Friday, May 14, 2010

We've let down our guard

I just read the conclusion of Elena Kagan’s college thesis. You can read the entire manuscript here. I guess what shocks me the most is that we, as a nation, have become all too receptive of those who are receptive to socialistic idealism. Not that there’s anything wrong with open minds exploring differing viewpoints, but our President’s tendency to surround himself with cabinet member and czars who are quite open in their radical socialist beliefs is more than troubling. It’s just scary.

I understand that those who’ve made politics a career will always delve into various social and economic theory. I’ve read writings of Marx myself, and had little trouble seeing the folly, by the way. I expect that anyone rising to the level of President or advisor of the President has studied just about every type of governance offered by man. After all, one must know the bad ideas in order to argue for something better. The founders of this nation understood the bad ideas. That’s why they established what still stands as the greatest solution to government ever devised—the U.S. Constitution.
So the political spectrum is broad, and our nation’s leaders have immersed themselves in all known theory. So my question is a simple one:

If the President is representative of everyone in this nation, why are his advisors made up almost entirely of socialist radicals?

Elana Kagan is just the latest. Pick any other. Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Davis Axelrod, Bill Ayers, Eric Holder, Carol Browner, Valerie Jarrett, and his latest gem, Donald Berwick. That’s just the short list. It’s gotten to the point that we’re so immersed in his progressive agenda that we don’t notice, or just don’t care anymore, that our capitol has become the stomping grounds for the people we defended our country against through two world wars and the cold war.

I need to get into detail about these people, about progressivism, and how this socialist agenda has slowly eaten at American society since Woodrow Wilson was in office, perhaps before. See why the party politics is just a distraction? It goes much deeper. Not a conspiracy, just a letting down of our defenses. Our founding fathers warned us that, in order to defend this republic we’ve created, we must always be alert. We’ve not been alert.

I’ll continue on with more postings once I get myself organized. There are plenty of others doing the same, most better connected (and more talented) than I. But I hope that a few of my friends will understand. This isn’t about a political party. It’s about saving this country. All one has to do is look to Europe to see our future. We’ve been fighting hard to align ourselves with European social philosophy. I fear we will get our wish.

For today, I’ll simply ask you to keep an open mind. Research anything I or anyone else tells you. But be prepared to accept what you discover. Let me leave you with these final thoughts.
One of my favorite books that caused me the most grief was 1984 by George Orwell. There are lyrics to a song at the end of the book that have haunted me since I read them more than twenty years ago:

Under the spreading chestnut tree,
I sold you and you sold me.
There lie they, and here lie we
Under the spreading chestnut tree.

In Orwell’s book, those who rebelled against a tyrannical government were easily found out because the masses had been trained from birth that it is their civic duty to rat out the non-conformists. The hero and heroine of our story, after their mini-rebellion is discovered, sit in a diner at the end of the novel, this song playing while they sip their drinks. Their moment of victory smashed, their hope gone, they play the game, walk the walk, and behave as good little patriots who serve Big Brother without question.

Fiction is funny. It has a way of becoming reality. Or, perhaps writers have a special antenna that picks up on social trends. Orwell was one of those. So was Ayn Rand. Atlas Shrugged so mirrors what is happening in America today that I almost weep when I read it. It’s prophetic.

My friends, I don’t care what your party affiliation is, but what’s happening in America is nothing less than the steady dismantling of our founding principles, to be replaced with the progressive utopian dream. Unfortunately, the utopian dream has been tried over and over, from the French Revolution to modern Europe. Each and every time, the dream has been turned into a nightmare. I’d give my life to keep that nightmare from our shores and away from my children.

By the way, for those of you who’ve subscribed to my blog, I’ve moved it to a more permanent site. Go to I’ll continue these postings there (don’t wanna lose you, Tom).
God bless. See you next week.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Taxing the Rich...and other fairy tales

Here’s my new favorite word: fair. Despite the attempts of many (okay, hardly anyone) in the mainstream media to educate the populace on how the economy works, the most popular American argument to solve the debt crisis is to raise taxes on the wealthy. After all, there comes a point where you’ve made enough money (put a little inflection on “money” so you sound really hep).

Here, I’m going to say something that will really piss off a lot of people: you’re not interesting in fairness, you want to punish people who’ve succeeded where you’ve failed. It’s kinda like the high school kid who spreads nasty rumors about the girl who got elected prom queen. It doesn’t matter that you never showered and scowled at everyone who roamed into your personal space, it just isn’t fair. You know, I agree, I think Stephen King should be taxed 90% of his income because he can publish his grocery list and I can’t get my masterpiece into print. He’s not very pretty, either. So there.

