Back to Basics:

For the most part, this blog is my somewhat futile attempt to teach and expound on the founding principals of the United States. I think this "Back to Basics" approach is necessary because of the almost complete ignorance on matters as simple as the difference between Capitalism and Socialism or why the founders declared their independence from the most powerful empire in the world and in little more than 200 years eclipsed that same empire as the premiere power in the world. It is not mere coincidence that a young upstart nation of dubious origins assumed easily outpaced and outclassed other nations with thousands of years of history to back them up. The principal reason for America's success is Freedom. Freedom in all it's forms is central to the America's prosperity, economic, social, political, religious, they combine together to form the pallet upon which the American masterpiece has been painted. Ignorance of this fact is the most expensive thing we pay for in this country, because one can not know right from wrong if he has no knowledge or experience from which to compare it to. That is exactly why I continue to pound away at the need for more education on history and civics.. unfortunately both myself and people like me are often ignored, thus necessitating this blog and editorial pages across the nation. It's a big giant circle.. fun huh? Without much further ado.. let's get the show on the road!

Capitalism vs. Socialism:
At it's core, the battle between capitalism and socialism is the battle between those that wish to achieve much by their own merit, and those that wish to achieve much at the expense of others. The founders of this nation intended for America to be a "Meritocracy," where those that had both the drive and talent can succeed and rise to the top tiers of society; a sharp contrast to the nobility and aristocracy they left behind in England. It has been said that capitalism's inherent flaw is the unequal distribution of blessings and socialism's inherent flaw is the equal distribution of misery. I think Churchill said that beauty, but since I'm lazy, I'll just leave that one as it is. Freedom is a difficult concept to understand, but at it's core, to my mind, freedom is an economic concept. If you are not free to keep the fruit of your labor, or to own private property then you are not free. If the founders were willing to start a revolution because of perceived unfair taxes, or for abuses of private property rights, the idea of communism or it's transitional cousin, socialism should be out of the question for anyone living in America that has any grasp of history.

Let's take a look at what Thomas Jefferson thought about "redistribution of wealth."

Thomas Jefferson, April 6th in 1816: "To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association -- the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it."

Thomas Jefferson, first inaugural address, March 4th, 1801: "A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

Thomas Jefferson, again: "Congress has not unlimited power to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated." They argued, the Founders argued over this whole inclusion of promote the general welfare, what are people going to think that means? There is evidence galore that they did not ever intend that to be interpreted as redistribution. "A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another ... shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."

It doesn't sound to me like he was very much in favor of socialism, or anything even remotely resembling it. I could put dozens of quotes up here that would lay clear the stark differences between American rugged individualism and European socialism but despite their eloquence I think their influence wanes with the passage of time. Nonetheless, should you wish to read something truly inspiring; I submit to you President Washington's First Inaugural Address. I can safely say that no one in modern day politics would have the strength of their convictions to deliver such an address, and that perhaps is the most lamentable critique one can offer about the state of America's politics as usual.

It was said that the founders had an inherent distrust and disdain for pure democracy. They called it "mob rule." The reason being, is that if you can get enough people to covet something enough, then you could have the government forcibly take wealth, property, or freedoms from a person or group. That is why America was founded as a democratic republic where representatives were elected by their peers to promote their interests in the government. I bring this up, because a striking parallel can be drawn between socialism and mob rule. In a socialist society, should one person happen to amass any amount of wealth above the rest, it would have be taken away and redistributed amongst the masses. Ultimately it ends right back at the beginning. Capitalism promotes growth, which creates wealth, which is the inspiration for people to come from all around the world to come to America to make their fortune. Socialism promotes mediocrity, which creates economic malaise, which is the reason why no socialist/communist state has ever prospered or succeeded in the history of the world. In the final analysis, we give government a monopoly on force, not to forcibly redistribute the wealth we as private citizens create, but to protect it from just such an action; in this greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Video/Audio Clip(s) of the Entry:

This is audio of an interview that Senator Obama did in 2001 on Chicago Public Radio. Remember this is way before he was in the public eye or in line to be the Democrat nominee to be President of the United States. There is honestly enough material in this clip to write a whole blog on, and I may yet do so further along in the week. This is something of a rare moment for a politician, a moment of truth.. though in today's America, is it bad to want the government to forcefully take from one group of people and give it to another? We'll see on Nov. 4th.



I wonder if Senator Obama would recognize this quote, "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." For those that don't know, it's the Presidential Oath of Office. For a man that wants the courts to "break free of the constraints of the Constitution;" I don't think he could honestly take this oath.

Random Thoughts:
This may never start,
We could fall apart,
And I'd be your memory..
Lost your sense of fear,
Feelings insincere,
Can I be your memory?

So get back, back, back to where we lasted,
Just like I imagined,
I could never feel this way..
So get back, back, back to the disaster,
My heart's beating faster,
Holding on to feel the same..

Quote of the Entry: "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it."
-Thomas Sowell (June 30, 1930– ) is an American Economist and Political Commentator

Senator Biden and American Weakness:

I've not posted much about foreign policy matters much because to be completely honest, that isn't exactly my area of expertise. But as always there are events that come up that provide the exception to the rule. Senator Joe Biden, the VP candidate for the Democrat party, had something of an odd moment on Sunday; he actually told the truth about his running mate at the top of the ticket, Senator Obama.

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking.... Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy...."

"I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate… And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him. Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right."

