Okay, the election is over and we can all hunker down and try to brace ourselves for the wave of Socialist "Change" that we all "need" so badly. Having lived through the Carter and Clinton Administrations, here is what will happen:
The economy won't recover any time soon, this will lead to a more balanced Congress in 2010. But in the meantime, the Democrats won't waste any time:
- Blocking any and all future efforts to drill our own oil on or off shore
- Nationalizing Abortion on Demand up to and including a near full term infant
- Raising taxes at least on those in the top two rates (since they have more money than they need and it won't hurt them in the downturn.
- Creating "Unionization by Decree", allowing any company to be unionized by having employees sign a 3X5 cards while being "encouraged" by outside organizers who will have government-permission to enter your premises whenever they want.
- Blocking any and all current and future efforts to produce more electricity from anything other than solar and wind
- Taxing coal and natural gas electric plants to "fight global Warming" and thereby raising electric rates sky high
- Filling the federal courts with leftwing judges who will ensure that the above policies are enforced through the legal system
- Start us down the path of Nationalized Healthcare
Just like we have seen, this type of "revolution" is hard to undo since having a filibuster-proof majority in Congress is a rare occurrence and even when you have a solid majority, Republicans tend to get timid.
The problem gets even tougher when so many Republican leaders want to take the party further into liberalism in the twisted idea that if they look more like Democrats, they'll win more votes. They claim that the party has to become more "inclusive", they need to reach out to specific groups including minorities, gays, soccer moms, illegal immigrants, Wal-Mart shoppers, etc. They claim that we need to get on board the global warming train even though the facts show that it is a myth.
This idea is nonsense. Just a quick look at the last two elections will show how ridiculous this idea would be. By the time his 8 years in office are done, George W Bush will leave the White House with one of the lowest approval ratings in history. His brand of liberalism, hidden behind the title of "Compassionate Conservatism", has put the country in the depths of a very severe downturn, allowing the first Socialist president in history to get elected with a strong majority in the Congress. After the Republicans gained a greater majority in 2004, they failed to make the current tax rates permanent and increased spending to levels that would make the most liberal Democrat proud. So how'd they do in the 2006 election? The real conservatives stayed home and given the choice between liberal Republicans and left-wing Democrats, liberals chose Democrats.
This year, with the help of "open primaries" where Democrats were allowed to cross over and vote, the Republicans chose the most liberal, "Democrat-lite" candidate they've ever had. The only reason that the election was so close was that people like me voted against Obama, a McCain Presidency just scared me less.
If you actually look at the results, you will see that in most cases, it was the more conservative Republican Candidates, who actually "saved their seats".
So the idea of becoming more liberal, will doom the party to second class status for decades. So how does the Republican Party, win back the love of the Country? Here is my suggestion.
#1, Drop the term "conservative". Thanks to the main-stream media, the term has morphed into so many different definitions that can be attacked from so many angles, that it no longer is a concept that Americans can rally around.
#2, Replace the conservative with Constitution. If you become the "Party of the Constitution", you eliminate many objections and attacks (who can attack the Constitution convincingly) as well as create a clear, definable difference with Democrat policies. You become the party that defends Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of individual achievement and prosperity. You become the all-inclusive party because you believe that "All are Created Equal". You become the party of small federal government, by encouraging the Concept of States' Rights, pushing government costs as close to the end user as possible and not blocking the right of any state to grow there economy because some special interest group in a state across the country opposes it.
#3, Start the education process now. Republicans need an organized effort at the grass root level. Recruit teachers, professors and local government candidates to start espousing the virtues of the Constitution. Recruit "Constitutional Activists", and like-minded lawyers to start going after local governments that always threaten loss of essential services like police and fire fighters when faced with a tax revolt as well as school boards who always look to cut sports and valuable education services when a millage vote is on the ballot. Find candidates that preach the message that government works for the people and not the other way around. Point out the absurdity that anyone should have to take these threats from an elected official.
The future of the country is at stake, one only needs to look at Western Europe to see how bad things can get under institutionalized socialism. Trying to out-liberal a socialist to try to win votes is a ridiculous notion, conservatives will walk away and liberals will always vote Democrat. It is only through embracing the Constitution and articulating the benefits for all in a way that the average voter can understand, will we finally get this country on the track that made it the envy of the world for so many years.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
The “Bailout Clause” of the U.S. Constitution
From:
Whiskey & Gunpowder
November 19, 2008
By Byron W. King
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
I was looking through my pocket-copy of the U.S. Constitution for the “Bailout Clause.” I must have missed it. If any readers out there can find the Bailout Clause, please send me a note and let me know where it is.
There is, however, a “Bankruptcy Clause” in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4). I’ve written before about bankruptcy in Whiskey & Gunpowder. See “National Bankruptcy,” and “A Suggestion of Bankruptcy,” Part I and Part II.
The key point is that the framers of the U.S. Constitution specifically anticipated that the nation would encounter economic troubles from time to time. So they gave Congress the power to enact bankruptcy laws, as opposed to “bailout” laws. And throughout U.S. history, the various economic “Panics” — which occurred every couple of decades — always led to one direction or another in the evolution of state and federal bankruptcy laws. Hey, bankruptcy works. (Full disclosure — I used to practice bankruptcy law.)
At some times in U.S. history, the bankruptcy laws favored the creditor class. During other times, the bankruptcy laws favored debtors. The point is that the economic hardships were eventually manifested in bankruptcy proceedings.
Just as all rivers flow to the sea, bad debt must find its way to discharge. So bankruptcy court was where judges and attorneys and other financial experts (like accountants and actuaries) could deal with each case on the merits. The problems could come to some sort of resolution. Some people came out OK. Other people lost everything. But capital flowed from weak hands to strong hands, and the economy moved along.
Why Not Bankruptcy Process?
But not today. Indeed, according to the New York Times many law firms — including firms that focus on bankruptcy work — are actually scaling back and laying off staff. Why is that? Why are the politicians so eager to avoid seeing companies go into bankruptcy? The government is trying to solve the problems of gargantuan levels of debt — along with chronic insolvency and illiquidity within the economy — without resorting to the constitutional-based legal mechanisms and tools that have served the nation well for over 200 years.
Consider the problems of derivatives. Few understand them. Many so-called derivative “contracts” are little more than mathematical formulae based on a series of futuristic occurrences that are entirely speculative. Their initial value in the best of times was entirely somebody’s guess. So is it any surprise that it is all but impossible to place a value on such things during the throes of a recession? Yet derivatives are some of the “troubled assets” that the Treasury is attempting to bail out. This is ridiculous!
Why is the Treasury allowing even one dollar of taxpayer money to get near a derivative? Why not use the bankruptcy process in this kind of situation? The companies that hold unsalable derivatives should have to go into a Chapter 11 proceeding and let a bankruptcy court sort it out. If the derivatives have value, let someone say so — under oath — in front of a federal judge. If the derivatives are worthless, let the judges do what we pay them to do — void the instruments and allocate the losses.
Sure, bankruptcy cases take time to roll through the courts. But could Chapter 11 bankruptcy be any worse than the current drip-drip-drip, hemorrhage of funds into the black hole of the likes of AIG? And at least some bankruptcy judge might just put a stop to the AIG exploits of taking nice vacations to exotic resort locales.
Or what about the U.S. automobile industry? Now the domestic carmakers want some of that TARP money too. Or else what? They’ll have to file for Chapter 11? Yeah? And then?
Well on the day that the automakers file for bankruptcy, the automobile factories will still be there. The patents and designs aren’t going anywhere. The workers and design teams will stick around for a while — it’s not like there are a whole lot of other jobs out there, except maybe raking leaves in leafy suburbs.
It seems to me that General Motors, Ford or Chrysler — without the legacy costs of pensions and health care and featherbed contracts for non-working union members — would actually be a decent investment for a Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) form of financing. Any DIP-lender worth its salt would certainly go into the management suites to take names, kick ass and get rid of the deadwood. And over the long term, if U.S. automakers actually paid more for steel than they have to pay for retiree health care, then we might actually see a revival of that industry.
Meanwhile, We’re Losing Time
Meanwhile, we are losing time. “Ask me for anything,” said Napoleon to his lieutenant. “Anything but time.”
What Napoleon was saying to his subordinate was that in the context of war, there are always setbacks. Terrain, for example, is sometimes captured and lost to the enemy. But lost terrain can be regained. And troops are lost in combat, but the armed forces can be rebuilt and reconstituted from the strategic reserve. Lost time, however? Once it has passed, time is gone forever. You will never get it back, and no general — however great — can win it back on any field of battle.
It is the same thing with the declining U.S. and world economy. The world’s central bankers and treasury ministers dither, and squander capital into bottomless pits of a deflationary recession.
But the great villain in all of this is debt, pure and simple. And much debt is just a collection of bizarre debt instruments, exotic forms of speculative contracts, and obligations so massive that they will never be repaid. So why prolong the agony? Liquidate it now. Let the bankruptcy courts do what the framers intended.
Whiskey & Gunpowder
November 19, 2008
By Byron W. King
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
I was looking through my pocket-copy of the U.S. Constitution for the “Bailout Clause.” I must have missed it. If any readers out there can find the Bailout Clause, please send me a note and let me know where it is.
There is, however, a “Bankruptcy Clause” in the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4). I’ve written before about bankruptcy in Whiskey & Gunpowder. See “National Bankruptcy,” and “A Suggestion of Bankruptcy,” Part I and Part II.
The key point is that the framers of the U.S. Constitution specifically anticipated that the nation would encounter economic troubles from time to time. So they gave Congress the power to enact bankruptcy laws, as opposed to “bailout” laws. And throughout U.S. history, the various economic “Panics” — which occurred every couple of decades — always led to one direction or another in the evolution of state and federal bankruptcy laws. Hey, bankruptcy works. (Full disclosure — I used to practice bankruptcy law.)
At some times in U.S. history, the bankruptcy laws favored the creditor class. During other times, the bankruptcy laws favored debtors. The point is that the economic hardships were eventually manifested in bankruptcy proceedings.
Just as all rivers flow to the sea, bad debt must find its way to discharge. So bankruptcy court was where judges and attorneys and other financial experts (like accountants and actuaries) could deal with each case on the merits. The problems could come to some sort of resolution. Some people came out OK. Other people lost everything. But capital flowed from weak hands to strong hands, and the economy moved along.
Why Not Bankruptcy Process?
But not today. Indeed, according to the New York Times many law firms — including firms that focus on bankruptcy work — are actually scaling back and laying off staff. Why is that? Why are the politicians so eager to avoid seeing companies go into bankruptcy? The government is trying to solve the problems of gargantuan levels of debt — along with chronic insolvency and illiquidity within the economy — without resorting to the constitutional-based legal mechanisms and tools that have served the nation well for over 200 years.
Consider the problems of derivatives. Few understand them. Many so-called derivative “contracts” are little more than mathematical formulae based on a series of futuristic occurrences that are entirely speculative. Their initial value in the best of times was entirely somebody’s guess. So is it any surprise that it is all but impossible to place a value on such things during the throes of a recession? Yet derivatives are some of the “troubled assets” that the Treasury is attempting to bail out. This is ridiculous!
Why is the Treasury allowing even one dollar of taxpayer money to get near a derivative? Why not use the bankruptcy process in this kind of situation? The companies that hold unsalable derivatives should have to go into a Chapter 11 proceeding and let a bankruptcy court sort it out. If the derivatives have value, let someone say so — under oath — in front of a federal judge. If the derivatives are worthless, let the judges do what we pay them to do — void the instruments and allocate the losses.
