History, Government & Politics

This book discusses our government, what it is, what it was, and what it was intended to be.  The articles are not necessarily under those specific heading because some bridge more than one subject.

Opossum News Monday

Chris, “Welcome to Opossum News Monday. I am your host Chris Wallet. Today our guest is Jesus. But first the news:

President Trump tweeted out this morning ‘Little Adam Schiff, who is desperate to run for higher office, is one of the biggest liars and leakers in Washington, right up there with Comey, Warner, Brennan and Clapper! Adam leaves closed committee hearings to illegally leak confidential information. Must be stopped!’

Again the President is attacking his opponent in what I think is very unpresidential. Let’s see what our guest says.

I would like to welcome Jesus of Nazareth to our program for the first time.”

Jesus, “Thank you for having me.”

Chris, “Based on your teaching, don’t you think this is a little over the top?”

Jesus, “Not really. But to what teaching are you referring.”

Chris, “Luke reports in his 17th chapter verse 4 that you said “if he wrongs you seven times in one day and returns to you seven times saying, ‘I am sorry,’ you should forgive him”. Doesn’t such a tweet indicate that the President does not forgive him?”

Jesus, “Luke is accurate in his reporting. But you only reported part of what I said, which was “If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he wrongs you seven times in one day and returns to you seven times saying, ‘I am sorry,’ you should forgive him. Must I remind you of the phrase ‘if he repents’. Did Adam Schiff repent? So it is with our Father. He is willing to forgive. But to get that forgiveness you must repent.”

Chris, “How do I square that with Chapter 6 Verse 37 where you say “Stop judging and you will not be judged.”?”

Jesus, “I like Mathews’s version better. Again read the whole quotation. “Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

” But you must keep my words in context of the whole of my Father’s law. Remember that he warned Ezekiel in Chapter 3 18 “If I say to the wicked, You shall surely die—and you do not warn them or speak out to dissuade the wicked from their evil conduct in order to save their lives—then they shall die for their sin, but I will hold you responsible for their blood.19 If, however, you warn the wicked and they still do not turn from their wickedness and evil conduct, they shall die for their sin, but you shall save your life.”

Chris, “On another subject. In Leviticus 19:34 ESV God says “You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.” Isn’t building a wall on our border with Mexico contrary to that teaching?”

Jesus, “you must also consider the actions of King Asa as reported in 2 Chronicles 14, 14:1 Asa did what Yahweh his God regards as good and right. ... 14:5 He rebuilt the fortified towns of Judah, since the country was at peace and free of war during those years, because Yahweh had granted him peace. 14:6 'Let us rebuild these towns,' he told Judah, 'let us surround them with wall and tower, with gate and bar while the country is still ours, for we have sought Yahweh our God and he has sought us and given us peace all around.' They built and prospered.

”There is an aspect of the 10 Commandments that is oft missed. True, if all men obeyed them we wouldn’t have a problem. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Then we must consider the other aspect. For example, implied in the commandment ‘You shall not kill.’ is you can expect not to be killed. And the commandment ‘You shall not steal.’ you can expect that your possessions to remain your possessions. There is no law that prevents you from taking steps to insure those aspects.

”Further, King Asa was not only protecting his citizens’ lives and possessions, he was, with God’s blessing, protecting the very culture of his citizens.

“Regarding the wall across the southern border, you must consider if the open border allows more violations of the Commandments and if those coming across are changing the culture.”

Chris,”We have just a few seconds more, but I have one more question. Is President Trump a Christian?”

Jesus, “My disciple Paul has given some guidance in that subject:

“You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him.

If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.

For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God. For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!

In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of his glory.” “But I have said, “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

2nd Amendment

This post was inspired by the number of instances I have responded to questions and posts advocating gun control. I have organized this article so that the reader may use an index of sorts to refer to for comments and questions. I encourage all readers to post corrections to facts in the article and their arguments.

Expect this article to be updated as this writer is aware that he can make mistakes and in some unlikely cases :) change his opinion.

1.0 The 2nd Amendment

1.1 What Founders Say

1.1.1 George Washington

”If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.

”A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well-digested plan is requisite; and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.”

”Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master.”

”However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

”A primary object should be the education of our youth in the science of government. In a republic, what species of knowledge can be equally important? And what duty more pressing than communicating it to those who are to be the future guardians of the liberties of the country?”

To that I would add that they should be educated completely, not to the prevailing socialist leanings of our educational system, who apparent leave out study of the Federalist Papers and in some cases campaign for the removal of the second amendment.

1.1.2 Federalist Papers - James Madison

James Madison was in his 20s when he contributed articles to what is now called the Federalist Papers.:

One paper, No 46, by James Madison discusses the rights of citizens to possess arms. The discussion starts in the final quarter of the paper.

“This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.”

1.1.3 Benjamin Franklin

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” From “Memoirs of the life & writings of Benjamin Franklin.”

1.2 My Opinion

The current gun laws in view of the founders view and the 2nd Amendment IMHO are not Constitutional. That the laws either have not been challenged, or the SCOTUS has ruled them constitutional, permit them to be in force is OK with me. I am opposed to new more restrictive laws on arms like what many are calling “Assault Weapons”. Knowledgeable self defense proponents say that the AR-15 is one of the best home defense weapons because of its accuracy and reliability. I am not opposed to background checks except I am concerned that the government may deny possession of a firearm unreasonably, like prior military service. As we have found with the no-fly list, it could deny ownership with little or mistaken reason.

I am convinced the ownership of firearms prevent more crimes than they cause. Many cite Australia’s experience with gun laws as a reason to extend our own. What they don’t mention is the increase in all the other crime statistics. Personally, I credit the absence of a crime that could seriously injured or killed three people (two relatives) to the presence of a weapon and a person that could use it.

2.0 Positive Use of Arms

I am a Smith & Wesson 357. Before I retired to GA I was owned by a physician in Detroit. I was called on three times to perform my function. The first time I was removed from the physician's purse to confront a rather large man approaching the physician. On recognizing me, the large man left. The second time, several thugs approached the physician. It was dark and the thugs either did not recognize me or did not believe the physician would pull the trigger. The physician did. The muzzle flash was so bright the thugs were blinded and the physician and I were able to get in her car and leave. The third incident occurred when a thug approached the physician. It was daylight so my muzzle flash was not so bright. The thug continued. I think the second shot hit the assailant, but he left, and so did we."

The Smith & Wesson now belongs to a family where arms are kept, loaded and unlocked. Another two crimes were prevented when an intruder entered the house. Two girls heard the intruder break into a basement door. One went to the phone and dialed 911. The other took a bolt action shotgun from its place and proceeded to meet the intruder coming up the steps. As she approached the stairs, she chambered a shell. The intruder apparently recognized the sound and left the same way he had come. It was over 25 minutes before the police reached the house.

After the incident with the girls, alone in the house, the owners posted a sign on the basement door with a picture of the business end of the 357 saying "We don't call 911 first!" There were no incidents after that sign was posted even though there were reports that there were other break-ins.

Certainly, five crimes were prevented by these weapons, any one of which could have caused injury or death of the physician or the girls. How many lives were affected? How many lives were saved (the physician is still working)?

The media seldom reports on like incidents or cases where an armed officer in a school prevents mass murders like the one in Maryland, or the armed teacher that took down an shooter before he had time to do any damage. And there is no way to count the times a perpetrator avoid a house or business because he knows or suspects there are arms on the premises.

3.0 Information vs Misinformation

3.1 “Assault Rifle” vs “Assault Weapon”

3.1.1 An automatic weapon is one that fires continuously until the trigger is released or it runs out of ammunition.

3.1.2 A semi automatic weapon requires the trigger to be depressed for each cartridge to be fired. The automatic function refers to the characteristic of the weapon that after a shot is fired the mechanism re-chambers a new round to be fired.

3.1.3 “selective fire” means that a weapon can be used as an automatic or semiautomatic weapon.

3.1.4 “bump stock” is a device that can be used that makes a semi automatic act like an automatic.

3.1.5 The definition of an Assault Rifle used here and all my posts is from the US Army definition:

  1. It must be capable of selective fire
  2. It must have an intermediate-power cartridge: more power than a pistol but less than a standard rifle or battle rifle, such as the 7.92×33mm Kurz, the 7.62x39mm and the 5.56x45mm NATO.
  3. Its ammunition must be supplied from a detachable box magazine.[5]
  4. It must have an effective range of at least 300 metres (330 yards).
  5. And it must have all of the above characteristics.

3.1.6 The definition of an Assault Weapon varies depends on the state. For our purposes we will use the following criteria.:

Note that the above definition includes semi-automatic handguns because they have detachable magazines, leaving only revolvers, double barrel shotguns, and long guns with internal magazines as weapons not classified as assault weapons.

3.2 An AR-15 is NOT an “assault rifle” as many allege. Under the above definition it can be classified as an “assault weapon”.

3.3 “Laws are needed to restrict ownership of assault rifles”. The National Firearms Act of 1938 regulates the sale of assault rifles.

3.4 I tend to agree with Mark Twain,

“Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable. It is the mark of a truly intelligent person to be moved by statistics. There are lies, damned lies and statistics. Statistics are used much like a drunk uses a lamppost: for support, not illumination.”

Statistics too often are used to prove a point by the person rather than used as pure research. Regarding gun control you need to look at the source. You can certainly expect charts produced by the liberal media to support their objectives for more gun control. Data is not readily available for me to produce my own charts. If the reader has access to this data I would be glad to produce statics that are more complete. The data required for 2007-2017 are:

I will continue gathering the data but will accept the any help. I can accept data in .csv format. The best source is CDC.

4.0 Limited Resources

Conservatives recognize that our government, in fact our culture of freedom, has limited resources. Acting on that knowledge, they automatically think of problems whose seriousness and magnitude require some of those limited resources. A good corporate manager, including the president, considers those limits in every decision.

All families face the same issue. However there are many, including the recipients of welfare, some of very rich, and many educators who either believe resources are unlimited or that the resources can be managed better by the government than by individuals.

By either knowingly or accidentally using techniques described by Saul Alinsky to further their objectives of gaining more and more control over the citizens, they use emotionally charged issues like “gun control” and fund activities like “March for Our Lives”. YES, I AM AS CONCERNED ABOUT CHILDREN BEING MURDERED AS THE WELL MEANING YOUNG ADULTS. However, it must be considered along with other problems we face as a free culture with limited resources. Here are some of those issues:

  1. Atomic armed North Korea with ability to bomb cities in the United States, the top responsibility of the Federal Government is to protect the citizens of the United States from foreign invasion. Atomic armed Iran.
  2. Illegal Immigration which demands expenditures in education, permits criminals to injure U.S. Citizens and formits the drug trade.
  3. Russian expansion activities. Automobile deaths of about 3300 a day.
  4. The opioid crisis, and other drug problems that are taking 1000 lives a day.
  5. Care of our veterans.
  6. Government funding of murder of 300000+ unborn babies. Even though the Supreme Court has ruled, Roe vs Wade, that abortions are legal, it is contrary to the First Amendment to force taxpayers to fund them.
  7. School shootings. Even though one student death is too many, we must recognize that the trend of such incidents is down even though one, based on media coverage, might reasonably conclude it was up. Prevention of those attacks can best be handled by the states, as Florida did.

The order is my opinion of the order of importance. Even so, considering our limited resources, it is difficult for me to justify placing “School Shootings” and the associated push for limiting the right of self protection high in the list, and, on a personal level, sacrificing the lives of the three people I know on the altar of well meaning gun control advocates.

5.0 Young Adult Participation

I am encouraged that our youth are taking an interest in solving problems. I am concerned that, because of the increasing influence of progressives in our education system they are being used.

All who support demonstrations and particularly those who support legislation to restrict freedoms regardless of your good intentions, need to remember the words posted below and their source. You also need to review “Rules for Radicals”, a review of which is at http://www.politico-cat.com/node/113, if you at all concerned with the direction our country is taking. ??

Whether you are a member of Black Lives Matter or March for Our Lives, understand that you are restricting someone else’s freedom when you leave trash in your wake and block their ability to travel. Hopefully you will not impede a person or persons ability to get essential healthcare by your actions. Is your organization prepared to pay the cost incurred because of extra police and garbage pickup required by your demonstration? Are you? If not, then you are stealing from your fellow taxpayer.

8.0 How would I reduce gun related crime?

Thanks to the reader that put my foot to the fire and asked that question.

Glad you asked.??

Given that criminals:


I would:?

  1. Increase penalties for crimes by a factor of 10 for crimes in which a firearm is used by the perpetrator with no opportunity for parole.
  2. Mandatory life sentence if someone is injured.
  3. ?
  4. Require purchaser to attend a class in gun safety.
  5. Voluntarily remove “gun free” zones. Campaign for locations where more than a few people gather to remove signs that they are gun free. Recommend that if they are concerned about guns on the premises, they provide ways to check people attending for arms.
  6. Establish a privately run gun owner list publicly accessible to advise weapons sellers as to restrictions of persons to own a weapon. Such a list can be funded by its users. Such a list would include whether the person listed has successfully completed a gun handling and safety course. HIPAA regulations specify that medical records of a person may not be released without that person's permission. That the managers cannot get the records would be a red flag to the seller as to the buyer’s fitness to have a weapon.

"Voodoo" vs "Zombie" Economics

Voodoo to Zombie Economics

Liz, with her ability to attach just the right word phrase to describe something has just attached the right phrase to describe the US economic system currently pervasive today. We were discussing the Laffer curve, the basis of Reagan's economic policies, often called "Trickle Down Economics" and by its opponents "Voodoo Economics "

The Laffer curve, named after economist Arthur Laffer, was an approach to collecting taxes that optimized the revenues collected by the government. Typically, you only hear about tax RATES and why the government needs to raise them because they are spending more than than they collect. Laffer posited that what the government needed to do was concentrate on revenues rather than rates. Taking two known points on a graph, it is known that if the tax rate is 0%, the revenue will be $0. The other known point is a tax rate of 100%. At that point the revenue will be $0 because people and companies are not willing to invest or work for $0.

For all of the positive points on the Laffer curve, there would be positive revenue. As one increased the tax rate, the revenue would increase, TO A POINT! At that point, named the Laffer Point, and increase in the tax rate would actually cause revenues to decrease. What increased the revenues during the Reagan years was that the rates were moved from the left of the Laffer point, closest to the 100% rate, to the right, closest to the 0% tax rate.

“During Reagan's presidency, tax rates certainly fell sharply: the top personal income tax rate went from 70 percent in 1980 down to 28 percent in 1988. However, during those same years, tax receipts went up — from $599 billion in fiscal year 1981 to $991 billion in FY 1989 (in historical dollars), an annualized growth rate of 6.5 percent.” (http://fee.org/the_freeman/detail/the-laffer-curve-will-tax-cuts-pay-for...)

Detractors of these policies, rightly, pointed out that reduction of tax rates would not necessarily increase revenue. However, they either did not understand the Laffer principle or chose to ignore it. Rather than correctly report and educate citizens about the policies they derided them by calling them either “Voodoo Economics”, “Trickle Down Economics”, “Tax Breaks for the Rich”

As we have seen in the recent past, the government has kept the individual tax rates pretty much the same. Now, when the government needs more money in order to grow, they tax through agencies, like OSHA, or the FAA, and now Obama-care.

Of late, we have seen the growth of “Zombie Economics” espoused by the Zombie party, which by its very nature is rather disorganized. However, its members can easily be identified by their characteristics:

Because of the threat of the increasing population of zombies, the CDC has issues a booklet “Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse” and the Adam Chodorov of Sandra Day O'Conner College of Law has studied the legal implications of zombies under US Federal and state tax codes.

Since there is no known defense to the Zombie Apocalypse, this article is to make its readers aware of the situation and encourage them to ask their congressmen what they plan to do about the situation.

2 Guns: -5 crimes

"I am a Smith & Wesson 357. Before I retired to GA I was owned by a physician in Detroit. I was called on three times to perform my function. The first time I was removed from the physician's purse to confront a rather large man approaching the physician. On recognizing me, the large man left. The second time, several thugs approached the physician. It was dark and the thugs either did not recognize me or did not believe the physician would pull the trigger. The physician did. The muzzle flash was so bright the thugs were blinded and the physician and I were able to get in her car and leave. The third incident occurred when a thug approached the physician. It was daylight so my muzzle flash was not so bright. The thug continued. I think the second shot hit the assailent, but he left, and so did we."

The Smith & Wesson now belongs to a family where arms are kept, loaded and unlocked.  Another two crimes were prevented when an intruder entered the house.  Two girls heard the intruder break into a basement door. One went to the phone and dialed 911. The other took a bolt action shotgun from its place and proceeded to meet the intruder coming up the steps. As she approached the stairs, she chambered a shell. The intruder apparently recognized the sound and left the same way he had come.   It was over 25 minutes before the police reached the house. 

