Saturday, June 27, 2009

An Open Letter to Senator Harry Reid

The following letter was sent to Nevada Senator, Harry Reid. Senator Reid happens to be my Senator so please feel for me and understand my pain. I wrote this letter hoping to get a response on issues I feel are pertinent, they are not by any measure all inclusive, for the letter can only be so long. I have written to Senator Reid before and I have received only one response, which was in regard to the passing of the stimulus bill. I am not naive, nor do I think that he will take the time and respond to this letter, but if he does I will post his responses. I would love to engage my Senator in an open debate and will try to solicit such an action within the near future. I hope many of you will take the time and write your representatives, inundate them with as much correspondence as you can and remind them that 2010 is coming around. Without further ado, the open letter to Senator Reid.

Dear Senator Harry Reid,

I am sending you this correspondence because of the solicitude I have over you and your political party's incessant need to dissolve the economic and political freedoms of your constituency. I am cognizant of you and your supporters unremitting need to vociferate to any and all who dissent that the Democratic party won the election, “so get used to it.” As the two major political machines continue to strive vigorously and resolutely to abrogate individual sovereignty, disregard constitutional law, and pretermit the principles of free market economics, I cannot help but wonder, how far do you intend to go? Please do not retort with regurgitative rhetoric that insists you acquired a decaying economy from the previous administration, for we the people are fully aware of the causal agent. This answer has become tedious and mechanical, and given the surfeited features of your party's economic policies this excuse is no longer valid.

Might I impose upon you to acquiesce and address the following questions? I, in turn, promise not to be too interrogative.

At what point in your political career did you conclude that the citizenry of this country was mentally infirm and incapable of governing itself?

This question, by its nature, implies that a conclusion has been reached based on evidence sufficient to warrant governmental intercedence. Legislation has been instituted to regulate the market system, the environment, abortion, drugs, religion, sex, child discipline, marriage, and free speech. I would be remiss if I did not mention your obstreperous efforts to enact restrictive measures on the second amendment, have you forgotten what type of people live in Nevada? Let us review a little bit of your voting record;

Voted YES on recommending Constitutional ban on flag desecration (June 2006, and also in Dec 1995).

While I am not in favor of seeing the sacredness of our nation's enduring symbol violated, I am more concerning with the stifling of free expression. Do you, or have you ever, had problems with certain aspects of the First Amendment?

Voted YES on loosening restrictions on cell phone wiretapping (Oct 2001).

How do you circumscribe the parameters of individual liberty? I am sure your response will be that the aforesaid action was instigated as a form of protectionism against a greater threat to our nation's security. But the dissolution of freedom always starts with a whimper, doesn't it? There are egregious sections (some argue it completely is) within the PATRIOT ACT, I hear no outrage from you with regard to the intrusion of individual liberty and the enforcement of a police state. Respectfully, when you do speak you almost appear anesthetized and apathetic. Why?

Voted YES on prohibiting same-sex marriage in September of 1996, but in June, 2006 you voted NO on a constitutional ban of same-sex marriage.

As with most politicians, your social allegiance seems to vacillate as it interacts with the atmosphere of public opinion. So where do you stand, for or against gay marriage? Will you change your viewpoint in another 10 years?

How would you address the concerns that your party exhibits a negligent disposition towards fiscal responsibility? Since Obama became president the Democratic party has had a fixed mental attitude with predetermined interpretations and responses towards economic theory and free market capitalism. How can you justify the usage of stimulus monies on pork projects that do not provide immediate or long term benefit to stabilizing our national economy, much less our state economy? Is it your contention that the interstate rail system you fought for will become the financial antigen to our debilitative economy?

You voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security (May 2006)

You voted NO on limiting welfare for immigrants (June 1997).

Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared “sanctuary cities” (March 2008).

Do you see anything wrong with this? How do you justify enforcing taxes (legalized theft) to pay for programs that will be allocated to people who have committed an illegal act? Let me be clear and state that I am not against “legal immigration,” but to capitulate under progressive ideology and forcibly control participation via the redistribution of taxes from the legitimate portion of society is beyond reasoning. I will not go into the failure of Social Security, both of us don't have the time.

What I have provided above could be argued that when viewed collectively it is rather superfluous when compared to the entirety of your term. But as you so aptly put, “your party,” is in charge. Therefore, by employing logic affiliation has an equivalence of meaning as one tries to demarcate your course of action relative to that of your party. Or in more unsophisticated terms, guilty by association. I have never understood the following; you were elected to represent the people of Nevada in the Senate, and thus your political authority is found in the derivation of the will of the people you represent. If we consider that to be the normative aspect of representation, why do you enact, or participate in enactments, that are based on party ideology and not the will of your constituents? The true measure of your significance in office will be laden with contradiction. Will that be your legacy? Your party is resembling the Tammany Society more and more.

