2012 is an ominous year. Does anyone else find it interesting that the Mayan calendar supposedly predicts the destruction of the world right after the possible reelection of Barrack Obama? While I don’t believe in the Mayan calendar I do believe an Obama second term is too real of an apocalyptic scenario that I find myself looking for signs of the end of Conservative hope. When the Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD, Josephus claimed that a cow gave birth to a lamb as a sign of the destruction that was to come (The Wars of the Jews 6.5.3). As shocking as this is, we have a similar phenomenon in this race. No, they didn’t give birth to anything odd or of another species (yet), but Republican candidates Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry have transformed themselves, almost overnight, from stalwarts of the conservative movement into class-warfare spouting, anti-capitalist Democrats. While this doesn’t foretell the end of the world, it does foretell the end of their campaigns and possibly heralds an Obama second term.

A couple days ago a Gingrich Super Pac came out attacking Romney because when his venture capital firm took over a company to transform it, many of the workers would be laid off. Gingrich could have distanced himself from the remarks, because by law a Super Pac can say what they want and raise as much money as they want, but it is illegal for them to coordinate with the candidate. However, instead of doing this Gingrich has come out in agreement with these anti-capitalistic charges. Never one to be outpaced in a race to the stupid-line, Rick Perry took the same course calling Romney a “Vulture Capitalist.”
Before going any further, let me assure you that I am no Romney supporter. I agree that Obama-care is simply Romney-care writ large, and I see him as too moderate to even imagine him as the conservative/libertarian firebrand this country needs. However, to have two supposed conservatives using such emotional charges to attack free market capitalism is appalling. I could hold my nose and cast my vote for Romney, Paul, Huntsman or Santorum (yes, it would take overlooking serious problems to vote for any of them). This would be a vote of “Anyone But Obama!” I might be able to hold my nose enough to vote for Gingrich, if he were to win the nomination—about as likely as the Colts making the Super Bowl. As for Perry, I have decided that I could not vote for him for dogcatcher.

When Perry first entered the race I had problems with his record, but was willing to overlook them. The biggest problem I had was the way he tried to force a new vaccination for HPV on the girls of Texas. I gave him the benefit of the doubt that his views on federalism would prevent him from trying such things on the national level. When voters are willing to overlook some things, it is helpful if the candidate doesn’t keep stacking on things to overlook. Pile crap high enough and it can no longer be overlooked, and much of what was coming from this campaign is pure crap. It is so bad, when a Perry ad comes on TV our houseplants get a fresh burst of life—as if they’ve been fertilized.

In a national debate, Perry, when questioned about his support for in-state tuition for children of illegal aliens, said that anyone who disagreed with him did not have a heart. I disagree with him and I have a heart—I keep it in a jar on my desk, so I can look at it. By doing this he alienated the whole other side of the argument. While many who disagreed may have figured that they could overlook his position, it is hard to overlook his stereotype of the opposition.

Perry soon found he was in trouble after this, and after he forgot his talking points in another debate (He couldn’t remember the departments he pledged to cut—it’s hard to trust you to keep your promises after the election if you can’t remember them during the election). To fix this he decided to pander to the basest feelings of the electorate. He came out with a promise to transform Congress into a part-time legislature. According to him, elect him as president and all Congressmen would have to return home to make a living between sessions. Their pay and benefits would be pared down to their new part-time status. While I agree our freedom is greatest when Congress is deadlocked or out of session, Perry forgot a little document called the Constitution. Congress makes its own rules, sets its own schedule and its own pay. He could recommend legislation along these lines, but who thinks a majority in both houses would support such a thing. This was the type of promise a politician loves—impossible to keep, so failure is not your fault.

As if these were not enough to give the finishing blow to the Perry campaign, he attacks Romney by smearing free-market capitalism. While many readers may agree with this assessment of venture capital and the process used in taking an unprofitable company and turning it around, you have to understand the reason such companies exist and why they do what they do.