There are a million things I'd love to comment on about these statements, and I may yet do so further along in this post; but chief among my concerns is the fact that Senator Biden and Senator Obama are in effect advocating a weak American Presidential response to such a "test" and that it would be the correct response, though it would not initially be thought as such. (A President that champions an unpopular policy because he knows it's right, even if it isn't initially apparent.. President Bush anyone?) I may not know as much about foreign affairs/politics as either Senator, but I do know this much, American military and economic power has kept stability and relative peace in the world since the end of WWII. The world that exists today has a fragile world economic outlook and is full of dictators on the verge of war that are looking for any sign of weakness in American resolve to give them the green light to go about their murderous business. All these things I know to be true, and strangely enough, as a statement of fact, I can't disagree with Senator Biden's statements, I just wish more people would heed them.

Compare and Contrast - Strong President vs. Weak President:
Let's do a little exercise in comparison of Presidential responses to Terrorism. The only two comparable President's in this respect are Clinton and Bush, both were two term Presidents and both had to deal with the relatively new phenomenon of terrorism on a global scale. The results are staggering, and should be the best argument for a strong executive bar none.

* February 26, 1993, attack on the World Trade Center: 6 deaths and 1,042 injured

* June 25, 1996, Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia: 20 deaths and 372 injured

* August 7, 1998, attacks on American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania: 12 U.S. deaths out of a total of 223 deaths; 12 U.S. injured out of a total of over 4,000 injured

* October 12, 2000, attack on the USS Cole in Yemen: 17 deaths; 39 injured

* September 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington (occurred during Bush presidency but planned during Clinton administration): 2,975 deaths and 24 missing.

All of these attacks were either planned or executed under the Clinton Presidency and what was his response? NOT killing Osama Bin Laden when they had the chance, and even more egregious than that is the fact that he didn't even take him in 1996 when the Sudanese government offered to remand him to American custody and jurisprudence. Generally I found President Clinton to be a good President, but his severe weakness on national security issues can not be ignored. Indeed it was not ignored by Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and because President Clinton refused to retaliate meaningfully they continued their deadly attacks on Americans both at home and abroad, ultimately culminating in the 9/11 attacks. In Senator Bidens' terms, Bin Laden "tested" the strength and resolve of the American President, and he was found wanting; or to put it simply, if the attacks were a test, President Clinton failed.

President Bush for all his failings, both imagined and real, passed the test of his resolve. I do not think any reasonable objective observer can come to any other conclusion. Americans tend to have a short memory about thing's that don't involve a video game, movie, or celebrity so if I put out the USS Cole incident in Yemen, I'd guess 9 out of 10 people would look at me blankly. Indeed, time tends to have the effect of "rose colored glasses" on the memory, where it seems as if everything was better 10 years ago and we conveniently forget all the hardships that went along with those supposed "good times." The point is, that most people don't remember all the acts of terrorism that happened during the Clinton years and so can not draw what would ordinarily be a clear and straight line to continued attacks and to 9/11. In any event, where Clinton failed, the Bush Presidency succeeded in spectacular and unexpected fashion. The wide ranging reforms on security on the domestic front and an active aggressive policy abroad has had at least one clear result, no more attacks on American soil. President Bush may be regarded as a reckless cowboy or a dimwit Texas yokel, but the adjective that one must add to that is STRONG, and because of that standing; I have no doubt that foreign leaders irregardless of their standing with the US approach President Bush differently than President Clinton, namely with more respect. The next President will have to have a strong position on all fronts, the world economy, domestic policy, foreign affairs and most of all have the fortitude to see these policies through to the end; these qualities are among the things that Senator Obama does not posses.

World Status - Analysis:
Okay, let's take a quick look around the world to see what hot spot's are out there to see where these potential "international crises" could come from as referenced by Senator Biden's predictions.

Israel vs. Iran - Iran continues on it's quest to gain nuclear weapons and Israel and the rest of the world knows it. Israel depends on the implicit support of the US to maintain a balance of power in the region and to keep the Jewish state from literally being wiped off he map. Israel also knows that Senator Obama has not positioned himself to be a strong friend of Israel and any actions that Iran makes in the future would not illicit an immediate response from their "allies" in the US as would have been the case during the Bush Presidency or in a McCain Presidency. This puts Israel in a tough position, making a preemptive strike more necessary depending on the outcome of the election in November. Israel may act unilaterally to disable Iranian nuclear facilities to ensure US backing while a friendly administration remains in office till the beginning of next year, thereby obligating the new president to continue military and financial aid depending on the amount of blow back that Israel would receive from Iran and other countries in the region would create.

Russia vs. Former USSR Satellites - While Putin is no longer the official leader of the Russian state, he is in fact the de facto leader and shows every indication of stretching his muscles now in the waning days of the Bush Presidency, in preparation of a young inexperienced President that might await him in the new year. Russia once again seems to be putting together it's empire and chief among the prizes up for grabs seems to be the Ukraine. Any number of former Soviet satellite states are also ripe for the taking. NATO refuses to allow some of them membership into the organization and the UN is little more than an international circus where little gets done in the way of actual solutions and much gets accomplished in the form of resolutions that are often ignored the following day. Should Russia make moves against surrounding countries, and Senator Obama is president, I wonder what solution he would offer? Would it be the same one he offered during the Georgia crisis? Should we bring the issue to the UN security council for possible censure of Russia if they don't stop military actions? Okay, sounds good. I'm glad we have a plan! Only one problem.. Russia is a permanent member of the the Security Council and has Veto Power. Oh darn, looks like that one won't work.. anyone else got any ideas? I thought so.

Video Clip(s) of the Entry:

Here's the audio, unedited of Senator Biden's comments.. am I the only one that gets worried hearing things like this coming from a man that could be Vice President of the United States?