You have compelled obedience to a stimulus bill that the majority of Nevadans did not want.

You have imposed upon us the responsibility of being part owners of a defunct car company, an obligation we did not want.

ACORN is under investigation in Nevada from the FBI and you continue to find it necessary that they receive stimulus money, which in itself is “taxpayer money.” Is it true to say that the procurement of votes for your party is more important than adhering to the law?

If ACORN is under investigation why will they still be involved with the census? Why are they even involved in the first place? A Representative in another state suggested that the Post Office should be used to carry out the census. A very good idea, would you agree or would you rather use supposed felons?

As of this writing the National Institutes of Health is spending over $423,000 dollars of taxpayer money to conduct a study as to why men do not like to wear condoms during sex. I guess I will have to concede that there are many definitions of stimulus. Is this fiscal responsibility?

As of this writing unemployment rates in eight states hit record highs last month: California, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Florida and Georgia. Of those cited the West reported the highest jobless rate at 10.1 percent. My questions to you on this matter are as follows;

  • What are you doing to bring more jobs to Nevada?
  • What are you doing to preclude future job losses?

By raising taxes on the upper income levels will that not stifle investment opportunities and detract their capital from reaching wage earnings and spending in the private sector?

As unemployment benefits run out and there is no more money to throw at the problem, what advice do you have for the people who are jobless and penniless? Are they supposed to wait for green jobs?

As you are well aware the President pledged that he will not raise taxes on the lower and middle income Americans, however, he signed into law a 62 cent-per-pack tax increase on cigarettes. Do you know that this tax will hit the poor harder because they smoke at twice the rate of middle and higher income Americans? Additionally, your party is considering (if not already implemented) large increases in “sin” taxes. They include, beer taxes, wine taxes, and taxes on spirits. Let us not forget that you are also considering new excise taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages, so when viewed collectively, what portion of society do you think it will hurt the most? I guess someone has to pay for your party's spending.

For your consideration please view the following paragraph taken from an article found at the Cato Institute;

Higher Corporate Taxes

America has the second highest corporate income tax rate in the world and uncompetitive rules for taxing multinational companies. Yet the Obama administration plans to make matters worse by raising taxes on U.S. multinational corporations by $210 billion over 10 years to pay for health care. A corporate tax increase would damage average families because it would reduce capital investment and curb worker productivity, leading to lower wages and benefits over time. Obama’s plan would also mean fewer domestic jobs—Microsoft Corporation, for example, says that it will move U.S. jobs offshore if these tax hikes go through.”

Furthermore, your response is needed on another quote taken from the same article;

Taxing Employer-Provided Health Insurance

Employer-provided health insurance is currently not taxed under the federal income or payroll taxes. But Democrats are considering proposals to limit or repeal this tax exclusion, which could affect the 163 million people who currently have employer-based coverage.

The current exclusion is a solidly middle-class tax benefit. More than 70 percent of middle income non elderly Americans have employer-based health coverage. And about half of people with employer-based coverage have family income of less than $75,000.

Limiting the tax exclusion for employer-based health care is a good idea if it is part of a plan to shift the overall system toward market-based individual coverage. Under such a plan, individuals would get a tax deduction or credit for purchasing health insurance on their own or through an employer. The result would be that most workers would pay about the same in taxes, but health markets would be more efficient and coverage would be expanded and made more portable. John McCain proposed such a reform in the 2008 election campaign. Obama criticized the idea at the time, but he should reconsider this approach if he wants to pursue true reform with bipartisan support.”

This leads me to the conclusion of this letter. While it may appear that there is a new attitude and appeal towards limited government, let me correct this proposition by asseverating that this is not a new phenomenon, but a resuscitation of a principle long forgotten as the foundation of our Republic. I have never heard in any of your press conferences you espouse the benefits of limited government in economics and individual rights. Why is that? Do you disagree with limited government? Is it your contention that larger government is the prerequisite necessary for economic, social, judicial, and political stability? The following is a quote from you;

“...government is the only body that has any money to spend to prop up the sagging economy.”

Where does the government get its money Senator? The following quote is taken form an article I wrote, “The Failure of Keynesianism,”

To posit that a government, by infusing itself in the private sector, can act as a ballast and stabilize an infirm economy is nothing more than financial and economic illiteracy. You must understand that the government cannot generate income and purchasing power out of nothing, its true derivation is found in taxation or through the printing of money. Both forms are net negatives on the economy and true economic growth results from the production of goods and services, not from the redistribution of income. Bush's rebate checks did not effect a positive reaction nor did it increase economic output, why would Obama's plan be any different?”