But let’s try it. Let’s tax everyone making over $100,000 per year 100% of their income. That would come out to about $3trillion. Not bad. That would cover more than half of the budget. Except, of course, that the top 5% of earners already pay 85% of the taxes, so we’re really not gaining that much. All of this is easily found on the internet, by the way. The IRS is full of little tidbits. I suggest a little Google-ing before casting in stone something spouted by Whoopi Goldberg.

Speaking of hypocrites. Why, in America, is someone who makes millions per year by acting, singing, or sports considered a hero, while anyone making millions providing a product or service that we all need considered greedy? Here’s my favorite: Michael Moore earns millions a year making “documentaries,” all while bashing capitalism. I believe we call this “eating the hand that feeds you.”

Getting past all that, here’s the common sense that ain’t so common anymore: the nasty rich people you so despise are the ones who got rich by building companies, big ones and small ones. And guess what those companies do? Right! They hire you! That way, you can buy the wide screen TV (made by a filthy capitalist), SUV (made by a filthy capitalist), and 2000 sq.-ft. house (made by a filthy capitalist). Then you can drive home from your filthy capitalistic job in your SUV, walk into your big house, turn on the wide screen, and watch Keith Olbermann (getting richer every day) bash the guy who gave you the job, built your car, your TV, and your house. Only in America (or any other country with socialist aspirations).

So how hard do you think your employer is going to work in building your company if you tax the jeevies out of him? Let’s see, I can bust my arse 70 hours a week, pull down half a million a year, and have it taxed 89%, leaving me a cool fifty or sixty grand. Or I can push a pen 40 hours a week, pull down $70,000 per year, taxed at 39%, leaving me forty or fifty grand a year. Ummm….think I’ll take the less stressful route. Sorry, employees, you’re all fired. I’m going to Wal Mart!

It is not a crime to grow rich. It certainly wouldn’t be a crime if you suddenly had a flash of brilliance, invented a device that would double fuel economy, and made a few million this year, would it? The rich are people who made smart decisions. Most didn’t luck into their wealth. It wasn’t taken from you and given to them. However, most seem happy with the idea of taking it from the rich and giving it to the poor. Somehow, though, the idea of allowing the rich to invest their wealth into more job-creating businesses is heartless and cruel. Better to just rip the money out of their hands, launder it through the bureaucratic maze in Washington, and hand the remaining 10% to the poor. Then, of course, push lottery tickets on them so the state can get the rest of its money back. Fairness, American style.

I suppose, since the federal government is now the biggest shareholder in General Motors, that we could just let them do the company building. That way, they could build the things that make the most sense to them. Things like electric cars, solar panels, paper shredders. Why bother with capitalism at all? Looks like Uncle Joe Stalin and Fidel were right. We just didn't get it. We understand now. Workers of the world unite!

Saturday, May 08, 2010

It's not all Greek to me

I think the biggest obstacle conservatives face is this: Americans simply do not make the connection between our national debt and the freedoms we enjoy. It's almost like the Meijer Bucks we get in newspaper ads here in Michigan. It's not real money, but a Meijer Buck gets you a dollar off your next purchase. But instead of Meijer Bucks, what we have in Washington is GovBucks. It's not real money, you see. You can use it to buy neat stuff like highways, aircraft carriers, and health care, but we don't really have to pay it back, because it never really existed in the first place. I suppose there's a bit of truth to that. It didn't exist in the first place. We had to borrow it, either from ourselves or other countries.

This of course, is a fallacy. GovBucks do need to be repaid, and at interest. I won't get into the whole debt to GDP ratio, because honestly, there's no need to. This really is common sense. If you spend more than you take in, and continue doing so year after year, you will lose your house, your car, everything you own. What does that mean to a nation? Well, Greece is showing us.

Greece is a typical nation that had been drawn into a European style socialism, where services were provided to the populace by a generous government. We call them "entitlements." It's a word tossed around so often I think we've grown numb to it. I prefer the term "social narcotics," or sonarcs.

The pushers of these sonarcs are those who we refer to as "progressives." So the entitlements are the drugs and the progressives are the pushers. Follow me? I love a nice word picture.