Corporate revenues and resources can be broken down into outgoing and incoming. Incoming includes all revenue received from customers for product. Outgoing is everything needed to keep the doors open, the lights on and to produce the product that will bring in the revenue. A company is profitable when incoming is greater than outgoing—it must cost less to produce the product than is received through the sale of it. When failing to turn a profit a company can either cut its outgoing expenses or increase its incoming revenues. To increase income a company can develop (i) a new product line, (ii) a new customer base for its current products or (iii) raise prices. Note that the first two options will also increase the outgoing as new production lines must be opened and new employees hired, etc. The third is the easiest, but is only possible when the market will permit the new price. All three are tied to the market. If there is a market for a new line, one can be developed; if there is a greater market for the old line, it can be expanded; if the market will tolerate higher prices, they can be increased. The free market rules.

The other side of the corporate coin is outgoing expenses. These include facilities, equipment, materials, and wages. If unprofitable a company may move into smaller facilities to save on rent or mortgage. They may find more efficient equipment or a material supplier that is cheaper. Of course, these do not only go down. Over time they go up. Land, materials, equipment and wages are all inflationary, so a company’s profitability is affected, on both the outgoing and incoming side, by market forces. It is not uncommon to have a company pinched by falling prices for their products and rising prices for the materials to make the product. In time a free market balances these out if everything is left fluid to the demands of the market, but if even one area is unmovable then the market must take drastic action to set things right. This brings us to wages. Wages are usually contractual and while increases are easy to implement, cuts in wages are very difficult. Because of this wages tend to ratchet up.

In time the immovable nature of the wages may increase the cost of production beyond any hope of profitability. When this happens there are limited options. One, the company goes under and the employees are forced to take other jobs. These new jobs often involve a pay cut, which permits the price of wages to be adjusted back to market levels. The other company is for someone to take over who is not contractually obligated to the wage structure. This new management can offer to let employees keep their current jobs, if they accept cuts to pay or benefits. Those who will not accept are free to take their skills elsewhere. Either way, the market is balanced and wages settle back to where they should be according to the free market. The unchanging nature of wages in a company make these last two options necessary. We could do away with the corporate “takeover and turn around” if we set wages to fluctuate with the market, but this would not be popular—nor really even desirable.

Rick Perry should rethink his view of capitalism. While he and Newt Gingrich would be shocked to be accused of attacking capitalism, this is exactly what they have done. This type of pandering might work on the Democratic ticket of victimization and class warfare, but is out of place among Republicans. Republicans understand, in the words of Milton Friedman, “Capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom.” Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich, in an attempt to undermine Mitt Romney, have each leveled their guns at freedom.

Yesterday evening, watching the local news, I saw a story on residents of our city returning from protesting Arizona’s new immigration law. Being Memorial Day, it was painful to hear some of the comments being made about our country and efforts to secure our borders. Apparently every country, including Mexico, is allowed to have secure borders with the sole exception of the one country everyone wants to go to. In honor of these protests I thought I’d offer some points for consideration and a couple recommendations for the state of Arizona.

A secure Southern border will be good for Mexico. As it stands illegals send billions of dollars back to Mexico propping up a broken system. So long as this steady flow of cash continues there is no need for our southern neighbor to fix anything. The country suffers because politicians continue to turn a blind eye to their mismanagement and their country’s less fortunate sons and daughters go off to America to send money back to family. Throughout the Border States wire services to send money to Mexico is a major industry. Of course, those who come here should be allowed to make their own choices about their money and have the freedom to send it home, but only if they are here earning the money legally. With the current situation, the Mexican government has its claws in the pockets of our tax –payers as well as their own.

There is no such thing as a law-abiding illegal alien. This phrase makes my head spin every time I hear it. Of course, I have to admit it has been a while since I heard it because I think even the logic-deficient, bleeding heart left realized it was a bit over the top. However I do still here about those who come here and try hard to obey the laws and work constructively to earn a living. While this is true it overlooks the fact that their very presence in this country is illegal. When this person crossed the border he or she flagrantly broke our laws. When this person took employment without a work-permit more laws were broken. Each day residing in this country and each day working here is another day of illegal activity. Even the nicest of illegal aliens is a criminal, by definition.

