial deregulation, though there is less success there.

One of these main benefits is a generally more profitable business environment, characterized by higher profits and more companies. For example, railroads were partially deregulated in 1981. As previously stated, partial deregulation will bring only partial success, but even this partial success brought a profit increase of forty-four per cent by 1984 (Hamrin, 246). After the airline industry was partially deregulated, fares have fallen twenty-five per cent. Economists say that if they continued under regulation, the fares would have fallen only three per cent. (“Airline Deregulation: Lessons”) Also, while regulated, no interstate carriers were granted permission to open, but after deregulation twenty-six new carriers opened from 1978-1988 (Hamrin, 246). The change in the railroad industry was drastic. A profit increase of forty-four per cent in only three years, and that is only under partial deregulation. Based on those numbers, the profits under full deregulation would be incredibly high. Some argue that full deregulation would mean an increase in control of the top companies, and a growth in “Big Business” but the airline industry proves quite the opposite. Rather than smaller companies being forced into bankruptcy, twenty-six new carriers were formed. Now it is apparent that deregulation is beneficial to companies, but many people are mistrustful of business in general. Deregulation does not only benefit companies, however.

Deregulation also benefits consumer and the working class. With an increased freedom for competitiveness, deregulated airlines resulted in more choices and even more services offered to consumers. Among these choices were city-pairs, which are flight direct from one city to another with no stops or connecting flights. After deregulation, there was a fifty-five per cent increase in city-pairs, which are quicker and more convenient for flyers (Hamrin 245). Obviously, quicker service and more convenience are positive aspects for consumers, and what is positive for the customer is positive also for the provider, as the customer will be more likely to return and do business again.  Many supporters of regulation say that regulation protects small business and keeps Big Business in check. This is a common misconception. In fact, the opposite holds true. In an article “Big Business and Big Government” published on the CATO institute’s website, Timothy P. Carney points out this flaw in thinking. He writes, “The facts point in an entirely different direction . . . Enron was a tireless advocate of strict global energy regulations supported by environmentalists. Enron also used its influence in Washington to keep laissez-faire bureaucrats off the federal commissions that regulate the energy industry.” Enron would not try to keep laissez-faire politicians off of federal commissions if deregulation increased its control over the business. So clearly, it must be that deregulation threatens its power. Carney goes on to explain that newer, smaller business cannot keep up financially with all the government regulations, whereas big businesses have the resources to easily afford whatever regulations the government puts in place. They use government regulations to keep their smaller competitors one step behind and struggling financially under the burden of the regulations, which usually are not quite big enough to do any real damage to big business (“Big Business”). It is not good for consumers or for an economy to have the majority of the financial power residing with a group of large corporations. It reduces customer choices, and prices are more likely to rise, placing a burden on the people. With less competition, business can and will slowly raise their prices. This is the point of business; to make a profit. A free-market economy ensures that these prices do not go out of control. Simply put, if two companies offer the same service or good with similar quality, but one offers it a lower price, consumers will go to the company with the lower prices, forcing companies to have fair, competitive rates. With regulations and restrictions, companies are either forced to raise these prices to cover the cost of these regulations, or they have the freedom to raise them with less competition, as proved above. So it is clear that regulation ultimately ends in failure.

There is no better way to show just how and why these regulations end in failure than to examine government run economic programs such as the New Deal and other programs that amounted to nothing. According to Glenn Beck in his book Arguing with Idiots, the reason that government is ineffective in areas involving economics and business is simple. He writes:

Their motives are completely different. Private companies exist to create wealth, the          government exists (at least in theory to provide protections critical to life, liberty, and the        pursuit of happiness. Private companies closely manage expenses and ensure every dollar      has a return; the government attempts to spend every dollar it’s given and measures     returns in campaign donations and polling data.

If one disagrees that government is incompetent in the business and economics field, he or she need only look over previous regulations and programs and find the proof. During the New Deal, Roosevelt thought it would be a good idea to seize all the banks and make them close during a national “banking holiday” as it was called. After the so-called holiday, five thousand of the banks did not re-open. The majority of failed banks were in states with unit banking laws, which forbade a bank from opening new branches to lessen risk. Now this could be circumstantial, but further evidence proves otherwise. In Canada, there were no such laws, and banks could feel free to open new branches wherever and whenever they like. The number of bank failures in Canada at this time was a grand total of zero (“Great Myths” 8). The logical conclusion is that the unit banking laws caused the banks to fail. The banks were not allowed to open new branches, so when there was an opportunity to make more profits in another area, they were unable to seize that opportunity. Obviously, these banks needed the extra profit badly, or they would not have failed. In Canada these banks could open new branches when they got into financial troubles, and the new revenue could save their company. So it is clearly established that government regulation and government programs ultimately end in little or no success.

In contrast, private sectors have achieved far greater success. When hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, both government agencies and private charities rushed to help. The government also put forth numerous recovery plans. The majority of these failed miserably. For example, Ray Nagin, the mayor of New Orleans, put forth over three hundred public projects and rebuilding efforts. Almost three years later, only six were complete. Conversely, Wal-Mart was having incredible success. One hundred and twenty-six of Walmart’s stores had been severely damaged in the hurricane. Within ten days, one hundred and ten of them were up and running (Arguing). It is hard to believe those numbers. In less than two weeks, Wal-Mart had completed recovering eighty-seven per cent of its stores, while in over three years less than two percent of the government programs were completed. Obviously the private company had much better success than the government; the facts do not leave room for any interpretation. New Orleans recovery is not the only example of the government versus private companies though.