Let's use our biggest sonarc as an example: social security. Social security was one of many sonarcs established by FDR, a progressive of monumental proportions. An interesting side note about sonarcs. Like drugs, the negative effects are rarely immediate. The repercussions often take years, even decades. This results in the initial orchestrator of the sonarc looking like a hero because that first hit felt so darn good. That's why I often refer to the Democratic Party (the official home of pushers) as the Party of Unintended Consequences. Social security, established during the Great Depression (remember, never let a crisis go to waste), when Americans were desperate for any hope the government could offer. They could not see seventy years into the future, when this program would begin to bankrupt the nation. Other disastrous sonarcs include Medicaire, HUD, the central bank, etc. All seem wonderful ideas at first, but soon prove to cause far more harm than good.

Unfortunately, like the drug user, we the people soon discover that
a) we cannot live without our sonarc, and
b) it will eventually kill us.

Such is the case in Greece. So addicted to their "free" government programs have they become that they simply do not care that it will kill them in the end. But there is simply no choice, the pusher is out of product, therefore he must cut off his customer cold turkey. And, like the addicted drug user, the people of Greece are responding with violence.

Here's what foreclosure means to a nation: no more public services. No highway repair, no military, no police force, no public education, nothing that requires federal or state funds. In a word: anarchy. Ironically, anarchy is what liberals claim that conservatives aspire to. When, in fact, it is liberal-progressive policies that will lead us there. The pusher will not stop pushing as long as he maintains power over his victim. You see, the drug works two ways. We get our sonarcs, the pusher gets power and our admiration, though only as long as the sonarcs continue to flow.

When a third party steps in and offers intervention, both the pusher and the addict hate him. Much like a family member is hated by the addict when intervention is attempted. That's why conservatives are so viciously attacked on both sides. We are hated because we love. We love our country and countrymen so much that we are willing to endure endless assaults upon our character, our patriotism, even our personal lives. All because we see the blindness of the addict and the cruel intent of the pusher and work tirelessly to save them both.

American must decrease the flow of sonarcs before we are forced to go cold turkey. While things like the health care bill may appear compassionate on the surface, they do nothing more than increase our reliance on our pusher, the federal government, and draw us one step closer to anarchy. This, the liberal Democrats say, is compassion. If you don't stick just one more needle in your arm, you'll suffer withdrawals. Please, they say, stick with us and we'll make your life better, you need not think for yourselves. We're here for you. Just one more, buddy. And all the pain will go away.

It's time to send the pushers packing my friends. Take a good hard look at what's happening in Greece. This is our future if we continue down the path the progressive Democrats have set us upon.

Friday, May 07, 2010

My Politics from the heart

Politics was never something I aspired to. So I only have two solid memories of political moments during my youth. The first was when I was eight years old and walked into my grandmother’s living room, having just returned from Cedar Point. My mother sat in front of a TV. She was crying. I saw a man on the screen who I think I recognized as the President. I asked mom what was wrong, and she said the President was resigning. I had no knowledge of Watergate, only that it was a word I’d heard often on the news each night. But I did know something wasn’t right. Presidents were not supposed to make my mom cry. They were supposed to be fearless leaders, heroes who lead our nation and inspired millions.

My second “political moment” came in 1981. By then I was fourteen and a sophomore at Bruton High School in Virgina. Dad was a career Navy man and we’d just moved to Yorktown Naval Weapons Station. As it turned out, 1981 was an important year in Yorktown. Two-hundred years prior, the new Americans handed the British a decisive defeat on that peninsula. In 1981, we got a whole week off from school to participate in the bicentennial celebration.

I’d spent that week with my friends, checking out all the displays, cannon demonstrations, girls, and re-enactments, slowly developing a sense of awe over what had happened there. Toward the end of the week, our new President was scheduled to make an appearance. Oddly, I remember nothing of the speech itself, though I’m sure I listened with my father. What I do remember is standing along the road that entered the park. The Presidential procession rolled in, sirens flashing, the long black limos crawling along between the crowds.

When President Reagan’s limo rolled by, I caught a glimpse, just a glimpse of him as he waved at us. Now, at fourteen I still knew little of politics. Military families tend to lean Republican, so my parents were happy with the new President. But when I saw him, I felt a sense of pride. Reagan had that way about him. All he had to do was show up and we had the feeling that all would be well. President Reagan would never make my mom cry.

Again, at that moment in time, I didn’t know what were the differences in the parties. I certainly didn’t know what a “conservative” was. By the time I finished my own tour of duty in the Navy, I still didn’t know. It wouldn’t be until the early 90s, having met my wife-to-be and getting started in college, that I would learn. I took the pre-requisite courses in American Government and Economics, usually taught by Democratic ex-politicians. I disagreed with much of what they said, but couldn’t articulate why I disagreed. I found this quite frustrating.