Turning a blind eye to illegal immigration insults those who work to enter this country legally. Everyday thousands of people realize the dream of setting foot on the shores of the United States. This country has always attracted the best and brightest of the world’s people. Coming here legally can cost thousands depending upon the country of origin, but these people see it as worth the cost to live in America and have the chances this offers. When we permit a large population to cross and unsecure border and take up long term residence in the US we insult those who come here legally. In effect we are saying to them, “You must pay and jump through hoops to come here. These others get to come here free and without any paperwork.”

Current support for illegal immigration is racist. Those who see Mexicans as somehow in special need or a special exception to the immigration laws, assume that these people just can’t make it without help from a benevolent government. Of course their own government will not help them, unless you count the help they give breaking our laws. Some people feel guilty, believing that being white has given advantages unavailable to other races. This is nothing but a feel good version of the White Man’s burden. It was once seen as a virtue for the white race to control the world and use its power to help those of darker complexions out of barbarity and ignorance. Now it is the white man’s burden to lift up the poor Mexican who comes here illegally. Of course, those believing this do so because they also believe without help from them (the superior white person) the Mexican is unable to help him or herself. Anyone having much contact with Mexican immigrants knows these people are perfectly capable of helping themselves.

After seeing the people from my own city greeted like heroes from a protest in Arizona, I have a recommendation for the state of Arizona. Wherever a group of protesters gather against this law, there is the place to check papers. Permit them to assemble as is their right, but each person participating in or observing should have their residency status checked with those here illegally detained and turned over to ICE. You will very quickly thin the ranks of support at these rallies.

Please consider one other recommendation. Since California, your neighbor, is one of the loudest states standing against you and ICE is threatening to refuse to cooperate with your law enforcement in any cases springing from this law, there is an easy way to handle both problems at once. I recommend you start your own deportation agency. As your officers discover and detain illegals put them on a bus and drop them off in California.

Yesterday a miracle happened. No, a lion did not lie down with a lamb, the lame did not walk and neither did the blind see. Instead, a miracle of an unprecedented magnitude happened in the state of Massachusetts. A Republican was elected to fill the seat of Teddy “One-for-the-Road” Kennedy. To say that the left is in shock is an understatement.

The question I ask coming out of this election is how will the GOP read it? The election was spun by the left as a referendum on healthcare and that is exactly what won it for Brown. The people of Massachusetts came out in droves to vote against Obama’s plans to extend control over 1/7th of the US economy in the guise of healthcare reform. GOP leadership is of course ecstatic over the victory and they should be (heaven knows it’s been a while since good news involved the GOP). The danger to those of us who value freedom is a misread of Brown’s victory by party elites.

If party leadership reads this victory to mean people are so fed up with the Democrats they will vote for anyone wearing the Republican moniker the potential for big wins in 2010 will be lost. The Republican Party lost big in the last round, not because the country had shifted left, but because the Republican Party had shifted left. Under Bush it was hard to tell a Republican voting record from a Democratic one. Keynesian deficit spending alongside rampant Congressional corruption and moral turpitude produced a perfect storm for the left. The left won because the right stayed home.

It may be possible for the GOP to go one cycle or perhaps two with the old practice of running RINOs and Rockefeller Republicans. It is possible the electorate, shocked by the abuses of a strong Democratic majority, will vote for any elephant walking down the street, but this will not last long. Unless the party of Reagan returns to its base it will find itself exiled from power again and again. If this happens it is not the Republican leaders who will suffer but the American people who are forced to watch more and more of their freedoms wheedled away by misguided apparatchiks.