For an additional example of how private sectors achieve greater success than government-run operations, the National Center for Educational Statistics offers this interesting report. Private school students in the fourth grade outscored public school students by 14.7 points in reading, and 7.8 points in math. By the eighth grade, private school students were outperforming their public school counterparts by 18.1 points in reading and 12.3 points in math (“Comparing Private Schools”). As the students in the private school advanced through the grades, their scores over the public school students increased by 3.4 points in reading and 4.5 points in math. The longer the student remains in a private school, the more his or her scores improve. Clearly, the private-run schools provide a better education than the government-run schools. Financially, the private schools were better also. Competition in the private, less regulated sector drives efficiency and lower cost. According to that same report, the average annual cost per public school student in 1996 was $6,857. The average tuition in private schools that same year was about half that, at $3,116. Obviously, the government is doing something to raise costs that the private sectors are not. This same basic effect occurs whenever the government attempts to regulate private industries that it should not be involved in.

So it is obvious that government regulation hurts the economy, while deregulation provides for a more profitable business climate. This can be seen in the way regulation restricts companies and places financial burdens on consumers. It can be seen in how higher profits accompany deregulation and the effects of deregulation on the working class. It can be seen when government is directly compared with the private sector. The Founding Fathers drafted our Constitution with distinct goals in mind. Among these goals was the decentralization of power, keeping the federal government as far detached from citizen’s day to day lives as possible. Through regulations and restrictions, however, the federal government has inserted itself into areas it does not belong, with complete disregard for the Constitution. It is time for a change; it is time for the government to realize that the welfare of the economy is more important than its own power. Deregulation can bring many benefits to the economy where regulation can only cause more harm. It is time to deregulate, before it is too late.

The Danger Model

I was listening to the radio the other day, and caught part of an interview with a cancer specialist.  She was discussing a recent trend in cancer treatment theory and contrasting it with traditional methodology and treatment theories.

About as close as I can get to explaining it is like this.

Traditionally we look at the immune system as border guards or police, roaming looking for foreign intruders. Once found these intruders are attacked and destroyed.  The problem is with the cancer cells. Frequently they are NOT strangers, but merely healthy cells which are growing faster and more productively than those around them. They are not different.

So, a new idea has come along, something called the Danger Model. The idea here is to compare the actions more to a fire station. There the defenders are waiting, prepared to respond when a signal is received indication danger which will generate a response.

Immune cells respond to a toxin, or the contents of a ruptured killed cell and react, attacking and destroying the dangerous cells.

In the late 1800′s Dr William Coley used such a theory to treat cancer. An example of how this worked  can be found here:

On January 24, 1893, the first patient to receive Coley Vaccine^[2] was John Ficken, a sixteen-year-old boy with a massive abdominal tumor. Every few days, Coley injected his vaccine directly into the tumor mass and produced the symptoms of an infectious disease, but did not produce the disease itself. On each injection, there was a dramatic rise in body temperature and chills. The tumour gradually diminished in size. By May 1893, after four months of intensive treatment, the tumour was a fifth its original size. By August, the remains of the growth were barely perceptible.

So, why the rambling medical history? It’s a long way around to make a salien political point.  Currently we have growth of government stimulated by a cadre of politicians who have seemed no different from any others who have come along in the past. They have built upon the foundations of the past, enlarging and expanding “Leviathan” to unprecedented scope and size.

They have moved swiftly, taking the controls of our systems and begun to direct the function and output toward their own goals.  Most of the nation has simply sat and watched, as there seemed no real danger from another bunch of politicians. The liberty which past generations have prized has been trimmed, and scaled back.  The rights and freedoms so cherished have been encroached upon, while the tumor of government growth has expanded, swelling and growing sleek and thick within the skin of the once proud and healthy nation.

Gradually some have in fact, perceived a signal and slowly started to react.  But only around the margins, and only slowly, tentatively have they begun to attempt to stop the tumor cells from expanding and taking over.

What we need is clear. Somehow, some way the body politic of this nation needs to get a fever. something must happen which will start the defenders moving, moving swiftly and with purpose.

The most common hope is that these people will make a step, take some action which finally stir enough people to react and expel the cancer cells.

The problem with waiting is that while we wait, the tumor grows enormous and sleek. It draws more and more of the resources from the healthy body until  not enough strength remains to fight it off. Then the cancer metastasizes essentially taking control of the entire body.

A look at tracking polls show that 46% of Americans strongly disapprove of the current president’s actions.

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 24% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-six percent (46%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -22 (see trends).

This matches the lowest Approval Index rating yet measured for this president.

The worst performance ever. Yet still he and his party continue, acting with impunity, brazenly continuing to plunder the treasury as citizens watch. While Leviathan is feeding from the very blood of the nation, the muscles and bones which support it are being weakened and rotted.  As any cancer grows, it steals the needed resources and nutrients which the healthy tissue needs. Masquerading as part of the body, it extends its reach, feeding on the  body it is destroying from within.

Most people simply continue, going about their daily business as if there is no problem. We act as if this is merely another phase, simply a small cough which will pass. Meanwhile the tumor, which began decades ago continues to swell and pulse, threatening our  existence.  We move along with our chores, oblivious, ignoring the cries of those who see the danger.

I am not supplying answers here, just observing. But clearly somehow, something must be done. Something has to happen to waken those capable of defending the nation from the growing cancer. If we fail to react, if we allow it to continue to thrive, the killing cells will spread, taking control of, and eventually completely destroying the nation.

We have to find a way to send a danger signal that can be clearly heard, and one which will engender a strong enough response to finally and completely destroy the disease which continues to strangle our lives as it feeds and grows unchecked.

Perhaps this economic strain will act as a sort of  “Coley’s toxin”, which will cause the necessary mobilization of defenders.  Perhaps the plunder of our resources and vast deficit spending will be the signal which brings out the immune response.  Something will.  It had better happen.  We really don’t have all that much time left.

Before it is too late, we need to act.