After the incident with the girls, alone in the house, the owners posted a sign on the basement door with a picture of the business end of the 357 saying "We don't call 911 first!"  There were no incidents after that sign was posted even though there were reports that there were other break-ins.

Certainly, five crimes were prevented by these weapons, any one of which could have caused injury or death of the physician or the girls. How many lives were affected? How many lives were saved (the physician is still working)?

2016 Application For Employment

The following letter and attached application has been devised for concerned citizens to get a more accurate picture of the candidates for president. We hope you will use these or versions of these for your personal use. If you get responses, we can publish those responses here to make them available publicly.

A copy of the "application" is enclosed below. If you wish a .pdf copy, you may obtain one by requesting it from http://www.felixlovesliz.com and selecting the Contact Us page

Dear Sir or Madam,

Attached please find an application for the job of President of the United States.

I have received a number of requests for support including your candidate. I am confused about the positions of your candidate because the media are giving opinions rather than objective reporting and sound bites rather than detailed interviews to permit objective evaluation as to whether I agree. Because I have limited resources, I must pick one candidate and do whatever I can do to help him/her to win the election.

I realize the candidate does not have time to answer requests of this nature, but you, a member of his campaign staff must be sure that the answers accurately represent his position.

I also realize that a candidate may change his position on issues as the campaign progresses. Should this happen, I hope you are able to report this change so I can include it in my evaluation.

Response by email is preferable but mail is acceptable. Please contact by using the Contact Us page in http://www.felixlovesliz.com for an address or email address to send your results.

Thank you for your attention.

Employment Application

Position: President of the United States

Personal Information

Name:______________________________________________ Address:____________________________________________ Married: Name of Spouse:____________________________ Date of Birth:_____________________________________________ Place of Birth:_____________________________________________

Employment Record:

Please enter employment record for last ten years. You may add sheets if necessary. Ref. Year from Year to Organization Position Reason for Leaving Organization History Using reference number from above table please state the organization history during that period.
Ref +/-Employees Profit/Loss Change of Networth Change of Debt



Date Graduated__________________________




Please Rank in order of importance where 1 is least and 9 is most. For binary question enter 0 for no and any other number for true. If options are provided, use the number of the option. For other, please enter an answer under Comments. </tr>
Number Question Response
1 When have you last read the US Constitution? (Enter 1 in last year, 2 in the last 2 years, ... 9 in greater than 8 years)
2 When have you referred to the US Constitution to better understand the founders' intent? (Enter 1 in last year, 2 in the last 2 years, ... 9 in greater than 8 years)
3 How important is transparency relative to items 4 – 5?
4 How important is integrity relative to items 3, 5?
5 How important is security relative to items 3-4?
As President, the more important jobs are (assign numbers to items 10 - 18):
10 Making sure all citizens have equatable incomes.
11 Making sure all citizens have adequate medical care.
12 Administering the Laws made by the Congress.
13 Defending the Constitution.
14 Answering to the United Nations and administering agreements passed by that body.
15 Making treaties with foreign governments.
16 Regulating corporations in the United States.
17 Issuing executive orders to address problems that exist in the United States.
18 Funding select companies to advance development of products to advance objectives currently accepted by the United States (eg. Development of Alternative energy)
Personal Convictions (0 for no and any other number for yes). These convictions may or may not be governed by current U.S. Law.
30 A woman has the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy at any time.
31 A woman or institution has the right to direct or indirect funding from the government for an abortion.
32 The best tax system for the United States is: 1. the current system, 2. a flat tax, 3. the FairTax, 4. Other:
33 Have you read the law known as the FairTax (at http://www.fairtax.org)?
34 Will you actively campaign for the FairTax?
35 Does an individual or company have the right to avoid association with another individual or to provide service to an individual because of religious beliefs?
36 Should tributes, otherwise know as Foreign Aid, be discontinued to any country that hosts international terrorism, or expresses the intention or desire to destroy United State or its allies?
37 Should the United Congress pass laws that subjugate articles of the Constitution (eg. The current law concerning approval of the an agreement with Iran regarding the development of a nuclear bomb)?
38 Have you read and do you agree with the underlying principles(from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) of libertarians (also available at http://www.politico..cat/node/23)?
39 Where is your primary source of News? 1. New York Times, 2. Washington Post, 3. National Review, 4. Major Broadcast Networks (ABC, CBS, NBC), Cable News: 5. CNN, 6. MSNBC, 7. FOX, 8. Other (please enter in comments below)
40 Where do you get your economic news? 1. The Economist, 2. Foundation for Economic Education, 3. Other (please enter in comments below.)
41 Have you ever conducted a study in which you have successfully proven a hypothesis with objective (scientific) data?
42 Have you ever conducted a successful experiment? Designed or built any successful project?
43 Have you ever headed a company for which you have been responsible for meeting payroll, taxes and benefits for at least 3 or more employees for at least 24 months?
44 Have you ever defaulted on those obligations?
45 Have you ever held a mortgage, credit card debt or student loan? Have you ever defaulted on those obligations?
46 Have you ever held a job as a waiter, in retail, in farming, in a factory, at minimum wage (or less), or other service positions?
47 Have you ever been accused formally or convicted of fraud?
48 As commander in chief, to what extent would you go to defend the constitution? 0. none, 1. give your life, 2. forfeit your property, 3. forfeit your freedom, 4. other ____
49 In what organization(s) have you served that employ a hierarchical. Command structure? 0. none, 1. Armed Forces, 2. National Guard, 3. Sheriff's Department, 4. Police Department, 5. Civil Air Patrol, 6. Scout
50 Have you personally filled out and submitted Form 1040 and associated forms in the last 0. Never 1. five years, 2. ten years, 3. ever?
51 Should companies be limited as to the profit they make? 0. No, >0. percentage that they should be limited to.
52 Assuming the current tax laws, should companies be taxed in addition to individuals, representing effectively a double taxation on what companies produce? 0. No, 1. Yes

Comments (you may add comments on the back or on additional sheet if you like.)

Amending the Constitution of the United States

Yes there have been and are mistakes in both the Constitution and the amendments.  Many corrections have been made in the amendments.  However, some remain and should be fixed.  Unfortunately, they are so entwined in the culture and current law that we may not be able to undo them. 

At the end of this article is "The Constitution of the New United States" that was taken from the book "The Day the Wind Stopped Blowing", that can be found at http://www.felixlovesliz.com/Products.php. Even though it is based on the current constitution, it seeks to correct some of the problems that have permitted out government to devolve into what we have now because our politicians have taken advantage of our constitutions weaknesses.

Balanced Budget Amendment

In order to restrain the excessive spending of the Federal Government, an amendment is needed.  Where any law passed by congress may not commit  the next congress to abide by it, the mechanism to pass a constitutional amendment makes it more permanent.  The following amendment would supply such restraint but still allow the government to borrow money.

Section 1. The Administration may not request and the Federal Reserve may not print or mint currency except to replace that which has been returned to be destroyed. In no case shall the amount of currency, whether in certificates. electronic or paper, or coin,  in circulation exceed current levels.

Section 2. To borrow money on the credit of the United States both Houses must approve by two thirds. Additionally, the amount of money to be borrowed must not cause the total debt to exceed 49% of the average of the gross national product for the previous 6 years. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively.

Section 3. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within three years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

A more comprehensive but weaker proposal is currently before the congress.  Its weakness lies in the fact that the Fed is allowed to adjust the value of money, and essentially paying down our debt with fiat money.  Also note that it does not take effect until after 2016 when the current administration is out of office.  If we last that long, it will be a good thing.

Sixteenth Amendment

This amendment has imposed the greatest injustice on the United States and may eventually completely destroy our republic.  Our founders looked very carefully at how our original government should fund itself and set out the principles in the Constitution in Section 8.

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general welfare Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

This approach is well discussed in the Federalist Papers and if you would like to know more I recommend the you look there.  The 16th Amendment has been and is now used as a basis of class warfare by political parties and administrations.  Now you will recognize it as "Tax the Fat Cats", "Have the rich pay their fair share" and like campaigns. 

The sixteenth amendment reads as follows.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

This amendment should be repealed by another amendment the text of which follows.

Section 1. The sixteenth article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within two years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

The Commerce Clause

Section 8, paragraph 3 reads

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

And has been used by the Federal Government to interfere with people's rights and the authority of the States more than the founders intended.  That section should be modified to read:

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.

Term Limits

This proposal, S.J. Res. 11 has been introduced to both the Senate and House of Representatives.  It currently is in committee but without an outcry from the voters, it is unlikely to go anywhere. 


It is unlikely that our founders expected the administration, and the congress to make careers of service as elected officials. Therefore an amendment is needed to limit to remuneration of those elected officials.  It definitely did not intentionally establish a class of "governors"  that could control their own wages and benefits.

Section 1. Total Remuneration of elected officials serving in the Congress and the Administration per year shall not exceed the average income of citizens' families multiplied by five and reduced by their share of the national debt divided by their term in office. (this remuneration shall include the cost of staff, travel, retirement, and medical insurance)

Section 2.  No Remuneration of elected officials shall be made before or after their term in office.


The 14th Amendment bestows citizenship on any person born in the United States. Note that the Republicans passed this objection over the objections of the southern possessions previously known as the Confederate States of America. They then passed legislation that required these possesions to accept this Amendment before they could participate in the government. Where the Amendment established a number of principals, it opened the door to what is called anchor babies, that is, a mother coming to the U.S. to have a child so that child would be entitled to the benefits of U.S. citizenship. This situation can be corrected by deleting the words "born or" in the first sentence.

The following Constitution is contained in the book, "The Day the Wind Stopped Blowing" available as a Kindle Book. Included also is an explanation of the events leading up to its adoption and explanations of the differences. Check at http://www.felixlovesliz.com for links to this and other books. NewConstitution.odt

The Constitution of New United States

The following constitution, taken from the original Constitution of the United States shall be used as the framework under which the New Ohio Constitution and Laws shall operate. Changes have been made and noted, text has been to correct problems that were originally in the constitution or that worked into the constitution during the U.S. History prior to 2040. The text and reorganization of the constitution was taken from the Constitution of the Confederate States of America because many of the weaknesses of the original Constitution were recognized and corrected there.


We, the people of the New United States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God do ordain and establish this Constitution for the New United States of America.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit and ownership of Property. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

Article I

Sec. 1. All legislative powers herein delegated shall be vested in a Congress of the New United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Sec. 2. The House of Representatives

  1. The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall be citizens of the New United States, and have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature; but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the New United States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal.
  2. No person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained the age of twenty-five years, and be a citizen of the New United States, and who shall not when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.
  3. No person shall be a Representative who shall have served in either the Senate or House of Representatives for an aggregate of more than 12 years.
  4. Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States, which may be included within this New United States, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of free persons. The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the New United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct. The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every fifty thousand, but each State shall have at least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made.
  5. When vacancies happen in the representation from any State the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies.
  6. The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment; except that any judicial or other Federal officer, resident and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two-thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof.

Sec. 3. The Senate

  1. The Senate of the New United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen for six years by the Legislature thereof, at the regular session next immediately preceding the commencement of the term of service; and each Senator shall have one vote.
  2. Immediately after they shall be assembled, in consequence of the first election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three classes. The seats of the Senators of the first class shall be vacated at the expiration of the second year; of the second class at the expiration of the fourth year; and of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year; so that one-third may be chosen every second year; and if vacancies happen by resignation, or other wise, during the recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary appointments until the next meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such vacancies.
  3. No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the age of thirty years, and be a citizen of the New United States; and who shall not, then elected, be an inhabitant of the State for which he shall be chosen.
  4. No person shall be a Senator who shall have served in either the Senate or House of Representatives for an aggregate of more than 12 years.
  5. The Vice President of the New United States shall be president of the Senate, but shall have no vote unless they be equally divided.
  6. The Senate shall choose their other officers; and also a president pro tempore in the absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the office of President of the New United states.
  7. The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the New United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the members present.
  8. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, or profit under the New United States; but the party convicted shall, nevertheless, be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment, and punishment according to law.

Sec. 4.

  1. The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof, subject to the provisions of this Constitution; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the times and places of choosing Senators.
  2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year; and such meeting shall be on the first Monday in Fegruary, unless they shall, by law, appoint a different day.

Sec. 5.

  1. Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner and under such penalties as each House may provide.
  2. Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of the whole number, expel a member.
  3. Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy,but in no case exceeding 2 years from the time of an action; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House, on any question be entered on the journal.
  4. Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

Sec. 6.

  1. The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of the New United States.
  2. No Remuneration of elected officials shall be made before or after their term in office.
  3. Total Remuneration of elected officials serving in the Congress and the Administration per year shall not exceed the average income of citizens' families multiplied by five and reduced by their share of the national debt divided by their term in office. (this remuneration may be used to pay salary, the cost of staff, travel, retirement, and medical insurance)
  4. They shall, in all cases, except treason, felony, and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place.
  5. No Senator or Representative shall, during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the authority of the New United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time.
  6. No person holding any office under the New United States shall be a member of either House during his continuance in office. But Congress may, by law, grant to the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments a seat upon the floor of either House, with the privilege of discussing any measures appertaining to his department.

Sec. 7.

  1. All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments, as on other bills.
  2. All bills for which there is 10% or more of the House members request to be presented to the full House may not be held up by any member or group of members of that house and that house must take a vote on acceptance, rejection, or tabling of the bill. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively.
  3. Every bill which shall have passed both Houses, shall, before it becomes a law, be presented to the President of the New United States; if he approve, he shall sign it; but if not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases, the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress, by their adjournment, prevent its return; in which case it shall not be a law. The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved; and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President.
  4. Every order, resolution, or vote, to which the concurrence of both Houses may be necessary (except on a question of adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the New United States; and before the same shall take effect, shall be approved by him; or, being disapproved by him, shall be passed by two-thirds of both Houses, according to the rules and limitations prescribed in case of a bill.

Sec. 8. The Congress shall have power-

  1. To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the business the Government of the New United States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the New United States.
  2. To borrow money on the credit of the New United States.
  3. The Administration may not request and the Federal Reserve may not print or mint currency except to replace that which has been returned to be destroyed. In no case shall the amount of currency, whether in certificates. electronic or paper, or coin,  in circulation exceed current levels.
  4. To borrow money on the credit of the United States both Houses must approve by two thirds. Additionally, the amount of money to be borrowed must not cause the total debt to exceed 49% of the average of the gross national product for the previous 6 years. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each house respectively.
  5. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes; but neither this, nor any other clause contained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors and the removing of obstructions in river navigation; in all which cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof.
  6. To establish uniform laws of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the New United States; but no law of Congress shall discharge any debt contracted before the passage of the same.
  7. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures. The dollar shall be the basic unit of exchange and shall fixed to be worth the number of square meters within the state divided by the gross domestic product, measured in dollars, of the state in 2000. (in Ohio, this would fix the dollar so that each square meter would cost $5.)
  8. To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the New United States.
  9. To establish post offices and post routes; but the expenses of the Post Office Department, after the 4th day of July in the year of our Lord two thousand and forty, shall be paid out of its own revenues. No law of Congress shall interfere with an individual or institutions right to provide services provided by such post offices.
  10. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
  11. To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court.
  12. To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations.
  13. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.
  14. To raise and support armies; but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.
  15. To provide and maintain a navy.
  16. To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
  17. To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the New United States, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.
  18. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the New United States; reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
  19. To exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such district (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of one or more States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of the New United States; and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the Legislature of the State in which the same shall be, for the . erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings; and
  20. To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the New United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Sec. 9

  1. Before a senator or representative enters on the execution of his/her office he/she shall take the following oath or affirmation:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of Senator (or Representative) of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the New United States, so help me God

Sec. 10.

  1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
  2. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
  3. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
  4. No capitation or other direct tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein-before directed to be taken.
  5. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses.
  6. No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another.
  7. No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.
  8. Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treasury except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses, taken by yeas and nays, unless it be asked and estimated for by some one of the heads of departments and submitted to Congress by the President; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies; or for the payment of claims against the New United States, the justice of which shall have been judicially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which it is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish.
  9. All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation and the purposes for which it is made; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered.
  10. No title of nobility shall be granted by the New United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
  11. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
  12. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
  13. The right of the people to work in their chosen profession shall not be infringed either by this government, a member states government, or professional organization.
  14. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
  15. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, property, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
  16. No person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor be compelled, in any criminal case, to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
  17. In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
  18. In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact so tried by a jury shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the New United States, than according to the rules of common law.
  19. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted nor shall any tax be laid on any article of property that when accumulated over time exceeds the original price paid for the property.
  20. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
  21. Every law, or resolution having the force of law, shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title.
  22. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Sec. 11.