I've hardly ever agreed with Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and I suppose this would be again the exception to the rule. I'd be interested to hear the rest of her soundbite, but I suspect that she's going to obfuscate a rather succinct and prescient point with some sort of cover for Senator Biden.. and well I'd rather not have to deal with that. Thankfully whoever made this clip cut out the fat and just left the red meat.

Ultimately, I agree with Senator Biden and with Madeleine Albright, it is simply a point of fact that terrorists and indeed the world is going to test whomever becomes the next President of the United States. To determine who would pass these tests, you need only look into a man's past and character. The choice is simple, a man who spent half of his life in military service and the other half in legislative service to his country in both aspects showing determination and transparency of both action and ethics. Or, a man who has numerous ties to domestic terrorists, ties to America hating Preachers, and legislatively shown no backbone by voting "present" over 100 times while in the Illinois state senate. Again, I'll have to deffer to Senator Biden on this, "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The Presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training." I couldn't agree more, in this greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Random Thoughts:
It's been the longest winter without you,
I didnt know where to turn to..
See somehow I cant forget you,
After all that we've been through..

go in, come in,
thought i heard a knock,
who's there? no one,
thinking that i deserved it..
now i realize that i really didn't know,
you didn't notice, you mean everything..
quickly I'm learning, to love again,
all i know is, imma be ok..

thought i couldn't live without you,
its gonna hurt when it heals to..
it'll all get better in time..
eventhough i really love you,
I'm gonna smile cause i deserve to..
it'll all get better in time..

Quote of the Entry: The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just.
-Abraham Lincoln (1809 - 1865) 16th president of US

It's Friday! So lets take it easy..

Alright, so today I thought I'd take a break from the more hard hitting posts and being that I'm in such a good mood i'll limit my political discussion to just a few small points.

• Joe "the plumber" is perhaps the best thing to happen in this election season since it began.
• Real people rarely if ever get onto the political stage, and whenever they do they are picked apart by all the people who try so hard to convince the masses that they are regular people just like "you!"
• The current debate format doesn't really reveal much about either the candidates or the issues, either the questions need to be tougher, or the moderators need to be tougher.. probably BOTH.
• I'll be really glad when the election is over. FINI.

Wacko Left-Wing Environmentalism:



Honestly, this video illustrates a point that I will probably be making sometime in the future about the lack of thought that most people give to things that purport to "save the Earth." Al Gore buys carbon credits from his own company so that he can use his big jet to fly all over the world and tell people that they are hurting the environment and that if they want to continue the same standard of living they need to buy credits from him. Oil man T. Boone Pickens, is now advocating huge, wasteful, "green" energy plans, just as he invested millions of dollars into those same companies in an effort to ride the trend. In any event, the herd mentality is clearly on display, and I once again reiterate that on all things, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!



George Carlin never failed to get me to laugh. I didn't necissarily agree with him on a lot of issues politically but this particular bit has stuck with me over the years. The man for all his faults was a comedy genius and he will be missed.

Showmanship and Class:



This one is a purely fun video that shows one of my favorite renditions of one of my favorite songs. Tony is the definition of a class act, and I love live performances. The video quality is a bit off, but the music definitly makes it worth it. Oh yeah, Diana Krall did well too.. =P

Random Thoughts:
You know and I know,
Friends come and friends go..
Storms rise and winds blow,
But one thing I know for sure..

When it's cold outside,
There's no need to worry cuz,
I'm so warm inside..
You give me peace,
When the storm's outside,
Cuz we're in love I know,
It'll be alright,
Alright it's alright..

Quote of the Entry: When we are unable to find tranquility within ourselves, it is useless to seek it elsewhere.
-Francois de La Rochefoucauld (1613 - 1680) French author & moralist

It's the Economy, Stupid!!

First off some housekeeping. I know I had originally set the goal for one post a day, but seeing as how it takes a long time for me to get these things from my mind onto my laptop.. well you get the idea. Next up to bat is an identification of my political party, ideology, leanings or preference if you will. I'd imagine that if you read my last entry you would conclude that I'm a Republican due to the fact that it was a pretty hard hitting post on Senator Obama and his connections to ACORN. Just in case you were even the slightest bit curious about this, if you assumed that I am a Republican you would be wrong. I consider myself a Conservative Independent. I say that because political parties have platforms that they run on and candidates that often deviate from them for better or worse; and I reserve the right to agree or disagree with a person or a piece of legislation not based on a "R" or "D" next to the name. If there is a politician, from the left or the right, has shady dealings and it affects the public welfare, then expect equal condemnation from me. Stupidity should have no shield irregardless of what party they affiliate themselves with. As far as the "conservative" part, well my Christian religion and strong support of Federalism and the Constitution inform my decisions and provide direction for my political compass as you will see if you continue to read this blog. Now onto the real business of this blog..

"It's the economy stupid!!" Yes, I'm lifting this from the 1992 presidential campaign of President Clinton, and yes, it is entirely relevant to whats going on in America today. It surprises me how little people know about economics and government and the relationship between the two. Today I think it would be good to get a little bit of a refresher course.. and away we go!

The Government and YOUR Money:
Lets get one thing clear about Government wealth, all the billions of dollars that the government spends on defense, domestic programs or even simply payroll is derived from exactly one source, the tax payer. This is a fundamental point that often gets lost because it's become almost second nature to gripe about how much money you lose out of your paycheck every two weeks; and hardly ever question with any meaningful resolve whether the government actually needs the money it takes from you or if it's being spent wisely. So irregardless of what a politician says government is going to do to bail out something in the private sector the simple truth of the matter is that it is the ordinary tax payer that is stuck with the bill through higher taxes, a devalued dollar, or lower benefits on civic services, whether they be entitlement programs or necessary functions of government.