Keep the Faith!

The Rev.

Just Watch the Right Distort Obama’s Guantanamo/al-Qaeda Remarks

Warning – This is long (for me), meandering, and quite possibly incoherent. Please do not mistake this for an official White House briefing or proposed legislation.

It is amazing to me, although I thought I was finished being shocked by the left.  I Googled the phrase “Obama’s Guantanamo/al-Qaeda remarks” and it took me 10 minutes to find the actual remarks.  I had to search Whitehouse.gov to find the text of the speech.  All that came up on Google (at least the first 2 pages – which is all my attention span will allow me to look through) was the same silly blog being reposted all over the place.  The blog was “Just Watch the Right Distort Obama’s Guantanamo/al-Qaeda Remarks”.  They claim the President was saying Guantanamo was a propaganda and recruiting tool, and that the right has begun to twist his words.  The same way the head of Homeland Security had her words twisted by being quoted?  Maybe the same way Supreme Court nominees have their words twisted, by repeating them in their entirety with contextual explanation?   Now I’ll grant them that President Obama said:

“For over seven years, we have detained hundreds of people at Guantanamo…. There is also no question that Guantanamo set back the moral authority that is America’s strongest currency in the world.  Instead of building a durable framework for the struggle against al Qaeda that drew upon our deeply held values and traditions, our government was defending positions that undermined the rule of law.  …. Meanwhile, instead of serving as a tool to counter terrorism, Guantanamo became a symbol that helped al Qaeda recruit terrorists to its cause.  Indeed, the existence of Guantanamo likely created more terrorists around the world than it ever detained.”

The problem is he said that in May, 2009.  What he said in January of 2010 was:

“But make no mistake:  We will close Guantanamo prison, which has damaged our national security interests and become a tremendous recruiting tool for al Qaeda.  In fact, that was an explicit rationale for the formation of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  And, as I’ve always said, we will do so — we will close the prison in a manner that keeps the American people safe and secure.”

Now the phrase “explicit rationale for the formation of al Qaeda” seems to my untrained ears to mean the reason they are there.  If he wanted to say Guantanamo helped them recruit or helped raise sympathy in the Islamic world, I think he would have said it like that.  You know, the way he did in May.  Both speeches do a lot to tell you his mind set in dealing with this threat.  Following the “explicit rationale” comments, he went into detail on how he will address security.  The President warns us that al Qaeda is “constantly evolving and adapting their efforts to strike us”.  The White House site also says what I hope is a typo: “As they refine our tactics, we’ll enhance our defenses”.  People tell me I am overly critical of the President on this issue, so here I am going to rush to his side.  He did not mean that al Qaeda is refining our tactics! They are not wondering into the White House, uninvited, and offering their opinions.  I mean, no one gets in there like that!  The President promises us “smarter screening and security at airports, and investing in the technologies that might have detected the kind of explosives used on Christmas”.  Well, I am willing to help my country.  I have an old laptop that is kind of slow, a little buggy, and needs an external keyboard attached to it, but it can run e-mail, a web browser, and word.  I will happily provide this 21^st Century anti-terror technology to the TSA so they can see if someone on multiple watch lists, buying a one way ticket in cash the day of the flight without a valid passport should be searched as thoroughly as I was the 3^rd time I flew round trip from Philly to Colorado Springs in the same month.

In May, he really laid down the gauntlet.  In that speech he stated “We are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates”.  Hoo-rah! (Can’t you just hear R. Lee screaming that out maggot?) He followed it up with the caution on how to prosecute this war.  “But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability.”  Hoo-hah!

I don’t recall FDR demanding lawyers and checks and balances to combat the Nazi threat.  I do not recall a stirring speech to Congress promising to bring Admiral Yamamoto to justice.  I have spoken to many WWII vets, none of whom have ever issued a Miranda warning on the battlefield. But wait, he leans on some quasi historical precedent.  “…the decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable — a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions…” .  Can anyone tell me what war the US waged with a reliance on “our legal traditions and time-tested institutions”?  The American Revoloution? No.  Civil War? Hmmmm, nope.  Either World War?  Don’t think so.  Wait!  I have it.  The closest we came was in Vietnam.  That’s the model we want to follow, right?

Well, if that didn’t strike fear in the hearts of our enemies, they did it today.  They revoked the Visa of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the man who tried to blow up 300 people on Christmas day.  12 days later, they revoked his visa.  The Administration is sending a STRONG Clear statement!  If you are a failed terrorist, we don’t want you here!  And Gitmo, which of course is the main reason that al-Qaeda flourishes on the Arabian Peninsula, will ABSOLUTELY be closed!  Sometime.  Soon.  Probably. We think, just don’t send them to Yemen.  Or to Illinois because we can’t afford to buy lights and a new fence at the vacant state prison – fiscal responsibility is part of the new change in Washington remember!

Now there are some who will point to the cooperation of the Yemen government as evidence that Obama is gaining support around the world.  It might seem like the approach to this as a legal issue and closure of Gitmo has garnered support in the Middle East.  However, let’s take a deeper look.  Since 2001, US military, not prosecutors, have driven the Taliban into the mountains.  They have ripped Saddam from power and wrought havoc on the terror organizations that attempted to move into Iraq.  The war was pushed away from our shores and towards the heart of Islamofascism.  But why the sudden support of Yemen?  There has also been support of the Saudis, who have launched air strikes against al-Qaeda on the Saudi/Yemeni border.  In August of 2009, for the first time in decades, there was an attempted assassination of a member of the Saudi Royal Family.  Al-Qaeda sent a suicide bomber tried to kill Prince Muhammad bin Nayef, assistant interior minister for security affairs, in his palace in Jeddah.  Somehow I think this is far more likely to cause Saudi and Yemeni cooperation than a guarantee that someday Gitmo will close and the threat to deport every failed terrorist.