  1. No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, or ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts; or grant any title of nobility.
  2. No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws; and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any State on imports, or exports, shall be for the use of the Treasury of the New United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of Congress.
  1. No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty on tonnage, except on vessels carrying persons or freight, for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said vessels; but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the New United States with foreign nations; and any surplus revenue thus derived shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common treasury. Nor shall any State keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. But when any river divides or flows through two or more States they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof.


Section I.

  1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the New United States of America. He and the Vice President shall hold their offices for the term of six years; but the President shall not be re-eligible. The President and Vice President shall be elected as follows:
  2. Each State shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative or person holding an office of trust or profit under the New United States shall be appointed an elector.
  3. The electors shall meet in their respective States and vote by ballot for President and Vice President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same State with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit, sealed, to the seat of the Government of. the New United States, directed to the President of the Senate; the President of the Senate shall,in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted; the person having the greatest number of votes for President shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President, whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the 4th day of March next following, then the Vice President shall act as President, as in case of the death, or other constitutional disability of the President.
  4. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice President shall be the Vice President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have a majority, then, from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.
  5. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the New United States.
  6. The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the New United States.
  7. No person except a natural-born citizen of the New United; States, or a citizen thereof at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, or a citizen thereof born in the United States prior to the 20th of December, 1860, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the limits of the New United States, as they may exist at the time of his election.
  8. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
  9. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
  10. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
  11. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President protem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
  12. Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro-temp of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
  13. The President shall, at stated times, receive for his services a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected; and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the New United States, or any of them. The President shall not receive remuneration for any expenses either before or after his term(s) in office.
  14. Before he enters on the execution of his office he shall take the following oath or affirmation:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the New United States, so help me God.

Sec. 2.

  1. The President shall be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the New United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the New United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the Executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices; and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the New United States, except in cases of impeachment.
  2. He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make agreements and treaties with foreign governments; provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate shall appoint, ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the New United States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law; but the Congress may, by law, vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
  3. The principal officer in each of the Executive Departments, and all persons connected with the diplomatic service, may be removed from office at the pleasure of the President. All other civil officers of the Executive Departments may be removed at any time by the President, or other appointing power, when their services are unnecessary, or for dishonesty, incapacity. inefficiency, misconduct, or neglect of duty; and when so removed, the removal shall be reported to the Senate, together with the reasons therefor.
  4. The President shall have power to fill all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end when the Senate returns; but no person rejected by the Senate shall be reappointed to the same office during their ensuing recess.
  5. No treaty or agreement made by the president with the advise and consent of the senate be made for a period of more than 7 years. At the end of 7 years the treaty shall become invalid unless renegotiated with the foreign government.
  6. Each treaty or agreement shall be reviewed after 2 years by the House of Representatives to determine if there have been undesirable consequences resulting from the operation of the treaty or agreement. If so, the House of Representatives with the Senate shall have the power to revoke the treaty or agreement.
  7. No treaty or agreement with a foreign government may be made that restricts the certain unalienable Rights of the citizens of the New United States of America.

Sec. 3.

The President shall, from time to time, give to the Congress information of the state of the New United States, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them; and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the New United States.

Sec. 4.

The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the New United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.


Section I.

  1. The judicial power of the New United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may, from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.
  2. No judge may serve more than 17 years.
  3. No judge shall receive remunerations for said services prior or subsequent to his term of service as a Supreme Court Judge.
  4. Each Justice except those having experience as an attorney will be supplied with an attorney on staff for consultation.
  5. The Supreme Court shall be constituted as follows:
  1. Chief Justice having  been a practitioner of law for 7 years,
  2. Three Justices each having been an officer in a corporation for no less than 5 years,
  3. One Justice having been a farmer or employed as a farm laborer,
  4. One Justice having been from the arts (painting, music, writing, and the like),
  5. One Justice having been an Attorney for more that 5 years,
  6. One Justice having been an industrial laborer.
  7. One Justice having served in a church or faith based charity.

Sec. 2.

  1. The judicial power shall extend to all cases arising under this Constitution, the laws of the New United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls; to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the New United States shall be a party; to controversies between two or more States; between a State and citizens of another State, where the State is plaintiff; between citizens claiming lands under grants of different States; and between a State or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects; but no State shall be sued by a citizen or subject of any foreign state.
  2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction both as to law and fact, with such exceptions and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.
  3. The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.
  4. The Supreme Court shall review all rulings made with respect to interpretation of the Constitution according to the following schedule.
  1. Rulings made where only five judges concur with the ruling: Every seven years,
  1. Rulings made where only six judges concur with the ruling: Every eleven years,
  2. Rulings made where only seven judges concur with the ruling: Every fifteen years,
  3. All remaining rulings: Every nineteen years.
  4. In all cases where the Congress with a three-fourths majority petitions the court to conduct such a review.

Sec. 3.

  1. Treason against the New United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
  1. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.


Section I.

Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State; and the Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof.

Sec. 2.

  1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this New United States, with their property; and the right of property shall not be thereby impaired.
  2. A person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime against the laws of such State, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime.
  3. No person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the New United States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

Sec. 3.

  1. Other States may be admitted into this New United States by a vote of two-thirds of the whole House of Representatives and two-thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting by States; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other State, nor any State be formed by the junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned, as well as of the Congress.
  2. The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations concerning the property of the New United States, including the lands thereof.
  3. The New United States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the New United States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the New United States.
  1. The New United States shall guarantee to every State that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this New United States, a republican form of government; and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the Legislature or of the Executive when the Legislature is not in session) against domestic violence.


Section I.

Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall summon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by the said convention, voting by States, and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two- thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two-thirds thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention, they shall thenceforward form a part of this Constitution. But no State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate.


  1. The Government established by this Constitution is the successor of the Government of the United States of America Government, and all the laws passed by the latter shall continue in force until the same shall be repealed or modified but in no case shall they continue if in direct conflict with the provisions of this Constitution; and all the officers appointed by the same shall remain in office until their successors are appointed and qualified, or the offices abolished.
  2. No debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adoption of this Constitution shall be as valid against the New United States under this Constitution.
  3. This Constitution, and the laws of the New United States made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the New United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
  4. The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the New United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the New United States.
  5. The enumeration, in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people of the several States.
  1. The powers not delegated to the New United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people thereof.


On becoming a citizen of the New United States of America a person shall take the following oath or affirmation:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.


  1. The ratification of the convention of Ohio shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution.

Citizenship Test


Lately, there has been articles that supposedly were used to restrict voters from voting that couldn't prove they had a third grade education. They were struck down by the court because they discriminated against a particular race. After looking at the questions, I'm glad I have a high school diploma. I don't think I could pass it. However, politics over the past several years convinces me that we should probably revisit that practice. And, yes, it discriminates. Against those who vote without really being interested in what the US is about.

Here are the questions that a US citizen should be able to answer. The first four they must be able to answer. They are instructed to answer with the most correct answers. They must score 80% on the test.

  1. Who is the President of the United States?
  1. Bush
  2. Clinton
  3. Obama
  4. Reid
  5. Roberts
  6. Pelosi
  7. Boehner
  8. Biden
  9. None of the above
  1. Who is the Vice President?
  1. Bush
  2. Clinton
  3. Obama
  4. Reid
  5. Roberts
  6. Pelosi
  7. Boehner
  8. Biden
  9. None of the above
  1. Who is the Speaker of the House?
  1. Bush
  2. Clinton
  3. Obama
  4. Reid
  5. Roberts
  6. Pelosi
  7. Boehner
  8. Biden
  9. None of the above
  1. Who is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court?
  1. Bush
  2. Clinton
  3. Obama
  4. Reid
  5. Roberts
  6. Pelosi
  7. Boehner
  8. Biden
  9. None of the above
  1. Who succeeds the President if he dies or is incapacitated?
  1. Bush
  2. Clinton
  3. Obama
  4. Reid
  5. Roberts
  6. Pelosi
  7. Boehner
  8. Biden
  9. None of the above
  1. If both the President and his successor die or incapacitated, who succeedes them?
  1. Bush
  2. Clinton
  3. Obama
  4. Reid
  5. Roberts
  6. Pelosi
  7. Boehner
  8. Biden
  9. None of the above
  1. The United States is a
  1. Democracy
  2. Republic
  3. Kingdom
  4. Empire
  5. None of the above
  1. The economic system of the US is
  1. Communism
  2. Socialism
  3. Capitalism
  4. Methodism
  5. None of the above
  1. According to the Declaration, inalienable rights are granted by
  1. God
  2. G_d
  3. Allah
  4. Creator
  5. All of the above
  6. None of the above
  1. The Constitution defines the government as having these main parts:
  1. Internal Revenue Service, Justice Department,  and State Department
  2. Supreme Court, Congress, President
  3. President, State Department, Department of Defense
  4. President, Senate, House of Representatives
  1. "Separation of church and state" is found in
  1. Sharia Law
  2. State Law
  3. United Nation Law
  4. The Constitution
  5. None of the above
  1. The "Bill of Rights" is part of
  1. Sharia Law
  2. State Law
  3. United Nation Law
  4. The Constitution
  5. None of the above
  1. The supreme law of the land as it applies to individuals is
  1. Sharia Law
  2. State Law
  3. United Nations Law
  4. The Constitution
  5. The jury
  6. None of the above
  1. How many Senators are there?
  1. 567
  2. 2 from each state
  3. the total of Senators allocated by population in each state
  4. 100
  5. None of the above
  1. How many Representatives are there?
  1. 567
  2. 2 from each state
  3. the total of Representatives allocated by population in each state and territory
  4. 100
  5. None of the above
  1. The Constitution gives the power to declare war to the
  1. Supreme Court
  2. President
  3. Department of Defense
  4. Congress
  5. United Nations
  6. None of the above
  1. The Congress
  1. Makes laws
  2. Executes the laws
  3. Determines whether laws are Constitutional
  4. None of the above
  5. a.,b.,c., of the above
  1. The President
  1. Makes laws
  2. Executes the laws
  3. Determines whether laws are Constitutional
  4. None of the above
  5. a.,b.,c., of the above
  1. The Supreme Court
  1. Makes laws
  2. Executes the laws
  3. Determines whether laws are Constitutional
  4. None of the above
  5. a.,b.,c., of the above
  1. The first geographical area of the following of North America to ban slavery was
  1. Vermont
  2. Massachusetts
  3. Pennsylvania
  4. Georgia
  5. New York
  6. Maryland
  7. Virginia


Some of the questions have more than one correct answer. Credit is given if the one chooses any one of the correct answers.

Did He Really Say That, A Review of "Audacity of Hope"


Liz asked me about an Obama quote that has been widely circulated among conservatives, "...I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." Always interested in the context of quotations, I researched the quote and found it reported in those exact words by j. Grant Swank in a posting of the Conservative Crusader on their website. In fact he gives the page number of the paperback version he was using of the book "Audacity of Hope" by B. Hussein Obama. However I found the same quote in http://www.snopes.com. There, the gave the presumably correct words and the context of the quote. Even though I have found Snopes to be accurate and fair in the cases on which they have reported, I decided to go further and get the book and read it for myself.

The exact quote from Snopes and from the book I have with limited context is:

"In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific reassurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/coilofrage.asp#Tz4RXHqkHJ1Dc3Dk.99

As a result of this finding, I decided to write the following article.

"I will stand with them..."

Several explanations are available to explain the differences of what Snopes reports and what Swank says. One proffered is that the version Swank quoted was an earlier version and the versions that Snopes and I had been edited. The second is that Swank quoted someone by the name of B. Hussein Obama.

The third, and in my opinion the most likely, Swank edited the sentence slightly to convey his interpretation of what Obama was saying. Conservatives and libertarians need to be the bastion of truth and integrity. Using the techniques of the left and progressives does not work. Conservatives and libertarians only diminish themselves to the level of those who misrepresent the truth when they use the same techniques.

The Review

This is an article under construction. I will enter reviews in the same order as the book below, but they may appear at different times. Caution, they are my impressions. I recommend readers of this article read the book themselves and comment in the forum topics as to their opinions.

The Constitution


The chapter confirms my opinion that Obama shares the "results oriented" view of the progressives. Even though he gives lip service to the freedoms we enjoy under the constitution and our form of government, any can be sacrificed to accomplish the desired results. He uses the debates of the founders both to complement the results of their work but to bolster his opinion that the constitution is a "living document", one whose meanings change with history.


View of History

I can understand Obama's ignorance of Southern History, having graduated from northern universities. However, as the intellectual that he claims to be, he should should check his facts before publishing them. No more true is the adage that "The winners get to write the history" than the northern universities accounts of the "War between the states" or as southerners often call it "The war of Northern Aggression". Because Lincoln used slavery as a clarion call for forces to invade the South ignores the claims of Southern leaders, before and after the war. For example, slaves were owned by no more than 14% of southern householders. History that is taught neglects to tell us why the other 86% of southerners were willing to fight. They certainly did not benefit from slavery. History teachers do not quote Jefferson Davis when he holds that the primary reason for the war was economic in nature, that the north with their plurality of votes was causing a transfer of wealth from the South to the North. They certainly do not credit southern soldiers letters to home citing their desire to protect freedoms from a tyrannical government that was, in their opinion, violating the rights of states guaranteed in Amendment X.

As a politician, I guess I expect him to stretch points he wishes to make one of which "...a nation half slave and half free." is one, completely ignoring the 14% figure mentioned above and clearly made to invoke the anger of those descended from slavery.

I guess I expect him to ignore that one of the principle industries of several Northern state, Massachusetts being one, was the importation of slaves to sell to the southern plantation owners.

"Basic Set of Individual Liberties"

The following "basic set of individual liberties identified by the Founders and enshrined in our Constitution and our common law" are inumerated in his chapter on the Constitution. Where the statement of them is credible, I get the impression that they are rights granted by the government rather than those "endowed by our creator." What is more significant in this list to me is what is missing. Even thought he mentions the right to bear arms in this section, he talks more about the debate that continually exists between those that believe that "original understanding must be followed" and those who believe that "we have to take context, history, and practical outcomes of a decision into account."

They are (His list below is written in italics. My comments are in regular type):

"the right to speak our minds"

As long as we use politically correct language.

"the right to worship how and if we wish"

As long as we don't offend others.

"the right to peaceably assemble to petition our government"

But we must expect harassment from the Internal Revenue Service, monitoring by the NSA, and ignorance from the courts.

"the right to own, buy, and sell property, and not have it taken without fair compensation"

Unless the government determines that it and other individuals and/or companies need and can manage it better.

"the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seisures"

"the right not to be detained by the state without due process"

that due process is solely what the administration determines, executing citizens abroad with drones comes to mind, or releasing enemy combatants, or not faithfully executing the law.

"the right to a fair and speedy trial"

understanding that the government can try, convict, and execute you in absentia, without representation, a judge, and jury.

"and the right to make our own determinations, with minimal restriction, regarding family life and the way we raise our children"

as long as they meet with criteria established, not by law, but by non-elected administrative committee.

The "Affordable Care Act" has removed individuals "right to make our own determinations" about what citizens may purchase to insure themselves medically. A man now has to pay for insurance on conditions from which he cannot suffer, like pregnancy. A woman who has had a hysterectomy must pay for medical procedures that she will never need. Companies must pay to provide employees medical insurance. What was once an employee benefit that companies used to attract employees has now become a mandated expense to companies. And even though "Common Core" is a recommendation in education, it is only a matter of time for it to become a requirement for schools to receive government aid. Our children, already suffering from mandated educational material that incorrectly teaches, or ignores history, will now suffer from texts that present an absurd methodology for teaching math.

One only needs to re-read the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution to realize that his recitation of the rights are limited. Taken with the Declarations affirmation of the rights of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" the Bill of Rights further delineates those rights in more specific terms. One would think that he took those rights from the UNs "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" although after doing a quick check of that document, it does not appear to be so.

The Filibuster

Government of the workers, by the esquires, for the elite.

The title says it all. 

But for clarification, the workers are the real producers of wealth.  They are the farmers who till the fields,  the carpenters, bricklayers and architects who build the homes, the factory workers and engineers build the machines to make our lives more comfortable, the modern day hunters who raise livestock, the scientists that discover more about our environment, doctors and other health workers to increase our life span, and the entrepeneurs who have ideas and invest in their realization.

The esquires are an upper class in the United States.  Even though the Constitution prohibits titles, the legal profession who have rights not granted to other citizens are granted that title.