Sure, bankruptcy cases take time to roll through the courts. But could Chapter 11 bankruptcy be any worse than the current drip-drip-drip, hemorrhage of funds into the black hole of the likes of AIG? And at least some bankruptcy judge might just put a stop to the AIG exploits of taking nice vacations to exotic resort locales.
Or what about the U.S. automobile industry? Now the domestic carmakers want some of that TARP money too. Or else what? They’ll have to file for Chapter 11? Yeah? And then?
Well on the day that the automakers file for bankruptcy, the automobile factories will still be there. The patents and designs aren’t going anywhere. The workers and design teams will stick around for a while — it’s not like there are a whole lot of other jobs out there, except maybe raking leaves in leafy suburbs.
It seems to me that General Motors, Ford or Chrysler — without the legacy costs of pensions and health care and featherbed contracts for non-working union members — would actually be a decent investment for a Debtor-in-Possession (DIP) form of financing. Any DIP-lender worth its salt would certainly go into the management suites to take names, kick ass and get rid of the deadwood. And over the long term, if U.S. automakers actually paid more for steel than they have to pay for retiree health care, then we might actually see a revival of that industry.
Meanwhile, We’re Losing Time
Meanwhile, we are losing time. “Ask me for anything,” said Napoleon to his lieutenant. “Anything but time.”
What Napoleon was saying to his subordinate was that in the context of war, there are always setbacks. Terrain, for example, is sometimes captured and lost to the enemy. But lost terrain can be regained. And troops are lost in combat, but the armed forces can be rebuilt and reconstituted from the strategic reserve. Lost time, however? Once it has passed, time is gone forever. You will never get it back, and no general — however great — can win it back on any field of battle.
It is the same thing with the declining U.S. and world economy. The world’s central bankers and treasury ministers dither, and squander capital into bottomless pits of a deflationary recession.
But the great villain in all of this is debt, pure and simple. And much debt is just a collection of bizarre debt instruments, exotic forms of speculative contracts, and obligations so massive that they will never be repaid. So why prolong the agony? Liquidate it now. Let the bankruptcy courts do what the framers intended.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
OK, Now I think You're Stupid........
The "Taker's" are now in charge and the "Maker's" are now the target. They have no interest in learning how to fish, they want your fish, and the government will now ensure that you give them your fish....or else!
In 2005, Hermann Cain wrote the book "They Think You're Stupid: Why Democrats Lost Your Vote and What Republicans Must Do to Keep It" (the Republicans didn't listen)and after the 2006 elections, I wrote a blog arguing that maybe they are right.
Agreed, the Republican party spent the previous 6 years lurching toward "liberalism light", but the idea that putting sworn enemies of American business and industry like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank in charge of the Congress still made no sense.
The financial meltdown that occurred this year, is a direct result of the policies instituted by liberals and protected by the Democrat-led Congress.
So what did we do? We elected more of them!
With the majorities they now have in the Congress and the election of Obama as President, the most left-wing, America-hating politicians in the country will be able to do whatever they want to us.
And speaking of Obama, here's what I wonder.....
If you voted for him, who did you vote for?
Did you vote for the clean, articulate, "white-sounding", Presidential-looking candidate; or did you vote for.....
The man who admits in his book that he created his circle of friends with the most radical and marxist student activists and Professors he could find?
The man who lied about his tax cut policy which is nothing more than a welfare payment? No where in his plan does he cut tax rates...for anyone and in 2010, all rates go UP to the Clinton administration rates, doubling the tax on the middle class he professes to want to help.
The man who prevented an Illinois vote that would have protected infants who survive abortion procedures?
The man who opposes drilling for our own energy supplies?
The man who wants every business in America unionized....can anybody say "Hello GM!"?
The man who admitted in an interview that energy prices, including energy for home heating and cooling would sky-rocket after he implements his "Cap and Trade" policy to save us from a Climate Change scientific theory that has more holes blown in it every day?
The man who never held a real job, failed in his endeavor to improve even a small portion of the Chicago school system and spent 145 days in Washington DC doing nothing but preparing for a presidential run?
If imagery is the recipe for political success, then the republic is doomed. Do the math, how many of us can afford to take care of our own family's needs AND take care of the needs of our neighbor's? It doesn't work, it hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried and yet, here we go.........
and there's nothing we can do for at least 2 years.
In 2005, Hermann Cain wrote the book "They Think You're Stupid: Why Democrats Lost Your Vote and What Republicans Must Do to Keep It" (the Republicans didn't listen)and after the 2006 elections, I wrote a blog arguing that maybe they are right.
Agreed, the Republican party spent the previous 6 years lurching toward "liberalism light", but the idea that putting sworn enemies of American business and industry like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank in charge of the Congress still made no sense.
The financial meltdown that occurred this year, is a direct result of the policies instituted by liberals and protected by the Democrat-led Congress.
So what did we do? We elected more of them!
With the majorities they now have in the Congress and the election of Obama as President, the most left-wing, America-hating politicians in the country will be able to do whatever they want to us.
And speaking of Obama, here's what I wonder.....
If you voted for him, who did you vote for?
Did you vote for the clean, articulate, "white-sounding", Presidential-looking candidate; or did you vote for.....
The man who admits in his book that he created his circle of friends with the most radical and marxist student activists and Professors he could find?
The man who lied about his tax cut policy which is nothing more than a welfare payment? No where in his plan does he cut tax rates...for anyone and in 2010, all rates go UP to the Clinton administration rates, doubling the tax on the middle class he professes to want to help.
The man who prevented an Illinois vote that would have protected infants who survive abortion procedures?
The man who opposes drilling for our own energy supplies?
The man who wants every business in America unionized....can anybody say "Hello GM!"?
The man who admitted in an interview that energy prices, including energy for home heating and cooling would sky-rocket after he implements his "Cap and Trade" policy to save us from a Climate Change scientific theory that has more holes blown in it every day?
The man who never held a real job, failed in his endeavor to improve even a small portion of the Chicago school system and spent 145 days in Washington DC doing nothing but preparing for a presidential run?
If imagery is the recipe for political success, then the republic is doomed. Do the math, how many of us can afford to take care of our own family's needs AND take care of the needs of our neighbor's? It doesn't work, it hasn't worked anywhere it's been tried and yet, here we go.........
and there's nothing we can do for at least 2 years.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wake Up America! There is no Obama Tax Cut Coming Your Way
I painfully went through the details of the Obama Tax Plan, what I found in the document is very different than what he's been saying, starting with the fact that the top 5% of all income earners start at $166,000, not $250,000 (all tax rates listed and statistics were found at WWW.IRS.Gov).
Bottom line, families making $64,000 (the middle class?) will see there tax rate double after Obama lets the 2003 "Tax Cuts for the Wealthy" expire.
I did my best to make the numbers clear, but I suggest you check for yourself if it really matters.
Bottom line, families making $64,000 (the middle class?) will see there tax rate double after Obama lets the 2003 "Tax Cuts for the Wealthy" expire.
I did my best to make the numbers clear, but I suggest you check for yourself if it really matters.
Wake Up America! Why the Supreme Court Matters
The Constitution is the only thing that is keeping our Republic from falling into a Democratic Dictatorship. It has been attacked by the Big-Government Elitists since the days of President John Madison.
How have liberals managed to work around the Constitution and it's framework of limited government? By using the courts.......
How have liberals managed to work around the Constitution and it's framework of limited government? By using the courts.......
Wake Up America! Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Lately Obama has played the "I'm Offended" card at being called a Socialist. The Links below give us enough evidence to question his reaction.
If one wants to rule as a socialist, why not just be honest about who you are and what you want to do so that the people can decide if they want it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohp5IX3y098
http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2073071/revolution-you-can-believe-in.thtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbsihrdn-_s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrGJWjLG9DY&feature=PlayList&p=F4CA741D4045BA7E&index=9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYr6jwqzEnE&feature=related
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/17/fairness-is-censorship/
If one wants to rule as a socialist, why not just be honest about who you are and what you want to do so that the people can decide if they want it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RZVw3no2A4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohp5IX3y098
http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2073071/revolution-you-can-believe-in.thtml
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbsihrdn-_s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrGJWjLG9DY&feature=PlayList&p=F4CA741D4045BA7E&index=9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYr6jwqzEnE&feature=related
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/jun/17/fairness-is-censorship/
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Wake Up America! This is Not How You Create New Jobs
Obama claims to have a "bold" plan to jump start the economy and create new jobs. He wants to use tax policy to encourage job creation, but as you will see, his theories are misguided. As a member of small business for over 30 years, I can assure you that business people do not think like socialists....not the successful ones anyway.
Wake Up America! The Path to Socialized Health Care
Obama's TV ad's state that a National Health Care System is "way too extreme". But if you read through the details of his proposals, it's not hard to see that the end result will naturally be a nationalized system.
By creating a competing government insurance agency, Obama will be able to undercut the prices of any for-profit insurance provider until it no longer makes sense to stay in the business.
By creating a competing government insurance agency, Obama will be able to undercut the prices of any for-profit insurance provider until it no longer makes sense to stay in the business.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Wake Up America! Government Mandated Inflation
The Democrats have long pushed for a "living wage" to make it easier for someone working behind the counter of a fast food restaurant to better care for his/her family of 4 (it's politically incorrect to instead, encourage young people to put off marriage and a family until the have acquired the skills and education necessary to avoid having to work behind the counter of a fast food restaurant).
Is it "fair" to have the government dictate what salaries and benefits the business owner must provide, most politicians never even worked in a business let alone owned one!
Moreover, what would be the consequences on our economy if such a policy is enacted. Obama's website states that this would be a high priority for him in his first term.........
Is it "fair" to have the government dictate what salaries and benefits the business owner must provide, most politicians never even worked in a business let alone owned one!
Moreover, what would be the consequences on our economy if such a policy is enacted. Obama's website states that this would be a high priority for him in his first term.........
Wake Up America! The Myth of "Taxing the Wealthy"
Has anybody ever asked the question, "If the Democrats are always trying to tax the wealthy, then why are so many wealthy people Democrats?"
This video exposes the myth that has been perpetuated for at least as long as I have been alive. The income tax is not designed to "punish" the wealthy, it is designed to keep as many of us as possible from becoming wealthy. The only way you would get the wealthy to pay their "fair share" would be through a national consumption tax (which I favor as a replacement of the income tax system) or the creation of a wealth tax like that of some European Countries (yes, there are some Socialists who are honorable in their endeavor to create "fairness").
Remember, wealth creates independence and an independent electorate is what Socialist politicians most fear.........
In the video I take a swipe at Warren Buffet. Although I do consider Warren to be a brilliant investor, I personally think that he's a slime ball. Time and time again he allows himself to be trotted out by the Democrats to proclaim that he would not oppose a higher "income" tax. Watch the video and find out why.
This video exposes the myth that has been perpetuated for at least as long as I have been alive. The income tax is not designed to "punish" the wealthy, it is designed to keep as many of us as possible from becoming wealthy. The only way you would get the wealthy to pay their "fair share" would be through a national consumption tax (which I favor as a replacement of the income tax system) or the creation of a wealth tax like that of some European Countries (yes, there are some Socialists who are honorable in their endeavor to create "fairness").
Remember, wealth creates independence and an independent electorate is what Socialist politicians most fear.........