BTW – if anyone is still reading this, I feel sorry for you but wanted you to know one more thing.  The reason I gave it the title I did was to hopefully get it in the mix of those other brain dead blogs that made me go on this rant.  Have a nice day and go J-E-T-S-Jets Jets JETS!!!!

Self Censorship and the Death of our culture

You all read of the killing this weekend, of a professor at Binghamton University in New York, right. It got all kinds of coverage. OK, maybe it didn’t, and that my friends is part of an increasing danger.

After all, when some random anthropology professor is killed in a ‘Senseless act of violence” it is always and everywhere front page news.  12 Action News, WBNG  has the story, described this way:

University President Lois DeFleur issued this statement about Antoun’s death earlier this evening:

“This afternoon, in an act of senseless violence, the Binghamton University community lost one of its long-time faculty members…Our hearts go out to the Antoun family and we will provide them with as much assistance as we can in this time of sorrow,” said DeFleur.

Well, once you do some digging, this is surely not a random act, nor a senseless act of violence. The professor has written about fundamentalism among Christian, Muslim, and Jewish groups. He was killed by a man named Abdulsalam Al-Zahrani. Yet nowhere do we  see any reference to this fact, which in our current world is certainly a relevant bit of information.

Atlas Shrugs blog has much detail on this.

We have a media which has become bound by political correctness and become controlled by editors and writers who simply refuse to see what is happening and are unwilling to print facts which do not fit their distorted world view.

The conflict between the world of Islamic Fascism and the desire of extremists to impose global Sharia is completely ignored by those who control the presses and broadcast studios.  This is merely one aspect of the danger we face.

Look at the events of the last few weeks and the news as reported.

We had congress slam a healthcare bill, which will guarantee government control and indebtedness for generations to come. We had our President finally stop dithering and decide on a split the difference policy in Afghanistan. We had the greatest hoax of our time exposed, and what did we see printed on the front pages of the newspapers, headline virtually every television news broadcast?

Party crashers at the Whitehouse, and a golfer who cheated on his wife and crashed his car.

We can clearly see the importance of those two items, as opposed to the stories which were ignored and/or buried.

The really sad facts underlying all this is that most Americans seem not to notice.  For a generation or more now our children have been spoon-fed an education designed to produce, not inquisitive, intelligent minds, but rather controllable easily led tools of the state.  We are told over and over that ‘diversity’ means we are all the same, and there is no preferred viewpoint. From this view, the logic says we cannot condemn those who teach, speak and act on a view which literally calls for the destruction and replacement of our entire social system, the imposition of  Sharia Law in all parts of the globe by violent and oppressive Muslim activists who hate our western values with a blinding passion.  We are told we may not say or publish statements which will ‘offend’ them, or we will face discipline in the school or workplace.

This kind of false equivalence is what enables an angry Muslim Army Major to move with impunity to proselytize his patients, then to step up and kill those he despises, while commanders up to and including the Army Secretary call for ‘understanding’ and whimper that this might hurt diversity in the military.

I am at a loss here. Our leaders in government, in the media, in business seem willing to sell out American Citizens to a world government bent on achieving economic control using lies and false climate science. Our teachers and leaders bow ( Literally bow down to foreign leaders!!!)
to those who would destroy us.

Our president insists on negotiation with nations who despise freedom, and insist they will never surrender their goals to destroy America and our allies, as with the North Koreans and the Iranians.

Time and again our nation is threatened, and time and again our media present us with another celebrity story and another episode of dancing with stars.

It is past time to react. It is past time to halt this.  We hold elections under the mistaken idea that one party is different than another, when the truth is that both parties are loyal to themselves and not to the Constitution they swear to uphold. It is time for Americans who care to take a stand.  One group which seems to be moving in the right direction is ” Get Out of Our House“. If they do what they are promising, there will be a chance to vote “None of the above’ and sweep all incumbents out of DC and start again.

Barring the creation of such a slate of candidates, I am beginning to think the alternative is simply to say “if you are in office now, I will vote for your opponent’. Vote against ANY incumbent.

Anyone else have any ideas? We need them, and we need them NOW.

I fear that without some sort of political, peaceful change soon, we may face something far worse, and far more dangerous.

Inaction is no longer an option. We must reverse the course. Failure will move us toward destruction. Either from external danger or from within from those who will grow increasingly angry with the status quo. And those extremists come from all areas of the political spectrum. There will be no clean hands on left or right if we cannot pull back from this abyss.

Keep the Faith

The Rev.

[ you may want to re-read the following posts also:

http://revkharma.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/the-corrupting-power-of-incumbency/

and

http://revkharma.wordpress.com/2009/08/17/why-is-all-this-really-being-done/ ]

Seals and Terrorists

I am sure you’ve read much about the Navy Seals being tossed overboard after a complaint from a captured terrorist.

{Editors note from Rev:Let me preface all this as speculation and guess  work, combined with some stuff I have heard from others. I have never been in any branch of the  military, and will not even begin to pretend to understand the stress these heroic people are undergoing. I have read much discussed much, and think I have a common sense understanding of much of what is happening.

I would also like to ask a favor from readers. Some of you are a bit more experienced and knowledgeable in all this than I am. If someone has information relevant to this, which supports or refutes what I have begun to put together, please let me know.  A comment will be read, and replied to, and anything with verifiable info will be greatly appreciated. What I see happening is disgusting and dangerous. This needs to be brought from the shadows and into the light of day one way or another. Thanks– The Rev.}

With some digging, and listening, some things have come to my attention.
First, this is standard practice for the bad guys. There is a physical manual which details ways to file complaints against American soldiers who capture, imprison, interrogate or transport Al Qaeda captives. It is a frequent event that once placed into a transport truck that said bad guy will attempt to slam his own face into the walls or sides of the truck in order to induce injuries which they will later claim were ‘torture’ induced. Another tactic is to jump from the moving vehicle, once again to induce physical injuries.