The elite are the real power brokers.  Since they have somehow reached a point that they are no longer concerned with their wealth, they now believe that they should control the lives of the rest of the citizens.  They finance esquires to attain positions in government to make laws and administer the national resources for their benefit.  They finance organizations to influence the citizens, control the news, and do whatever is necessary, illegally if required, to accomplish their objectives.

Why this opinion?

Up until now, this writer has rejected this argument that has been posed by so many others, including my own Dad, God rest his soul.  Although he did not express his opinions in the same terms, he did believe that there was some sort of class structure in the United States, and that he was part of the worker class.  In fact he did not trust his own relative who was a lawyer based on that conviction.  Several events have convinced me that there must some truth in these arguments and that the least we should do is recognize that our beloved United States is drifting in that direction.

Firstly, last November, I saw a man elected President of the United States who has less experience than I have running a corporation.  He also exhibits a lack of understanding the operation of the capitalistic system and its benefits or he is opposed to it.  He seems to believe that profit is evil and that the government can better manage the economy and our lives.  He is one of the esquires, and has not yet explained how, a poor college student and community organizer, has been able to accumulate so much wealth in so short a time.  One suspects, and there are connections to some of the identified elite, that he is being funded by the elite for their purposes.

Secondly, a man who tortured dogs unmercifully, by mistake, (he claims) has been released from prison and landed a contract for $1 million + to continue his career in football.  Someone, somewhere, has pulled the string to authorize that kind of expenditure, in spite of the American culture that considers his crimes beyond the pale morally.  Only the elite would have that kind of money, and that kind of control. 

Thirdly, we see a Company, General Electric, funding news casts on their own station that support the so-called health-care reform bill.  And who is one of the largest beneficiaries of this plan?  Have you ever noticed the name on the side of imaging systems, particularly MRIs?

Is this Communism?

Even though there are a lot of similarities to Communism as practiced by the Soviet Union, that is "a family of economic and political ideas and social movements related to the establishment of an egalitarian, classless, or stateless society based on common ownership and control of the means of production and property in general, as well as the name given to such a society", there are a number of differences.
  1. There are still two parties.  Obviously, we now face the danger of one party overwhelming the other.
  2. Our society is, at the moment, based on private ownership of property and the means of production.  Government ownership of even a portion, and a large portion at that, of parts of the banking segment, the production of automobiles, and the control of the real estate segment via a powerful congressional committee is certainly a remarkable challenge to the private ownership idea which is necessary in a free society.
That we are moving toward a communistic model is undeniable.  The efforts underway to control the whole of the medical care is an assumption that the government, the elite, can better make decisions about medical care than the market.  The current debate about the "public option"  is noise and does not address the concern that the governments has yet to efficiently manage any enterprise, ( the house of ill repute in Nevada, the post office, medicare)

Is this an Oligarchy?

Could be.  If so, it is a silent oligarchy where the few or the elite as described above do not necessarily publicise their role. By the way, an oligarchy is "A form of government in which the supreme power is placed in the hands of a few persons; also, those who form the ruling few."  Often, as in the case of the Soviet Union, the public government takes a form such as a socialistic one party system.  It is this authors opinion that a one party system is easier to control by the elite and for that reason a government evolving toward a one party system, as is the U.S. Government, is suspect. 

How do we tell?  Follow the money. Who benefits?  A government run healthcare system benefits owners of corporations that sell equipment into those companies.  General Electric sells the most expensive equipment into the medical complex.  A component of the proposals on the floor is savings by better record keeping.  Computers? Microsoft?  Does that ring a bell?  Who do the major stockholders support? 

What has sustained this form?

We have exchanged freedom for security.  We fell for the promise that if we contributed only 1% (2% including our employers' contribution) of our income to the government Social Security program, we would be able to retire with an adequate income.  Now that 2% has become 12.4% with the promise that it will go bankrupt in less than 20 years.  Then came Medicare.  That started with 0.7% in 1966, now 2.9%.  Now we are to believe that we can put our medical care into the hands of the government that has failed so miserably to estimate the cost of Social Security and Medicare and all it will cost increase our debt $10,000,000,000 by 2020.

Was this what our founders intended?

Anyone who has read and understand the implications of the Declaration of Independence should understand that our founders valued freedom above all else.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

What many do not remember is the second and third sentences of this paragraph.  However, our founders realized that governments can stray from those truths.  That it may be necessary to change the form if it does not observe the truths.  One should remember that the constitution built our government with those truths in mind.  Only when we ignore those truths and the constitution can we stray from its original intent.

What, if anything, can we do now?

We must act now to avoid leaving a bankrupt country, one that literally enslaves its citizens, to our children.  We must impress upon our representatives that they are employees of the citizens.  We must remove the arrogant Representatives and Senators that tell their employers that the employers are not going to tell them how they are going to run their offices.

We must insist on visibility. And we must examine every proposal with an eye on what it will cost, both in cash, and in freedom. 

We must make our opinions known to our representatives, then work to get rid of them if they are not doing their job, part of which is reading and understanding every law, and every part of every law, that they vote for. 

And, most importantly, we must make sure that our children are educated and not indoctrinated.  We must, as citizens, understand and teach our children history, particularly about our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  We must understand why capitalism works in a free society and that profit is not an evil thing and again teach our children what we know.  We must try to educate others and we MUST take a stand. 

What did our founders do before 1776?

Thomas Jefferson achieved distinction as, among other things, a horticulturist, statesman, architect, archaeologist, paleontologist, inventor...

John Adams was a Puritan and a lawyer.

George Washington was a surveyor, planter, which historians defined as those who held 20 or more slaves, and a major in the Virginia at the age of 20.

Benjamin Franklin  was a leading author and printer, satirist, political theorist, politician, scientist, inventor, civic activist, statesman, soldier, and diplomat.

Guide to Listening to Political Utterances


Tax Break (for the rich) n.
money that the government allows someone to keep from what he has earned.

Entitlement n. a right granted by law or contract, especially to financial benefits from the government (particularly when the beneficiary has been playing for the contract for 50 years) .

Contribution(FICA,Medicare,...) n. Taxes.  As of the 2012 Election Campaign, Democrats have finally owned up to the fact that what they had sold as payroll contributions are really nothing more than taxes.

Fine or Mandate (for not having health insurance) n. Administration convinced SCOTUS that the fine or mandate in the un"Affordable Healthcare Act" was a tax, making the law constitutional under the 16th Amendment.

Truth n. a snippet of a comment from an opposing candidates comments out of context that forwards a candidates agenda.

Investment n. Additional Tax mainly on the middle class where government gets 75% and object mentioned get 25%.

Share v. Take from someone that has and give to somebody that supports the party in power. (e.g like from investors in General Motors to union members)

Level the playing field. 
see share.

Proof of Identity. Document required to drive an automobile, pay or receive Social Security, get a job, get into Democratic National Convention, be buried, join the Armed Forces ..., but not to vote.

/börthör/ n. 1. A person who exhibits the audacity to read the U.S. Constitution, and then demands that his/her government actually obeys it. 2. A derogatory term developed and used by Leftists and Neo-Cons in a lame attempt to marginalize those who harbor the silly notions that Truth matters, and that Republics perish who refuse to uphold the Rule of Law.

Suggested Rules to Follow

If you don't follow these rules, you may be considered a myrmidon.

I Was There

I was There!

I was there in the 1940s and 1950s, in Birmingham Alabama, when I went to Martin School, a school on a hill above a baseball diamond whose first base line served as a boundary between where the black community lived and where the poor white community lived.  I walked to school which was about three blocks away in today’s measure.  On Saturdays, when there were no other games scheduled on the field, the youth from the black community would come down and play baseball.  More often than my parents knew, I would go to the field and play with them.  Taught by my mother, although I not sure she realized it, I could never quite understand the racial divide that existed there.  The experience taught me that the boys I was playing with were not much different from me, if at all, and were by any Christian measure children of God.  My grandmother finally caught me, and that was the end of that period of my life.    

I was there, in Birmingham Alabama, when my best friend and I would walk to church down town through, what now would be considered rather dangerous neighborhoods, in the evening, and back, in the dark.  My dad gave me a quarter for the evening, which ordinarily would cover the round trip on the bus, $0.14, and $0.11 for collection.  We realized that if we walked, we could spend $0.10 for a soda and save $0.04 for a later treat. But I was never afraid.

 I was there, in Birmingham Alabama, when I started delivering papers.  The route I had took me through both the black and white poor sections of town.  I usually collected from my customers on Saturday morning and often was met by men who had worked hard during the week, and in some cases celebrated the end of the week by drinking alcoholic beverages.  But they paid for the paper and I was never afraid.

 I was there, in Birmingham Alabama, where at church we were learning the evils of racial intolerance from our adults and from each other.  I remember discussions in our Methodist Youth Fellowship about situations and how we should react to them if we ever were involved in them.  There was never any question that racial intolerance was wrong, just how do we go about correcting it.  At the time, I didn’t know about Martin Luther King or any of the other Civil Rights leaders.
 I was there, in Birmingham Alabama, when we had blacks attending the evening service at our church.  Yes, they sat in the balcony, separated from the rest of the congregation.  But this was a start.
I was there, in Birmingham Alabama, when my friend and I covered every corner of the city on our bicycles. And we were never afraid.

I was there, at Camp Sumatanga, a Methodist Youth camp near Birmingham, when all of the youth boycotted the swimming pool when a small contingent of blacks that were also attending the meeting were refused entry into the pool.

I was there, in Birmingham, when a young black man was accused of raping a white girl.  As a result of a debate I had during lunch with fellow workers where I worked after graduating, I was delivered an ultimatum to shut up or be killed.  The worst of it was that this was delivered by my uncle.  Was I afraid? Yes but only until I realized that I was doing what was right, and what I believed to be God’s will.

I wasn’t there, in Birmingham, when a group of men attacked a black minister when he tried to register his children in Phillips High School, my alma mater.  I have just learned that that attack is used as a justification for declaring the school a national monument even though none of the staff or the students were even involved in the incident. And the incident certainly doesn’t represent the spirit of the school I attended just a few years before.

One of the early jobs I had in Birmingham was as a TV technician. The company I worked for had a lot of customers in the poor black neighbor hoods of north of the city. While either picking up or delivering TV sets to the homes of the people that lived there, I was treated with respect and never felt threatened. Families there respected the law and the police that were there to enforce the law. Were they discriminated against? Yes. Were they treated unfairly? Yes. Did they recognize that progress was being made? Yes. But most of all, most of all they respected each other.

But no one seemed to recognize the loving kindness of a lady that would give the "shirt off her back" to a black person in need. But only if they came to the back door to get it.

The previous testimony is not bragging.  For I was only a part of a larger movement.  A group of people that had conscience, and a sense of justice, and responsible for a minimum of violence during a transition that had been ingrained into the American Spirit since the United State Constitution has been written.

But now, are they given credit for what they started?  Are those who followed that lead recognized for their contributions?  Not if you read the NY Times, or listen to the proponents of the Black Liberation Theology (that followed by Rev Wright), or much of the news media. They, for political reasons, still want to tie extremists to valid expressions of dissent, like the Tea Party movement.  That people who attend marches and rallies and pick up their own garbage be accused of having racial underpinnings is like saying that our President and his cabinet do not want to redistribute the wealth and power.

A minister friend of mine in the Palm Sunday service said,
 “You’ve probably have heard me say more than once that I’ve never found any truth in that old saying we teach children. “Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never harm me.” That is nonsense. Just the opposite is true. The wounds from sticks and stones usually heal.”

Tell that to the young black man mentioned above who was denuded for his alleged crime.
Where, a lot of what he says in the sermon is true, that words are often more hurtful than sticks and stones, and they are often used to incite violence and discredit legitimate opinion, the lesson in the saying is “Don’t allow words of others control your actions”. And therein lies the power of the “Right of Free Speech”.  As long as we hold to the truth, we may be imprisoned, tortured, and our rights can be denied, but as Dave Gardner says "You can hurt my body, but you can't hurt my self!" There will always be those who do not follow the commandment “Do not bear false witness”.

What many are saying when they criticize people by referring to what they call "Hate Speech"  in their opinion is "If you don't agree with me, shut up."  Our hard won "Freedom of Speech" recognized that speech of any kind does not physically harm anyone.  And is essential to protect our other freedoms.

We, as a culture, have apparently canonized as a part of free speech, the right to demonstrate for or against issues that we feel deserve attention. There are people who use that right to go beyond other rights, to steal and destroy the property of others. Regardless of how serious the problem except where survival is an issue, there is no justification for those people to commit those acts. A person who steals or destroys during a demonstration deserves no less punishment than had he done it independent of the demonstration. Even when the demonstrators "only" block traffic or require the police to be present for their protection is theft of person's time while they were caught in traffic jams and the communities resources to provide the protection. And certainly the leaders of such demonstrations do not deserve the courtesy of visiting the United States White House, a taxpayer honorarium to a duly elected President.


I wake today to headlines “Thousands demonstrate for immigration”. I must confess to reacting emotionally, but I am tired of the left telling me what I must do and what the Bible says about the subject. If you are part of that group I advise you to stop reading now.

In a previous discussion several scriptures are quoted that supported their argument. The most notable is Matt 22:39 “The second resembles it: You must love your neighbor as yourself.”

Leviticus 19:33-34 “If you have resident aliens in your country, you will not molest them.
19:34 You will treat resident aliens as though they were native-born and love them as yourself -- for you yourselves were once aliens in Egypt.

Note that the scripture says resident alien. To me, that suggests that they have been accepted and have in fact been there for some time and agreed to live by the existing law in your country.

One person, oblivious to the context cited Mark 10:9 “So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.”

One that was not mentioned was Matthew,
25:34 Then the King will say to those on his right hand, "Come, you whom my Father has blessed, take as your heritage the kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world.
25:35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you made me welcome,
25:36 lacking clothes and you clothed me, sick and you visited me, in prison and you came to see me."
25:37 Then the upright will say to him in reply, "Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink?
25:38 When did we see you a stranger and make you welcome, lacking clothes and clothe you?
25:39 When did we find you sick or in prison and go to see you?"
25:40 And the King will answer, "In truth I tell you, in so far as you did this to one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did it to me."
Do you think it may have been too close to the lesson on profits?

The left is quick to dismiss
Romans 13:1-7 “Everyone is to obey the governing authorities, because there is no authority except from God and so whatever authorities exist have been appointed by God.
13:2 So anyone who disobeys an authority is rebelling against God's ordinance; and rebels must expect to receive the condemnation they deserve.
13:3 Magistrates bring fear not to those who do good, but to those who do evil. So if you want to live with no fear of authority, live honestly and you will have its approval;
13:4 it is there to serve God for you and for your good. But if you do wrong, then you may well be afraid; because it is not for nothing that the symbol of authority is the sword: it is there to serve God, too, as his avenger, to bring retribution to wrongdoers.
13:5 You must be obedient, therefore, not only because of this retribution, but also for conscience's sake.
13:6 And this is why you should pay taxes, too, because the authorities are all serving God as his agents, even while they are busily occupied with that particular task.
13:7 Pay to each one what is due to each: taxes to the one to whom tax is due, tolls to the one to whom tolls are due, respect to the one to whom respect is due, honor to the one to whom honor is due.”

Of course Acts 5:28-32
“We gave you a strong warning', he said, 'not to preach in this name, and what have you done? You have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and seem determined to fix the guilt for this man's death on us.'
5:29 In reply Peter and the apostles said, 'Obedience to God comes before obedience to men;
5:30 it was the God of our ancestors who raised up Jesus, whom you executed by hanging on a tree.
5:31 By his own right hand God has now raised him up to be leader and Savior, to give repentance and forgiveness of sins through him to Israel.
5:32 We are witnesses to this, we and the Holy Spirit whom God has given to those who obey him”

is often cited as the exception to the directions in Romans. Note that this was Peter, who many consider the first head of the Christian Church.

The Bible itself can be considered conflicted about obedience to the laws of the state. The whole of Jesus teaching is based on the SECOND great commandment but remember the FIRST: Matt 22:36, 'Master, which is the greatest commandment of the Law?'
22:37 Jesus said to him, 'You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.
22:38 This is the greatest and the first commandment.”

It is easy to state that you should love someone, even God. Translating that into action is less obvious. But we do have some directions from the Old Testament, the most obvious of which inculcated on Moses tablets. Some dismiss the laws of the Old Testament with the teachings of Jesus conveniently forgetting that he said in Matthew, “5:17 'Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them.”

What is the function of government in a Judaeo-Christian nation? If everyone followed the law, there would be none. Unfortunately there are those who do not. Our churches and synagogues teach us the dos and don’ts of these law but seldom mention the other edge of the sword. That each interpersonal law carries an implied freedom, ie, one should rightly expect not to be murdered, to be secure in his possessions, to only have truthful testimony given about him, free of adulterous acts of your neighbor, and acts resulting from the envy of your neighbor. Some form of government is needed to guarantee those rights and create an environment where those rights are expected.