The classic example of this is phenomenon is quite appropriately called the Great Depression. When the value of the stock market tumbled and things were being marked to market, almost the same situation we saw happen these past weeks, instead of letting the market find it's natural bottom it was propped up by the government and exacerbated. Instead of a painful but quick correction that would have lasted maybe a year, it became a depression that lasted until WWII. From 1929 - 1932 Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt would constantly be substituting private sector, market based solutions for legislative, government supported action that had a net drag on the economy. Notable among these actions were back breaking tariffs like the Smoot-Holly Act that brought protectionism to whole new levels, along with other domestic taxes that took more money out of the private sector to be spent by all the geniuses in Washington that caused the problem and afterward helped to propagate it in the effort to fix it; again there's an amazing parallel to the current situation in Washington. As if that wasn't bad enough FDR printed more and more money to fund his massive government programs culminating in the New Deal. Now most people who've come through the public school system will be wondering what exactly could be wrong about The New Deal? Wasn't that what helped to end the depression? Wrong. In order to pay for all the programs FDR had to print more money, devaluing the dollar even further in hard economic times. In all likelihood the US would have continued in it's depression if it had not been for WWII. Even if you look at the current US budget of about 3 trillion dollars, more than 50 percent of that is spent on entitlement programs that came out of the New Deal. Notable among these programs are Social Security, which is currently a ticking time bomb in our budget that is going to blow up sometime in the next decade, and Fanny May which already went bust! Surprise, surprise..

We live today in a society where we've become too comfortable. We expect certain things to be rights that we hold as Americans instead of looking at reality and seeing things for what they are, opportunities for success or failure. To break it down even more, it's gotten to the point where everyone is only too happy to privatize profit, but EXPECT the government to socialize the losses. In recent weeks people have been complaining about the "free market" and "unchecked capitalism," but I don't remember hearing anyone complain when their home values and IRA's were going up, up, up like a balloon. That's not even taking into account the fact that it's not the market that creates the mess, it's government involvement in the market that necessitates a correction. Fanny May and Freddy Mac were not a creation of the market, that was government. Sub-Prime loans were not a creation of the market, they were created by government mandate and supported by the government backing the loans, because under ordinary circumstances no good lender would take that risk. In any number of circumstances that you can name "big bad business" there is almost always the hand of government there at the genesis of the problem. Don't get me wrong, I'm not against government; and I certainly don't support anarchy, but lets be realistic, the people that continually create problems shouldn't be trusted to fix those same problems. Least of all without accountability for their prior involvement and perhaps worst of all everything is being done on the tax payers dollar, both the creation and supposed solution of the problem.

Ultimately we should take a few things out of this current financial debacle:

• The Market reigns supreme, and the Market will punish government intervention.
• The only way out of a correction is to allow it to go down to it's natural bottom and to work from there.
• Once lenders know the real assets that others hold they will then feel free to lend again.
• The 1 trillion dollar bailout was wrong, it will only perpetuate the pain and it is being paid for by the people it will hurt.
• The Government needs to have a policy of low taxes and reduced spending to create stability and confidence in the markets.

Some of these points I think I illustrated well, some of them not so much.. but I only have so much time and will power to devote to this blog, but I'll definitely get around to explaining anything else I missed. I did want to try to address something else in this blog as well and since I ran out of energy, I suppose cutting and pasting will do. I wrote awhile back on the concept of Federalism and it's importance in American political theory.. well you'll get it when you read it.

Federalism 101:
Federalism, as defined by Wikipedia, "is a political philosophy in which a group of members are bound together with a governing representative head. The term 'federalism' is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political unites (like states or provinces). Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national & state governments, creating what is often called a federation."

Now that we all have a basic understanding of the word itself, lets get into how this concept relates to the American form of government. As I'm sure you all are aware, before there was The United states of America, there were colonies of Britain that eventually declared their independence together but ruled separately as divided States. It was understood that these states might have matters that related to them all, and so the Continental Congress was set up to mediate and arbitrate these matters, but the framers of the nation wanted to go one step further, to unite these States under one banner, as one Nation. This is obviously an over simplification, but it'll do for the purposes of this blog. Each State already had an existing government, and existing laws, and the citizens and politicians did not want to give these up but grudgingly agreed that a United America was better than the existing status quo. The solution to merging the existing state infrastructure and what would be the new federal government was the idea of "Dual Sovereignty," and indeed this concept was essential to not only the Constitution itself, but the passage of the Bill of Rights as well. It can be found in the 10th Amendment, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Essentially the Constitution outlined certain powers to be given to the federal government (ie. taxation, war etc.), and everything else was left to the states to decide. So the states remain sovereign within their borders to create laws and tax except when it interferes with the sovereignty of the nation as a whole. This was perhaps the most important aspect of "checks and balances," the concept which we are all so familiar with, when relating to the division of the federal government and even the state government into three parts. The most important "check" in my opinion is the concept of "voting with your feet." Essentially, when all else fails, and your local or state governments go in a direction you don't like for whatever reason, (be it taxes, over/under regulation etc.) you can move to any state in the union that better suits you while still having your essential liberty and freedoms intact guaranteed by federal government. This has the effect of creating 50 different states with different laws and circumstances all competing for people and business, which mirrors the market system we use for commerce, and ensures that the people have the freedom to choose their lifestyle not have it chosen for them by the federal government. From here you can see an important development, the PEOPLE created the States, and the States in turn created the Federal Government, not the other way around.