Also the steps of discipline when a complaint is filed are pretty solidly laid out. The Chief is first consulted, then the unit command and so on up the chain. If these guys were referred to Admiral’s Mast then one of two things are apparent.
First, what they did was wrong and blatantly violated some order or procedure, and/or someone demonstrably lied to an investigator. I am told that Seal teams respect and revere integrity, and if it comes to it, they will take the honorable course and admit.
Second possibility is that someone way up the chain moved this to Admiral’s Mast.  This is the most insidious rumor I have heard. There is some speculation that this is a pay back. Recall the pirate ship rescue, in which the Seals took out the bad guys and rescued the captive American Captain and his crew?
The story floating up is that someone on the Seal Team actually fired against ‘ROE’  in place at the time. As the end was immediately portrayed as heroic, the public face was that CinC changed orders, and directed the action, even giving the order to pull the trigger.
As there was no way to actually punish that team, admin staffers were waiting for an excuse to exact retribution against the Seals, ANY Seals, where an example could be made.This was the opportunity That’s why the process was short circuited and moved directly to Admiral’s mast.
By refusing to participate in Admiral’s Mast, which has incorrectly been described as a ‘slap on the wrist’ and requesting Court Martial, these Seals can avail themselves of all legal means to defend their actions. The ‘slap on the wrist’ provided by an Admiral’s Mast  often ends the career of those who are slapped.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Keep the Faith

The Rev

Comeback Victory or Sham?

So, it’s time to celebrate, isn’t it? The good guys scored some big hits and stole some thunder from the Omabites on election day 2009. Team Obama got beat back, and the libs  have been taught a lesson.  Time to party, to look to who won and plan to continue the winning strategy into the mid-term elections in 2010. After all the good guys came out on top!

Only there’s a flaw in all of this. Look who won and how didn’t. Sure, the Republican Party took a couple of seats from Democrat governors. But the way things are going that’s like being chased by a cheetah, and thinking you are safe when a leopard takes his place behind you. One may run faster, but either one will eventually catch you and then, lights out.

In the now infamous NY 23 house race, the Democrat Party took over a seat which was renowned as a safe republican seat for decades. Note that: ” a SAFE republican seat”.  (of course the seat was held by a democrat in 1993, but that’s a minor detail, isn’t it?) That means essentially one party rule in that district. Perhaps that’s why when Ms Dede  Scozzafava ran and called herself a Republican, the party rewarded her with nearly a million dollars in campaign funds, ignoring her liberal political stance on most issues.

As the election neared, and the Conservative Party of New York ( CPNYS) endorsed Doug Hoffman the two major parties tried their best to ignore him. As he gained ground, eventually garnering better poll results than either ‘major party’ candidate, the very liberal Scozzafava withdrew. The party of elephants then said they would support the conservative. Dede did not agree, and the one time nominee of the Republican Party of New York cast her support to the nominee of the donkey party. After having denounced him during the entire campaign, the Republicans now embraced  Hoffman. This is NOT because they embraced his positions. It was mere expediency, hoping to maintain a share of the seat to which they felt entitled. Remember, this is a “safe republican seat for decades”.

Down State, in Manhattan, the estimable billionaire Mike Bloomberg was running for a third term. Nevermind that the laws of New York City have prohibited  more than two consecutive terms for years. You see, Mr. Bloomberg could not imagine that anyone could run the city as well as he has done. Despite two separate votes in which the residents of NYC have voted to maintain a two term limit for their mayor, Bloomberg went to the city council, not the voters.  A compliant city council agreed to change the rules, and allowed Mr. Bloomberg to run again. Not by vote, but by fiat did Bloomberg get his way. Inconvenient laws are just waived away. Even the immensely popular Rudy Giuliani would not do such a thing, during the scary times after 9/11. He followed the rule of law and simply turned the office to his successor.  It is interesting to note that Bloomberg is reported to have spent more than $100 MILLION of his own money to gain this re-election.

See, the problem here is not liberal versus conservative parties, it’s not donkeys and elephants. The problem is accumulation of power and the sense that those who currently hold office are entitled to those offices. This sense of ownership betrays the entire mindset. It really doesn’t matter if you color your state ‘blue’ or ‘red’ or purple. It does not matter if you show up to speak wearing an elephant head or a donkey head during your campaign. As long as you are part of the club, you are in. Not the interests of the nation, nor the American People, the primary concern maintaining their elitist grip on power.  The two major parties are now so concerned with getting and keeping power that they will simply act in the interest of party rather than in the interest of the nation.

The secret is revealed by the results of the special election in the 23rd district of NY.  As soon as the seemingly opposed parties saw their place at the table threatened, they reacted. Actual citizens seemed on the brink of taking control of their own government. Those annoying ‘Tea Party” people were crushing the established party candidates. Only one thing to do: Dump the fake elephant,  have her endorse the donkey and at all costs, do not allow an outsider to get a place at the table. The future of the two party system is on display in New York.  The election results for NY -23 and NYC Mayor Bloomberg show the length the major parties will extend themselves to maintain their grip on the levers of political power.

I am taking a close look at an organization that seems, at first glance to have this concept in mind.  “Get Out of Our House” is a growing grass-roots organization whose entire goal is to fund and elect outsiders.  I suggest you take a look around and see what you think. I have just begun to read through, but so far I like what I see.  Please, check them out.

Please, do something. Just pay attention. We are seeing our government corrupted and the ‘Two Party system” turned into a fiction used to hold oligarchs in power. If we do nothing, we will have a government little different from that currently pretending to be a democracy in Russia.