In order to protect those rights, a community may carve out an area wherein members, representatives of the members, or a leader, takes on the responsibility. History has demonstrated that citizens of different geographical locations with differing languages, religions, and race are least likely to form governments for that purpose. The feckless United Nations, and the European Union from which one nation, United Kingdom, has withdrawn, are two present day examples, along with many “empires” in world history, to unite communities that differ that have failed. So, even now, the story of Babel Gen 18:1-8, an allegory, rings true.

Do communities have the right to restrict entry into their geographic area? The clearest indication is in the answer in the story of King Asa below.

2 Chron 14:1 Asa did what Yahweh his God regards as good and right.
14:2 He abolished the foreign altars and the high places, broke the pillars, cut down the sacred poles,
14:3 and urged Judah to seek Yahweh, God of their ancestors, and to observe the law and commandment.
14:4 Because he abolished the high places and incense altars through the towns of Judah, the kingdom under him was undisturbed.
14:5 He rebuilt the fortified towns of Judah, since the country was at peace and free of war during those years, because Yahweh had granted him peace.
14:6 'Let us rebuild these towns,' he told Judah, 'let us surround them with wall and tower, with gate and bar while the country is still ours, for we have sought Yahweh our God and he has sought us and given us peace all around.' They built and prospered.”

The inference of the preceding section is that a government can regulate who can become citizens and establish whatever barriers required to accomplish the objectives of such regulation. If there are biblical constraints on what a government can do I would like to hear them. Laws may be established to set up procedures to admit immigrants and restrict entry to those who will ultimately contribute to the local culture.

Currently, the US has laws covering immigration. While imperfect the Administration is compelled to enforce them. In the role of “compassionate” administrations have permitted wholesale violators their freedom. They have committed a misdemeanor just by crossing into the US illegally. However, a number of them have committed more crimes once they are here, including murder, robbery, and other gang related felonies. Additionally, little mentioned, is the indirect crime of theft. One disputed estimate places the cost at $113 billion in 2013 https://www.fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illega.... Where organizations have criticized the number, no one, has including government agencies have produced evidence that illegal immigration produces a net gain. Because the citizens did not approve these expenditures, they are theft.

For some reason, leftist believe that people who illegally enter the US have even more rights than US citizens. They receive more aid than the military who have risked their lives, often losing body parts, or their lives protecting our freedoms. Leftist demonstrate because children are separated from their parents where the parents knowingly violate the law knowing that this may be one consequence of their action. A more significant problem is the 1.7 million children under the age of 18 who are separated from parents in prison. Should we house the children in prison with their parents? Or shall we release the parents because they have children?

I invite discussion and comment on this article. However, if you believe we should have open borders. Then I would like for you to answer the following:

Are you employed by any organization other than one funding leftist demonstrations?
Do you have locks on your doors and do you use them?
If a thief gains entry into your house do you plan to feed and house him permanently?
Have you done or are you planning to do anything to assist someone to immigrate legally?

Interesting Emails I have received.

The emails contained below have been verified through various sites and deserve to be replicated here.  However, if there are any errors, please let the author of these pages know.


After two years of Obama ... Here's your change!
January 2009
% chg
Avg.. Retail price/gallon gas in U.S.
Crude oil, European Brent (barrel)
Crude oil, West TX Inter. (barrel)
Gold: London (per troy oz.)
Corn, No.2 yellow, Central IL
Soybeans, No. 1 yellow, IL
Sugar, cane, raw, world, lb. Fob
Unemployment rate, non-farm, overall
Unemployment rate, blacks
Number of unemployed
Number of fed. Employees
Real median household income
Number of food stamp recipients
Number of unemployment benefit recipients
Number of long-term unemployed
Poverty rate, individuals
People in poverty in U.S.
U.S.. Rank in Economic Freedom World Rankings
Present Situation Index
Failed banks
U.S.. Dollar versus Japanese yen exchange rate
U.S.Money supply, M1, in billions
U.S.. Money supply, M2, in billions
National debt, in trillions
Just take this last item: In the last two years we have accumulated national debt at a ratemore than 27 times as fast as during the rest of our entire nation's history.
Over 27 times as fast. Metaphorically speaking, if you are driving in the right lane doing 65 MPH and a car rockets past you in the left lane. 
27 times faster, it would be doing 7,555 MPH!
(1) U.S. Energy Information Administration; (2) Wall Street Journal; (3) Bureau of Labor Statistics; (4) Census Bureau; (5) USDA; (6) U.S. Dept. Of Labor; 
(7) FHFA; (8) Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller; (9) RealtyTrac; (10) Heritage Foundation and WSJ; (11) The Conference Board; (12) FDIC; 
(13) Federal Reserve; (14) U.S. Treasury

Details of Health Bill

Michael Connelly, Ret.

Constitutional Attorney

Well, I have done it!  I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law.  I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.

To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying.  The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.

The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system.  All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals.  Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.

However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface.  In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices.  Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated.  If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.

The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government.  The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.

The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with!  I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care..

This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, to all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital.  All of this is a direct violation to protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. A direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.  You can also forget about the right to privacy.  That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.

If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you.   It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment.. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.

So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out of the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law It doesn't stop there though.

The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;

The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people.  Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.

I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea.  This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights.   Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation.  If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.

For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.

Michael Connelly   Retired attorney,   Constitutional Law Instructor   Carrollton , Texas



 "a right granted by law or contract, especially to financial benefits from the government."

What’s wrong with us?

Remember, not only did seniors contribute to Social Security but their employers did too.
It totaled 15% of your income before taxes. If you averaged only 30K over your working life, that’s close to $220,500.
If you calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (yours & your employer’s contribution) at a simple 5% (less than what the govt. pays on the money that it borrows), after 49 years of working (me) you’d have $892,919.98.
 If you took out only 3% per year, you receive $26,787.60 per year and it would last better than 30 years, and that’s with no interest paid on that final amount on deposit! If you bought an annuity and it paid 4% per year, you’d have a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month. The folks in Washington have pulled off a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madhoff ever had.

Entitlement??? Seniors paid cash for Social Security Insurance.  Just because the Federal Government borrowed the money doesn't make the seniors benefits some kind of charity or handout.

Congresssional benefits,
free healthcare, outrageous retirement packages, 67 paid holidays, three weeks paid vacation, unlimited paid sick days, and salaried staff to name a few is Welfare! And they have the nerve to imply that seniors are getting some kind of welfare???

Believe what our President says.  The first people to loose their "entitlements" will be Seniors if the Debt Limit is not raised.  Not all of the people his administration hired, not Michelle's staff, not his advisers, nor the people already hired to administer the Healthcare Reform act.  As he says "He will not let the wealthy" avoid sharing in paying the price.  After all, as he implies, the wealth is the government's and he has the right to distribute it as he sees fit.

Miller on Palestine

This piece was credited to Dennis Miller, although being in his style, it was actually written by Larry Miller.  I have not checked the facts and will publish corrections if my readers will send them to me.

Here we go:

The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians . It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like 'Wiccan,' 'Palestinian' sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in the 1967 war, Gaza was Owned by Egypt , the West Bank was owned by Jordan , and there were no Palestinians.'

As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the 'Palestinians,'weeping for their deep bond with their lost 'land' and 'nation.'

So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word 'Palestinian' any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone Points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are: 'Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death. ' I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: 'Adjacent Jew-Haters .' Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing: No, they don't . They could've had their own country. Anytime in the last thirty years, especially several years ago at Camp David . But If you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks. And Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living.

That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel . They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course that's where the Real fun is -- but mostly they want Israel .

Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or 'The Zionist Entity' as their Textbooks call it -- for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab Countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth,and if you've ever been around God's Earth, you know that's really saying something.

It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim Mid east. Unless I'm missing something, the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.

Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five Million Jews.

Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals..

Really? Wow, what neat news. 
Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.

My friend, Kevin Rooney, made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the Numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not.

Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea? Nonsense.
Or dancing for joy at the murder of Innocents? Impossible.
Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children? Disgusting.

No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.

However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11th our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint.

If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan .

Moslems Boycotting Jewish Products

Muslims Are To Boycott Jewish Products - - - what a great recommendation:

A short time ago, Iran 's Supreme Leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei urged the Muslim World to boycott anything and everything that originates with the Jewish people.

In response, Meyer M. Treinkman, a pharmacist, out of the kindness of his heart, offered to assist them in their boycott as follows:

"Any Muslim who has Syphilis must not be cured by Salvarsan discovered by a Jew, Dr. Ehrlich. He should not even try to find out whether he has Syphilis, because the Wasserman Test is the discovery of a Jew.
If a Muslim suspects that he has Gonorrhea, he must not seek diagnosis, because he will be using the method of a Jew named Neissner.

"A Muslim who has heart disease must not use Digitalis, a discovery by a Jew, Ludwig Traube.

Should he suffer with a toothache, he must not use Novocaine, a discovery of the Jews, Widal and Weil.

If a Muslim has Diabetes, he must not use Insulin, the result of research by Minkowsky, a Jew. If one has a headache, he must shun Pyramidon and Antypyrin, due to the Jews, Spiro and Ellege.

Muslims with convulsions must put up with them because it was a Jew, Oscar Leibreich, who proposed the use of Chloral Hydrate.

Arabs must do likewise with their psychic ailments because Freud, father of psychoanalysis, was a Jew.

Should a Muslim child get Diphtheria, he must refrain from the "Schick" reaction which was invented by the Jew, Bella Schick.

"Muslims should be ready to die in great numbers and must not permit treatment of ear and brain damage, work of Nobel Prize winner, Robert Baram.

They should continue to die or remain crippled by Infantile Paralysis because the discoverer of the anti-polio vaccine is a Jew, Jonas Salk.

"Muslims must refuse to use Streptomycin and continue to die of Tuberculosis because a Jew, Zalman Waxman, invented the wonder drug against this killing disease.

Muslim doctors must discard all discoveries and improvements by dermatologist Judas Sehn Benedict, or the lung specialist, Frawnkel, and of many other world renowned Jewish scientists and medical experts.

"In short, good and loyal Muslims properly and fittingly should remain afflicted with Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Heart Disease, Headaches, Typhus, Diabetes, Mental Disorders, Polio, Convulsions and Tuberculosis and be proud to obey the Islamic boycott."

A friend has also pointed out that they should boycott Intel Products, micro computers and the like, designed in Israel.

Rights of Productive Citizens.

Dr. Spitzer is a friend from Michigan that I made while at Wayne State University.  This is the latest government outrage that is being directed toward our dedicated and talented medical personnel and the "Medical Deform Act" hasn't even taken full effect as yet.

"Today, a Medicare private contractor auditor has decided they want an immediate refund of $5000 I was paid for extensive services I provided to a patient; no explanation, no reason given, and the contractor gets to keep 20 - 25% of the refund as a commission. No identification if the person demanding the refund is qualified to make this decision. The law says I have no rights, they can seize my property, too, if I don't pay, the contractor doesn't have to justify anything - just take my money.

It is as if the feds could come in and take a refund out of your accounts for fees you charged last year, no explanation, just say you aren't entitled to the fees, and take them from you and the contractor gets to keep a "free reward" for taking your money. They need give no justification and they need not have any qualifications to judge whether what you did was right or wrong, even if I had (for example, in this case) 50 - 100 pages of extensive notes and tests justifying everything I did."

Don't give me any simple answers for this criminal violation of my civil rights that the public demanded and voted for. If I were an illegal Mexican wetback or welfare cheat, or a thieving wall street banker, i would have more civil rights than a hard working doctor. The public voted for and demanded this criminal activity. I am subhuman, I do not qualify as having ordinary civil rights allowed human beings and citizens of this country,

Just Lost a FB friend.

Aside: When reading the Bible I was struck by God's instruction to Ezekiel 2:18-21. Even though I am not Ezekiel and I'm not sure that the messages I get are from God, I believe He is talking to me in that scripture. If not, I'm sure we will work it out when and if we meet.

In addition to the failure of the House of Representatives regarding the Government Shutdown and the Raising of the debt ceiling, two events have disturbed me greatly. The first was a message from a school-teacher and the second the "unfriending" of me by a pastor.

I was lectured by the teacher:

"When you consent to be governed by an outside entity, you're consenting to cede the decision making process to some extent. If the government had to ask for personal approval of every decision by every taxpayer before he/she would hand over the money, the whole system would crash in about 5 minutes. When we live together under a common government, we understand that we're not going to necessarily agree with every single decision made by those in power...but that our process, with all of its checks and balances built in, is set up so that those decisions are generally made by a collection of people who are trying to work toward the common good and honoring the wishes of the people to the extent that it's possible. It's certainly not a perfect system, but if the options are "I'll trust the government to make decisions about how my money can best benefit those less fortunate" and " I don't like the way you're helping the poor so I won't support you helping them at all, in any way", I think I'll choose the former."

To which I responded:

"Your position seems clear. But to be sure please answer the following to assure I understand. If the government is doing it, it is OK to:
1. Fund killing unborn babies?
2. Kill segments of the population because of their religious beliefs or ethnic background?
3. Exempt some from the law because of their religious/political beliefs or position in government?
4. Misrepresent the truth when doing so justifies the ends?

And no, I do not consent to being governed by an outside entity. As a citizen of the USA, I accept my responsibility to be a part of that governance and use the cloak of our Constitution to guide our government to being fair and just to all its citizens."

To be fair, I implied that our government was funding killing unborn babies. While the Affordable Care Act does make provisions for abortions, it does state that a surcharge must be charged for that coverage. Because of the wording of that section of the Act, however, many applicants will end up paying the surcharge unless they are careful during the registration.

The good news is that the teacher with which I had that conversation is still presumably receiving my posts. As I have experienced in the past, my postings have some influence on those who see them. Better, readers engage me in conversations which both educate me and at least illustrate that they have not closed their minds to other viewpoints.

The other situation was surprisingly abrupt. The pastor posted a message lamenting the "waste of money" associated with the government shutdown. A member of the family posted a reply lamenting other wastes of the government, particularly under this Administration and Democratically controlled Senate. The pastor immediately "Unfriended" that family member as well as the rest of the family. His rational was that he did not permit "Hate Speach" on his wall.

That he took such an action was a complete surprise. As my pastor, I enjoyed well prepared sermons which were to the point and theologically well founded. He was a good person, willing to assist when a need presented itself, and willing to mediate differences between members of the congregation. Even on points of disagreement, his were well thought out and presented me with food for thought. I was disappointed when he left our church for another assignment.

Definition Hate speech is a communication that carries no meaning other than the expression of hatred for some group, especially in circumstances in which the communication is likely to provoke violence. It is an incitement to hatred primarily against a group of persons defined in terms of race, ethnicity, national origin, gender, religion, sexual orientation, and the like. Hate speech can be any form of expression regarded as offensive to racial, ethnic and religious groups and other discrete minorities or to women.

In my opinion, born of Political Correctness "Hate Speech" is an epithet generally directed to someone with which the author doesn't agree and usually cannot come up with a credible opinion. Secondly, the US Constitution does not prohibit "hate speech", in fact the First Amendment right is clear. Even though laws seeking to delimit that freedom have been passed, it is clear that the founders wanted to keep that right pure.

However, the incident probably has its advantages. I have listened to the pastor. It occurs to me that without his influence, I will be less likely to join the crowd crying "Crucify Him" should that or like events occur during my life.

Lists of Anti American, Israeli Organizations

Some organizations that operate in the US should be looked at if you support the US and Israel. We hope you will think twice before dealing with these organizations:


The following organizations restrict trade with Israel by selling holdings in Israel.

Note that Lutheran Church of America is silent on divestment and Episcopal Church prefers "positive investment" rather than divestment.

Disrespect of American Flag, Colors, or History

The following organizations have taking actions that express disrespect for the United States and its history.

Our Generation - Actors

Thanks to Frank Sends for this email and compiling this list. To me it is an affirmtion of my own beliefs. I hope the youth will read this and appreciate the difference between our stars then and now and the sacrifices they were wilIing to make for our freedom.

I wanted to share with you this list of our heroes when we were growing up. one of my favorite actors Randolph Scott I was shocked to what he tried to do and also how old he was 43 years old at the start of WW II?? Sent this mostly folks our age since younger people now-a-days don't have any idea who these Men were,......and that's a pity.

Sterling Hayden, US Marines and OSS. Smuggled guns into Yugoslavia and parachuted into Croatia.

James Stewart, US Army Air Corps. Bomber pilot who rose to the rank of General.