To understand the concept of federalism, one needs to understand the Constitution, the very document that created our country. The framers remembered the power of a monarchy and knew that power in the hands of too few men often led to an abuse of that same power. So they wisely divided it up creating what was actually the most inefficient efficient government in the world. Inefficient in that it took many steps to enact new laws so that the people would have a chance to stop it with a vote or by giving notice to their representative. Efficient in the sense that local and state governments were given the bulk of the power, so that the people they were directly governing could give their input and in turn be answered quickly instead of having to go through the bureaucracy to reach the federal government for mediation on local issues. Unfortunately today we have drifted and are continuing to go further away from the ideas this nation was founded on and that deeply disturbs me. The Congress is allowed to pass any law that is deemed "necessary an proper" for the execution of its powers enumerated in the Constitution, but today they only think about whether it will look good politically. Instead Congress should be asking the question, "Should government be doing this? And if so, at what level?" It could be construed that I have a deep hate or mistrust of the federal government. Let me clear that up here, that is certainly not the case. I think that the federal government has a large role to play in national security, foreign policy and guaranteeing free markets both domestically and internationally. A dedication to these things instead of domestic nuances that should be handled by state government would allow the federal government to concentrate on a handful of issues instead of the myriad issues it faces and is failing now. I believe that federalism works, I believe it is a current issue, not one that is dated and belongs in the 18th century, and there is only one man talking about it, explaining it and advocating it, that man has my vote for the Presidency of the United States of America.

Alright, that's it for this, somewhat elongated version of today's entry. I hope you enjoyed it, if you managed to make it here to the end. I have no idea what I'm going to write about tomorrow, or even if I will write one tomorrow.. these things take more out of me than I thought. In any event I thank you for putting up with my convoluted thoughts and writing style and perhaps you'll drop by again for some more fun and excitement with a marginally crazy 20 something.. in this greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Random Thoughts:
Stop right there,
That's exactly where I lost it..
See that line,

Well, I never should have crossed it..
Stop right there,
Well I never should've said that,
It's the very moment that I wish that I could take back..

I'm sorry for the person I became..
I'm sorry that it took so long for me to change..
I'm ready to be sure
I never become that way again..
Cause who I am hates who I've been,
Who I am hates who I've been..

Quote of the Entry: Have you learned the lessons only of those who admired you, and were tender with you, and stood aside for you? Have you not learned great lessons from those who braced themselves against you, and disputed passage with you?
- Walt Whitman (1819 - 1892) US poet

Voting Fraud 2.0

I'm going to part today from my usual foray into civics and history to something very much in the here and now of American politics. For all those people that remember the infamous "Hanging Chad's" of Florida, and all the controversy that followed that.. well the issue of voter fraud has reared it's ugly head into election politics and this time it's not after the fact and somewhat dubious; it's being perpetrated in very real and documented terms in all of the closest swing states across the nation. The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN as it is known, calls itself:

"the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families, working together for social justice and stronger communities."

Now despite the numerous number of problems that I have with just that one statement in this particular blog I have only two points that I wish to address:

1. The illegal actions of ACORN and their relation to Senator Barack Hussein Obama.
2. How the actions of ACORN, Senator Barack Hussein Obama and like minded people helped to bring about the home mortgage bubble and thereby helped to bring America down into an economic morass.

ACORN-OBAMA:
During the course of his campaign both for the nomination of the Democrat party and for the Presidency of the United States, Senator Obama has touted his Community Organizer work and how that helps make him qualified and prepared to assume such an important post. Unfortunately no one ever really delved into what he was doing in the community and with whom he was working with. It turns out Obama was often used as a lawyer for them and was specifically an integral part in representing ACORN in the revision of the CRA (Community Re-investment Act) in 1995 that helped more low income home buyers get loans for houses they would never be able to afford; sound familiar anyone? In addition to that Senator Obama was,

"personally recruited by Chicago's ACORN to run training sessions in 'direct action.' That's the euphemism for the techniques used under the cover of the federal Community Reinvestment Act to intimidate financial institutions into giving what have been called 'Ninja' loans — no income, no job, no assets — to people who couldn't afford them."

What were those techniques you ask? Ask and ye shall receive..

"ACORN would stage in-your-face protests in bank lobbies, drive-through lanes and even at bank managers' homes to get them to issue risky loans in the inner city or face charges of racism."

All this and more can be found an a very hard hitting Investor's Business Daily editorial and I'd challenge you to not only read it but then research the rest of it for yourself. Ignorance is the most expensive commodity that we have to pay for in this country and unfortunately there has been no actual vetting when it comes to Senator Obama, his friends and associates. So what exactly is so bad about ACORN besides actively proposing and supporting horrible economic policy? Where to begin..

All across the nation ACORN offices are being raided and very revealing documents regarding their practices are coming to light. Across the board Social Security numbers are not matching up and yet reports of fraud have been passed over for years. Do you remember the scandal that arose when President Bush fired some US Attorneys at the beginning of his second term? Well one of the attorneys in New Mexico was specifically fired because he would not investigate the allegations of voter fraud in his state. In Nevada ACORN activists had the entire starting line up of the Dallas Cowboys registered to vote in their district; in New Mexico and Wisconsin child rapists, drug offenders and forgery convicts are on the payroll and on the voting rolls. One man in Cleveland Ohio reportedly was given cash and cigarettes by ACORN activists in exchange for registering 72 times. Now if you tell people to vote in consideration for a vote, that's called VOTE BUYING and is.. you guessed it's illegal; and better yet, it's done with your tax dollars! How does Obama tie into all this besides his close association in the 90's?

"ACORN's political wing has endorsed Barack Obama for president, but Ben LaBolt, a spokesman for the Obama campaign in Ohio, said ACORN has no role in its get-out-the-vote drive.