In the video I take a swipe at Warren Buffet. Although I do consider Warren to be a brilliant investor, I personally think that he's a slime ball. Time and time again he allows himself to be trotted out by the Democrats to proclaim that he would not oppose a higher "income" tax. Watch the video and find out why.
Wake Up America! Socialism is not the Answer!
I've tried very hard to turn my back on politics this past year as the idiocracy of the two year campaign cycle tends to do nothing but put me in a bad mood. But I cannot just sit back quietly and watch the country that I love fall into the abyss of authoritarian socialistic rule.
Everyone wants change, I want change, but the change I seek is that of the government, not the country. The catalyst for the Revolutionary War was a rejection of an authoritarian government (the King of England), and it's oppressive tax policies.
The idea that the Democrat Party and their overt socialist rhetoric are even in the running to win anything, let alone gaining a super majority is enough to cause any Constitution-loving American to lie awake at night wondering where he can move his family to escape all this.
Whether the voters are leaning toward the Democrats due to emotion, or ignorance of the founding principles of this country, something has to be done to try to make these people understand what they are really signing up for.
After going to the websites of both candidates, I have put together a series of videos intended to give you a perspective of what their policies could mean for the future of the country.
I have a young daughter and I fear for her future in a society that punishes ambition and hard work and seeks to keep her in the same class she was born into.
The first video is a bit lengthly as it introduces my reasons for going through this effort. I tried to keep the rest of them to the shorter and to the point. The quality of both the production and presentation are on par with a non-rehearsed amateur filmaker wannabe.
Will it make a difference in the upcoming election? Who knows, but at least I'm trying to do something and at very least I'll have a record of my warnings if the election goes the way of the socialists.
Everyone wants change, I want change, but the change I seek is that of the government, not the country. The catalyst for the Revolutionary War was a rejection of an authoritarian government (the King of England), and it's oppressive tax policies.
The idea that the Democrat Party and their overt socialist rhetoric are even in the running to win anything, let alone gaining a super majority is enough to cause any Constitution-loving American to lie awake at night wondering where he can move his family to escape all this.
Whether the voters are leaning toward the Democrats due to emotion, or ignorance of the founding principles of this country, something has to be done to try to make these people understand what they are really signing up for.
After going to the websites of both candidates, I have put together a series of videos intended to give you a perspective of what their policies could mean for the future of the country.
I have a young daughter and I fear for her future in a society that punishes ambition and hard work and seeks to keep her in the same class she was born into.
The first video is a bit lengthly as it introduces my reasons for going through this effort. I tried to keep the rest of them to the shorter and to the point. The quality of both the production and presentation are on par with a non-rehearsed amateur filmaker wannabe.
Will it make a difference in the upcoming election? Who knows, but at least I'm trying to do something and at very least I'll have a record of my warnings if the election goes the way of the socialists.
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
The Death of Reagan Republicanism?
Here is an excellent essay by George Will from Conservative Review:
The Tearing of the Conservative Fusion
By George Will
WASHINGTON - Like Job after losing his camels and acquir-
ing boils, the conservative movement is in distress. Mike
Huckabee shreds the compact that has held the movement's
two tendencies in sometimes uneasy equipoise. Social
conservatives, many of whom share Huckabee's desire to
"take back this nation for Christ," have collaborated with
limited-government, market-oriented, capitalism-defending
conservatives who want to take back the nation for James
Madison. Under the doctrine that conservatives call
"fusion," each faction has respected the other's agenda.
Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians.
He and John Edwards, flaunting their histrionic humility in
order to promote their curdled populism, hawked strikingly
similar messages in Iowa, encouraging self-pity and
economic hypochondria. Edwards and Huckabee lament a shrink-
ing middle class. Well.
Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as house-
holds with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000,
says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category
than in 1979 -- because the percentage of Americans earning
more than $100,000 has doubled from 12 to 24, while the
percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. "So,"
Rose says, "the entire 'decline' of the middle class came
from people moving up the income ladder." Even as housing
values declined in 2007, the net worth of households
increased.
Huckabee told heavily subsidized Iowa -- Washington's
ethanol enthusiasm has farm values and incomes soaring --
that Americans striving to rise are "pushed down every
time they try by their own government." Edwards, synthetic
candidate of theatrical bitterness on behalf of America's
crushed, groaning majority, says the rich have an "iron-
fisted grip" on democracy and a "stranglehold" on the
economy. Strangely, these fists have imposed a tax code
that makes the top 1 percent of earners pay 39 percent of
all income tax revenues, the top 5 percent pay 60 percent,
and the bottom 50 percent pay only 3 percent.
According to Edwards, the North Carolina of his youth
resembled Chechnya today -- "I had to fight to survive.
I mean really. Literally." Huckabee, a compound of Uriah
Heep, Elmer Gantry and Richard Nixon, preens about his
humble background: "In my family, 'summer' was never a
verb." Nixon, who maundered about his parents' privations
and wife's cloth coat, followed Lyndon Johnson, another
miscast president whose festering resentments and status
anxieties colored his conduct of office. Here we go again?
Huckabee fancies himself persecuted by the Republican
"establishment," a creature already negligible by 1964,
when it failed to stop Barry Goldwater's nomination. The
establishment's voice, the New York Herald Tribune, expired
in 1966. Huckabee says "only one explanation" fits his Iowa
success "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that
helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a
crowd of 5,000 people." God so loves Huckabee's politics
that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should
someone so delusional control nuclear weapons?
Speaking of delusions, Edwards seems unaware that the world
market sets the price of oil. He says a $100-a-barrel price
is evidence of -- surging demand in India and China? unrest
in Nigeria's oil fields? No, "corporate greed." That is
Edwards' explanation of every unpleasantness. Mitt Romney's
versatility of conviction, although it repelled Iowans, has
been a modest makeover compared to Edwards' personality
transplant. The sunny Southerner of 2004 has become the
angry paladin of the suffering multitudes, to whom he
shouts: "Treat these people the way they treat you!" Pre-
sumably he means treat "the rich" badly -- an odious
exhortation to one portion of Americans, regarding another.
Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to
change Washington's culture, each would aggravate its
toxicity. Each overflows with and wallows in the pugnacity
of the self-righteous who discern contemptible motives
behind all disagreements with them, and who therefore think
opponents are enemies and differences are unsplittable.
The way to achieve Edwards' and Huckabee's populist goal of
reducing the role of "special interests," meaning money, in
government is to reduce the role of government in distribut-
ing money. But populists want to sharply increase that role
by expanding the regulatory state's reach and enlarging
its agenda of determining the distribution of wealth.
Populists, who are slow learners, cannot comprehend this
iron law: Concentrate power in Washington and you increase
the power of interests whose representatives are concentrat-
ed there.
Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton
parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly
cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in
American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee --
an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an
adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against
fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this
country.
The Tearing of the Conservative Fusion
By George Will
WASHINGTON - Like Job after losing his camels and acquir-
ing boils, the conservative movement is in distress. Mike
Huckabee shreds the compact that has held the movement's
two tendencies in sometimes uneasy equipoise. Social
conservatives, many of whom share Huckabee's desire to
"take back this nation for Christ," have collaborated with
limited-government, market-oriented, capitalism-defending
conservatives who want to take back the nation for James
Madison. Under the doctrine that conservatives call
"fusion," each faction has respected the other's agenda.
Huckabee aggressively repudiates the Madisonians.
He and John Edwards, flaunting their histrionic humility in
order to promote their curdled populism, hawked strikingly
similar messages in Iowa, encouraging self-pity and
economic hypochondria. Edwards and Huckabee lament a shrink-
ing middle class. Well.
Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as house-
holds with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000,
says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category
than in 1979 -- because the percentage of Americans earning
more than $100,000 has doubled from 12 to 24, while the
percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. "So,"
Rose says, "the entire 'decline' of the middle class came
from people moving up the income ladder." Even as housing
values declined in 2007, the net worth of households
increased.
Huckabee told heavily subsidized Iowa -- Washington's
ethanol enthusiasm has farm values and incomes soaring --
that Americans striving to rise are "pushed down every
time they try by their own government." Edwards, synthetic
candidate of theatrical bitterness on behalf of America's
crushed, groaning majority, says the rich have an "iron-
fisted grip" on democracy and a "stranglehold" on the
economy. Strangely, these fists have imposed a tax code
that makes the top 1 percent of earners pay 39 percent of
all income tax revenues, the top 5 percent pay 60 percent,
and the bottom 50 percent pay only 3 percent.
According to Edwards, the North Carolina of his youth
resembled Chechnya today -- "I had to fight to survive.
I mean really. Literally." Huckabee, a compound of Uriah
Heep, Elmer Gantry and Richard Nixon, preens about his
humble background: "In my family, 'summer' was never a
verb." Nixon, who maundered about his parents' privations
and wife's cloth coat, followed Lyndon Johnson, another
miscast president whose festering resentments and status
anxieties colored his conduct of office. Here we go again?
Huckabee fancies himself persecuted by the Republican
"establishment," a creature already negligible by 1964,
when it failed to stop Barry Goldwater's nomination. The
establishment's voice, the New York Herald Tribune, expired
in 1966. Huckabee says "only one explanation" fits his Iowa
success "and it's not a human one. It's the same power that
helped a little boy with two fish and five loaves feed a
crowd of 5,000 people." God so loves Huckabee's politics
that He worked a Midwest miracle on his behalf? Should
someone so delusional control nuclear weapons?
Speaking of delusions, Edwards seems unaware that the world
market sets the price of oil. He says a $100-a-barrel price
is evidence of -- surging demand in India and China? unrest
in Nigeria's oil fields? No, "corporate greed." That is
Edwards' explanation of every unpleasantness. Mitt Romney's
versatility of conviction, although it repelled Iowans, has
been a modest makeover compared to Edwards' personality
transplant. The sunny Southerner of 2004 has become the
angry paladin of the suffering multitudes, to whom he
shouts: "Treat these people the way they treat you!" Pre-
sumably he means treat "the rich" badly -- an odious
exhortation to one portion of Americans, regarding another.
Although Huckabee and Edwards profess to loathe and vow to
change Washington's culture, each would aggravate its
toxicity. Each overflows with and wallows in the pugnacity
of the self-righteous who discern contemptible motives
behind all disagreements with them, and who therefore think
opponents are enemies and differences are unsplittable.
The way to achieve Edwards' and Huckabee's populist goal of
reducing the role of "special interests," meaning money, in
government is to reduce the role of government in distribut-
ing money. But populists want to sharply increase that role
by expanding the regulatory state's reach and enlarging
its agenda of determining the distribution of wealth.
Populists, who are slow learners, cannot comprehend this
iron law: Concentrate power in Washington and you increase
the power of interests whose representatives are concentrat-
ed there.
Barack Obama, who might be mercifully closing the Clinton
parenthesis in presidential history, is refreshingly
cerebral amid this recrudescence of the paranoid style in
American politics. He is the un-Edwards and un-Huckabee --
an adult aiming to reform the real world rather than an
adolescent fantasizing mock-heroic "fights" against
fictitious villains in a left-wing cartoon version of this
country.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Inhofe: 'Consensus Busters' Bust Global Warming
Several times in since this Blog was started, I have railed against the "theory" of Man-induced Global Warming, and the junk science used to further this fraud.
Now finally, real scientists, not failed presidential candidates are coming forward to call this movement what it is.
From Newsmax:
Friday, December 21, 2007 7:42 AM
Claims that there is a consensus among scientists on man-made global warming have been denied by over 400 prominent members of the scientific community and published in a report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
This new “consensus busters” report, Inhofe’s office says, “ is poised to redefine the debate.”