May I respectfully ask for your response to this? If you do not agree, can you purvey a counter-point? Would you acknowledge the following; as the government increases the amount of tax money extracted from the populace, the less we have to spend on food, clothing, housing, transportation, and other general necessities? As the government increases the amount of tax money extracted from private businesses, the less they have to invest, expand with, develop with, as well as the accretion of wage earnings by employees (which have their own collateral effect)? Most of us know that there is a plethora of entitlement programs the government creates and sustains each year with taxpayer funds, but the people have no say with respect to their institution. One of the problems of entitlement programs is that they overlap in providing services, so taxpayers are essentially paying twice for multiple entities supplying similar services where only one is needed. Why is that Senator? Is it a response to requests from lobbyists and activist groups?

One last quote from the Cato Institute;

Every added dollar of federal spending costs the private sector more than just a dollar. Taxes cause economic distortions by changing relative prices and diverting resources into less productive uses. The costs created by those distortions are called “deadweight losses.” Economic research indicates that deadweight losses cost the economy 25 cents or more of each added dollar of federal revenue. Thus, government programs that do not create benefits at least 25 percent greater than their tax costs make no economic sense. Many academic studies have found that deadweight losses of additional taxes are much larger than 25 percent. Harvard’s Martin Feldstein concluded that “the deadweight burden caused by incremental taxation . . . may exceed one dollar per dollar of revenue raised, making the cost of incremental governmental spending more than two dollars for each dollar of government spending.” Thus, a new $1 billion NASA spacecraft could cost the private sector more than $2 billion. As the government grows larger, higher taxes reduce the rewards to work, savings, entrepreneurial activity, and business investment. Consider a working person who is considering launching a side business to earn extra income. If the government raises tax rates and dissuades her from those plans, the nation loses the added production and the innovative ideas that she could bring to the economy. As federal spending rises, taxes are pressed upward, and many such private opportunities are suppressed. It is doubtful that most federal programs create benefits as large as those of the private sector activities they displace.”

This leads to me to the important issue of the Climate Change Bill that will be making its way to the Senate. Am I wasting my time by requesting that you do not vote for this bill? As of this writing I have read that you want to take up the legislation by fall, may I ask why? Here is a quote from you, Sir;

The bill is not perfect, but it is a good product for the Senate. Working with the president and his team, I am hopeful that the Senate will be able to debate and pass bipartisan and comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation this fall.”

Members of the House willfully disregarded the need to read the bill prior to voting on it, will you even bother? Supporters of this bill agree that this will lead to higher energy costs, but cannot agree on the impact to consumers. Really? People will pay more in taxes in an economic atmosphere where most families are financially stretched thin, barely being able to keep their homes. Do you intend on breaking the backs of the American family? You state that it will create green jobs, so will the people who work in the coal, gas, and oil industries be able to switch jobs as their respective industries are decimated? Or will they have to fight for it like the millions of others out of work?

I agree Senator that the citizenry of this great country has become tractable and lethargic, but thanks to your party these do-nothingistic features are starting to dissipate. And just in time for the 2010 elections, wouldn't you say? At your earliest convenience I would like to request some incite from you regarding some, if not all, of the questions I have expressed above. I am under no illusion Sir. I understand that it is more likely that an assistant will read this letter, for I know you are busy spending taxpayer money. Nevertheless, whatever medium you choose I hope that person will cogitate and return some much needed understanding of your positions. I plan on circulating this letter in multiple avenues hoping to receive a response, as well as displaying it on my site, The Liberty Pen. Thank you for your time and I look forward to your response.


In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer, The Conservative Hideout 2.0. Take some time and look at this blog, read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Blog Interviews: Conservative Hideout 2.0

I am creating a series of blogger interviews that spotlight the blogs, the people, and the reasoning for taking to the information highway. My motives are not to illustrate my excessive regard for personal advantage, or to somehow enact subversive interests to benefit myself. I'll leave those forms of insidious mechanisms to members of the body politic. I have always tried to avoid circuitous explications on all matters relating to economic and political import. The construct of individual sovereignty intrinsically carries a sober obligation and a reminder of how frail and ethereal it can be. We have seen effluent despite emit from community activists, statists, and progressives, who regard the aforementioned as selfishness and pure rapaciousness. They have chosen, either by choice or some subnormal intellectual capacity, to disrealize individual sovereignty and follow the current cult of personality. The ensuing interviews are with people that have perspectives similar to my own, a passion for liberty and freedom, and the implicit understanding that one's own providence is a compact beyond the grasp of intrusive government. This is not to say that we completely agree on all issues, for I am sure that we do not. We do, however, agree on the important ones.