Then I discovered (my wife will say she discovered) a boisterous, somewhat obnoxious man on the radio. I’d never imagined I’d listen to talk radio. That’s something that old people did. But Rush Limbaugh brought something new to the format. He brought a passion that was contagious. He also brought with him the best education in conservatism I’d gotten up until that point. His simple message of self-reliance, personal accountability, and limited government filled the missing gaps in my knowledge of the conservative movement. Later I would read for myself what the core beliefs of conservatism were.

I also discovered that conservatism, not Republicanism, was at the base of my system of values. A party is just a shell, a home club so to speak. The party is made up of men and women with varying opinions and beliefs. But I had to choose a party that fit most closely with my conservative values. Naturally, I assumed the Republican Party—Reagan’s Party—would always be a safe home. I was wrong.

Politicians are driven to find approval. It’s how they get elected and re-elected. And the temptation to stray from their core values for the sake of re-election is often more than they can withstand. Oddly, it was those core values that got them elected in the first place, but the fickle winds of public opinion, driven by a questionable media, often steer them off course. I saw my Republican Party break free from the solid moors of conservatism in the last decade. Spooked by a couple of Democratic victories, they shifted into the mushy world of the “moderate.” I prefer to call it the “Can’t we all just get along” mentality.

By the time I hit forty, I knew enough of history and politics to realize that what is happening in Washington is far from what the founders intended for this nation. Any personal sacrifice I had to make was insignificant compared to the consequences of silence. I, and millions of others, did not go to a Tea Party. The Tea Party gravitated toward us. We did not follow. We made the movement, much like William F. Buckley and like-minded conservatives created that movement fifty years ago. We were not blindly following a man shouting “Hope and Change.” We already knew where our hope rested, long before the ’08 campaign rhetoric.

As individuals, we hold certain truths to be “self evident,” that we are accountable for our actions, responsible for our futures, and no man-made government maintains either the right or the wisdom to direct the fortunes of hundreds of millions of people.

For those who disagree, who think that we the people are not smart enough to handle our own affairs, they will point to the Tea Party and denounce it as a fraud. They fail to see, because to them everything that matters is on the surface, the underlying pulse of conservative, freedom loving Americans who somehow managed to pull away from their busy lives and gather under signs and yellow flags. Take away the Tea Party if you wish. The patriots will remain. Yes, they won’t annoy you as much if you can’t see them, but the sleeping giant still lives whether he shouts or whispers.

Only a fool believes he has silenced the will of the masses by diminishing the importance of the banner under which they stand. Take my yellow flag, take my sign, take my buttons. That which you fear still remains. We are tens of millions strong. And we are not going away.

The city on a hill will shine again, Mr. President, with our without your approval. Follow your beliefs, my conservative friends, speak boldly and passionately your convictions, do not fear disapproval, know that you are more intelligent than those who claim to hold all wisdom, and nothing can stand in our way.

Let’s get this party started.

Wednesday, May 05, 2010

The Fix is In

Senator Harry Reid said yesterday that the Republicans want to block everything they do. I certainly hope so. Maybe, Senator, if everything the Democrats tried to do wasn’t a disaster to the economy, security, and overall well-being of this nation, the Republicans might be easier to get along with.

The Senator was speaking, of course, about the bill now on the floor of the Senate that would essentially give the U.S. Government sweeping control over financial institutions. This, of course, is not a step toward socialism. It’s a giant leap.

But here’s how the Dems work. The economic downturn of 2008 was primarily brought about because of a bill first signed by Jimmy Carter and given teeth by Bill Clinton. This is fairly common knowledge now, but the Dems have done a good job of denial. In a nutshell, Fannie May and Freddie Mac, two entities that have no purpose but to suck money from the economy, were “strongly encouraged” to make more home loans available to low-income individuals. Because bankers are not in the business to lose money—the greedy bastards—this went against common business sense. But we’re not talking about common sense, we’re talking about the U.S. Government.

So, as was predicted by a couple thousand economists, George Bush, and Mrs. Tracy’s Oak Hill Elementary third grade class, the housing market boomed, then busted. The point here is this: the government was the cause of the economic meltdown. Please repeat that as many times as necessary. Lay down if you need to. It hurts…I know.

And now we have this bill. President Obama, Harry, and Nancy all proclaim that it will “protect the taxpayers from any future bank failures.” Oh how sweet. Let’s see. The government caused the economic downturn, the government took over a trillion dollars of our money and threw it at the banks, and now they’re proposing a bill to protect us against…what? Them?