During the primary season, however, the Obama camp paid another group, Citizen Service Inc., $832,598 for various political services, according to Federal Elections Commission filings. That group and ACORN share the same board of directors."

Michelle Malkin also did a great piece on this but what is most disturbing is the fact that this has been going on for years and yet for months Americans were agonizing over the validity of ballots with a "chad" that hadn't quite fallen all the way. I'm in awe of the level of political discourse in this country; even a cursory inquiry into the background of the Democrat candidate for president reveals a man that has ties to some truly horrible people and it takes a willing mind to completely shut out all negative information about a candidate that they support simply on charisma alone.

The Economy and the Housing Bubble:
So now that we've gone over the ACORN and Senator Obama's close ties with that organization lets take a look at how that all ties into the current turmoil in the economy. The Community Reinvestment Act that both ACORN and Senator Obama supported and continue to support made banks give loans to people with bad credit a home loan that they would only be able to afford if property values continued to go up. If the bank refused to give these loans they were accused of racist or discriminatory policies and had demonstrations in front of or sometimes inside of their offices or homes. On it's face the idea that a person has a right to home ownership let alone a loan that would eventually be funded by their neighbors and other tax payers is wrong and a perversion of what many term "The American Dream." The active campaign to force lending institutions to finance home ownership for people who had no business in a home to begin with, ended up in a correction in the housing market. Housing prices over the past decade had continued to go up to astronomical levels, and all the sub-prime loans were based on the faulty supposition that home values would only continue to go up. When a much needed correction happened to revalue homes to their actual values happened it ended up bankrupting banks and eventually even the government supported Fanny May and Freddy Mac. Whom do you think these institutions favored most among Washington politicians? Well Senator Chris Dodd was number 1 on their list, not surprising since he is the head of the committee that was supposed to oversee their business; but right up there in 2nd place is.. you guessed it, Senator Barack Obama who in his short tenure as a United States senator managed to get more money from Fanny May and Freddy Mac in the form of campaign contributions than anyone else other than the the chairman of the committee that was supposedly providing oversight on them. I can't emphasize the corruption that helped to bring about this great market crash enough; a home is the major investment of most Americans and with the economic turmoil they turned ironically enough to the very politicians that enabled the crisis from incubation to fruition.

I find it both disgusting and insulting that Senator Obama and others in the Democrat party can decry the Free Market system that this country is based on when they know that the economic crisis that America and now the world are mired in came as a direct result of government intervention into good business practices in the private sector. Think about this logically for a moment. If you were a bank, and you knew that the government wouldn't get involved to bail you out later, would you give out risky loans to people? NO; because as a lender you are in business not have people default on their loans but to eventually reclaim the money at a profit. Senator Obama and others of like mind forced banks to loan to people that had no business getting a loan in the first place and then turn around and admonish the private sector for doing what they had been instructed to do as a government mandate. This never ending distortion of the facts is absurd and just once I wish someone would call them on it. Instead of having the CEO's of these companies come before Congress I'd like the congressmen and women that created this mess have to come in front of the people and face losing their jobs or jail.

So.. that was cathartic.. I think I know what my next entry is going to be on.. it'll probably have a lot to do with the economy, free market capitalism and socialism. Don't quote me on it, but I think that at this point everyone needs a refresher course on economics and civics because the obvious ignorance out there is almost beyond the pail. Despite all the controversy and bad blood floating around I am not completely without hope, because at it's core I believe in the essential goodness of the American people and that once provided with good information they will act accordingly, in this the greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Random Thoughts:
Some day, when I'm awfully low,
When the world is cold,
I will feel a glow just thinking of you..
And the way you look tonight..

Yes, you're lovely, with your smile so warm,
And your cheeks so soft,
There is nothing for me but to love you..
And the way you look tonight..

Quote of the Entry: Life only demands from you the strength you possess. Only one feat is possible - not to have run away.
- Dag Hammarskjold (1905 - 1961) Swedish Diplomat

The Race Card

In the course of any election season there are any number of tactics/gimmicks that a political candidate uses to help establish that he/she is just like you, despite the fact that they clearly are not, and that they have the same cares and concerns that you have, though again that certainly is not the case. Perhaps the most despicable among these is called "The Race Card," why politics borrows from sports references all the time is beyond me, though I suspect it's to try to spice up what is ordinarily an extremely dry topic. In any event the issue of race has been about as divisive an issue as there is ever likely to be and in this current foray into the democratic process we have seen it being pulled again and again to in defense of the Democrat candidate, Senator Barack Hussein Obama. Despite having virtually nothing in the way of qualifications besides his judgment, which I also have serious problems and questions about, he has risen to be the standard bearer of the Democrat party. But this post is not about Senator Obama, it's about race, politics and the history of both in America.. and for that we inevitably end up at one dark point in American history, Slavery. Though perhaps it wasn't quite as dark as some people might think.

3/5 a Person?:
One of the great supposed contradictions in American history is the clear difference in the language and spirit of the Declaration of Independence and the allowance of slavery to continue in the new union. People often point to the 3/5 compromise in the Constitution which a slave was counted as 3/5 a person for the purposes of taxation and representation in congress and the electoral college. Was it morally wrong to allow slavery to continue? Yes. Was it morally wrong to count a man as 3/5 a person. Yes, but i'd have you consider the circumstances under which these actions were taken and the nuances that bring redemption to a dark time in American history.