Ernest Borgnine, US Navy. Gunners Mate 1c, destroyer USS Lamberton.

Ed McMahon, US Marines. Fighter Pilot. (Flew OE-1 Bird Dogs over Korea as well.)

Telly Savalas, US Army.

Walter Matthau, US Army Air Corps., B-24 Radioman/Gunner and cryptographer.

Steve Forrest, US Army. Wounded, Battle of the Bulge.

Jonathan Winters, USMC. Battleship USS Wisconsin and Carrier USS Bon Homme Richard. Anti-aircraft gunner, Battle of Okinawa.

Paul Newman, US Navy Rear seat gunner/radioman, torpedo bombers of USS Bunker Hill

Kirk Douglas, US Navy. Sub-chaser in the Pacific. Wounded in action and medically discharged.

Robert Mitchum, US Army.

Dale Robertson, US Army. Tank Commander in North Africa under Patton. Wounded twice. Battlefield Commission.

Henry Fonda, US Navy. Destroyer USS Satterlee.

John Carroll, US Army Air Corps. Pilot in North Africa. Broke his back in a crash.

Lee Marvin US Marines. Sniper. Wounded in action on Saipan. Buried in Arlington National Cemetery, Sec. 7A next to Greg Boyington and Joe Louis.

Art Carney, US Army. Wounded on Normandy beach, D-Day. Limped for the rest of his life.

Wayne Morris, US Navy fighter pilot, USS Essex. Downed seven Japanese fighters.

Rod Steiger, US Navy. Was aboard one of the ships that launched the Doolittle Raid.

Tony Curtis, US Navy. Sub tender USS Proteus. In Tokyo Bay for the surrender of Japan.

Larry Storch. US Navy. Sub tender USS Proteus with Tony Curtis.

Forrest Tucker, US Army. Enlisted as a private, rose to Lieutenant.

Robert Montgomery, US Navy.

George Kennedy, US Army. Enlisted after Pearl Harbor, stayed in sixteen years.

Mickey Rooney, US Army under Patton. Bronze Star.

Denver Pyle, US Navy. Wounded in the Battle of Guadalcanal. Medically discharged.

Burgess Meredith, US Army Air Corps.

DeForest Kelley, US Army Air Corps.

Robert Stack, US Navy. Gunnery Officer.

Neville Brand, US Army, Europe. Was awarded the Silver Star and Purple Heart.

Tyrone Power, US Marines. Transport pilot in the Pacific Theater.

Charlton Heston, US Army Air Corps. Radio operator and aerial gunner on a B-25, Aleutians.

Danny Aiello, US A/rmy. Lied about his age to enlist at 16. Served three years.

James Arness, US Army. As an infantryman, he was severely wounded at Anzio, Italy.

Efram Zimbalist, Jr., US Army. Purple Heart for a severe wound received at Huertgen Forest.

Mickey Spillane, US Army Air Corps, Fighter Pilot and later Instructor Pilot.

Rod Serling. US Army. 11th Airborne Division in the Pacific. He jumped at Tagaytay in the Philippines and was later wounded in Manila.

Gene Autry, US Army Air Corps. Crewman on transports that ferried supplies over "The Hump" in the China-Burma-India Theater.

Wiliam Holden, US Army Air Corps.

Alan Hale Jr, US Coast Guard.

Harry Dean Stanton, US Navy. Battle of Okinawa.

Russell Johnson, US Army Air Corps. B-24 crewman who was awarded Purple Heart when his aircraft was shot down by the Japanese in the Philippines.

William Conrad, US Army Air Corps. Fighter Pilot.

Jack Klugman, US Army.

Frank Sutton, US Army. Took part in 14 assault landings, including Leyte, Luzon, Bataan and Corregidor.

Jackie Coogan, US Army Air Corps. Volunteered for gliders and flew troops and materials into Burma behind enemy lines.

Tom Bosley, US Navy.

Claude Akins, US Army. Signal Corps., Burma and the Philippines.

Chuck Connors, US Army. Tank-warfare instructor.

Harry Carey Jr., US Navy.

Mel Brooks, US Army. Combat Engineer. Saw action in the Battle of the Bulge.

Robert Altman, US Army Air Corps. B-24 Co-Pilot.

Pat Hingle, US Navy. Destroyer USS Marshall.

Fred Gwynne, US Navy. Radioman. ]

Karl Malden, US Army Air Corps. 8th Air Force, NCO.

Earl Holliman. US Navy. Lied about his age to enlist. Discharged after a year when they Navy found out.

Rock Hudson, US Navy. Aircraft mechanic, the Philippines.

Harvey Korman, US Navy.

Aldo Ray. US Navy. UDT frogman, Okinawa.

Don Knotts, US Army, Pacific Theater.

Don Rickles, US Navy aboard USS Cyrene.

Harry Dean Stanton, US Navy. Served aboard an LST in the Battle of Okinawa.

Soupy Sales, US Navy. Served on USS Randall in the South Pacific.

Lee Van Cleef, US Navy. Served aboard a sub chaser then a mine sweeper.

Clifton James, US Army, South Pacific. Was awarded the Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart.

Ted Knight, US Army, Combat Engineers.

Jack Warden, US Navy, 1938-1942. 101st Airborne Division.

Don Adams. US Marines. Wounded on Guadalcanal, then served as a Drill Instructor.

James Gregory, US Navy and US Marines.

Brian Keith, US Marines. Radioman/Gunner in Dauntless dive-bombers.

Fess Parker, US Navy and US Marines. Booted from pilot training for being too tall, joined Marines as a radio operator.

Charles Durning. US Army. Landed at Normandy on D-Day. Shot multiple times. Awarded the Silver Star and Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts. Survived Malmedy Massacre.

Raymond Burr, US Navy. Shot in the stomach on Okinawa and medically discharged.

Hugh O'Brian, US Marines.

Robert Ryan, US Marines. >>>>                                                          >>>>

Eddie Albert, US Coast Guard. Bronze Star with Combat V for saving several Marines under heavy fire as pilot of a landing craft during the invasion of Tarawa.

Cark Gable, US Army Air Corps. B-17 gunner over Europe.

Charles Bronson, US Army Air Corps. B-29 gunner, wounded in action.

Peter Graves, US Army Air Corps.

Buddy Hackett, US Army anti-aircraft gunner.

Victor Mature, US Coast Guard.

Jack Palance, US Army Air Corps. Severely injured bailing out of a burning B-24 bomber.

Robert Preston, US Army Air Corps. Intelligence Officer

Cesar Romero, US Coast Guard. Coast Guard. Participated in the invasions of Tinian and Saipan on the assault transport USS Cavalier.

Norman Fell, US Army Air Corps., Tail Gunner, Pacific Theater.

Jason Robards, US Navy. was aboard heavy cruiser USS Northampton when it was sunk off Guadalcanal. Also served on the USS Nashville during the invasion of the Philippines, surviving a kamikaze hit that caused 223 casualties.

Steve Reeves, US Army, Philippines.

Dennis Weaver, US Navy. Pilot.

Robert Taylor, US Navy. Instructor Pilot.

Randolph Scott. Tried to enlist in the Marines but was rejected due to injuries sustained in US Army, World War 1.

Ronald Reagan. US Army. Was a 2nd Lt. in the Cavalry Reserves before the war. His poor eyesight kept him from being sent overseas with his unit when war came so he transferred to the Army Air Corps Public Relations Unit where he served for the duration. >>>>                                                          >>>>

John Wayne. Declared "4F medically unfit" due to pre-existing injuries, he nonetheless attempted to volunteer three times (Army, Navy and Film Corps.) so he gets honorable mention.

And of course we have Audie Murphy, America's most-decorated soldier, who became a Hollywood star as a result of his US Army service that included his being awarded the Medal of Honor.

Would someone please remind me again how many of today's Hollywood elite put their careers on hold to enlist in Iraq or Afghanistan? 'The only one who even comes close was Pat Tillman, who turned down a contract offer of $3.6 million over three years from the Arizona Cardinals to enlist in the US Army after September, 11, 2001 and serve as a Ranger in Afghanistan, where he died in 2004. But rather than being lauded for his choice and his decision to put his country before his career, he was mocked and derided by many of his peers and I submit to you that this is not the America today that it was seventy years ago. And I, for one, am saddened.

Frank Sends

We Have Met The Enemy, & He Is Us!

Prepare for 2011-2012

Note, this article is dated ... The president worked out a deal where the so-called Bush Tax Breaks were kept in place in exchange for extending unemployment benefits.  However, the administration and the Democratically controlled Senate may let them expire at the end of 2011.  This deal expires on 12/31/2012.  So these tax hikes still go into effect along with the $600 billion that ObamaCare will cost the taxpayer as it is implemented.

Prepare for 2011 (received 8/1/2010)

This is a copy of an article written by Joan Pryde I received that pretty well spells out the tax changes coming in 2011.  I have not checked the accuracy and invite you to point out any errors you find.

In just five months, the largest tax hikes in the history of America will take effect.  They will hit families and small businesses in three great waves on  January 1, 2011:

First Wave:

Expiration of 2001 and 2003 Tax Relief

In 2001and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families.  These will all expire on January 1, 2011:

Personal income tax rates will rise.  The top income tax rate will rise from 35 to 39.6 percent (this is also the rate at which two-thirds of small business profits are taxed).  The lowest rate will rise from 10 to 15 percent.  All the rates in between will also rise. Itemized deductions and personal exemptions will again phaseout, which has the same mathematical effect as higher marginal tax rates.  The full list of marginal rate hikes is below:   

Higher taxes on marriage and family.  The “marriage penalty”(narrower tax brackets for married couples) will return from the first dollar of income.  The child tax credit will be cut in half from $1000 to $500 per child.  The standard deduction will no longer be doubled for married couples relative to the single level.  The dependent care and adoption tax credits will be cut.

The return of the Death Tax. This year, there is no death tax.  For those dying on or after January 1 2011, there is a 55 percent top death tax rate on estates over $1 million.  A person leaving behind two homes and a retirement account could easily pass along a death tax bill to their loved ones.

Higher tax rates on savers and investors. The capital gains tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 20 percent in 2011.  The dividends tax will rise from 15 percent this year to 39.6 percent in 2011. These rates will rise another 3.8 percent in 2013.

Second Wave:


There are over twenty new or higher taxes in Obamacare.  Several will first go into effect on January 1, 2011.  They include:

The“Medicine Cabinet Tax”

Thanks to Obamacare, Americans will no longer be able to use health savings account (HSA), flexible spending account (FSA), or health reimbursement (HRA) pre-tax dollars to purchase non-prescription,over-the-counter medicines (except insulin).

The “Special Needs Kids Tax”  

This provision of Obamacare imposes a cap on flexible spending accounts(FSAs) of $2500 (Currently, there is no federal government limit). There is one group of FSA owners for whom this new cap will be particularly cruel and onerous: parents of special needs children. There are thousands of families with special needs children in the United States, and many of them use FSAs to pay for special needs education.  Tuition rates at one leading school that teaches special needs children in Washington , D.C. (National Child Research Center) can easily exceed $14,000 per year. Under tax rules, FSA dollars can not be used to pay for this type of special needs education.  

The HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike.  

This provision of Obamacare increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10 to 20 percent, disadvantaging them relative to IRAs and other tax-advantaged accounts, which remain at 10 percent.


The Alternative Minimum Tax and Employer Tax Hikes

When Americans prepare to file their tax returns in January of 2011,they’ll be in for a nasty surprise—the AMT won’t be held harmless, and many tax relief provisions will have expired. 

The major items include:

The AMT  will ensnare over 28 million families, up from 4 million last year.   According to the left-leaning Tax Policy Center, Congress’ failure to index the AMT will lead to  an explosion of AMT taxpaying families—rising from 4 million last year to 28.5 million.  These families will have to calculate their tax burdens twice, and pay taxes at the higher level.  The AMT was created in 1969 to ensnare a handful of taxpayers.

Small business expensing will be slashed and 50% expensing will disappear. Small businesses can normally expense (rather than slowly-deduct, or“depreciate”) equipment purchases up to $250,000.  This will be cut all the way down to $25,000.  Larger businesses can expense half of their purchases of equipment.  In January of 2011, all of it will have to be “depreciated.”      

Taxes will be raised on all types of businesses. There are literally scores of tax hikes on business that will take place. The biggest is the loss of the “research and experimentation tax credit,” but there are many, many others.  Combining high marginal tax rates with the loss of this tax relief will cost jobs. 

Tax Benefits for Education and Teaching Reduced. The deduction for tuition and fees will not be available.  Tax credits for education will be limited. Teachers will no longer be able to deduct classroom expenses.  Coverdell Education Savings Accounts will be cut.  Employer-provided educational assistance is curtailed.  The student loan interest deduction will be disallowed for hundreds of thousands of families. 

Charitable Contributions from IRAs no longer allowed. Under current law, a retired person with an IRA can contribute up to$100,000 per year directly to a charity from their IRA.  This contribution also counts toward an annual “required minimum distribution.”  This ability will no longer be there.

PDF Version  Read more: http://www.atr.org/six-months-untilbr-largest-tax-hikes-a5171##ixzz0sY8waPq1

Now your insurance is INCOME on your W2's...... 

Oneof the surprises we'll find come next year, is what follows - - a little "surprise" that 99% of us had no idea was included in the  "new and improved" health-care legislation . .. the dupes, er, dopes, who backed this administration will be astonished!   

Startingin 2011, (next year folks), your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or governmental body of some sort.  If you're retired?  So what; your gross will go up by the amount of insurance you get. (editors note: as I understand it, if you received CT scans valued at $10,000 and your insurance paid all but the co-pay of $150, your gross income will be increased by $9,850. As a retired cancer patient I receive 4-6 CT scans a year to make sure it remains in remission. What panel will determine that those CT scans are not needed and I no longer need treatment?)

You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen.  Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year.  For many, it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for the 15% that don't have insurance and these are only part of the tax increases that have been identified.

Not believing this???  Here is a research of the summaries.....

Onpage 25 of 29: TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS-(sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002:

 "requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employees gross income."

Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplingers and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you.     

Priorities in Cutting Spending!

The president tells us that he may have to stop Social Security, Medicare, and the military payments.  But before he does that he had better stop the unnecessary payments listed below.  The implied contract with retirees made during the Roosevelt Administration pre-dates and should be superior to any thing listed below.

The following list is from an email that also lists the amount of savings from specific programs.

TOTAL SAVINGS: $2.5 Trillion over Ten Years.

Then, and only then, consider defaulting on the governments commitment to pay Social Security and Medicare contributors.

Some Salary Information

The following salary information was gathered after a posting was circulated by the author which was found to be inaccurate.  The following numbers are representative and because in some cases they vary significantly may be off by 10%.

My friend Maynard has pointed out the a post about government salaries that I replicated was incorrect and he was right.  To set the record straight, I have redone the posting and may make a new poster.

As of now:
Presidents Salary $400,000 per year
Presidents Expense allowance $50,000 per year
Travel in Air Force 1, $170,000 per hour
Retirement Benefits:
  Salary $199,700 per year
  Office Staff $150,000 per month first 30 months
  Office Staff $ 96,000 per month rest of life
  Office Space anywhere in the United States
  Travel for spouse and minor children
  Secret Service Protection for Spouse and minor children
     Clinton for the rest of his life, Bush for 10 years
  Medical Coverage in Military Hospital

Vice President Salary is $270,000
He receive same benefits as other members of congress after retirement.
   Salary based on length of service. A member of congress can receive as much $88,000 with 30 years service counting Social Security and other plans to which he or she has contributed.

      Member  $174,000
      Minority Leader $193,400
      Majority Leader $193,400
      Speaker of the House $223,500
See Vice Presidents Retirement for benefits Congress members enjoy
Note that there are administrative allowances that are not covered here like travel, office space, and staff.  It should be instructive to note that one senator just returned $600,000 to the federal government that he did not use.

Counting all of the benefits an enlisted man receives the average income is $57,700 a year as compared to the average working person.  Note that pay is based on pay-grade and length of service.

Social Security payments are $15,132 per year.. 

Now, isn't it obvious where we should make the cuts?

Questions You Won't Hear at the Debates.

  1. Should corporate Profits be limited? If so, how much?
  2. In your ideal society, what responsibility does an employer owe to his employee?
  3. Does your economic convictions come more from Keynesian theories, or the Austrian School?
  4. Do you consider "Life, Liberty, and Property" as the three basic rights and are the basis of the U.S. Constitution?
  5. Do you believe that the U.S. Constitution to be the supreme law in the United States?

The following questions have the following assumptions:


  1. What is the first thing that you do?

Questions to ask your child

Why should you ask?