Recently a friend sent a list of ideas to reform Congress. I told his that most of the ideas would not work and pointed out that many of the ideas were based on myths about Congress—such as the old claim that Congress does not pay into Social Security. This was changed in the 80’s. My friend’s response was to ask for my ideas. I don’t know why in this country we have adopted the ludicrous idea that one cannot point out problems of an action without also laying out a better plan. We saw this in the healthcare debates when the Democrats belittled Republican opposition with the accusation that they had not given a better plan. One does not have to have a better plan to be able to recognize a bad plan. Despite this, I put together my usual list of appropriate fixes. You will not that none of them are the usual fluff floating around conservative circles.

Since only Constitutional Amendments cannot be overturned let’s start there.

First, repeal the XVII Amendment. In the Constitution, the Senate represented the state governments so Senators were elected by the State Legislatures. This was changed to popular election by XVII. We have such a bloated federal government because no one speaks for the states in Congress. With this small change there will never be another unfunded mandate, the X Amendment will be uplifted, and state governments will be empowered to stand up to the federal juggernaut.

Second, repeal the XVI Amendment. This aberration allowed the federal government to tax the people directly without apportionment by census figures. This would abolish the income tax. If you want to limit a government you must keep a tight grip on its ability to raise funds.

Third, further define the treaty making process. The Constitution empowers the President and the Senate to ratify treaties. This is fine with the repeal of XVII since the Senate would once again represent the state governments. The problem is that all bills for appropriation of money are constitutionally required to start in the House. What happens if a treaty is signed that requires the raising of an amount of money? Does the house have to raise the money? If so this is in effect an appropriation started by the Executive branch and the Senate sunning roughshod over the people’s representatives. There needs to be more definition. It must be stated that even if the President and Senate approve a treaty, the House still has the right to refuse to pay for it, by withholding the appropriations. This would handicap much of the feared results of Kyoto, UN mandates, etc. This does not violate the president’s power of foreign diplomacy, but it would limit his ability to enact harmful legislation under the guise of diplomacy, and protect the sovereignty of the American people.

Fourth, the war powers of the president need to be amended. Yes, the president is Commander-in-Chief but the power to send troops outside the US borders to engage any force or nation must be limited to those engagements where Congress has passed a declaration of war. In the case of Afghanistan this would not have been a problem because one could have been passed within hours of 911. However, this would have prevented many problems with Korea and Vietnam because the war could not simply be handed off to blame the president because Congress’ own votes would have been a matter of record. The American soldier should never be sent into harm’s way without the recorded agreement of their representatives. Voting to fund is not enough; it must be a declaration of war.

Fifth, there must be a Constitutional definition of Executive orders. As it is right now the president can make what is in effect law through these monarchical pronouncements, without Constitutional limitation. These orders are necessary for the operation of the executive branch to carry out its duties, but for now there is nothing to limit them. In this way the president is without the limits of checks and balances in executive orders.

Sixth, repeal the XXII Amendment. While others are proposing term limits for Congress, I see presidential term limits as detrimental. Limiting the president to two terms places the executive at a disadvantage in dealing with Congress, because this person’s political career is over. This in effect removes part of the checks and balances over Congress. During a second four year term Congress can force through many things that would never be possible without an emasculated president. Yes, some may point to the danger of ending up with an unbeatable president doing popular but unwise things such as FDR. However the New Deal was long after the passage of the XVI and XVII Amendments. With these repealed FDR would have been powerless.

This video was created in 1948 but is as relevant today as ever.

Thanks to my good friend Dr. Bud Powell for pointing this video out to me.

It’s too bad that fifty years later we’re still being offered the same Utopian pipedreams.

Barack Obama has declared war. Of course, this declaration is not against enemies of the American Constitution or to defend American interests like past presidents. He has declared the only type of war that a left leaning radical can stomach or morally support; Barack Obama has declared war on a news outlet that refuses to tow the line. According to Anita Dunn, White House Communications Director, “What I think is fair to say about Fox – and certainly it’s the way we view it – is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party. They take their talking points, put them on the air; take their opposition research, put them on the air. And that’s fine. But let’s not pretend they’re a news network the way CNN is.”