Many of the scientists questioning the consensus are from the very U.N. panel making the claims.
The report states, “The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped ‘consensus’ that the debate is settled.”
The report comes on the heels of U.N. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Chairman Rajendra Pachauri's implication that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world, echoing former Vice President Al Gore who has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat-Earth-society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.”
Among others insisting that there is a consensus and that few skeptics exist and who are now discredited by the report:
CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over. We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on Feb. 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.”
On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.”
Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (Nov. 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there — but that's not the case.
The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears.
UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the U.N.’s scientific “consensus."
ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on Aug. 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming.
The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are described as experts in diverse fields, including climatology, oceanography, geology, biology, glaciology, and paleoclimatology.
Moreover, some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the U.N. IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Gore.
Additionally, these scientists come from prestigious institutions worldwide, including Harvard University, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the UN IPCC, and the University of London.
The report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and their academic/institutional affiliations. It also features their own words, biographies, and Web links to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and Web sites in 2007.
The report notes that skepticism is also beginning to be seen in the usually pro-IPCC media, citing an October story in the Washington Post by Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin who wrote that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."
Moreover, the report says, many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” The scientists cited consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution.
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, professor of dynamical meteorology and physical oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explained how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated: “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media."
The report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process, along with teams of international scientists dissenting from the U.N. IPCC’s view of climate science, citing such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia and France, nations where scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, the report notes, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the U.N. stating attempts to control climate were “futile.”
The report reveals that paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of earth sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, was recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson is quoted as saying that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the U.N. IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false.
“I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson said.
The Report notes that the over 400 skeptical scientists featured outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists (52) who participated in the 2007 U.N. IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
It charges that the notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of U.N. scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny and cites recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean who revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired.
The report takes issue with those proponents of man-made global warming who it says “like to note how the National Academy of Sciences and the American Meteorological Society have issued statements endorsing the so-called ‘consensus’ view that man is driving global warming."
It points out, however, that but both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements.
The report concludes, “The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific ‘consensus’ in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the U.N. to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged 'thousands' of scientists.”
Now finally, real scientists, not failed presidential candidates are coming forward to call this movement what it is.
From Newsmax:
Friday, December 21, 2007 7:42 AM
Claims that there is a consensus among scientists on man-made global warming have been denied by over 400 prominent members of the scientific community and published in a report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee under Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla.
This new “consensus busters” report, Inhofe’s office says, “ is poised to redefine the debate.”
Many of the scientists questioning the consensus are from the very U.N. panel making the claims.
The report states, “The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped ‘consensus’ that the debate is settled.”
The report comes on the heels of U.N. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) Chairman Rajendra Pachauri's implication that there were only “about a dozen" skeptical scientists left in the world, echoing former Vice President Al Gore who has claimed that scientists skeptical of climate change are akin to “flat-Earth-society members” and similar in number to those who “believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona.”
Among others insisting that there is a consensus and that few skeptics exist and who are now discredited by the report:
CNN’s Miles O’Brien (July 23, 2007): "The scientific debate is over. We're done." O’Brien also declared on CNN on Feb. 9, 2006 that scientific skeptics of man-made catastrophic global warming “are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry, usually.”
On July 27, 2006, Associated Press reporter Seth Borenstein described a scientist as “one of the few remaining scientists skeptical of the global warming harm caused by industries that burn fossil fuels.”
Andrew Dessler in the eco-publication Grist Magazine (Nov. 21, 2007): “While some people claim there are lots of skeptical climate scientists out there, if you actually try to find one, you keep turning up the same two dozen or so (e.g., Singer, Lindzen, Michaels, Christy, etc.). These skeptics are endlessly recycled by the denial machine, so someone not paying close attention might think there are lots of them out there — but that's not the case.
The Washington Post asserted on May 23, 2006 that there were only “a handful of skeptics” of man-made climate fears.
UN special climate envoy Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland on May 10, 2007 declared the climate debate "over" and added “it's completely immoral, even, to question” the U.N.’s scientific “consensus."
ABC News Global Warming Reporter Bill Blakemore reported on Aug. 30, 2006: “After extensive searches, ABC News has found no such [scientific] debate” on global warming.
The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are described as experts in diverse fields, including climatology, oceanography, geology, biology, glaciology, and paleoclimatology.
Moreover, some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the U.N. IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Gore.
Additionally, these scientists come from prestigious institutions worldwide, including Harvard University, NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the UN IPCC, and the University of London.
The report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and their academic/institutional affiliations. It also features their own words, biographies, and Web links to their peer reviewed studies and original source materials as gathered from public statements, various news outlets, and Web sites in 2007.
The report notes that skepticism is also beginning to be seen in the usually pro-IPCC media, citing an October story in the Washington Post by Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin who wrote that climate skeptics "appear to be expanding rather than shrinking."
Moreover, the report says, many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” The scientists cited consistently stated that numerous colleagues shared their views, but they will not speak out publicly for fear of retribution.
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Nathan Paldor, professor of dynamical meteorology and physical oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, author of almost 70 peer-reviewed studies, explained how many of his fellow scientists have been intimidated: “Many of my colleagues with whom I spoke share these views and report on their inability to publish their skepticism in the scientific or public media."
The report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process, along with teams of international scientists dissenting from the U.N. IPCC’s view of climate science, citing such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia and France, nations where scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, the report notes, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the U.N. stating attempts to control climate were “futile.”
The report reveals that paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, professor in the department of earth sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa, was recently converted from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. Patterson is quoted as saying that the notion of a “consensus” of scientists aligned with the U.N. IPCC or former Vice President Al Gore is false.
“I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson said.
The Report notes that the over 400 skeptical scientists featured outnumber by nearly eight times the number of scientists (52) who participated in the 2007 U.N. IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
It charges that the notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of U.N. scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny and cites recent research by Australian climate data analyst Dr. John McLean who revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired.
The report takes issue with those proponents of man-made global warming who it says “like to note how the National Academy of Sciences and the American Meteorological Society have issued statements endorsing the so-called ‘consensus’ view that man is driving global warming."
It points out, however, that but both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements.
The report concludes, “The most recent attempt to imply there was an overwhelming scientific ‘consensus’ in favor of man-made global warming fears came in December 2007 during the UN climate conference in Bali. A letter signed by only 215 scientists urged the U.N. to mandate deep cuts in carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
But absent from the letter were the signatures of these alleged 'thousands' of scientists.”
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Gore's Prize
From today's S&A Digest:
Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize today, for his "work" on Global Warming. Ha, ha, ha. Try not to strain anything laughing too hard. Remember: These are the same Swedes who gave their peace prize to Yasser Arafat.
No, I'm not surprised that the Nobel committee fell for Gore's flimflam. "Global warming" is the perfect political problem. No one can observe it directly, we can only see what people claim are its results – a perfect set up for politicians. It's a global problem that no one can see or measure. So there's no limit to the things that politicians can blame on global warming, no end to the "crisis," and no limit to what government can demand of us to solve it. The only good news is that your sons are extremely unlikely to be drafted into the Army to fight it... but I'm sure that won't stop people like Al Gore from trying.
Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize today, for his "work" on Global Warming. Ha, ha, ha. Try not to strain anything laughing too hard. Remember: These are the same Swedes who gave their peace prize to Yasser Arafat.
No, I'm not surprised that the Nobel committee fell for Gore's flimflam. "Global warming" is the perfect political problem. No one can observe it directly, we can only see what people claim are its results – a perfect set up for politicians. It's a global problem that no one can see or measure. So there's no limit to the things that politicians can blame on global warming, no end to the "crisis," and no limit to what government can demand of us to solve it. The only good news is that your sons are extremely unlikely to be drafted into the Army to fight it... but I'm sure that won't stop people like Al Gore from trying.
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Quote of the Day
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has proposed $5,000 be given to every baby born in the United States. Remember when politicians used to just kiss babies? Now we gotta pay them off too.
-Jay Leno
-Jay Leno
Do We Want Another 9/11?
Washington Insider with Ronald Kessler
In their efforts to demonize the American intelligence community, Democrats and the media are playing with our safety.
The latest example is the way these critics are minimizing and distorting warnings from Mike McConnell, director of National Intelligence, about how defenseless America would become if warrants were required to intercept terrorists’ calls and e-mails even when those communications are in foreign countries.
The issue should not be controversial. Going back to the founding of the National Security Agency in 1952, the government could intercept calls and e-mails of targets situated in foreign countries without a warrant. But because most such communications now pass through U.S. switching systems in fiber optic cables, a Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA) court judge ruled on May 31 that intercepting such communications requires a court order.
Obtaining a FISA court order requires an average of 200 man hours of preparation. Often, people who speak Arabic, Farsi, or Urdu have to be pulled off tracking leads to possible plots to help prepare the applications. Moreover, by the time an order is obtained for a new targeted phone number, the call is finished.
Because of the ruling, tens of thousands of calls and e-mails were not being examined. Any one of them could have contained clues to an al-Qaida plot to detonate nuclear devices in Manhattan and Washington. As FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has told me, these are al-Qaida's twin goals.
In August, Congress — over the objections of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi — voted to continue to allow intercepts of calls based in foreign countries without
the need for a warrant. But already, Pelosi and other Democrats have vowed to gut that law, called the Protect America Act, before it expires on Feb. 5.
To illustrate the need for an extension of the revision, Director of National Intelligence McConnell recently cited a delay “in the neighborhood of 12 hours” to obtain a warrant under the emergency provision of FISA. The warrant was to listen to calls made last May by insurgents who captured American soldiers from the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division. The bodies of some of those captured have since been found; the other soldiers are presumed dead.
That example should have been enough to put the issue to rest. What could be more absurd than having to obtain a warrant to listen to conversations of foreign insurgents? But Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat, accused McConnell of trying to “politicize the debate” over electronic surveillance by citing the soldiers’ case.
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, a Texas Democrat who heads the House Intelligence Committee, blamed government officials, not the law. Reyes claimed an emergency request under FISA should take “only a few minutes” and “one call.”
When McConnell subsequently released a time line showing that the delay in obtaining a warrant was nine and a half hours, the press pounced. The Washington Post ran a story focusing on the difference between McConnell’s initial rough estimate of the delay to obtain an emergency warrant and the more precise time line he later released.
“Iraq Wiretap Delay Not Quite As Presented,” the headline over the story said. “Lag Is Attributed to Internal Disputes and Time to Reach Gonzales, Not FISA Constraints.”
The story claimed that the delay of nine and a half hours was caused “primarily by legal wrangling between the Justice Department and intelligence officials over whether authorities had probable cause to begin the surveillance.”
The delay included “nearly two hours” spent trying to reach then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who was speaking to U.S. attorneys in Texas, to obtain authorization of the emergency application, the story said.
In what has become standard practice in the mainstream media, the Post buried the Justice Department’s response that the case “presented novel and complex issues that we had to resolve” in the 11th paragraph of the story.
In fact, based on the original intent of FISA, since the communications were in a foreign country, no warrant should have been required in the first place. The point of revising FISA was to make that clear so that such calls could be intercepted instantly. But since the revision had not been passed last May and the communications happened to be routed through the U.S., authorities were obliged to carefully line up the facts and examine all the legalities before applying for an emergency authorization.
If, as Reyes claimed, that process normally took only a few minutes and one phone call, it would be a sham exercise. Moreover, the time required to obtain authorization from officials like Gonzales under emergency conditions only underscores why tolerating such onerous legal procedures when Americans’ rights are not at stake is foolhardy.