Don’t be silly, Ron. You know better. What the Bailout Bill does is authorize the federal government to decide which banks live and which die. What lovely power. In fact, here’s a thought, and I’m sure no Dem ever considered this. Since there is one party rule in our government right now, I bet that these banks will make darn sure they stay on the Dems good side. The campaign coffers will be flowing with bank money this fall. I mean, if it’s one lesson us peons learned from the health care bill, it’s that if you don’t have enough allies, you simply buy them (we call it a Blanching).

Now why do you suppose the Republicans would do everything possible to block a bill that would almost guarantee Democrat rule for the next fifty years? How rude of them. Oh, let’s not forget the fact that the government simply has no place in business. If I were a bank that was too big to fail, I might consider making myself small to avoid government attention. I’d be the Bank of Casablanca. Keep a low profile. No gambling going on here. No risk. No loans. Which is probably okay, since the government has sopped up all the available cash anyway, making it darn near impossible for small businesses and private citizens to get credit.

Let’s see. Obama, Harry, and Nancy now have control over health care. They have control over two of our three auto companies. They want control over the banks. And they’ve already tied up a huge chunk of available cash.

But it’s not socialism. Nossir. It’s protecting the taxpayer. Kind of like being in a great big bear hug. From a great big bear. A great big hungry bear.

The Republicans need to block harder. Don’t be the party of No. Be the party of OH HELL NO. Get the job done boys. The Cavalry’s coming in November.

Monday, May 03, 2010

My Congressman and yours-Nancy

The current regime in Washington has done us all a great favor. Remember the embarrassment you faced when someone asked you who your congressman was or who your senators were and you struggled to come up with a name? Well, guess what, those days are over.

Your congressman, and mine, is Nancy Pelosi.

Your senator, and mine, is Harry Reid (we don’t even need to remember two!).

This is so much easier than those backward days of long ago, when congressmen and senators in the same party would vote differently on each bill. They’d actually read the bills, formulate their own opinions, and vote accordingly. My gosh…how did they ever get anything accomplished with all those people thinking for themselves?

When John Conyers (aka. Nancy) announced to the world that he couldn’t be expected to read the health care bill—it was just too darned long with all those big hard words—you could almost hear a sigh of relief from Capitol Hill. Finally, the pressure was off. When John-Nancy, a man who’s been in Congress FORTY FIVE YEARS, two years longer than I’ve been alive, made the decision to throw in the towel on all this silly individualism, he unwittingly released every single Democrat in Congress from hours and hours of boring research and reading. It was like a med school student who’s been told that all homework for the duration of his time has been cancelled! And, since med school students, along with doctors, are dropping like campaign promises, that may be the next trick to reversing another unintended consequence.

Of course, John needed the name change. As Nancy, maybe no one will connect him with his wife, Monica Conyers, sentenced to jail time after accepting bribes while on the Detroit City Council. It makes one proud to be a Michigander you betcha!

At least some Democrats in the House voted in opposition to their Dear Leader. Oddly, though, Nancy always gets the votes she needs. I’m sure those few renegades aren’t just tokens to appease the curious masses. That would involve political gamesmanship, and something as important as government takeover of health care would certainly be above politics.

I wanna believe it, don’t you? But then we look toward the Senate. Now, I’m sure I’m the only one here who’s had nightmares in which 59 Harry Reid clones invade my small town and stalk about in search of human brains to devour. They’ve certainly devoured our desire to return to the voting booth. I mean, what’s the point? Fifty-nine men and women, all Democrats, and not one of them had an issue with the most expensive and complex bill in this nation’s history? I suppose that’s possible…I mean, if you ask fifty-nine high school boys if they’d rather go to a lecture on quantum physics or be special guests at the next Sports Illustrated swimsuit photo shoot, you’d probably get a unanimous vote.

I should just be more open-minded, I suppose. This is, after all, the twenty-first century. Look at all the problems caused by individuality. Wars, pestilence, disease, the Lifetime channel. Imagine what we could accomplish if we all shared the same ideas, the same thoughts. No dissent. No time wasted on monotonous debate.

In fact, why should we even have to remember Nancy and Harry? Since they’re only following the orders of One, we can just skip the middle man and cut right to the chase. This whole democracy thing is way overrated anyway. Finally, we’ve got our hero to take up his place in the hall of great world leaders, so well loved that they only need one name—Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Che, Castro.

It just shows what can be accomplished if we shed our liberty and individuality and follow the wisest among us. Let’s all write to our congressmen and senators today and let them know they can take the next century off. Obviously, their services are no longer required.