Over the past few months I have witnessed strangers come together under a common cause hoping to solicit some form of advertency from a malfeasant government. The emotive aspects are fueled by cogent arguments that seem to be too easily dismissed by sections of the media (and government), and quite disgracefully, overtly respond splenetically to all methods of discord. I am fortunate to have met people who are kind, intelligent, concerned, family oriented, funny, and above all, disturbed and frustrated at a government who has devalued its citizenry. They understand that individual sovereignty is an exercise in personal responsibility, self-actuation, and a need to manifest a destiny without governmental interference. These people are not the bogeymen the media wants us to believe.

I have asked a series of questions and the following are their responses. Up first in the series is the Conservative Hideout 2.0 blog, the proprietor of this blog is Matt and he has recently re-designed his site and has included a forum to help his fellow readers engage in intelligent debate. After reading this post please drop by and peruse his site, give his writings careful consideration and leave a comment to let him know what you think.

tLP: Hello Matt, how are you doing today?

CH2.0: I am fine Tom, how are you doing?

tLP: Great, let's begin, shall we? What is your blog about?

CH2.0: My blog is about anything Conservative, or liberal, as the case may be. Since I've decided to be very sarcastic with my content, I tend to pick stories that are "easily exploitable" in terms if humor. Fortunately for me, the left throws an abundance of soft balls. No shortage there. Also, I try to do stories that I do not see on other blogs. There are so many bloggers, it doesn't make much sense if we're all covering the story "du jour." I try to cover some different stuff, like the recent HS graduation where 400 kids defied the ACLU.

tLP: Why did you start your blog?

CH2.0: Ironically, my blog was almost an afterthought. I had been a member of the Conservative HQ forum for about a year. At one time it was great place, but eventually, it became over-run with trolls. I decided to start a site and a forum that would keep out trolls, let Conservative define our ideas, and come up with solutions to the problems we face.

That plan failed miserably.

One of my friends from college (Dr. Dave at Feed Your ADHD) was blogging so I talked to him about it, and I decided to give it a try. I wrote my first post about the stimulus, and it reminded me of a story about my wife. It was kinda funny, and I got hooked on the idea of venting my sarcasm.

tLP: What are you hoping to accomplish with your blog?

CH2.0: Several things: I hope to give people a laugh. These days, we need that. At the same time, I want to introduce people to issues in a way that is not the typical "here are the facts" format. There are people that, quite frankly, do that far better than I can. My shortfall is that I was once a fair writer (as confirmed by my English Degree holding wife), however, my 16 year career has required me to condense as much data into the fewest words possible. That has made writing long, serious posts difficult at best. Also, the blog has also become my therapy. I think my head might explode if I didn't vent my anger at the current administration, and liberalism/"progressivism" as a whole.

tLP: How are your posts received by people; good, fair, or against?

CH2.0: I have a "quirky" sense of humor. I typically have three reactions to my humor as a whole.

1. You're so funny, you should do stand up comedy!
2. I don't get it.
3. You must die!

Though some of my personal favorites have received few comments, I tend to look at the total number of comments as an indicator of how well I'm doing.

tLP: How important is your blog in today's economic and political climates?

CH2.0: There are thousands of Conservative bloggers out there. I have to be honest and say that if I quit tomorrow, the world will go on just fine without me. My blog is my little niche in the world, and I'll continue until I have a reason to quit, or the government bans it. I would like to have thousands or readers, but if that doesn't happen, I'll appreciate all the ones I do have.

tLP: Can you give us the addresses to your blog and your forum?

CH2.0: Absolutely! They are as follows; Conservative Hideout 2.0, Conservative Hideout 2.0 Blog, Conservative Hideout Forum.

I want to state that I did my due diligence and checked to see if Matt, and the Conservative Hideout 2.0 site, were on the new watch list from the government. As of today's date, he and his site are not. Next week we will have another interview ready for your enjoyment, until then, enjoy Matt's site and participate whenever you can. These truly are interesting times, and I am meeting interesting people. Thank you to Matt and Conservative Hideout 2.0 for letting me pry, it was a great experience. Until next time.