Rep. Holt’s claim that McConnell was politicizing the issue by presenting a case history has become a standard tactic of many Democrats. If intelligence officials like Mike McConnell or military officers like Gen. David Petraeus cite evidence to back up their case, they are accused of either being pawns of the White House or of using scare tactics.
The Washington Post’s story illustrates how the media undermine the war on terror by obscuring the truth. In highlighting a difference of two and a half hours between McConnell’s rough estimate of the delay compared with the actual duration of the delay, the paper sought to undermine McConnell’s credibility.
The problem was not “legal wrangling,” the term the Post chose to apply to legal deliberations. The problem was that FISA had not kept up with technological changes and needed to be revised to make it conform to its original intent.
If al-Qaida succeeds at its goals, it could literally wipe out millions of Americans and institute a nuclear winter. Yet between the Democrats’ efforts to handcuff those who are trying to protect us and the mainstream media’s efforts to malign those officials and distort the truth about the issues we face, we as Americans are at the mercy of people bent on committing suicide.
Osama bin Laden, known to follow the media closely, has to be laughing.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of NewsMax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.
In their efforts to demonize the American intelligence community, Democrats and the media are playing with our safety.
The latest example is the way these critics are minimizing and distorting warnings from Mike McConnell, director of National Intelligence, about how defenseless America would become if warrants were required to intercept terrorists’ calls and e-mails even when those communications are in foreign countries.
The issue should not be controversial. Going back to the founding of the National Security Agency in 1952, the government could intercept calls and e-mails of targets situated in foreign countries without a warrant. But because most such communications now pass through U.S. switching systems in fiber optic cables, a Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Act (FISA) court judge ruled on May 31 that intercepting such communications requires a court order.
Obtaining a FISA court order requires an average of 200 man hours of preparation. Often, people who speak Arabic, Farsi, or Urdu have to be pulled off tracking leads to possible plots to help prepare the applications. Moreover, by the time an order is obtained for a new targeted phone number, the call is finished.
Because of the ruling, tens of thousands of calls and e-mails were not being examined. Any one of them could have contained clues to an al-Qaida plot to detonate nuclear devices in Manhattan and Washington. As FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III has told me, these are al-Qaida's twin goals.
In August, Congress — over the objections of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi — voted to continue to allow intercepts of calls based in foreign countries without
the need for a warrant. But already, Pelosi and other Democrats have vowed to gut that law, called the Protect America Act, before it expires on Feb. 5.
To illustrate the need for an extension of the revision, Director of National Intelligence McConnell recently cited a delay “in the neighborhood of 12 hours” to obtain a warrant under the emergency provision of FISA. The warrant was to listen to calls made last May by insurgents who captured American soldiers from the U.S. Army’s 10th Mountain Division. The bodies of some of those captured have since been found; the other soldiers are presumed dead.
That example should have been enough to put the issue to rest. What could be more absurd than having to obtain a warrant to listen to conversations of foreign insurgents? But Rep. Rush Holt, a New Jersey Democrat, accused McConnell of trying to “politicize the debate” over electronic surveillance by citing the soldiers’ case.
Rep. Silvestre Reyes, a Texas Democrat who heads the House Intelligence Committee, blamed government officials, not the law. Reyes claimed an emergency request under FISA should take “only a few minutes” and “one call.”
When McConnell subsequently released a time line showing that the delay in obtaining a warrant was nine and a half hours, the press pounced. The Washington Post ran a story focusing on the difference between McConnell’s initial rough estimate of the delay to obtain an emergency warrant and the more precise time line he later released.
“Iraq Wiretap Delay Not Quite As Presented,” the headline over the story said. “Lag Is Attributed to Internal Disputes and Time to Reach Gonzales, Not FISA Constraints.”
The story claimed that the delay of nine and a half hours was caused “primarily by legal wrangling between the Justice Department and intelligence officials over whether authorities had probable cause to begin the surveillance.”
The delay included “nearly two hours” spent trying to reach then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who was speaking to U.S. attorneys in Texas, to obtain authorization of the emergency application, the story said.
In what has become standard practice in the mainstream media, the Post buried the Justice Department’s response that the case “presented novel and complex issues that we had to resolve” in the 11th paragraph of the story.
In fact, based on the original intent of FISA, since the communications were in a foreign country, no warrant should have been required in the first place. The point of revising FISA was to make that clear so that such calls could be intercepted instantly. But since the revision had not been passed last May and the communications happened to be routed through the U.S., authorities were obliged to carefully line up the facts and examine all the legalities before applying for an emergency authorization.
If, as Reyes claimed, that process normally took only a few minutes and one phone call, it would be a sham exercise. Moreover, the time required to obtain authorization from officials like Gonzales under emergency conditions only underscores why tolerating such onerous legal procedures when Americans’ rights are not at stake is foolhardy.
Rep. Holt’s claim that McConnell was politicizing the issue by presenting a case history has become a standard tactic of many Democrats. If intelligence officials like Mike McConnell or military officers like Gen. David Petraeus cite evidence to back up their case, they are accused of either being pawns of the White House or of using scare tactics.
The Washington Post’s story illustrates how the media undermine the war on terror by obscuring the truth. In highlighting a difference of two and a half hours between McConnell’s rough estimate of the delay compared with the actual duration of the delay, the paper sought to undermine McConnell’s credibility.
The problem was not “legal wrangling,” the term the Post chose to apply to legal deliberations. The problem was that FISA had not kept up with technological changes and needed to be revised to make it conform to its original intent.
If al-Qaida succeeds at its goals, it could literally wipe out millions of Americans and institute a nuclear winter. Yet between the Democrats’ efforts to handcuff those who are trying to protect us and the mainstream media’s efforts to malign those officials and distort the truth about the issues we face, we as Americans are at the mercy of people bent on committing suicide.
Osama bin Laden, known to follow the media closely, has to be laughing.
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of NewsMax.com. View his previous reports and get his dispatches sent to you free via e-mail. Go here now.
Greenspan Was Never a Republican — He Was an Opportunist
Greg’s Note: Was Greenspan a Republican? Or did he lean to Democrat? Fred Sheehan scathes these two questions below.
Whiskey & Gunpowder October 5, 2007By Fred Sheehan
Braintree, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Ex-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has discovered the Republicans fall short of his standards. He is finding it difficult to break a smile on his The Age of Turbulence publicity tour.
Greenspan “glumly” told The New York Times he is “very disappointed” with the Republicans.
They ran an out-of-control budget. (In that, he is right.) “They swapped principle for power.” Greenspan expressed “remorse” that the Republicans followed his advice to lower taxes in 2001. They should have placed “safeguards against surprises.”
The real problem was Congress. It did not place safeguards around Alan Greenspan. Despite the common claim that he has been a “life-long Republican,” he was never anything of the sort. He has been a lifelong opportunist.
In February 2000, the last year of the Clinton administration, Greenspan appeared before the Senate Banking Committee. He recommended the government use the federal budget surplus to pay down the national debt.
The chairman amplified: “The growth potential of our economy under current circumstances is best served by allowing the unified budget surpluses…to materialize, thereby reduce Treasury debt held by the public.” Meaning: We should direct budget surplus dollars to reduce the federal debt. (This is accomplished by government-initiated purchases of U.S. Treasury securities.) The salient circumstance was that Clinton was not proposing a tax cut.
One year later, Greenspan worked for new management — the Bush administration. President Bush wanted a tax cut to kick off his tenure.
Greenspan marketed the tax cut as fiscally responsible, given recent surpluses. His advice was rendered on Jan. 25, 2001, to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget.
The Wall Street Journal reported the next day: “Giving a big boost to President Bush, Chairman Alan Greenspan reversed his long-held view and said he now sees room for significant tax cuts in the federal government’s financial future…. [O]ver the coming decade, the latest budget surplus numbers show not only room for reductions, but even a need.”
The New York Times on the same day: “Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, gave his blessing today to a substantial tax cut…. In a clear shift from his previous position that reducing the national debt should be the focus of fiscal policy, Mr. Greenspan said improvements in the economy’s long-term potential and the swelling surplus projections had ‘reshaped the choices and opportunities before us.’”
In his testimony, Greenspan expressed concern “that continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets.”
Of the 10,000 most likely problems the government should consider, this was not one of them. Over $5 trillion in the hole, the possibility of eliminating the federal debt ranked behind that of Venus crashing into Mars. (In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office had projected the federal budget surplus would reduce the government debt by $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. This gem of infinite interpolation gave Greenspan the cover he needed. In 2002, the CBO reduced its surplus estimate by $5.3 billion.)
Whether his audience scratched their heads at Greenspan’s flight of fancy, another statement should have awakened their curiosity. Greenspan prefaced his tale of woeful surpluses by discussing “recent projections… [which] make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade.
This is in marked contrast to the perspective of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade.” The Nasdaq had fallen 43% from its March 10, 2000, peak. Tax revenue had risen from 12.5% of personal income to 15.4% during the boom years. In 2000, this 2.5% increase equaled $237 billion — precisely the same as the total 2000 budget surplus.
It suited Greenspan’s purposes to express mystification during testimony: “We still do not have a full understanding of the exceptional strength in individual income tax receipts during the latter 1990s.”
Greenspan could not have been blind to the source of the budget surpluses: capital gains, exercised stock options, and bonuses. These tributaries had dried up. Without these flows, his fear of paying down the national debt, or even running a balanced budget, made no sense. And while Alan Greenspan could claim that paying down the debt was a bad thing, it is a tribute to the man that his audience accepted such a silly pretense approvingly.
The Greenspan campaign for renomination in 2004 kicked off its media blitz on Feb. 11, 2003.
The Boston Globe reported that Greenspan viewed Bush’s (new) tax cut plan with a chilly reception: “Greenspan… used the opportunity to admonish the federal government for losing its ‘fiscal discipline.’” In the chairman’s words, a “return to fiscal discipline should be instituted without delay.”
That was the stick; on Feb. 12, Greenspan offered Bush the carrot. The Wall Street Journal reported: “Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan muted his initially chilly reception of President Bush’s tax cut plan, offering more praise for eliminating taxes on dividends and playing down the near-term consequences for the federal deficit.” (Emphasis added.) President Bush announced that he would reappoint Greenspan for a fifth term on Feb. 22.
On April 30, mission accomplished and Bush now bound by the reconfirmation, the chairman slithered back: “Alan Greenspan…told Congress today that the economy was poised to grow without further large tax cuts, and that budget deficits resulting from lower taxes without offsetting reductions in spending could be damaging to the economy.
Opponents of the large tax cut favored by President Bush took Mr. Greenspan’s testimony as support of their position.” (Emphasis added.) The dissembling was obvious; yet no one questioned Greenspan’s motives.
On April 21, 2005, the chairman’s bewildering tax and federal budget advice came full circle. At a Senate Budget Committee meeting, Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland pursued a ragged thread in the Greenspan tapestry. The senator contended that Greenspan’s endorsement of the president’s 2001 tax cut was the “green light” that George Bush needed.
Greenspan replied that he had not “specifically” endorsed the tax cut plan. The chairman claimed: “You will not find anywhere in the public record that I supported the [2001] tax cut.”
Reading the Jan. 25, 2001 speech today (available for anyone to judge on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors Web site), his support is obvious. He was rooting for a tax cut.
This civil servant had made false assertions to the people’s elected representatives before. When a vote to balance the budget loomed early in Clinton’s presidency, Greenspan said a Fed study showed a balanced budget would reduce interest rates. The Fed had conducted no such study.