Keep the Faith.

The Rev

The Pay Czar And Illegal Acts

So, Kenneth Feinberg is ordering steep cuts in the compensation of various bank and financial executives.  Clearly there is no constitutional foundation for this incredible power grab by the White House. Mr. Feinberg, who apparently rejects the nickname of ” Pay Czar” but not the authority of the role will use this power regardless. He claims only the highest of motives. He is trying only to recoup the bail out money given to the banks already.  He is simply a steward of taxpayer funds.

Many in all positions of the political spectrum will forgive this one time intrusion. After all, they reason, the banks DID take federal money, now they have to dance to the federal tune.

I see some problems with this. First, as many accounts have shown there was little choice on the part of most of the execs who took funds. Stories abound of the closed-door pressure meeting in which GW Bushes treasury secretary essentially forced the major banks to take money, in order not to taint only one financial institution.  Secondly there was no valid authority for the Treasury to use taxpayer money to save, and essentially buy private corporations.  All this was cloaked in a blanket of  ‘temporary emergency’ but emergency is not a valid reason to void constitutional principles.

Finally history shows us that once the federal government takes a new power it is rarely surrendered.  Using the broad and nearly limitless powers found hidden in the ‘Interstate Commerce Clause’ the federal government has taken control of vast chunks of the private economy in the name of exigent circumstances and never relinquished the shackles once placed.  Using the doctrine of Eminent Domain, much private property has essentially been taken from owners simply for the benefit of others. See for example the now infamous Kelo case. The socialists in congress now will use this as a template for future action. Once the public is shown that the government has such a power, regardless of the extra-constitutional origin of such powers, the government will simply continue to use it. Saying,  ‘ well we have done it before’ is often the only justification for future abuses.

The public at large, intentionally educated to be ignorant of constitutional principles and the proper rule of law, will simply assume that as long as it is some  ‘rich guy’s bonuses’ getting clipped  they are in no danger of it affecting them.  The history of creeping use of ill gained power shows that it will be a matter of when, not if, congress begins to extend the power to regulate the pay of private citizens compensation.

Feinberg is an abomination. His power is absolute. There is only one appeal to is rulings. And Feinberg himself hears the appeal. Unlikely that he will overrule himself.

Keep the Faith.

The Rev

Where is Tom Doniphan?

It’s been a while, and I apologize for my lapse, but I’m back, at least for now. There’s been a lot for me to think about, and I just had to hit the keys to get some thoughts out there.

In my work lately I have encountered many active duty military personnel lately. Sterling men and women who seem to shrug off the incredible danger they are facing. Most recently I had a conversation with a Marine, who had completed three tours in Iraq, including one during the siege of Faluja. He is preparing to deploy once again, this time not to the deserts but the mountains of Afghanistan.  He discusses the upcoming events as calmly as an accountant might discuss a balance sheet. However the balance will not be numbers but lives. His job is not to sort debits and credits but killers and those in need of protection. He is clearly frustrated by the intervention of bureaucracy and politics into warfare, but seems to have reconciled himself to the modern restrictions on warriors. As for me, I find it outrageous that we are on the brink of introducing Miranda warnings to the battlefield, and US Constitutional protections to battle field opponents.

I’ve been doing quite a bit of reading and thinking lately, about government, freedom and the role of the citizen in protecting liberty. There is a significant conflict right now, between those who believe that government should have the ability to do whatever it must and those who believe the sole purpose of government is to guarantee ordered liberty. Those who generally embrace limited government and maximum liberty have tended to be more civil and more calm during most of this debate. Those who embrace activist government and enforced civilization have tended to be more outspoken. Look to the Global Climate Change crowd. They have shouted and made films and staged demonstrations to push their agenda of action items. Proponents of liberty tend simply to just want to be left alone. They try to live their lives privately, with as little disturbance or offense to others as possible. There is a fundamental conflict between these viewpoints.

Those who would advance a statist agenda will simply not tolerate someone who wishes to be ‘left alone’. Such a person is a threat to those who wish to have an all encompassing state controlling every aspect of life. In order to prevent others from simply opting out from control, myriad laws and regulations are created, forming a nearly inescapable web. We are told over and over again that the legal system, as complex and dense as it is, is simply the only way to hold society together. By imposing law we impose civilization. And that civilization is the only way to ensure our survival. Legal networks and webs of regulations are not the foundation of civilization.

John Ford made a movie many years ago(1962), which brought John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart together on stage.In ” The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance” Wayne plays a tough as nails man with a gun, the archetypical western man named Tom Doniphan He encounters Ransom Stoddard, an eastern lawyer after he has been attacked on the highway by a brutal gang led by Liberty Valance. Stoddard recuperates in the town of Shinbone. There he encounters Valance again, and swears to bring the dangerous man to justice, using the law, not the gun. While there he also meets Hallie who believes in his dream. She eventually transfers her love from Doniphan to Stoddard, whom she eventually marries.

Stoddard has several encounters with Valance, and eventually Valance ‘calls him out’ promising to kill him in a gunfight. Stoddard goes against his pledge, and faces off against the gunslinger. After toying with him, shooting all around him,  Valance shoots Stoddard in the arm. Finally he raises and aims, but this time he is hit, killed by the newest wild west hero, Ransom Stoddard: The man who shot Liberty Valance. Stoddard goes on to marry the girl and become the first senator from the State which emerges from the wild territory as it is settled by civilization and civilized by law.

What we learn, only at the very end of the film is that the legend is false. Stoddard did not fire the fatal shot. Tom Doniphan, foresaw the danger and hid in the shadows. He fired the fatal shot  and vanished leaving Stoddard to claim the fame and hero’s mantle.