I commented on one of the more attractive attributes of Sarah Palin's character one day.  A young person near me remarked that he "hated" Sarah.  When I pressed I got a litany of reasons, like she didn't have enough experience, she was only a mayor, she did not have a suitable education, and so on.  When challenged on each of the reasons he did not believe me when I told him that she had experience as a business-woman, mayor, governor, commander in chief of the Alaska National Guard, and foreign relations dealing with members of foreign countries and in fact more experience than our President when he is elected.  He walked away with a prejudice that I know was not from his family.  It is obvious that he picked up these from somewhere and the only place I could figure was school.

There is more and more evidence that our teachers, whether intentionally or not, are indoctrinating our children rather than educating them.  Worse, they may be contributing to the "Progressive" push to move our country from a relatively free republic to a progressive tyranny.  The following questions are designed to detect whether such indoctrination has been applied to your children. Note: as in most tests, the most correct answer is correct.

  1. What is the opposite of Republican?
    1. Democrat.
    2. Libertarian.
    3. Progressive.
    4. None of the above
    5. All of the above
  2. What is the opposite of Democrat?
    1. Republican
    2. Libertarian
    3. Progressive
    4. None of the above
    5. All of the above
  3. What is the opposite of Progressive?
    1. Republican
    2. Libertarian
    3. Democrat
    4. None of the above
    5. All of the above
  4. What is the opposite of Libertarian?
    1. Republican
    2. Democrat
    3. Progressive
    4. None of the above
    5. All of the above
  5. Most present day Republicans are
    1. Libertarian
    2. Progressive
    3. Democratic
  6. Most present day Democats are
    1. Republican
    2. Progressive
    3. Libertarian
  7. What is the supreme law of the United States
    1. Laws passed by the Senate
    2. Laws passed by the House of Representatives
    3. The United Nations
    4. Laws passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives and signed into law by the President.
    5. The Constitution of the United States
    6. Executive Orders of the President
    7. Rulings made by the Supreme Court
    8. The Declaration of Independence.
  8. How many political parties are permitted in the United States.
    1. One
    2. Two
    3. Three
    4. More than Three
  9. Under the Constitution of the United States a citizen has the following rights
    1. Life
    2. Medical Care
    3. Pursuit of Wealth
    4. An Education
    5. A Job
    6. Liberty
    7. All of the above.
    8. 1, 3, 6
    9. None of the above
    10. 1,2,4,6
  10. The purpose of the Constitution of the United States is
    1. To grant rights to the citizens of the United States
    2. To provide a framework and supply the organization from which modern laws may be passed
    3. To limit the powers of the Federal Government over the States, and the individuals.
    4. To cover aspects of law that are not covered by the United Nations.
    5. All of the above
    6. 2. and 3. above.
    7. None of the above
  11. The United States is subservient to the United Nations.
    1. True
    2. False
If you are not familiar with Libertarianism or Progressivism, refer to the article Libertarianism on this site.

Answers 1. - 1, 2. - 1, 3. - 2, 4. - 3, 5. - 2, 6. - 2, 7. - 5, 8. - 4, 9. - 8, 10. - 6, 11. -2


"It is no longer about the HAVEs and the HAVE NOTs. It is about the HAVE TOs and the DON'T HAVE TOs."
-by Kelly Caldwell

"You cannot legislate the poor  into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.  What one person receives without working for, another person  must work for without receiving.. The government cannot give to  anybody anything that the government does not first take from  somebody else.  When half of the people get the idea that  they do not have to work because the other half is going to  take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that  it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get  what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of  the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing  it."
- by Adrian Rogers in  1931

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”
- by George Orwell

Replace Tax Code!

When John Linder was running for his first term in the House of Representatives, I was a part of a group, Citizens for an Alternative Tax System, that presented him "National Federal Sales Tax" that he adopted and eventually became the "FairTax".  It replaces the current code and has the following features:
This system is tried and successful in Texas, Tenessee, Florida, and, to some extent, all states that have a sales tax.
For more detailed information, go here.

Rules for Reasonables

Rules for Reasonables


In 2004, a community organizer was elected to the U.S. Senate. In 2008, he was nominated by the Democratic Party over Hillary Clinton for president. He was elected over John McCain and inaugurated as President of the United States January 20, 2009. According to Sanford Horwitt, his biographer, he was influenced by Saul Alinsky, and followed in his footsteps as a Chicago-based community organizer. In view of these facts, and that Hillary Clinton wrote her senior thesis on Alinsky’s work, I felt I needed to read from the source Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals”.

I must add that the primary reason I took on this project was that I unintentionally offended an author friend, AJ Scudiere, author of the Nightshade and other great series and books, by suggesting that she might be subjected to some of these techniques. And this was my retribution for this offense.

After reading it, I decided to write this review. I will try to highlight many of the points and not to interject my own view until the conclusion of the review. It is interesting reading because Alinsky supports many of his views with history including Lincoln and the Civil War. I found that it helped me with understanding the motivations of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I recommend that all Americans read the book.

Further, I have quoted Alinsky often to give the reader of this article a taste of his writing and hopefully encourage the reader to read the book.

Quoted from “Rules for Radicals”:

“About the Author

“Saul ALINSKY was born in Chicago in 1909, and educated first in the streets of that city and then in its university. Graduate work at the University of Chicago in criminology introduced him to the Capone gang, and later to Joliet State Prison, where he studied prison life. He founded what is known today as the Alinsky ideology and Alinsky concepts of mass organization for power. His work in organizing the poor to fight for their rights as citizens has been internationally recognized. In the late 1930’ s he organized the Back of the Yards area in Chicago (Upton Sinclair’s Jungle). Subsequently, through the Industrial Areas Foundation which he began in 1940, Mr. Alinsky and his staff have helped to organize communities not only in Chicago but throughout the country from the black ghetto of Rochester, New York, to the Mexican American barrios of California. Today Mr. Alinsky’s organizing attention has turned to the middle class, and he and his associates have a Training Institute for organizers. Mr. Alinsky’s early organizing efforts resulted in his being arrested and jailed from time to time, and it was on such occasions that he wrote most of Reveille for Radicals. He died in 1972.“

The Book

“The Purpose”

“Rules for Radicals is written for Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

For the purpose of this book, Alinsky initially classifies people into two groups, the Haves and the Have-Nots. Note that later he modifies these classifications as the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little-Want-Mores. He claims that this is not an ideological book “except insofar as an argument for change…”. He rejects dogma as “the enemy of freedom”. A surprising comment is “Those who enshrine the poor of Have-Nots are as guilty as other dogmatist and just as dangerous.

Supported by the Declaration of Independence, the writing of Thoreau and Lincoln, he believes in the God-given right to revolt. He points out that at the conclusion of a revolution the new Haves, now in charge, declare the dominance of the status quo and resist any change regardless of whether or not the change is is beneficial for the Haves and Have-Nots. He points out that, until the Russian and Chinese revolutions, the status quo has been defended by “meaningless conglomeration of abstractions about freedom, morality, equality, and the danger of intellectual enslavement by communistic ideology.” “Today revolution has become synonymous with communism while capitalism is synonymous with the status quo.”

“Ideology of Change”

He best explains his ideology concerning the organizer in the following:

“To begin with, he does not have a fixed truth—truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.” and He accepts the late Justice Learned Hand’s statement that “the mark of a free man is that ever-gnawing inner uncertainty as to whether or not he is right.”

Because EVERYTHING is changing the organizer must recognize the changes and to influence them by working within the perceived changes and providing the power of organizations to achieve reasonable but positive goals.

He criticises religious institutions that have “come to support the status quo so that today religion is materially solvent and spiritually bankrupt”. One example of that is the religious institutions accepting tax exemptions in exchange for not speaking out against government corruption and campaigning for someone for public office for which they have more confidence in the rule of law.

“Class Distinctions”

“Mankind has been and is divided into three parts: the Haves, the Have-Nots, and the Have-a-Little-Want-Mores.”

The Have-a-Little-Want-Mores class is divided into two parts, the Doers and the Do-Nothings. The Doers according to Alinsky are made up of people like Moses, Paul of Tarsus, Martin Luther, Robespierre, Georges Danton, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Napoleon Bonaparte, Giuseppe Garibaldi, Nikolaj Lenin, Mahatma Gandhi, Fidel Castro, and Mao Tse-tung. On the other hand are the Do-Nothing's who talk a good game but contribute nothing toward the betterment of man.

At the end of the Chapter 1 The Purpose is included:

“I believe that man is about to learn that the most practical life is the moral life and that the moral life is the only road to survival. He is beginning to learn that he will either share part of his material wealth or lose all of it; that he will respect and learn to live with other political ideologies if he wants civilization to go on. This is the kind of argument that man’s actual experience equips him to understand and accept. This is the low road to morality. There is no other.”

This is probably the most succinct description of his fundamental beliefs and the foundation of his work.

“Of Means and Ends”

Alinsky restates the question “Does the end justify the means?” as “Does this particular end justify this particular means?” This chapter gives 11 rules of the ethics of means and ends. With each rule he gives a lengthy explanation of how the rule applies and how to apply the rule. The following list includes the list but his accompanying text is very instructive.

  1. one’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.

  2. The second rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment.

  3. The third rule of the ethics of means and ends is that in war the end justifies almost any means.

  4. The fourth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point.

  5. The fifth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.

  6. The sixth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means.

  7. The seventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that generally success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics.

  8. The eighth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that the morality of a means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.

  9. The ninth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.

  10. The tenth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral garments.

  11. The eleventh rule of the ethics of means and ends is that goals must be phrased in general terms like “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,” “Of the Common Welfare,” “Pursuit of Happiness,” or “Bread and Peace.”

I have restated the rules with the hope the reader will go to the source to enjoy Alinsky’s discussion directly. Of particular interest was his pointing out that, even our Declaration of Independence employed ends justifying the means by only stating the complaints against the King of England. Any statement of the advantages of remaining a colony would have discouraged some members of the colonial army to participate.

Then there is a discussion about Lincoln and what some call the “War of Northern Aggression”. Even though he didn't mention it, he alluded to it in this section. “The winner gets to write the history.”

Most histories list slavery as the primary cause of the war. They ignore the fact that Northern States first broke the agreement.

The first paragraph of South Carolina’s “Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union” reads:
“The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slave-holding States, she forbore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time, these encroachments have continued to increase, and further forbearance ceases to be a virtue.”

The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
The fourth Article was adopted to bring South Carolina and other southern states into the Union. Was the federal union living by the terms of the US Constitution? For those of us who believe slavery is wrong, we cannot deny the fact that the union was breaking an agreement that brought South Carolina into the union in the first place.

What Lincoln said at his first inauguration sheds even more light on the issue,
“I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declared that “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I made this and many similar declarations and have never recanted them.”


“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”
Aug. 22, 1862: President Lincoln told a New York newspaper that preserving the Union was his main goal of the Civil War — not abolishing slavery.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all slaves I would do it”.

And from the History Channel:
“When the American Civil War (1861-65) began, President Abraham Lincoln carefully framed the conflict as concerning the preservation of the Union rather than the abolition of slavery. Although he personally found the practice of slavery abhorrent, he knew that neither Northerners nor the residents of the border slave states would support abolition as a war aim. But by mid-1862, as thousands of slaves fled to join the invading Northern armies, Lincoln was convinced that abolition had become a sound military strategy, as well as the morally correct path. On September 22, soon after the Union victory at Antietam, he issued a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that as of January 1, 1863, all slaves in the rebellious states “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.” While the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free a single slave, it was an important turning point in the war, transforming the fight to preserve the nation into a battle for human freedom.”

A Word about Words

This chapter is about words their actual meanings and emotions they evoke. The dictionary meaning doesn't necessarily include the connotations generally attached like Political, Power, self-interest, compromise, and conflict. Alinsky argues against avoiding the use of these words or using substitutes but rather to use them as they are to evoke maximum response. A good example is the word ego.

“If he or she [the organizer] does not have that complete self-confidence (or call it ego) that he can win, then the battle is lost before it is even begun.”

The Education of an Organizer

At one time Alinsky’s organization had a school for organizers. The course was a full time 15 month course. Beyond that he lists experience as the primary source and that organizers grow from the experiences they have on the job.

Later in the chapter he lists the characteristics of organizers and discusses each one.

  1. Curiosity.

  2. Irreverence.

  3. Imagination.

  4. sense of humor.

  5. A bit of a blurred vision of a better world.

  6. An organized personality.

  7. A well-integrated political schizoid.

  8. Ego.

  9. A free and open mind, and political relativity.


“ONE CAN LACK any of the qualities of an organizer—with one exception—and still be effective and successful. That exception is the art of communication. It does not matter what you know about anything if you cannot communicate to your people. In that event you are not even a failure. You’re just not there.”

Concerning subjects of the organization:

“They believe that he knows his job, he knows the right tactics, that’s why he is their organizer.

The organizer knows that even if they feel that way consciously, if he starts issuing orders and “explaining,” it would begin to build up a subconscious resentment, a feeling that the organizer is putting them down, is not respecting their dignity as individuals.”

In my experience, the following is also true.

“The organizer knows that it is a human characteristic that someone who asks for help and gets it reacts not only with gratitude but with a subconscious hostility toward the one who helped him.”

We belonged to a church that spent enormous personal energy helping people that had drug problems and a variety of personal problems. They were invited to and attended church for a time. However, after they seemed to have recovered or well on their way they stopped coming. It took us a while but finally concluded that this hostility was the reason they stopped coming.

A point that should be evident is that communication has to be at a level that both should understand. An organizer that speaks at a level above the object may be impressive but will not recruit the object into the group.

In the Beginning

“IN THE BEGINNING the incoming organizer must establish his identity or, putting it another way, get his license to operate. He must have a reason for being there—a reason acceptable to the people.”

In this chapter Alinsky discusses some of the issues an organizer must face when he insinuates himself into the base he intends to organize. He also lays out basic truths to help the organizer better face the situation.

“Love and faith are not common companions. More commonly power and fear consort with faith. The Have-Nots have a limited faith in the worth of their own judgments. They still look to the judgments of the Haves.”

“Power means strength, whereas love is a human frailty the people mistrust. It is a sad fact of life that power and fear are the fountainheads of faith.”


“One of the great problems in the beginning of an organization is, often, that the people do not know what they want. Discovering this stirs up, in the organizer, that inner doubt shared by so many, whether the masses of people are competent to make decisions for a democratic society. It is the schizophrenia of a free society that we outwardly espouse faith in the people but inwardly have strong doubts whether the people can be trusted.”

“It is common for policy to be the product of power. You begin to build power for a particular program—then the program changes when some power has been built.”


“A large shadow over organizing efforts, in the beginning, is, then, rationalization. Everyone has a reason or rationalization for what he does or does not do. No matter what, every action carries its rationalization.”


“From the moment the organizer enters a community he lives, dreams, eats, breathes, sleeps only one thing and that is to build the mass power base of what he calls the army. Until he has developed that mass power base, he confronts no major issues. He has nothing with which to confront anything. Until he has those means and power instruments, his “tactics” are very different from power tactics. Therefore, every move revolves around one central point: how many recruits will this bring into the organization, whether by means of local organizations, churches, service groups, labor unions, corner gangs, or as individuals.”


“TACTICS MEANS doing what you can with what you have. Tactics are those consciously deliberate acts by which human beings live with each other and deal with the world around them. In the world of give and take, tactics is the art of how to take and how to give. Here our concern is with the tactic of taking; how the Have-Nots can take power away from the Haves.”

Again Alinsky sets out a number of rules which are listed here.

  1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.

  2. Never go outside the experience of your people.

  3. Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.

  4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.

  5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.

  6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.

  7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.

  8. Keep the pressure on.

  9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

  10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

  11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter-side.

  12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.

  13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

The illustrative anecdotes are good in this section both to illustrate and for history.


“Once we understand the external reactions of the Haves to the challenges of the Have-Nots, then we go to the next level of examination, the anatomy of power of the Haves among themselves.”

“Any attack against the status quo must use the strength of the enemy against itself.”


“The basic tactic in warfare against the Haves is a mass political jujitsu: the Have-Nots do not rigidly oppose the Haves, but yield in such planned and skilled ways that the superior strength of the Haves becomes their own undoing.”

Forcing the Haves to live by their own rules often weakens their power to permit changes to the advantage of the Have-Nots. Several examples are given here where organizations failed because they didn't foresee the outcome had they persisted. One example was that of a school boycott in Birmingham.


“The reaction of the status quo in jailing revolutionary leaders is in itself a tremendous contribution to the development of the Have-Not movement as well as to the personal development of the revolutionary leaders. This point should be carefully remembered as another example of how mass jujitsu tactics can be used to so maneuver the status quo that it turns its power against itself.