Greenspan testified to Congress in 1993 that tapes of Federal Open Market Committee meetings were destroyed after summaries were written. Thus, no transcripts existed. He later admitted to Banking Committee Chairman Henry Gonzales that he had known for years transcripts were kept, but only remembered when a “senior staff member jogged my memory in the last few days.”
Back to Sarbanes, Greenspan deflected the criticism with a tried-and-true tactic: flattery.
Greenspan revealed “an alternative program of tax cuts and spending increases then proposed by the Democratic Party’s leadership would have achieved the same desired reduction in surpluses.” Now we have it. He had not specifically endorsed the Bush tax cut.
Yet he also told Sarbanes that he, “like many economists,” had been wrong about the surpluses he warned of in 2001. So why was he endorsing the Democrat’s program if he had been wrong about the motivation for promoting a tax cut? We will never know. Greenspan had triumphed once again using another tried-and-true tactic: confusion.
In The Age of Turbulence, Greenspan praises Bill Clinton and criticizes George Bush. This has been good publicity for his book, but misdirected. He is not turning his back on the Republican Party; Greenspan’s only allegiance is, as it has always been, to himself.
Regards,
Fred Sheehan
Whiskey & Gunpowder October 5, 2007By Fred Sheehan
Braintree, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Ex-Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has discovered the Republicans fall short of his standards. He is finding it difficult to break a smile on his The Age of Turbulence publicity tour.
Greenspan “glumly” told The New York Times he is “very disappointed” with the Republicans.
They ran an out-of-control budget. (In that, he is right.) “They swapped principle for power.” Greenspan expressed “remorse” that the Republicans followed his advice to lower taxes in 2001. They should have placed “safeguards against surprises.”
The real problem was Congress. It did not place safeguards around Alan Greenspan. Despite the common claim that he has been a “life-long Republican,” he was never anything of the sort. He has been a lifelong opportunist.
In February 2000, the last year of the Clinton administration, Greenspan appeared before the Senate Banking Committee. He recommended the government use the federal budget surplus to pay down the national debt.
The chairman amplified: “The growth potential of our economy under current circumstances is best served by allowing the unified budget surpluses…to materialize, thereby reduce Treasury debt held by the public.” Meaning: We should direct budget surplus dollars to reduce the federal debt. (This is accomplished by government-initiated purchases of U.S. Treasury securities.) The salient circumstance was that Clinton was not proposing a tax cut.
One year later, Greenspan worked for new management — the Bush administration. President Bush wanted a tax cut to kick off his tenure.
Greenspan marketed the tax cut as fiscally responsible, given recent surpluses. His advice was rendered on Jan. 25, 2001, to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget.
The Wall Street Journal reported the next day: “Giving a big boost to President Bush, Chairman Alan Greenspan reversed his long-held view and said he now sees room for significant tax cuts in the federal government’s financial future…. [O]ver the coming decade, the latest budget surplus numbers show not only room for reductions, but even a need.”
The New York Times on the same day: “Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, gave his blessing today to a substantial tax cut…. In a clear shift from his previous position that reducing the national debt should be the focus of fiscal policy, Mr. Greenspan said improvements in the economy’s long-term potential and the swelling surplus projections had ‘reshaped the choices and opportunities before us.’”
In his testimony, Greenspan expressed concern “that continuing to run surpluses beyond the point at which we reach zero or near-zero federal debt brings to center stage the critical longer-term fiscal policy issue of whether the federal government should accumulate large quantities of private (more technically nonfederal) assets.”
Of the 10,000 most likely problems the government should consider, this was not one of them. Over $5 trillion in the hole, the possibility of eliminating the federal debt ranked behind that of Venus crashing into Mars. (In January 2001, the Congressional Budget Office had projected the federal budget surplus would reduce the government debt by $5.6 trillion over the next 10 years. This gem of infinite interpolation gave Greenspan the cover he needed. In 2002, the CBO reduced its surplus estimate by $5.3 billion.)
Whether his audience scratched their heads at Greenspan’s flight of fancy, another statement should have awakened their curiosity. Greenspan prefaced his tale of woeful surpluses by discussing “recent projections… [which] make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade.
This is in marked contrast to the perspective of a year ago, when the elimination of the debt did not appear likely until the next decade.” The Nasdaq had fallen 43% from its March 10, 2000, peak. Tax revenue had risen from 12.5% of personal income to 15.4% during the boom years. In 2000, this 2.5% increase equaled $237 billion — precisely the same as the total 2000 budget surplus.
It suited Greenspan’s purposes to express mystification during testimony: “We still do not have a full understanding of the exceptional strength in individual income tax receipts during the latter 1990s.”
Greenspan could not have been blind to the source of the budget surpluses: capital gains, exercised stock options, and bonuses. These tributaries had dried up. Without these flows, his fear of paying down the national debt, or even running a balanced budget, made no sense. And while Alan Greenspan could claim that paying down the debt was a bad thing, it is a tribute to the man that his audience accepted such a silly pretense approvingly.
The Greenspan campaign for renomination in 2004 kicked off its media blitz on Feb. 11, 2003.
The Boston Globe reported that Greenspan viewed Bush’s (new) tax cut plan with a chilly reception: “Greenspan… used the opportunity to admonish the federal government for losing its ‘fiscal discipline.’” In the chairman’s words, a “return to fiscal discipline should be instituted without delay.”
That was the stick; on Feb. 12, Greenspan offered Bush the carrot. The Wall Street Journal reported: “Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan muted his initially chilly reception of President Bush’s tax cut plan, offering more praise for eliminating taxes on dividends and playing down the near-term consequences for the federal deficit.” (Emphasis added.) President Bush announced that he would reappoint Greenspan for a fifth term on Feb. 22.
On April 30, mission accomplished and Bush now bound by the reconfirmation, the chairman slithered back: “Alan Greenspan…told Congress today that the economy was poised to grow without further large tax cuts, and that budget deficits resulting from lower taxes without offsetting reductions in spending could be damaging to the economy.
Opponents of the large tax cut favored by President Bush took Mr. Greenspan’s testimony as support of their position.” (Emphasis added.) The dissembling was obvious; yet no one questioned Greenspan’s motives.
On April 21, 2005, the chairman’s bewildering tax and federal budget advice came full circle. At a Senate Budget Committee meeting, Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes of Maryland pursued a ragged thread in the Greenspan tapestry. The senator contended that Greenspan’s endorsement of the president’s 2001 tax cut was the “green light” that George Bush needed.
Greenspan replied that he had not “specifically” endorsed the tax cut plan. The chairman claimed: “You will not find anywhere in the public record that I supported the [2001] tax cut.”
Reading the Jan. 25, 2001 speech today (available for anyone to judge on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors Web site), his support is obvious. He was rooting for a tax cut.
This civil servant had made false assertions to the people’s elected representatives before. When a vote to balance the budget loomed early in Clinton’s presidency, Greenspan said a Fed study showed a balanced budget would reduce interest rates. The Fed had conducted no such study.
Greenspan testified to Congress in 1993 that tapes of Federal Open Market Committee meetings were destroyed after summaries were written. Thus, no transcripts existed. He later admitted to Banking Committee Chairman Henry Gonzales that he had known for years transcripts were kept, but only remembered when a “senior staff member jogged my memory in the last few days.”
Back to Sarbanes, Greenspan deflected the criticism with a tried-and-true tactic: flattery.
Greenspan revealed “an alternative program of tax cuts and spending increases then proposed by the Democratic Party’s leadership would have achieved the same desired reduction in surpluses.” Now we have it. He had not specifically endorsed the Bush tax cut.
Yet he also told Sarbanes that he, “like many economists,” had been wrong about the surpluses he warned of in 2001. So why was he endorsing the Democrat’s program if he had been wrong about the motivation for promoting a tax cut? We will never know. Greenspan had triumphed once again using another tried-and-true tactic: confusion.
In The Age of Turbulence, Greenspan praises Bill Clinton and criticizes George Bush. This has been good publicity for his book, but misdirected. He is not turning his back on the Republican Party; Greenspan’s only allegiance is, as it has always been, to himself.
Regards,
Fred Sheehan
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Buying Votes
The Democrats are falling all over eachother to see who can promise the most handouts from the Government.
Back in November 2006 I wrote "they think you're stupid, and maybe they're right" which detailed the foolish notion that anything comes from the government.
The government produces no product, they don't buy stuff and then sell it for a profit, they have no revenue as a business does, even though it is the fastest growing employer in the nation.
Therefore, the only thing that the government can "give" to you, is something that they must have first took from you.
Here is Obama's latest shell game, from the Stansberry and Associates' digest:
"To get through these uncertain times, we have to recognize that we all have a stake in one another's success..." says OBAMA! Uh oh.
I know where this going... What OBAMA! really means is that my neighbors have a right to their share of my success... and I have the right to pay them off.
Calling his plan a tax cut for the "middle class," OBAMA! intends to raise capital gains and dividend taxes and redistribute the $85 billion in $1,000 bonus checks to "working families."
Maybe someone will ask OBAMA! what "middle class" he's really talking about.
Seems to me the middle class is overwhelmingly invested in the stock market with 401k plans and IRAs... which means it's the middle class that will actually fund this tax.
If I were running for president against OBAMA! I'd use marketing that was easier to understand.
My slogan would be: Hey Poor Slobs: Vote For Me and I'll Pay You $1,000!
Back in November 2006 I wrote "they think you're stupid, and maybe they're right" which detailed the foolish notion that anything comes from the government.
The government produces no product, they don't buy stuff and then sell it for a profit, they have no revenue as a business does, even though it is the fastest growing employer in the nation.
Therefore, the only thing that the government can "give" to you, is something that they must have first took from you.
Here is Obama's latest shell game, from the Stansberry and Associates' digest:
"To get through these uncertain times, we have to recognize that we all have a stake in one another's success..." says OBAMA! Uh oh.
I know where this going... What OBAMA! really means is that my neighbors have a right to their share of my success... and I have the right to pay them off.
Calling his plan a tax cut for the "middle class," OBAMA! intends to raise capital gains and dividend taxes and redistribute the $85 billion in $1,000 bonus checks to "working families."
Maybe someone will ask OBAMA! what "middle class" he's really talking about.
Seems to me the middle class is overwhelmingly invested in the stock market with 401k plans and IRAs... which means it's the middle class that will actually fund this tax.
If I were running for president against OBAMA! I'd use marketing that was easier to understand.
My slogan would be: Hey Poor Slobs: Vote For Me and I'll Pay You $1,000!
Monday, September 17, 2007
U.S. Sovereignty Threatened by U.N. Treaty, Critics Charge
From Newsmax:
Sunday, September 16, 2007 8:35 PMBy: Chris Gonsalves
U.S. scientists aboard the Coast Guard icebreaker Healy are mapping the ocean floor in an effort to claim territory that holds an estimated 400 billion barrels of untapped undersea oil and gas.
The U.S. is poised to turn much of its authority on the high seas over to international arbiters by ratifying a long-controversial United Nations sea treaty.
Approval of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a 25-year-old international treaty regulating use of the world’s oceans, is steaming full speed ahead in the Senate, where committee hearings are set to begin Sept. 27.
The full Senate is likely to ratify the treaty -- which would link U.S. naval actions to those of 155 other member nations -- by year's end.
For decades, critics have derided the 182-page Law of the Sea pact as a threat to U.S. sovereignty and naval independence.