Monday, June 22, 2009

The Price of Freedom is Blood

From the posts I have submitted thus far many of you know I am a firm believer in economic and political freedom. There are, however, those with dissimilar opinions who try to assert that both are mutually exclusive because one does not beget the other, nor does the very existence of one ensure the other. Political freedom can be defined as the absence of antagonism, coercion, and hostility from within the construct of individual sovereignty. The following is a quote taken from Milton Friedman;

The essence of political freedom is the absence of coercion of one man by his fellow men. The fundamental danger to political freedom is the concentration of power. The existence of a large measure of power in the hands of a relatively few individuals enables them to use it to coerce their fellow men. Preservation of freedom requires either the elimination of power where that is possible or its dispersal where it cannot be eliminated.”

Economic freedom can be more difficult to delineate and lends itself to ambiguity because of its intrinsic abstruseness. Thus, my cursory explication is as follows; it is the freedom to produce, trade and or consume any goods and or services, and such transactions are procured without the use of coercion, fraud, or larceny. Economic freedom is dependent upon free markets, and free markets need to be free from governmental interference, i.e. regulation, subsidization, and collusive monopolisms. In the presence of the aforementioned economic albatrosses you have inefficacy and cyclical instability within the market system. I posit that the free market should be regarded as a normative model, and not a concept, if it can be rendered to empirical consideration without pervertible interference. Here is another quote from Milton Friedman;

A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”

Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises has stated, “The idea that political freedom can be preserved in the absence of economic freedom, and vice verse, is an illusion. Political freedom is the corollary of economic freedom. It is no accident that the age of capitalism became also the age of government by the people.” Here, Mises agrees that economic and political freedom are mutually dependent.

This leads me to liberty, how would you define it? Is it a state of being that is free from compulsion, constraint, terrorism, and all manners of duress that compel you to act by force of authority? A perfective characterization by any measure, wouldn't you say? You could add more, but succinctness breeds clarity. Below you will observe videos that were taken in Iran over the weekend (and some earlier), and they are gruesome. There is no true economic and political freedom in Iran, remember that as you watch the videos.

My heart breaks and my prayers go out to the Iranian people. Will Obama's overseas visits to the Muslim lands result in help for the people that are dying in the streets? Will they ever taste the freedoms, as elucidated above, and truly live in a free state of existence? Do our problems have a quasi-synonymity with the ones in Iran? Maybe not, but it is a stark reminder that party ideology, collectivism, and progressivism are slowly abrogating our liberties and freedoms. If left unattended, individual sovereignty will be the Social Cost for reforming and restructuring our Republic, equatability will become our new legal tender. Will you let this happen? Will you participate in Tea Parties on July, 4? I am, and I hope you are too. The picture to the left is of the Kent State University shootings, the person face down was shot by the Ohio National Guard. Are you surprised that this happened in the United States?

Sunday, June 21, 2009

Congressman Ron Paul On Healthcare

Dear Friend,

As both a defender of Liberty and a Medical Doctor, I’m very concerned about the plans the Obama Administration and many in Congress have to increase the government’s role in healthcare.

Medical decisions being made by government bureaucrats, loss of privacy of medical data, and our ability to keep our own insurance and doctors are all up for grabs once Congress starts moving on these government takeover and rationing schemes.

But the good news is you and I can fight back.

Because you’ve
joined me in battle before, I wanted you to be among the first people contacted by Campaign for Liberty in their fight against this federal power grab of our healthcare.

As you may know, Campaign for Liberty is carrying the Revolution forward and is leading the fight in Congress and all across the country, mobilizing Patriots to battle.

This battle against government-run healthcare is one I sincerely hope you will join.

Please watch this video I recorded in response to this Government Healthcare Takeover Plan.

For Liberty,
Congressman Ron Paul

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer, The Conservative Hideout. Take some time and look at this blog, read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

Glenn Beck: The Letter

I watched Glenn Beck today and he read a letter from a woman in Arizona. It is an open letter to our nation's leadership, and I hope they were listening. Glenn has this letter on his website and a petition to sign that was attached at the end. I was going to provide the link but the servers were overloaded, so the link is down. I will put it on another post when the servers are up and running. I hope you enjoy this letter, I most certainly did.

I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?

Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:

One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.

Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.

Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.

Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.

Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!

Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.

Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.

Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?

Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.

Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.

Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.

Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.

Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.

I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.

From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.

We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.

Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.

In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer, The Conservative Hideout. Take some time and look at this blog, read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Audit the Federal Reserve

Congressman Ron Paul from Texas created HR 1207, which is an "Audit the Fed bill." This bill requires full transparency from the Federal Reserve for the first time in history by removing all restrictions from Government Accountability Office (GAO) audits of the Fed and Mandating an audit by the end of 2010. If you think that there is no valid reason to audit the Fed please view the following interview between Rep Alan Grayson and the Federal Reserve Inspector General. The interview took place in May and I am surprised by the number of people who have not seen it.