Doniphan died alone. But he had the satisfaction of allowing the woman he loved, Hallie, to be happy, and seeing that those he wished to protect are saved from the likes of Valance.  He did as he wished, lived his life his way and survived.

The lesson cannot be more clear. Legal society can only work when real strength is behind it. We cannot simply waive legal briefs and subpoenas at violent enemies and expect them to surrender. Surely the world needs men like Ransom Stoddard to keep order and civility. The problem is that we have forgotten that we have also always needed Tom Doniphan to bring that very order and civility into a chaotic and dangerous world. Once the Wild West is tamed, the eastern lawyers can take over, but they could not step into the field until it was tamed.

Right now, we can see this very problem and the lack of understanding each night on our TV screens and read it on our news sources.

We have leaders who insist that if only we get one more international tribunal, or multilateral communiqué we can conquer those who mean to destroy our civilization. Our nations are being led by an array of Ransom Stoddards  who are attempting to face down an even greater array of Liberty Valances. Only problem is there seems to be no Tom Doniphan hiding in the shadows this time. The Stoddards have driven him away, and this time unless somehow Stoddard learns to shoot Valance may just be able to shoot first. And he doesn’t miss twice.

We managed to defeat Germany and Japan in less than five years. This was NOT done with long legal memoranda. It was accomplished by firebombing Dresden, Berlin and Tokyo. It was accomplished by dropping not just one but  TWO nuclear bombs in the Japanese Empire. It was done through the death of more than four hundred thousand Russian soldiers who were killed in the campaign to pacify Germany.

We are still shooting in Afghanistan eight years after they attacked and destroyed our Twin Towers and did nearly the same in the Pentagon. We have not succeeded simply because we are fighting with the legal strategies of Ransom Stoddard instead of the military tactics of Tom Doniphan.

We need to learn the lesson that we cannot  install civilization until we have defeated anarchy and chaos.  We know that America is home to thousands of Ransom Stoddards.

We have to ask, over and over:

Where is Tom Doniphan?

We need him.

Keep the Faith!

The Rev

Why Is All This REALLY Being Done?

Bailout, Cap and Trade, Stimulus,  Government take over of Auto industry, Government take over of financial services industry, Pay czar, science czar, green czar Fix the broken health care system…

Why is so much happening at once.  So many things happening, it’s tough to track all of it. So many different areas being adjusted, tweaked, tinkered with.

Remember the campaign rhetoric of then Senator Obama? We will remake America.  Just how is he planning that? Look to all his agenda items, and you can see just what’s going on, but if you take a few steps back you can see the pattern all this activity begins to form.

All of this is done with one main theme, a hidden framework which supports all the trinkets sparkling on Obama’s goodie tree. Liberty.

Obama and his progressive allies, from Alinsky on down are opposed to individual ordered liberty.  By offering to have the government ‘take care’ of the needs of so many troubled Americans, he will help you right into ordered slavery.

Liberty is about individual freedom, but it is also about individual responsibility. When you surrender the responsibility to care for your medical needs, you surrender the liberty to do so also.  You give some government system the authority to decide what is good for you, and you give up the right to say that for yourself.

A perfect illustration of this would be what has happened to the care of the needy. In days past, local communities would band together, Helping neighbors, or providing for those who had been hit by some dire event and help them out.  Think back to ‘olden times’ and the stories of ‘barn raisings’ in rural communities.  Think to church run soup kitchens, and similar operations. All this has been replaced by government run or funded systems, such as AFDC, WIC or medicaid programs. All are funded by government. As  the big government Leviathan has expanded, taking on the responsibility for such tasks, it has taken control, and individuals have provided less and less for their own neighbors. Taxes, taken by force ( Do you think if you said, ‘no thanks’ the IRS would go away) from every productive citizen are allocated by bureaucrats to those deemed needy by the government. There is no choice, no liberty no individual participation or responsibility permitted. Assistance is allocated simply according to government regulations. This has of course, freed  those who so choose to say ” my money is already used to help, so I have no need to do anything myself to help those around me.”

All of this will be compounded with more intrusion of  oppressive government into the sphere of what was previously individual liberty. Everything from exercise habits to diet will come under scrutiny from a government that provides your ‘health care’. There can be absolutely no area excluded from such a government.

None of this crisis mode thinking is about any of the individual topics which the press wants us to pay attention.  The crisis of the week is a diversion. Each new topic brings a frenzy of attention and discussion and much anger. Each new topic distracts from the big picture. These people are simply convinced that only they are smart enough to run your life. The burdens of self government and individual liberty are simply too hard for the people to handle, and so will be lifted from our shoulders and taken by the DC Government. They actually believe a ‘perfect society’ can be created if only they can have all the power and authority to decide how each day to day event should be handled. As long as the enlightened progressives can install their fascist system, they can repair and remake the world into a perfect society. Peace will reign. But remember one thing. One of the most peaceful places in the world is a cemetery.  The only peace their system can guarantee is the peace of the dead.

There are two books which I suggest you find time to read. Liberal Fascism, by Jonah Goldberg is one.  The other is Liberty and Tyranny by Mark Levin. Each of these will give a greater understanding of the history of such systemic attempts to crush liberty. Each will provide enough information to let you see clearly the true goals of all of this.  Understanding is the first step to thwarting the dangerous plans which are being implemented now. Make time to read, then make the effort to speak out to thwart this incredibly dangerous agenda.  Now is the time, now is the moment.  Don’t wait or you will be ‘cared for’ completely by your federal bureaucrats. Cared for, and controlled.

Keep the Faith!

The Rev

Why The Rush?