They add that it would create a massive new U.N. bureaucracy (the International Seabed Authority); would give environmentalists a back door to greater regulation; and would hinder the U.S. military's efforts to capture terrorists on the high seas.
“This is nothing less than a raid on our sovereignty,” Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., warns Newsmax. “I objected to it when it resurfaced in 2004, and I object to it now as I see it sneaking up on us again. What is this obsession we have for surrendering our jurisdiction to this international body? Nobody can give me a reasonable answer.”
Despite those concerns, however, support for the measure has never been stronger.
The treaty has garnered a letter of support from President Bush, favorable testimony from the Navy and Coast Guard, and the backing of at least a dozen oil, gas, and environmental groups.
Originally conceived in the 1930s, UNCLOS was crafted to supersede largely unwritten rules that limited coastal nations’ rights to just three miles of ocean.
Although U.N. discussions continued for four decades without much progress, President Truman in 1945 pioneered the extension of territorial waters to include the continental shelf extending from the coast.
As a result, a number of nations, including the United States, set 200-mile territorial-water limits -- some 30 years before UNLCOS was finalized with similar provisions in 1982.
The United States contributed heavily to UNCLOS, taking part in negotiations throughout the Nixon and Carter administrations. However, disagreements over technology sharing and deep-seabed mining provisions kept the United States from signing on under President Reagan.
The Clinton administration added an appendix in the 1990s that simplified the administration of seabed mining, after which it declared the treaty "fixed."
Frank Gaffney, the former Reagan defense official who now heads the Center for Security Policy in Washington, tells Newsmax that treaty advocates don't realize what UNCLOS really entails.
“I doubt any of these new supporters has actually read the entire treaty," he says. "If they read this Marxist document, the issue would be dead.”
Gaffney says he will fight against UNCLOS ratification and has created www.rejectlost.org to get the word out.
Critics like Inhofe and Gaffney are up against a formidable alliance of treaty supporters: senior administration officials, military officers, environmentalists, oil executives, and legislators from both sides of the aisle all favor it.
Proponents say the Law of the Sea actually guarantees U.S. ships and planes the right to traverse certain regions where they currently need permission from other governments; protects U.S. fishing interests from foreign poachers; opens up new undersea mineral and energy resources; and adds thousands of miles of seabed to America's territory.
Some 155 nations have signed the treaty. Although there are 41 countries that either haven't signed or haven't ratified the treaty, the United States is the lone holdout among the world's major powers.
"All of the major industrial states have done this except us," says University of Miami law professor Bernard Oxman, a treaty advocate who helped draft the original provisions when he was a young officer in the Navy.
UNCLOS comes up for ratification at a time when melting polar ice is opening new shipping lanes. Countries such as Russia, Canada, and Denmark are racing to lay claim to resource-rich areas under the Arctic Ocean.
“At a time when the United States is being criticized by friends and foes alike as either a Lone Ranger or worse, an arrogant bully, we can demonstrate that we believe international cooperation, done right, can serve America’s interests," says Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., a vocal supporter of the Law of the Sea.
Both Lugar and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., have indicated they’ll try to move UNCLOS ratification out of committee and bring it to a floor vote as quickly as possible.
The most controversial provisions are expected to relate to military sea travel.
For example, UNCLOS places tight restrictions on how ships must exercise their right to “innocent passage” in territorial waters, most notably requiring certain submarines and unmanned vehicles to operate on the surface and show their nation’s colors.
Opponents say the restrictions would jeopardize U.S. counterterrorism efforts by limiting the boarding of vessels to only those suspected of drug trafficking, piracy, slave trading, and illegal radio broadcasting. They fear provisions stating that “the high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes” and that signatories must refrain from “any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” could be used to thwart U.S. naval operations.
“If we had info that some terrorist threat was heading our way on a ship, we would be restricted in what we could do in terms of search and seizure,” says Inhofe. “We would have to go through this international body to do that.”
David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy in Washington, D.C., tells Newsmax: “The treaty could complicate our efforts to apprehend terrorists or ships our intelligence believes are carrying WMDs by subjecting our actions to review by an international tribunal, a body that is unlikely to be favorable to the United States.”
George Mason University law professor Jeremy Rabkin, writing in The Weekly Standard, cites several historical examples of U.S. naval actions that he suggests would be compromised by the Law of the Sea treaty.
Among them:
The October 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when President Kennedy ordered the Navy to blockade vessels coming in and out of Cuba.
The U.S. response to the 1975 Cambodian seizure of the American vessel USS Mayaguez. President Ford declared the seizure an act of piracy and dispatched Marines to force the ship's release.
In the 1980s, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi demanded that foreign vessels obtain his permission before entering the 300-mile-wide Gulf of Sidra. Reagan directed that a carrier task force enter the waters in 1986. Two Libyan patrol boats tried to resist, and were destroyed.
"The Senate should think long and hard before making the U.S. Navy answer to the U.N. version of the Law of the Sea," Rabkin writes.
Those concerns appear to be at odds with the Navy's support for the treaty, however. The Navy's leaders say it would guarantee U.S. access to patrol certain areas.
"We need this treaty to lock in the rights we already have," Rear Adm. Bruce MacDonald, the Navy's judge advocate general, tells The Wall Street Journal.
One reason for the differing perspectives on the treaty is the way disputes are determined. Disagreements among UNCLOS parties are decided by a tribunal based in Hamburg, Germany.
Rabkin concedes that "the treaty can be acceptable if interpreted as we want it to be interpreted." But U.S. interpretations, he says, are up to the international tribunal, adding, "The treaty stipulates that decisions of international arbitration must be treated as 'final' and 'binding.'"
Lugar, however, says opt-out clauses commonly used by more powerful UNCLOS members will keep the treaty from impinging on U.S. military operations.
“Ratifying the treaty will do nothing to change the status quo with respect to U.S. intelligence and submarine activities in the territorial seas of other countries,” Lugar says. “We’ll continue to operate under the same rules we’ve relied on for more than 40 years. [We’ve] specified explicitly that we alone define what constitutes ‘military activities’ not subject to review.”
The Coast Guard is also calling for ratification of UNCLOS, saying global regulation of the sea is good for law enforcement and for the military.
Speaking at a July symposium sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Coast Guard Rear Adm. John E. Crowley said UNCLOS provides “the freedom to conduct the kind of operations we need to conduct.
“In a time of vulnerability to terrorism, it is even more crucial that we have these treaty rights. [UNCLOS] was never intended for military activities, but far from inhibiting the military, it will enable it. Unimpeded travel is necessary to the United States as it enhances the ability of the Navy and Coast Guard to protect U.S. interests around the world.”
Bush has issued a statement urging the Senate to ratify UNCLOS, claiming the international pact “will serve national security interests [and] secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted.”
“George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan, choosing to follow rather than lead,” says Ridenour. “When Reagan assumed office, about 150 nations were backing the treaty.
"He instantly recognized that the treaty wasn’t in the U.S.’s interest and launched an intensive lobbying campaign to get other nations to follow his lead. As a result of these efforts, 46 nations rejected the treaty,” Ridenour says.
Lugar, however, remains adamant that UNCLOS has evolved and so has the international landscape.
“Failure to move now could directly hurt American interests,” he maintains. “Russia has, under terms of the treaty, laid claim to stretches of the Arctic Ocean, hoping to lock up potential oil and gas reserves which could become more accessible as climate change shrinks the polar ice cap.
Unless the United States ratifies the treaty, Moscow will be able to press its claims without an American at the table.”
Sunday, September 16, 2007 8:35 PMBy: Chris Gonsalves
U.S. scientists aboard the Coast Guard icebreaker Healy are mapping the ocean floor in an effort to claim territory that holds an estimated 400 billion barrels of untapped undersea oil and gas.
The U.S. is poised to turn much of its authority on the high seas over to international arbiters by ratifying a long-controversial United Nations sea treaty.
Approval of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a 25-year-old international treaty regulating use of the world’s oceans, is steaming full speed ahead in the Senate, where committee hearings are set to begin Sept. 27.
The full Senate is likely to ratify the treaty -- which would link U.S. naval actions to those of 155 other member nations -- by year's end.
For decades, critics have derided the 182-page Law of the Sea pact as a threat to U.S. sovereignty and naval independence.
They add that it would create a massive new U.N. bureaucracy (the International Seabed Authority); would give environmentalists a back door to greater regulation; and would hinder the U.S. military's efforts to capture terrorists on the high seas.
“This is nothing less than a raid on our sovereignty,” Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., warns Newsmax. “I objected to it when it resurfaced in 2004, and I object to it now as I see it sneaking up on us again. What is this obsession we have for surrendering our jurisdiction to this international body? Nobody can give me a reasonable answer.”
Despite those concerns, however, support for the measure has never been stronger.
The treaty has garnered a letter of support from President Bush, favorable testimony from the Navy and Coast Guard, and the backing of at least a dozen oil, gas, and environmental groups.
Originally conceived in the 1930s, UNCLOS was crafted to supersede largely unwritten rules that limited coastal nations’ rights to just three miles of ocean.
Although U.N. discussions continued for four decades without much progress, President Truman in 1945 pioneered the extension of territorial waters to include the continental shelf extending from the coast.
As a result, a number of nations, including the United States, set 200-mile territorial-water limits -- some 30 years before UNLCOS was finalized with similar provisions in 1982.
The United States contributed heavily to UNCLOS, taking part in negotiations throughout the Nixon and Carter administrations. However, disagreements over technology sharing and deep-seabed mining provisions kept the United States from signing on under President Reagan.
The Clinton administration added an appendix in the 1990s that simplified the administration of seabed mining, after which it declared the treaty "fixed."
Frank Gaffney, the former Reagan defense official who now heads the Center for Security Policy in Washington, tells Newsmax that treaty advocates don't realize what UNCLOS really entails.
“I doubt any of these new supporters has actually read the entire treaty," he says. "If they read this Marxist document, the issue would be dead.”
Gaffney says he will fight against UNCLOS ratification and has created www.rejectlost.org to get the word out.
Critics like Inhofe and Gaffney are up against a formidable alliance of treaty supporters: senior administration officials, military officers, environmentalists, oil executives, and legislators from both sides of the aisle all favor it.
Proponents say the Law of the Sea actually guarantees U.S. ships and planes the right to traverse certain regions where they currently need permission from other governments; protects U.S. fishing interests from foreign poachers; opens up new undersea mineral and energy resources; and adds thousands of miles of seabed to America's territory.
Some 155 nations have signed the treaty. Although there are 41 countries that either haven't signed or haven't ratified the treaty, the United States is the lone holdout among the world's major powers.
"All of the major industrial states have done this except us," says University of Miami law professor Bernard Oxman, a treaty advocate who helped draft the original provisions when he was a young officer in the Navy.
UNCLOS comes up for ratification at a time when melting polar ice is opening new shipping lanes. Countries such as Russia, Canada, and Denmark are racing to lay claim to resource-rich areas under the Arctic Ocean.
“At a time when the United States is being criticized by friends and foes alike as either a Lone Ranger or worse, an arrogant bully, we can demonstrate that we believe international cooperation, done right, can serve America’s interests," says Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., a vocal supporter of the Law of the Sea.
Both Lugar and Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., have indicated they’ll try to move UNCLOS ratification out of committee and bring it to a floor vote as quickly as possible.
The most controversial provisions are expected to relate to military sea travel.
For example, UNCLOS places tight restrictions on how ships must exercise their right to “innocent passage” in territorial waters, most notably requiring certain submarines and unmanned vehicles to operate on the surface and show their nation’s colors.