Friday, June 12, 2009

The Failure of Keynesianism

Before we can explicate the inherent failure of Keynesian economic theory, we must first briefly define what Keynesian economic theory is. The Keynesian theory's response to a debilitative economic state was to “prime the pump,” which was to manifest in the form of governmental intervention. Such interventionism on behalf of the government within the realms of monetary policy and the marketplace (borrowing money and spending it) would be seen as the optimum methodology that could be employed to ensure economic growth and stability. Money that has been appropriated and spent by the government would see its way into the wallets of its citizenry, who would in turn re-infuse said funds within the economy. This medium of circulation reflects the “priming the pump” concept that is a normative element within Keynesian theory. The aforesaid explanation is cursory at best, as a more detailed Keynesian economic analysis could be manufactured. But such clarification would not necessarily purvey any further reconciliation, for my synoptic representation, although terse, yields a concise understanding for the purposes of this posting. Let us now proceed to the logical fallacy and failure of Keynesian economic theory.

To begin Keynesianism does not, in any significant fashion, boost our national income, it only redistributes it. Many economics agree that the government cannot inject money into an economy without extricating it from the very same economy it's trying to improve and or stabilize. There will not be an increase in the aggregate demand (Keynesian reference) because the money that will be spent will have to be borrowed from the private credit markets. To posit that a government, by infusing itself in the private sector, can act as a ballast and stabilize an infirm economy is nothing more than financial and economic illiteracy. You must understand that the government cannot generate income and purchasing power out of nothing, its true derivation is found in taxation or through the printing of money. Both forms are net negatives on the economy and true economic growth results from the production of goods and services, not from the redistribution of income. Bush's rebate checks did not effect a positive reaction nor did it increase economic output, why would Obama's plan be any different?

Keynes postulated that we could repel cyclical fluctuations and maintain low levels of unemployment by having the government manage economic and production activities on macro and micro strata respectively. Thus, Keynes believed that government was the pivotal element in procuring and sustaining income equality and full-time employment. This, however, is a fallacy perpetuated by technocrats and intellectually subnormal politicians who adhere to financial analytics and economic models that have no real world applicability or efficacy. Not only is it ineffective here, but it was also ineffectual in Japan. Observe the following quotes from the Cato Institute;

International evidence also undermines the case for Keynesianism. The clearest example may be Japan, which throughout the 1990s tried to use so-called stimulus packages in an effort to jump-start a stagnant economy. But the only thing that went up was Japan’s national debt, which more than doubled during the decade and is now even far more than Italy’s when measured as a share of GDP. The Japanese economy never recovered, and the 1990s are now known as the “lost decade” in Japan.”

Monetary policy, trade policy, taxation, labor markets, property rights, and competitive markets all have some impact on an economy’s performance. But one of the key variables is government spending. Once government expands beyond the level of providing core public goods such as the rule of law, there tends to be an inverse relationship between the size of government and economic growth. This is why reducing the size and scope of government is one of the best ways to improve economic performance.”

If you remain objective and avoid being encumbered in a cultish, doctrinal absurdity, you will observe that historically governments cause business cycles. They (business cycles) are a response to higher taxation, more spending, increased regulation, programs instituting compliance, and trade restrictions. Policies such as these that are legislated by the government will only increase its size and lead to the aforesaid cycles. They, by reason of ignorance or willful stupidity, refuse to acknowledge that they are the “causal agent." The following is a quote from, Brian Riedl (The Heritage Foundation);

Economic growth is driven by individuals and entrepreneurs operating in free markets, not by Washington spending and regulations. The out­dated idea that transferring spending power from the private sector to Washington will expand the economy has been thoroughly discredited, yet lawmakers continue to return to this strategy. The U.S. economy has soared highest when the federal government was shrinking, and it has stagnated at times of government expansion. This experience has been paralleled in Europe, where government expansions have been followed by economic decline. A strong private sector provides the nation with strong economic growth and benefits for all Americans.

To conclude Keynesianism has only proved to provide the following;

  • Redistribution of wealth
  • Increased debt
  • Tax rates increased to compensate for spending
  • Governmental intervention perverts economic markets by re-defining the mechanisms that create stability.
  • Rather than having the market determine who succeeds or fails, the government makes the choice. Those who are saved are the ones who conform to redistribution and are complicit in enforcing social and economic justice.
  • The consumers are the ones who, in the end, will pay higher taxes and higher costs for all products and services.
  • Investors and business owners will have less to invest, improve their businesses, and spend in the private economy.