That’s right. The White House has declared war against Fox news. Why? Fox News broadcasts the opposing view. In other words they practice journalism. I would not be so naive to say that Fox new is always unbiased. They have commentators who regularly speak against the left, just like CNN does. The problem is that the Obama administration loves CNN and MSNBC because the love is returned. These two stations have been in a love fest with this administration long before Obama was sworn in. Of course, MSNBC is the worst of the two. If they didn’t occasionally broadcast the weather MSNBC could not even be called a news station. CNN, formerly the Clinton New Network and now in the thralls of Obama, has yet to air a story in any way negative of the new president.

The First Amendment was not put in place to protect the government’s mouthpiece but to protect those who would speak against the government so that the people will hear more than the official side. This role has fallen to Fox News, the only station following its First Amendment mandate.

For most people a few months is not very long. A child thinks of this period as an eternity, but an adult facing a wait of several months is a different story. By the time we reach adulthood we learned to wait. We have also had things we wanted put off for months and observed how quickly that time passes. Even with the relative shortness of a few months a lot can happen in that time period.

In nine short months a fertilized egg becomes a fully formed human being. The transformation from single cell to sentient intelligent being is an amazing miracle to consider. Compound that complexity with the quickness of the process and awe is only natural. The mother feels her bond grow daily as her child develops; a father’s first experience of the child is at birth. Just as the bewildered father finds himself bewildered by miracle that has changed him from man to father and feels mixed emotions as he realizes the weight of his new responsibilities, a society can find itself overcome by the changes wrought in a few months by a misguided agenda.

The last few months of US history are a perfect example. We have seen changes in the land unforeseeable only a few years ago. I still remember the days when the media was bemoaning the destruction of the Democratic Party and declaring that the whole country had taken a sharp turn to the right. With the leadership of the American Triumvirate (Obama, Reid and Pelosi) we face a brave new world—not so brave, and if you listen to Solomon, not so new.

Over the last few months the following has come to pass under the leadership of the most left leaning president and Congress in history:
• American’s largest auto manufacturer is majority owned by the federal government.
• The President of the United States has removed the CEO of a major corporation.
• The financial industry is under the heavy hand of the fed.
• Major segments of society are being managed by Czars, not one of them elected.
• Veterans who served their country have been labeled potential terrorists.
• A government website has been established for reporting opposition.
• The government is poised to expand its control of our healthcare.
• War has been declared on the entire health insurance industry.
• Members of previous administrations are being criminalized for policy differences.
• Business is being attacked with higher mandatory wages and proposed new requirements.
• Our children’s wealth has been spent before the children have earned it.
• Government debt has risen to unprecedented levels.
• Art and education are being suborned to speak in support of the president and his policies.
• Our economy is being sacrificed to the new religion of Global Warming.

As if this isn’t enough, imagine what a few more months will bring. Already, in 2010 taxes will increase without any action by the Congress or President. This automatic tax increase will kick in when the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire. It will be spun by Obama and the boys as not being a tax cut, but if your taxes are one amount this year and nearly double next year what do you call it? It is a tax increase and it will be Obama, Reid and Pelosi’s baby.

Some used to be say, “One election doesn’t matter; how must damage could be done in four years?” If the last few months are an example every election counts because the damage done can be irrevocable. Mister Obama, “I’ll keep my current health coverage, my current income and my current freedoms; you can keep the change.”

Calls from the left ring throughout the land, “We must be civil in discussing healthcare.” People are going to town halls to protest and harangue condescending officials defending this takeover of the American healthcare system. Constituents shout, plead and debate the candidate in a way that can be very uncomfortable, but does this lack proper civility?