Among all the videos and reports of Town Hall meetings, and disruptions, and planted critics, and the whole tempest surrounding them, comes a post on YouTube of Rep Sheila Jackson Lee. The traditionally ignorant and arrogant Ms. Lee is seen, clearly having a conversation on her cell phone while a participant at her Town Hall meeting attempts to ask a question.

I’d like to break down this subject, taking Rep. Lee’s on air discussion with CNN’s Rick Sanchez as a template. There is much to see. Lee’s tactics and evasions are a perfect illustration of the tactics of incumbents in general, politicians and the Obama Administration in particular. This is how they appear responsive without, in fact, anything at all.

Many have viewed this, and regard it as typical of the attitude and actions of Congress.  Both houses are trying to rush headlong into passing some sort of legislation to change ‘the broken health care system’.  President Obama and his allies are once more repeating the mantra that this must happen now, and there is no time to waste.  When pressed for an answer or a reason there never is anything more than the empty rhetoric of the campaign, reminiscent of his nonsense phrase ” The fierce urgency of NOW!’

Watching Representative Lee is like seeing the entire mindset of these politicians laid out for review.

Watch the clip of Rich Sanchez trying to get a straight answer from Ms. Lee and see what I  mean.  At 49 seconds Sanchez asks if she thought she was rude. At 1:39 he interrupts, or attempts to, as she meanders and discusses something completely unrelated to the question.  1:45 he flatly repeats the question ” Why were you on the phone?” Ms. Lee addresses the bill, her knowledge of it, how nice she is, how nice Sanchez is, anything but the answer to the question. Pushed again she starts by saying ” Let me answer your question”. Snachez resets and then tells her it is ” impolite…wrong… rude..” to be on the phone while people are attempting to talk to you.  He then says it ‘appears that you are doing just that’. She then says ” I am so glad you said that, and implies that the video may have been ‘doctored’ (2:50). ‘ How I explain it is this: I MADE a call, I did not take one” So it may be rude to take a call, but making one is OK. Then she dodges to say she told them but they ‘may not have heard’ that she was simply trying to get a better answer. Then we see her launch into an attack against those who are upset with her actions. “…Are they concerned about health care, a robust public option…” So the problem here is not that she is rude or unconcerned with her constituents, but the problem is her critics are not good people, concerned with all the good things she wants done. And the killer line… If I offended anyone, let me say that it was through misinterpretation”.

Sanchez asks ‘ Did you apologize..” Lee begins her reply this way: what I will say to you is that… What I will say to you Rick.. No offense taken, no offense given, what I was focusing on is what America should be focusing on” Clearly the implication is that anyone who dares to challenge her is not ‘focusing on what is important to America’. And don’t miss the reference to children. No demagogic talking point is complete during this debate without referring to children in some way. And of course the ‘broken health care system’

The next killer line comes when Sanchez asks if she thinks the the tape has been doctored. She then opens again with shopworn ” Let me say this” then hits a home run in irrelevant rhetoric ” We in Congress, who believe in Democracy are not going to focus on distractions”. This from someone who has changed the subject or evaded the same question for more than four and a half minutes so far on a TV interview. The implication is that only those in Congress believe in democracy, and others are distractions. Perhaps she thinks the Town Hall participants are distractions, and that’s why she refuses to focus on them? This is followed by a preposterous claim that she ‘knows nothing about the video, and she will not comment on it”. Other than, of course to imply that it is doctored. But she knows nothing about it, right?

Sanchez presses again, why is it so hard for you to apologize for being disrespectful.  Lee replies with a whopper ( she gets more and more ridiculous as the interview plays, doesn’t she?) ” It was NOT disrespectful!” followed by the classic non apology used by so many political weasels: If offense was taken, I wish it had not been; no offense was intended.” Once more Sanchez brings the discussion back to the issue. asking if Lee thinks it’s OK to talk on the phone while someone is attempting to ask a question.

Lee responds, again, completely off topic, saying Sanchez does not want to talk about small business, or bringing down health care costs. She also plants an incredible claim that people are facing ‘ $1800 a month INCREASE in premium charges. Do the math, that would be almost $22,000 annual INCREASE — not premium, she said INCREASE!.  We see once more the incredible distortions  passed as facts by the statists here. She concludes by referring to herself in the third person: ” Sheila Jackson Lee has helped by having this town hall so people can bring their questions to me.

There is so much here that is typical of the statist mindset ruling the US Congress today. This interview, over seven minutes encapsulates much. When confronted with facts, dodge the question. When the question is repeated, change the subject and demonize your questioner ( We in Congress believe in Democracy”. When the facts are irrefutable, challenge reality ” Maybe the tape was doctored”.

When that fails, simply ignore reality and repeat the lie again and again, refusing to stop. ” Sheila Jackson Lee held this town hall and helped her constituents…” etc. etc. Lee is not by any means alone in this kind of behavior, she’s just one who got it all on tape. The business of Congress has become simply preservation of their incumbency. Anything that will protect their ample seats will be done, even if it bankrupts our nation. By the time the bills come due, they will be retired living on pensions paid by Americans who were not able to vote when they served.

In short, these people are planning to expand the power of the State at the expense of individual liberty, and will do so, regardless of the thoughts and wishes of Americans. They will do so and will lie and obfuscate while doing it. They are dangerous. They are in office, and totally insulated from any responsibility for their actions. The only way they can be stopped is by being turned out of office.

I have said it before, and will repeat: If someone is running for office as an incumbent, they should be defeated. We need to ventilate the halls of government and start over. Start with your own favorite representative in DC. The one who you say is ‘one of the good guys there’. Everyone thinks the person who represents them is ok, it’s the others who are bums. I’ve got some news for you. They are ALL part of the same corrupt system. TURN THEM OUT!!! If your rep is so good, then let him or her run the next time, and see what happens. For now TOSS THEM ALL OUT SOON!

Keep the Faith

The Rev.