You can choose to disagree, or assert that we are not experiencing true Keynesianistic theory. I, however, remain steadfast in my assessment and abide by those who have written similarly on Keynes. If your dissent is resolute, I await your counter-argument.


Monday, June 8, 2009

Will You Participate?

The phrase "No taxation without representation" is well known, but with regard to explicating its derivation many would fail to do so, and any rendering so offered would be cursory in form. The relevance of this maxim cannot, and should not, lose itself to antiquity simply because we have detached ourselves from the architecture of liberty. We must stop festering in our own tractability and become active participants in our Republic; for if we leave its security to politicians that have become drunk with power and influence, we will have nothing but a flagitious government that utilizes legislation to usurp individual liberties. Conversely, there are those that argue the aforementioned description is exaggerated, and saying so only encourages needless dissent. Another sector of society believes we are becoming trapped in a governmentally manifested black hole and its gravitational field is pulling liberty and individual sovereignty towards an event horizon. If we fail to change course and reach the point of no return we will become compressed into the singularity, and true liberty, lacking escape velocity, will become lost and formless. A rather grandiose viewpoint, wouldn't you say? But it is the one I would prescribe to, and why? As stated above we have removed ourselves from participation, and voting is not substantive enough to qualify as interaction, in fact, it can be classified as finite intercedence. Without maintaining accountability throughout the term of a given politician the people will fail in procuring proper representation, which in turn leaves us with the aforesaid taxation without representation. We continue to circle the black hole with every new administration, waiting to be completely sucked in.

Furthermore, by leaving the politicians to their own vices our extrication from the process (being an engaged electorate) has only emboldened their hubris, which is a normative byproduct of an unsupervised malefactor. The absence of any form of resistivity by the citizenry inevitably leads to the same conclusion; an unattended causality will manifest a dichotomy that yields a superordinate and a subordinate, and the superordinate, through its positional aspect, will continually manufacture reasons to sustain itself and status. And we are not the superordinate. I must, however, add a proviso to my averment, and that is the superordinate will surround themselves with the mechanisms needed for sustainability, because in and of itself self-preservation cannot guarantee re-election.

I asseverate that we, as a collective people, have become lethargic and disconnected from our own providence. We have let the people who refuse to enact personal responsibility, have a basic understanding of free market economics, appreciate and value liberty and its cost, gain the position of the majority. Do you want to be taken care of by the government? Do you want the fruits of your labor to be equitably redistributed so that every individual is guaranteed a slice? Are you your stranger's keeper? Have you lost the will to exercise your right of free speech? Why do you remain mute as the government increases taxation (legalized theft) to pay for programs and other iniquities you did not want to be a part of? Do you think that simply because the other political party is in effect that all our problems will disappear? Even if given enough time? Do you believe that we are a Democracy or a Republic? Most of us cannot cite the distinguishing features between the two, and we have not, in quite some time, acted like a true Republic.

The majority of the Democrats out there will argue that this assertion is superfluous, and not representative of the entire picture. In previous posts I have referred to this form of visual acuity as kaleidoscopic reality. When viewing something through your own prism you will see whatever you want to, and it will always be subjectively palatable. Meaning, what one visually perceives is filtered through the processes of the mind and then modified by individual bias. The totality of all things perceived, as well as the residuum of past experience, are two determinants that will distort judgment and preclude logic and objectivity from reaching a reasonable, neutral conclusion. I must, however, be ingenuous and state that the Republicans are an equal reflection of this characteristic. They are by no means immune, for their proclivities are well known.

So what do we do now? Our government, with its unyielding appetite to amass authority and size has manifested into some quasi-lusus naturae, but it wasn't done overnight. Upon acknowledging that we should not believe that there isn't irreversibility or irreducibility, or that our actions will not have a substantive impact on governmental malversation. There is an enormous amount of like-minded individuals who feel the same way as you and are seeking redress against the excesses of power, taxation, and legislation. I believe that we must connect with each other to formulate a qualitative response, for an intransigent government such as ours responds to numbers. We can no longer afford, both figuratively and literally, to remain in seclusion while an intractable government redistributes our economic and political freedoms in true collectivist fashion.

There are certain avenues I am taking that are in-line with my views and there are those that are not, but we all have the same goal. Isn't that what really matters? It doesn't have to be the 912 project, but it needs to be something. There are counter-groups out there who align themselves with our current administration and seek social, political, and economic justice. This is code for redistribution, and participation that is mandated and not voluntary, is the antithesis of liberty and freedom of choice. If you have questions on what to do or where to go, please feel free to ask me. So, will you participate?