Opponents say the restrictions would jeopardize U.S. counterterrorism efforts by limiting the boarding of vessels to only those suspected of drug trafficking, piracy, slave trading, and illegal radio broadcasting. They fear provisions stating that “the high seas shall be reserved for peaceful purposes” and that signatories must refrain from “any threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” could be used to thwart U.S. naval operations.
“If we had info that some terrorist threat was heading our way on a ship, we would be restricted in what we could do in terms of search and seizure,” says Inhofe. “We would have to go through this international body to do that.”
David Ridenour, vice president of the National Center for Public Policy in Washington, D.C., tells Newsmax: “The treaty could complicate our efforts to apprehend terrorists or ships our intelligence believes are carrying WMDs by subjecting our actions to review by an international tribunal, a body that is unlikely to be favorable to the United States.”
George Mason University law professor Jeremy Rabkin, writing in The Weekly Standard, cites several historical examples of U.S. naval actions that he suggests would be compromised by the Law of the Sea treaty.
Among them:
The October 1962 Cuban missile crisis, when President Kennedy ordered the Navy to blockade vessels coming in and out of Cuba.
The U.S. response to the 1975 Cambodian seizure of the American vessel USS Mayaguez. President Ford declared the seizure an act of piracy and dispatched Marines to force the ship's release.
In the 1980s, Libya's Moammar Gadhafi demanded that foreign vessels obtain his permission before entering the 300-mile-wide Gulf of Sidra. Reagan directed that a carrier task force enter the waters in 1986. Two Libyan patrol boats tried to resist, and were destroyed.
"The Senate should think long and hard before making the U.S. Navy answer to the U.N. version of the Law of the Sea," Rabkin writes.
Those concerns appear to be at odds with the Navy's support for the treaty, however. The Navy's leaders say it would guarantee U.S. access to patrol certain areas.
"We need this treaty to lock in the rights we already have," Rear Adm. Bruce MacDonald, the Navy's judge advocate general, tells The Wall Street Journal.
One reason for the differing perspectives on the treaty is the way disputes are determined. Disagreements among UNCLOS parties are decided by a tribunal based in Hamburg, Germany.
Rabkin concedes that "the treaty can be acceptable if interpreted as we want it to be interpreted." But U.S. interpretations, he says, are up to the international tribunal, adding, "The treaty stipulates that decisions of international arbitration must be treated as 'final' and 'binding.'"
Lugar, however, says opt-out clauses commonly used by more powerful UNCLOS members will keep the treaty from impinging on U.S. military operations.
“Ratifying the treaty will do nothing to change the status quo with respect to U.S. intelligence and submarine activities in the territorial seas of other countries,” Lugar says. “We’ll continue to operate under the same rules we’ve relied on for more than 40 years. [We’ve] specified explicitly that we alone define what constitutes ‘military activities’ not subject to review.”
The Coast Guard is also calling for ratification of UNCLOS, saying global regulation of the sea is good for law enforcement and for the military.
Speaking at a July symposium sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, Coast Guard Rear Adm. John E. Crowley said UNCLOS provides “the freedom to conduct the kind of operations we need to conduct.
“In a time of vulnerability to terrorism, it is even more crucial that we have these treaty rights. [UNCLOS] was never intended for military activities, but far from inhibiting the military, it will enable it. Unimpeded travel is necessary to the United States as it enhances the ability of the Navy and Coast Guard to protect U.S. interests around the world.”
Bush has issued a statement urging the Senate to ratify UNCLOS, claiming the international pact “will serve national security interests [and] secure U.S. sovereign rights over extensive marine areas, including the valuable natural resources they contain. And it will give the United States a seat at the table when the rights that are vital to our interests are debated and interpreted.”
“George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan, choosing to follow rather than lead,” says Ridenour. “When Reagan assumed office, about 150 nations were backing the treaty.
"He instantly recognized that the treaty wasn’t in the U.S.’s interest and launched an intensive lobbying campaign to get other nations to follow his lead. As a result of these efforts, 46 nations rejected the treaty,” Ridenour says.
Lugar, however, remains adamant that UNCLOS has evolved and so has the international landscape.
“Failure to move now could directly hurt American interests,” he maintains. “Russia has, under terms of the treaty, laid claim to stretches of the Arctic Ocean, hoping to lock up potential oil and gas reserves which could become more accessible as climate change shrinks the polar ice cap.
Unless the United States ratifies the treaty, Moscow will be able to press its claims without an American at the table.”
Beware the Judge
In 2006, a lot of Republican voters (whether registered as Republican or not), chose to stay home during the national elections.
Their intent was to "teach Republicans a lesson". Frustrated by a myriad of issues from a lack of spine to stand up to congressional Democrats, over-spending , Jack Abramoff to the Mark Foley sex scandals. Republican voters thought that it was time to send a message that "we vote principle, not party" and let the Republicans see what happens when you lose our support.
So was this affective? At this point, I'm not sure. But I do know this, instead of making their point during the Republican primaries, they instead ushered in a very activist Democratic majority that is getting more emboldened with every passing day.
Part of the problem we face now is that the party in control, also controls the judiciary and if you don't think that fact alone is a reason to vote for a bad Republican, read on.
Judge Overturns Sex Offender Conviction
Posted on 09/13/2007 3:24:12 PM PDT by MotleyGirl70
A Sheboygan County judge has overturned a jury's verdict in the case of a convicted sex offender accused of trying to entice a 9-year-old girl into a park shelter to have sex, saying that the shelter the man tried to lure the girl into wasn't secluded enough to satisfy the requirements of the charge.
According to a criminal complaint, Mitchell D. Pask, 44, of Sheboygan, was charged in June with approaching the girl at a playground at Workers' Water Street Park in Sheboygan, offering her candy and asking her to follow him to a nearby shelter.
The girl testified at Wednesday's trial that Pask three or four times asked her to accompany him, offered her candy and made hand gestures signaling her to follow him to the shelter.
A witness overheard Pask tell three other men standing nearby, "Look at those sexy little salty girls."A 13-year-old friend of the girl witnessed the exchange and took her home, where the girl's mother called police.
Pask was arrested a short time later, according to the complaint.The jury visited the site on Wednesday as part of the one-day trial and found Pask guilty of felony child enticement after deliberating for about 30 minutes.
The charge carries a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison.Sheboygan County Circuit Judge Timothy M. Van Akkeren immediately overturned the verdict, however, determing that the park shelter was not a "secluded area" as required for the charge.
Van Akkeren did not explain the legal definition of "secluded area" during jury instructions, Sheboygan County District Attorney Joe DeCecco said.DeCecco said he was "stunned" by Van Akkeren's ruling."In our opinion, any area can be 'secluded,' including a park shelter, trees and large bushes.
The jury, having visited the site of the incident, obviously concluded we had met that burden beyond a reasonable doubt," DeCecco said in the statement.Van Akkeren could not be reached and indicated through an assistant that he would not comment on the case.
DeCecco said today he will file a motion with Van Akkeren to reconsider his decision.
If that fails, DeCecco said he will ask a state appeals court for an immediate stay on Van Akkeren's ruling so that Pask will remain in jail pending the outcome of an appeal, which could take up to 9 months."Our aim is to keep him where he is. We don't want him back on the street," DeCecco said, referring to Pask.
Pask is currently in custody in the Sheboygan County Jail on an unrelated disorderly conduct charge.Pask has a long criminal history.
In 1992 he was convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old boy.
In October 2005, he was convicted of a sex offender registry violation and sentenced to 30 days in jail.Pask is a registered sex offender.
This is just the latest of a long string of rulings liberal judges make that many of us would consider in direct opposition to the laws and customs that a civiliztion such as ours requires to thrive. Whether it's ruling in favor of the confiscation of private property that will be given to a wealthy developer who can generate more taxes, or releasing a convicted sex offender back to the street because he disagrees with a jury. These judges, and the politicians that appoint them to office are a threat to all of us.
So next time you want to teach Republicans a lesson, look at the big picture. your children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews may be the next victims of their deranged view of our society.
Their intent was to "teach Republicans a lesson". Frustrated by a myriad of issues from a lack of spine to stand up to congressional Democrats, over-spending , Jack Abramoff to the Mark Foley sex scandals. Republican voters thought that it was time to send a message that "we vote principle, not party" and let the Republicans see what happens when you lose our support.
So was this affective? At this point, I'm not sure. But I do know this, instead of making their point during the Republican primaries, they instead ushered in a very activist Democratic majority that is getting more emboldened with every passing day.
Part of the problem we face now is that the party in control, also controls the judiciary and if you don't think that fact alone is a reason to vote for a bad Republican, read on.
Judge Overturns Sex Offender Conviction
Posted on 09/13/2007 3:24:12 PM PDT by MotleyGirl70
A Sheboygan County judge has overturned a jury's verdict in the case of a convicted sex offender accused of trying to entice a 9-year-old girl into a park shelter to have sex, saying that the shelter the man tried to lure the girl into wasn't secluded enough to satisfy the requirements of the charge.
According to a criminal complaint, Mitchell D. Pask, 44, of Sheboygan, was charged in June with approaching the girl at a playground at Workers' Water Street Park in Sheboygan, offering her candy and asking her to follow him to a nearby shelter.
The girl testified at Wednesday's trial that Pask three or four times asked her to accompany him, offered her candy and made hand gestures signaling her to follow him to the shelter.
A witness overheard Pask tell three other men standing nearby, "Look at those sexy little salty girls."A 13-year-old friend of the girl witnessed the exchange and took her home, where the girl's mother called police.
Pask was arrested a short time later, according to the complaint.The jury visited the site on Wednesday as part of the one-day trial and found Pask guilty of felony child enticement after deliberating for about 30 minutes.
The charge carries a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison.Sheboygan County Circuit Judge Timothy M. Van Akkeren immediately overturned the verdict, however, determing that the park shelter was not a "secluded area" as required for the charge.
Van Akkeren did not explain the legal definition of "secluded area" during jury instructions, Sheboygan County District Attorney Joe DeCecco said.DeCecco said he was "stunned" by Van Akkeren's ruling."In our opinion, any area can be 'secluded,' including a park shelter, trees and large bushes.
The jury, having visited the site of the incident, obviously concluded we had met that burden beyond a reasonable doubt," DeCecco said in the statement.Van Akkeren could not be reached and indicated through an assistant that he would not comment on the case.
DeCecco said today he will file a motion with Van Akkeren to reconsider his decision.
If that fails, DeCecco said he will ask a state appeals court for an immediate stay on Van Akkeren's ruling so that Pask will remain in jail pending the outcome of an appeal, which could take up to 9 months."Our aim is to keep him where he is. We don't want him back on the street," DeCecco said, referring to Pask.
Pask is currently in custody in the Sheboygan County Jail on an unrelated disorderly conduct charge.Pask has a long criminal history.
In 1992 he was convicted of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old boy.
In October 2005, he was convicted of a sex offender registry violation and sentenced to 30 days in jail.Pask is a registered sex offender.
This is just the latest of a long string of rulings liberal judges make that many of us would consider in direct opposition to the laws and customs that a civiliztion such as ours requires to thrive. Whether it's ruling in favor of the confiscation of private property that will be given to a wealthy developer who can generate more taxes, or releasing a convicted sex offender back to the street because he disagrees with a jury. These judges, and the politicians that appoint them to office are a threat to all of us.
So next time you want to teach Republicans a lesson, look at the big picture. your children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews may be the next victims of their deranged view of our society.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)