Let me set the scene, it's 1787, the Revolutionary War ended 4 years ago and the nacient nation is struggling to find stablity and cohesion under the loose confederacy that has thus far united the disparate states. The delegates gather in Philidelphia to participate in what would later be known as the Constitutional Convention and would end up being the blueprint of almost all western civilizations in the coming centuries. All of them know that the Articles of Confederation aren't working and need to be fixed and most gathered in order to amend not to abandon them, though that certainly wouldn't be the result. Once the debate began and the establishment of a stronger federal goverment under a new Constitution became certain, there were still many problems to be addressed not the least of which were representation in the legislature, taxation of citizens, and property rights.

Not surprisingly slavery was the common thread that binded those three issues. Northern States generally wanted to abolish slavery and southern states wanted to propogate it. In order to unite as a nation there were concessions made to limit the influence and power that the southern states held while still allowing slavery to continue. The point of contention was whether slaves should be counted for representation in Congress or in taxation or both. The 3/5th's Compromise eventually laid that problem to rest and in case you're curious:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

But what was really important was that 10 of the 13 States had already outlawed slavery and many delegates were boldly and vocally opposing slavery at the Convention. Unfortunatly three states, threatned not only to leave the convention but potentially leave the union if slavery was outlawed. Thus the delegates deffered the issue till later putting the ratification and formation of this new goverment as paramount while still putting limits on slavery by stipulating that Congress would have power to ban the slave trade after 20 years. Later when Georgia would secced from the union, they would put it like this:

The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose.

Now some of you may ask where i'm going with all of this, which is a fair enough question considering the fact that i'm painting with a broad brush a set of events that was serious and grevious enough to send many thousands of men to their death; but I point all of this out to give a backdrop on race, slavery and oppression in America so that you may better understand an issue that has largely been offuscated with time. To try to make my points a bit more clear this format might help..

1. Many of the founders knew that slavery was wrong, and worked to put an end to it as best they could while still ensuring the strength of the union.

2. In fact they put specifically put limitiations on slavery to ensure it's eventual demise in the hopes of avoiding what would eventually become a civil war.

3. Knowledge of history is of the utmost importance because the context upon which events occured is paramount to understanding the truth of the situation.

Believe me there's much more to go through on this issue, and to be honest it's something deserving the attention of a doctoral thesis rather than a one shot blog entry; but the fact remains that for a long time now Americans have simply been scratching the surface when it comes to the truth about race in our country. The irony is not lost on me that the party that literally was willing to go to war over the freedom of those that were enslaved is now viewed as evil by those same people they fought to free, even so much as to vote for and later pass civil rights legislation in the 60's, but I suppose thats a discussion for another day. There are many myths and misconceptions when it comes to the American political landscape, and it is my hope to do my small part to dispel such misinformation and replace it with some perspective and truth in this the greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Random Thoughts:
Bittersweet, you're gonna be the death of me..
I don't want you, but I need you,
I love you and I hate you at the very same time..

See what I want so much, should never hurt this bad,
Never did this before, that's what the virgin said ,
We've been generally warned, that's what the surgeon says..
God talk to me now this is an emergency..

Quote of the Entry: "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
- Ronald Reagan (1911 - 2004) 40th president of US

The Purpose of Government

It's at once both funny and appalling that Americans have the shortest history of all the developed nations and the least appreciation for the significance and importance of that history. America has existed for not even three hundred years and yet I would contend that more American citizens know more about and deify the histories of Rome or Egypt as opposed to those of Washington and Madison. I suppose the goal of this particular post would be a brief review of the history of America and the ideas and ideals that went into it's incubation and execution. And it goes a little something like this..

Revolution:
A lot of people while studying the American Revolution correctly identify unreasonable taxes as the match that lit the powder keg but then discard the issue as irrelevant even though the issue remained important through the founding and clear on until today. The American Revolution was in truth an economic revolution, in that the citizens of the colonies affirmed the right to keep the fruits of their labors and their GOD given right to self govern and fund through their taxes a government that would protect those rights. I think Thomas Jefferson put it best, and while almost anyone would be familiar with this quote from the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

But what about the following sentences? I think not so much..

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

From this we can easily see for what purpose the American democratic republic was formed and the spirit with which it was given life and longevity. And yet today in the modern incarnation of American politics, people often cry out for the separation of church and state; Senator Biden claims that it's patriotic to pay more taxes; and it's become common belief that the government exists not to "secure" the rights and happiness of the electorate but to PROVIDE all that and more in the guise of any number of entitlement programs that are too numerous to name.

It would be obvious to anyone who bothered to do some actual research in even a cursory manner that American politics and goverment are closely intertwined with a deeply spiritual and pious people. The "separation of church and state" that is often popularized and attributed to the first ammendment is what could most closley be likened to a myth. The policy as it is currently represented and enforced came from an interpretation by the Supreme Court, not by any mention in the Constitution, by any early President or by any early incarnation of Congress and yet it is held as one of the long standing traditions in American politics. On it's face, it's foolish to stipulate that any man should abandon or rebuke the religious teachings that provide the moral compass by which that man was raised, had lived and eventually would govern.. But I digress..

I ended up going off on a bit of a tangent there, but theres a lot of ground to cover and this will by no means be the last blog that discusses popular lies, myths and misunderstandings about politics and political discourse in this very heated political season. I know I had previously said I wasn't going to copy and paste previous work but I do think it's just too good and too precient not to include it..