In support of other bloggers to share their viewpoints, I would like to offer, The Conservative Hideout. Take some time and look at this blog, read some articles, and post some comments. Thank you.

Monday, June 1, 2009

We Must All Be Founding Fathers

I was recently sent another email from a colleague that pertained to an article written by, Michael S. Yashko, a managing partner in Florida for the Roetzel & Andress law firm. The article was submitted as guest commentary in the Naples Daily News on May 30, 2009. The article is both concise and powerful, and I truly believe that you will find this to be true.

Guest Commentary: To regain our liberty, we must all be Founding Fathers now

by Michael S. Yashko / Naples
May 30, 2009

Newsweek magazine recently proclaimed, “We are all socialists now.” Maybe it’s true. We just don’t seem to have it in us anymore. We’re no longer the country of rugged individualists portrayed in the movies. Americans have grown dependent on the federal nanny state. And, they seem to like it. John Wayne doesn’t live here anymore.

So, let’s gather in Philadelphia, draft a Declaration of Dependence and submit these facts to a candid world:

We hold these truths to be self-evident: that without federal government intervention, we cannot take care of ourselves, our families or our neighbors; that we are endowed by the cynical benevolence of Washington politicians with certain unalienable rights, and that chief among these are taxpayer-funded happiness and well-being.

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on our own inadequacy, we pledge to the federal government our blind loyalty, our incomes and our sacred liberty.”

But, maybe Newsweek was wrong — a modern day “Dewey defeats Truman” moment. Average citizens, previously too busy bettering themselves and doing right by their neighbors to be “activists,” are realizing that their country is being changed in a fundamental and irreversible way. America is finally succumbing to socialism’s 100-year assault on the founders’ Constitution.

We’ve reached a tipping point, a moment in history when the core philosophy of our nation is being reset for good.

Let’s face facts. We are founding our country anew. Only the Revolutionary War and Civil War periods rival the coming four years in importance. If we are intellectually honest and aware, it’s clear that we are being forced to choose: become full-blown socialists or turn back to our historical roots as a constitutional republic.

Time is short. This “third founding” will be complete within the next four years. This is our last chance to take back the power we’ve ceded to Washington.

Did Newsweek get it wrong? We’ll know soon enough. We’ll have an idea of what road we’re on after the 2010 midterm elections. The morning after the next presidential election, we’ll know for sure.

It’s late, but the battle of ideas has finally been joined in earnest. I say “in earnest” because people finally realize that both political parties are speeding us down F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom.” People finally grasp that the choice is not between Republicans and Democrats, but between an intrusive federal nanny state run by both parties or a movement by the people to take back the power originally reserved for them by the founders.

The founders’ constitutional republic protected individual liberty. Their decentralized government ensured that the people could govern themselves locally — those most directly affected had the most say. In the centralized, mass democracy we’ve become, this federalism is a historical footnote.

And, it wasn’t an accident. According to Claes Ryn, a professor of politics, the political philosophy which nurtured this federal monster is a “moral hoax” because it allows big government’s proponents to “ooze benevolence for people in the abstract.” They don’t have to do concrete things for specific people. It’s checkbook morality: “moralism made easy.”

The Supreme Court has aided and abetted this transformation of the founders’ Constitution by ignoring or rewriting the clauses limiting government power.

In “Restoring the Lost Constitution,” Randy Barnett vividly describes the result: “The Constitution that was actually enacted and formally adopted creates islands of government powers in a sea of liberty. The judicially redacted Constitution creates islands of liberty rights in a sea of governmental power.”

How do we tame this monster? Barnett answers in “A Bill of Federalism” ( We must demand that the federal government return the power it has usurped and restore the original balance of power between the federal, state and local governments.

But legally and politically, we can’t ignore the Supreme Court cases that put us here. We must amend the Constitution and reinvigorate our founders’ concept of federalism. Then, we can assume control over our own lives again, just as the founders intended.

Like the founders before us, we must debate this central question: What is the proper role of government in the lives of free people? Either we will re-affirm the philosophy and virtues of our founders and re-invigorate the constitutional republic they created, or we will take the final step to European-style socialism.

I see ahead the last off ramp on Hayek’s road to serfdom. Let’s take that exit marked “individual liberty, limited government and free enterprise.” Join the debate. We are all Founding Fathers now.

Yashko is the managing partner in Florida for the Roetzel & Andress law firm. However, he says these are his own views. He is a graduate cum laude of Northwestern University Law School.

Eloquent, wouldn't you say? Will you take up the torch and call yourself a Founding Father, and commit yourself to the preservation of liberty and individual sovereignty? I know I shall. We must wretch liberty from the jaws of political sacrifice.