Efforts of this administration and the Hip-pocket Congress prove that the current elected assemblies in Washington are representing a failed ideology at the expense of the American people. Many of us fear having an imperfect system that works replaced by a system destined for failure. The Democrats in Congress (with the help of their moderate to liberal Republican sycophants) are so set on building their leftist Utopia that they are ignoring the voices of the people.

This congress and administration has done far more to undermine the confidence of the American people in their own government than all previous ones combined. Over the last few months we have become aware that those elected to represent us are voting on bills they have never read, and that many times are not even off the presses. This happened before, but pair it with record spending and you have a government run amuck. Add to this their hatred for dissent with efforts to reinstate the failed “Fairness Doctrine,” special email addresses to report those who would dare to speak out against healthcare, labeling those who served their country with honor as potential terrorists and accusations by Speaker Pelosi that those who are now speaking out are un-American.”

Then there’s the blatant hypocrisy of a Congress that rails against corporate executives flying in private jets, only to turn around and request new business jets from the Pentagon to ferry Congressmen around. According to a story in Market Watch this money will have to be cut out of other areas of the defense budget. Congress is willing to cut the amount of money being spent to support our troops in war so they can get a cushy flight. Of course this ignores the old news request of Speaker Pelosi for a larger jet for her private coast to coast flights. Their hypocrisy doesn’t stop there though. What about Card Check? This plan, also known as the Employee “Free Choice” Act, claimed to be for the support of workers. This claim was possible because leftists still long for the days of the great Revolution and calls of “Workers of the World, Unite!” They overlook the facts about unions—driving up costs, making American manufacturing uncompetitive, and unwillingness to see companies as anything other than cash-cows to be milked at every opportunity. Do you want to know why manufacturing jobs are fleeing the United States? “Look for Union Label.” This nice little bill would have stripped away a worker’s right to a secret ballot in a union vote.

So what are good hard-working Americans to do when faced with these issues? Are we to wait for the media to get the word out? Considering they have still not dropped their love affair with Barack Obama, I don’t think this will happen anytime soon.

Of course we should not be surprised they still fawn over Barack. They should have known that once they sold their souls in the election they would have to keep up the charade for the rest of his presidency. Liberals do not care what you did for them yesterday. Any anchor in the MSM that comes out with any negative press about Barack Obama will find himself labeled a bigot and tarred and feathered by the left. We can hope the media will wake up and resume their post as defenders of liberty and clarions of the truth, but that kind of media is rare.

“If you do not read the newspaper you are uninformed; if you read the newspaper you are misinformed.” —-Mark Twain.

The answer is what we see happening today. Protests and demonstrations are one of the few ways left to get the word to congressmen. The first amendment was not meant to protect only the news industry but all Americans who want to express themselves. Solutions will not be found in quiet discourse and polite debate, but in high volume vitriol. Politician’s calls for niceness and quiet are a veiled attempt to silence and to muzzle. The left has used this tactic for decades. There is a huge difference between what the left did before and what is going on now. When the left would demonstrate, the ranks were filled with the unemployed, the professional protestors and people unlikely to pay for what they demanded. Those protesting now are the very people who write the check and mail it to the IRS to pay the bills of this country. They are the productive in our society. When those who create the wealth in this land feel the need to take time away from work and family to come to a townhall meeting and make their opinions known it is the Congressmen or other official that should sit down and be quiet because those who pay them are speaking.

Recently a very influential local Republican expressed what he thought was key to winning the next election. He advised getting along and not fighting. While this last election was plagued with party infighting, what did the leadership think would happen when they ran a candidate with a long history of opposing the party? Were we, as loyal Republicans, to march in lockstep and vote for whomever they gave us? What about the parties responsibility to seek and field candidates that uphold the principles of the party?

(more…)

When the anticipation of the upcoming election mixes with the sting of the last one those of us on the right can get uptight. Until this last weekend I was feeling better about the prospects of wrenching control of Congress from the Pelosi/Reid cabal. From much of what has come out of Republican circles I was confident the party had learned its lesson and was returning to its principles. Then came last Saturday.

(more…)