Human Rights vs. Moral Obligations:
I think the mess in the debate on Health Care has confused the basic principles on which a people or indeed a country act. One could put them into two categories: Human Rights and Moral Obligations. In the argument for Universal Health Care, it is assumed that it is the a right of a person to have the responsibility of their welfare be assumed by their neighbors. Just on the face of it, we should know that it is not true, nor should it be the case. It is the individual's responsibility to provide a lifestyle for himself to which he can be satisfied, and indeed in a free society and a capitalist one at that, the sky is indeed the limit. In the case of the indigent or otherwise incapacitated, thats where Moral Obligations take over. We as a nation are a good and moral nation, and as part and parcel of this we have programs to take care of the those who can not take care of themselves. That being said, this should not be extended to those who choose a plasma tv over health care simply because they believe that it is their right to health care and so can afford luxuries that would be ordinarily outside of their range. The same goes for planning for retirement, the supposition that the government and therefore your neighbor will take care of you in your old age should not replace personal responsibility for your own welfare. Live within your means and continually strive for better, letting the limits of your ambition be the only limits on your success. Now back to the idea of a Moral Obligation, I would submit that moral obligations take precedent over human rights because it is not a persons right to be afforded health care even if he is indigent, but it is our moral obligation to help and in that pursuit we must not fail. So in the final analysis, it is not human rights that determine moral obligations but in fact it is the other way around; it is our moral obligations that confer rights to people and it should always be in this order. We are a moral and compassionate country and that is manifest in our actions and a desire to do more for our people and indeed the world, but that desire should be tempered by the knowledge that we should not allow people to opt out of their responsibilities as an adult simply because of a misguided feeling of entitlement to a right that was never really theirs to begin with.

Once again, I hope that whomever comes across this blog finds it to be informative and helpfull and most of all a good read. I'll be attempting to update daily, partly because theres a lot to discuss but also partly because i'm often bored and have little else to do as of late. There's a lot at stake in this election beyond that of just the presidency, indeed it will, for the most part, determine the tone and tenor of America for the rest of this century; in this the greatest nation on God's green Earth.

Random Thoughts:
Another summer day has come
And gone away,
And even Paris and Rome,
And I wanna go home..
Let me go home..

And I’m surrounded by,
A million people I,
Still feel alone..
Oh, let go home,
Oh, I miss you, you know..

Let me go home..
I’ve had my run,
Baby, I’m done,
I gotta go home..
Let me go home..
It will all right,
I’ll be home tonight,
I’m coming back home...

Quote of the Entry: "He who promises more than he is able to perform, is false to himself; and he who does not perform what he has promised, is a traitor to his friend."
- George Ernest Shelley (1840-1910) English Geologist and Orinthologist

Purpose? Unknown..

Personally I'm not sure why I decided to make another blog.. especially since I have no one that would or could read it.. but in the event that someone ever gets to this page.. I hope you find it to be informative and interesting.. so that this isn't just me writing and figuratively shouting into the echo chamber. And so we begin on a journey whose length is undetermined and whose result is uncertain at best..

Health Care is a Right?:
According to Senator Obama, Health Care is now a right in America. In the previous incarnation of this blog I had written a piece on Human Rights vs. Moral Obligations, and that piece is certainly relevant in this election season and I wrote that months ago. I'm tempted to simply cut and paste.. but what's the point if no one is going to read it anyway? Besides I'm writing this to sort out my own thoughts through writing.. so that would be an exercise in futility to some extent wouldn't it? In any event lets just break this down to the basic facts and arguments and see what comes out as a result. Simple enough, right?

As I understood it America was founded on certain rights that were given to us not by a king, not by committee or legislature or even by popular vote, but by GOD. Among these rights are LIFE, LIBERTY and the pursuit of HAPPINESS. No where in there do I see a mention of health care, but perhaps that's because at the time of the founding a persons health was considered to be their own responsibility. There was no shortage of disease, famine or hardship, but instead of looking to the government for help people looked instead to their families and communities when the burden became too great. But wait, what about equality what about fairness? The concept of equality and fairness in America is one of the most misunderstood concepts that has ever been a part of the public discourse. The equality and fairness in America comes not in the redistribution of wealth and benefits, but in the equality of opportunity. Every American citizen is given the opportunity to excel in whatever aspect of life they choose in order to achieve whatever their goals are. The part where people get confused is where people confuse equality of opportunity and equality of result. When people begin to expect equality of result when they don't put in the same amount of blood, sweat and tears, then you have communism and that seems to be the direction that the Democrat party seems to be leaning in.

I think now I can safely say that I've established that America was founded on the principal of inequality of outcome. Of course this is all based on equality of opportunity, and any system that affords equal protection of opportunity will always result in unequal outcomes. Each person ahs different talents, energy levels, work habits and motivation. Where's the crime? Whats the problem? The talented will always have more because they produce more, the hard working will always get more because they work longer. This is the basis for the free market system, and the foundation upon which our republic is built. This applies to any issue you care to apply it to: Health Care, the Credit Crunch, entitlement programs.. et all.

I could go on for pages and pages, but I figure this is long enough as it is.. I think from here we can go on a bit of a civics lesson on my next blog. The question becomes why was our government formed and what is the purpose of that government? Is it to simply protect our GOD given rights from threats both foriegn and domestic, or is it to redistribute wealth to ensure fairness and equality of outcome for all? Did we give the federal government a monopoly on force simply to have them turn around and make us give our wealth to our neighbor? All these questions and more will be answered on the next installment of this blog, (forgive me Mr. Medved) in this greatest nation on God's green earth.

Random Thoughts:
Now everybody got the game figured out all wrong,
I guess you never know what you got till is gone..
I guess that's why I'm here and I can't come back home,
and guess when I heard that when I was back home..
In the interviews I'm representin you makin you proud,
Shoot for the stars so if you fall you land on the clouds..

Quote of the Entry: There can be no happiness if the things we believe in are different from the things we do.
- Freya Madeline Stark (1893-1993) Franco-British explorer, Travel Writer