“Jailing the revolutionary leaders and their followers performs three vital functions for the cause of the Have-Nots: (1) it is an act on the part of the status quo that in itself points up the conflict between the Haves and the Have-Nots; (2) it strengthens immeasurably the position of the revolutionary leaders with their people by surrounding the jailed leadership with an aura of martyrdom; (3) it deepens the identification of the leadership with their people since the prevalent reaction among the Have-Nots is that their leadership cares so much for them, and is so sincerely committed to the issue, that it is willing to suffer imprisonment for the cause.”


“Speaking of issues, let’s look at the issue of pollution. Here again, we can use the Haves against the Haves to get what we want. When utilities or heavy industries talk about the “people,” they mean the banks and other power sectors of their own world. If their banks, say, start pressing them, then they listen and hurt. The target, therefore, should be the banks that serve the steel, auto, and other industries, and the goal, significant lessening of pollution.”

The Genesis of Tactic Proxy

“THE GREATEST BARRIER to communication between myself and would-be organizers arises when I try to get across the concept that tactics are not the product of careful cold reason, that they do not follow a table of organization or plan of attack. Accident, unpredictable reactions to your own actions, necessity, and improvisation dictate the direction and nature of tactics.”

As Alinsky says below, this is a difficult chapter to be described, and to review. However, the case studies are important examples.

“Since the nature of the development of tactics cannot be described as a general proposition, I shall attempt instead to present a case study of the development of the proxy tactic, one that promises to be a major tactic for some years to come. I shall try to take the reader into my experience with the hope that afterward he will reflect candidly upon the hows and whys of his own tactical experience.”

The Way Ahead

“ORGANIZATION FOR ACTION will now and in the decade ahead center upon America’s white middle class. That is where the power is. When more than three-fourths of our people from both the point of view of economics and of their self-identification are middle class, it is obvious that their action or inaction will determine the direction of change. Large parts of the middle class, the “silent majority,” must be activated; action and articulation are one, as are silence and surrender.”

In this chapter Alinsky describes the middle class of the Nixon-Agnew era. According to his definition, I would have been in the lower middle-class but don’t remember ever fitting into his description. For me and the people I knew, it was a time of opportunity. Even though we were among the Have-Some-Want-More class we were aware of the Haves but were not interested in taking from them any more than payment for goods and services. They represented instead goals toward which we worked. Could it be that this resulted from my southern religious training?

In My Humble Opinion

I hope you have read the book. In fact, I would hope for some healthy debate on the subject.

The Purpose

In addition to stating the purpose, Alinsky outlines his view of the existing classes. It may be for his intended audience but is oversimplified. For this discussion I have recast in two dimensions recognizing that there are probably more but are difficult to illustrate on a two dimensional medium.







Want More, Willing to work




Want More, Any Way




Do Nothings




Even though Alinsky says the purpose is “for the Have-Not on how to take it away”, it appears that the lessons are really for the Progressives, who want control. For example name one Progressive that is not a Have. Alinsky talks about his accomplishments but reveals little about his organization that takes projects that provide it with income.

He describes all of the groups mentioned in the chart above including the Progressives, although he called them the Organizers. Once they gain prominence, usually elective office, they identify themselves as Progressives.

One point he makes is that organizers should not assume that the Have-Nots are the poor. In fact in the final chapters he points out that by far the greatest power rests in the middle class and, if they can be organized, the good (his definition of good) they can accomplish.

Everything Is Changing

This is the fundamental belief of Alinsky, or at least what he requires of his organizers. He spends some time defending that position. Even though scientist now have a theory that the universe was created by a “big-bang” event and point to data that shows it is expanding, they cannot explain what blew up or what was there before the event occurred. Even more, where the rules came from that govern the results of the explosion. Science is about the discovery of rules that govern the universe, from the organization of the galaxies, to attraction of physical bodies, to the operation of the neutrino in a molecule. By understanding these rules, man has learned to fly, and capture immense amounts of destructive and beneficial energy from the atom. However these rules are inviolate. Where situations appear to be changing, like the average temperature of the earth, the underlying rules remain the same.

So it is with personal relationships. Eons of years have gone into the study of rules governing these relationships. Men have always been involved in tribes that required rules to survive. Religions have risen and fallen while trying to find workable rules that governed relations between its members. Today the Jews, Christians, and Muslims dominate the world regarding codifying rules that thus-far been discovered. It has been demonstrated that violating the rules of the personal relations section of the Ten Commandments always result in some undesirable outcome. Islam and the Prophet expand on those and some sects have moved Islam into an ideology that enforces their rules with specific administered punishments.

All of this is to say, that, by considering a limited number of observations, one could conclude that “everything is changing”. But, once you drill down, there is one or a combination of unchanging natural laws that result in the observation.

Of Means and Ends

Alinsky’s rules listed in the main section above entitled “Of Means and Ends” depend heavily on his assertion that “everything is changing”. If the reader believes this and rejects the arguments of the previous chapter I suggest he stop reading now. This is not to say I am not willing to debate the issue in my blog but my assertion of the fact that everything is not changing is the basis of my arguments following.

Worthy of more discussion is the assertion that Lincoln’s use of the race issue as a means to assure his end “to save the Union”. Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, stated in his book that he foresaw the end of slavery had the South been successful. There are still some who question whether the resulting union justifies the 620,000 deaths (roughly 2% of the population), the disenfranchisement of every southern person involved in the war, the severing of the southern states from the union, and the colonizing of those same states with “carpetbaggers”. Certainly, the elimination of slavery was a good thing but was the war necessary to accomplish something that was already inevitable?

The “Union”, now without the threat of secession, with a weakened Constitution, has slowly drifted back to the European style of government and away from what our founders intended. American citizens are born indentured to the union for life to pay a percentage of his or her income often to redistribute to others or pursue activities not consistent with his or her religious beliefs. Because of the 16th Amendment, the union may tax any activity and set the rate of taxation without regard to whether it advances freedom or even benefits its citizens. States, or more precisely state governments, have lost their influence in the union by the passage of the 17th Amendment which changed the method by which Senators are elected.

The Congress, enabled by a court decision made by a Franklin D. Roosevelt court and the “Commerce Clause”, now routinely pass laws that violate the word and intent of the 10th Amendment. The most obvious law that has passed recently is what is commonly known as Obama-care. An act that seeks to control one sixth of the union’s economy is certainly outside of the founders intended scope of federal government. Even the plans proposed by Republicans are out of that scope but at least they make choices of both coverage from a market driven system available.

The Education of an Organizer

Except for #2 and #9, these are attributes of any good leader. Those two items testify to Alinsky’s vision of his “Everything’s Changing” morality.

Other Subjects in the Book

With the exception of the chapter listed below, the book deals with details of how to accomplish the organizers’ goals, whether moral or not. At this time this author does not wish to deal with them. Once the reader rejects Alinsky’s vision of morality, the reader needs little explanation of the morality contained in those chapters.

The Way Ahead

Your author does feel this section needs some attention.


This year, we saw the rise of Have-Nots that Alinsky referred to in this chapter. That is the middle class. He referred to them as the “Silent Majority”. As he mentioned earlier, organizers should not assume Have-Nots are necessarily the poor.

In this case, the Have-Nots are those who feel they have little or no political power. In their world, they see themselves working longer hours for less buying power. They see fewer jobs created to support the normal population growth. They see products traditionally made in the USA sport labels from other countries. They see their insurance premiums increase to pay for benefits that they will never realize. They see deductibles increase to levels that they cannot afford for medical care they previously took for granted. They see the commitment of US tax dollars to foreign governments even though the government is sinking further and further into debt. They see an erosion of their rights as other organizations demonstrate and sometimes riot against speakers with whom they agree. And, they blame the Haves of political power identified as the “Establishment” made up of Republicans and Democrats who appear to be more interested in the next election and filling their own pockets than really taking care of the government’s business, congressmen who are willing to compromise away their promises rather than standing firm on their convictions.

And they found their voice. They found someone who was clearly not a member of the establishment, a brusk, undisciplined, real estate mogul, who spoke in their language and was not afraid of saying what he felt. A man willing to defend himself against the establishment even though knowing his defence would cause even more verbal attacks from an obviously biased media.

In spite of having a smaller organization, spending no more than a half of what the Democrats spent, and a media almost universally opposed to his candidacy, he garnered enough votes in the right places to win the Presidency.

Were any of Alinsky’s rules used, either intentionally or not associated with “Rules for Radicals”?

  1. Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
    No. If anything, the establishment underestimated the power of the “Silent Majority”.

  2. Never go outside the experience of your people.
    Yes. Donald Trump’s speeches were designed to communicate with the base.

  3. Wherever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy.
    Yes. The Haves have become so confident of their power, they had lost touch with the voters in the middle class.

  4. Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules.
    No, it is impossible to make someone live up to its rules when they are rules of expediency.

  5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.
    Absolutely! Donald Trump ridiculed Clinton in every speech. “Crooked Hillary” comes to mind.

  6. A good tactic is one that your people enjoy.
    Yes. Donald Trump's speeches were entertaining. Audience Participation, and the audiences always “HUGE”, was encouraged.

  7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.
    Yes, even though Donald Trump’s speeches had the same theme, they were different enough to keep the audiences coming.

  8. Keep the pressure on.
    Yes. Each appearance by Trump or his surrogates pointed out failure of the previous administration.

  9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.
    No. again the opposition did not fully appreciate the threat.

  10. The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
    Yes. The operations of the campaign continuously kept pressure on the opposition. The promise of jobs, America First, reduced taxes, repeal of Obamacare were continuous theme of the campaign.

  11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counter-side.
    No. In this case the negatives of the establishment were positives for the Donald Trump campaign.

  12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.
    Yes. The promise of more jobs, more security, and putting “America First” resonated with the “Silent Majority” and encouraged voters to vote for a real change.

  13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.
    Yes. The target was the previous administration and Hillary Clinton’s association with it. Donald Trump and his surrogates never wavered from those points. The addition of Hillary Clinton’s lack of integrity, and her lack of concern for the security of the secrets of our nation may have been just enough to tip the scales in favor of Donald Trump.

So it would appear that Donald Trump used techniques expounded by Alinsky to win the election. It is unknown whether he intentionally used those techniques or was even aware of them. But the question is, was he elected by a thoughtful electorate, or was he elected by using the techniques of a less than moral writer.

It is clear that Hillary Clinton was aware of the Alinsky book and that she and the previous administration used the techniques enclosed throughout her career. Even now she denies that her competency and lack of integrity were not causes of her losing the election, rather blaming James Comey, the Russians, and even the Democratic National Committee. For the purpose of this article, it is not useful to discuss any further the association of Hillary Clinton and Saul Alinsky.

One should mention the techniques of the opponents of Donald Trump even after he was elected.

They continue the litany of accusations that so many of their followers believe without bothering to verify: That Donald Trump is a misogynist, even though the person who ran his campaign and the first engineering manager to manage the construction of a major hotel were women; he is a racist, even though he sued a town in Florida over a racist law that prevented blacks and Jews from his club; his is an islamophobe, even though the first nation he visited as President was Islamic; Not Christian, even though he attends a Presbyterian Church regularly and participated in the “Laying on of Hands” ceremony in a predominantly black Christian Church in Detroit.

And now, his opponents are claiming through unnamed sources that he is being investigated for collusion with the Russians even though there is no evidence, and obstruction of justice, because a self admitted “leaker” has testified that he might have been directing him to stop an investigation.

So How Does One Avoid Being Used in an Organization?

  1. Be suspicious.

  2. Particularly of news that elicits emotional response

  3. Decide what your objectives are for a better future.

  4. Because we essentially have only 4 parties, read the platforms of all. Select the one which best matches your objectives and conforms to your morality.

  5. Listen to the speeches of your candidate, preferably to the complete speech so that you understand the context. If available, read the speeches.

  6. Check the integrity of the candidate. Particularly their past.

  7. DO NOT pay attention to what the talking heads say, even though they broadcast through your favorite news media. The host of Fox News Sunday has been observed playing a segment by a candidate and then posing a question misstating the what the segment just played revealed. Often on this program and others, journalist ask the same question over and over obviously hoping the answer is the one they want.

  8. Once a presentation mentions “source”, “source in the White House”, “source in the Congress”, and “unnamed source”, flag that presentation as highly suspect. Remember, those in the news media also have their agenda.

There are probably other ways but these are certainly useful. Many claim that they don't have time to read the platforms and listen to the speeches. I would suggest that they may be even worse than the Do-Nothings because they could actually be doing damage.

SCOTUS - Strike down Obamacare?

Many U.S. citizens are pinning their hopes on the Supreme Court to strike down the Health Care laws popularly known as ObamaCare.  The laws use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 3, as a justification for their existence.  Up until 1942 the opinion of James Madison, the so-called father of the Constitution pretty much held sway.  That is:

"Yet it is very certain that it [the Commerce Clause] grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the nonimporting, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged." - Letter to Cabell, February 13, 1829.

However, in 1942, during Roosevelts term in office, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of the governments power to punish a farmer for raising more wheat that he was allowed under the "New Deal" law Agriculture Adjustment Act of 1938 even though the farmer, Roscoe C. Filburn, argued that since the excess wheat was used on the farm and didn't enter into Commerce, that the law was unconstitutional.  This ruling essentially permits the Federal Government to make laws concerning any activity that may be construed as Commerce.

In fact, there is a constitutional amendment found in Politico-Cat that limits the Commerce Clause in its scope see Amending the Constitution.

Note that there are some Supreme Court jurists that believe that the 10th Amendment does not, in fact, limit the power of the Federal Government.  This belief is usually held by the more liberal members of the court.

So, it is unlikely that the Supreme Court will strike down ObamaCare.

June 26, 2012 update:  SCOTUS upholds ObamaCare.  However it may be educational to read the following article published on "TheBlaze" by Mytheos Holt.

The link is http://www.theblaze.com/stories/five-reasons-why-the-obamacare-decision-...

I have reissued it below in case it is lost in the near future.

Five Reasons Why the Obamacare Decision Might Not Be As Bad As You Think

Ever since the shocking ruling by the Supreme Court today that labeled Obamacare’s highly controversial individual mandate a “tax” was handed down, conservatives have been reacting with a mixture of depression and cold fury, especially toward the man who made it possible, Chief Justice John Roberts. Branded a “coward” in some corners, and a traitor by many, Roberts has been relentlessly criticized for a decision which many see as eroding the last obstacle to an overpowered government, and which certainly has the potential to do just that if the political philosophy that has so dominated the current administration continues unabated.

However, sympathetic though we are to these admittedly weighty fears of increased state power, we think one fact may have been a bit obscured by this response – this is still a decision by John Roberts. And John Roberts is still a Bush appointee, with a judicial philosophy that makes hardcore judicial liberals cringe, albeit a little less now. As such, since the decision was released, a steady drumbeat of commentary has gone up from everyone from Reason Magazine to Charles Krauthammer to Erick Erickson to George Will to even Ken Cuccinelli, one of the people who lost in the case, claiming the decision might be a sleeper victory. With a list of people like that believing they’ve secretly won, we figure we owe it to them to at least try to sum up the case for the Obamacare case being a success. Here are the top five reasons we can see why the Obamacare case might come back to haunt the Left and make the Right cheer:

#5. It made taxation the panacea for constitutional questions

No, really, hear us out. The fact that Obamacare‘s mandate has been arguably rewritten as a simple tax provision actually means something very positive at the political level for those who don’t want excessive government overreach to get carte blanche. Prior to this case, regulation of industries or people was always justified under the framework of interstate commerce (we’ll revisit this later). Now, however, taxation has been given a power that most liberals could not have imagined in their wildest dreams. On the surface, this looks like a bad thing. Actually, it could be quite the opposite.

Obamacare is probably the first case to ever involve what is arguably a sleeper tax – that is, a tax that isn’t called a tax in the law itself, but may behave like one. It will also probably be the last, because from now on, every single case that remotely involves IRS penalties as a means of enforcement will be instantly slammed as a sleeper mandate-style tax by its opponents and subjected to the same level of scrutiny as your average tax increase while in Congress. This mandate was able to get by on the fig leaf of being a penalty. Future adventures with the idea won’t have that luxury.

This means that Roberts has just sent every future mandate to clear the desk of anti-tax giants like Grover Norquist before it can get become law. All we can say is good luck with that.

#4. The liberal judges inadvertently brought Federalism back

Arguably ever since progressivism first became a potent political force, the fact that the Federal government is constrained in relation to the states has chafed endlessly at progressive policymakers. Perhaps for this reason, they have worked to make the very concept of states’ rights anathema, both legally and politically. Conservative jurists, meanwhile, have pushed back, citing the traditional separation of powers.

This case implicated that question strongly, as one of the less glamorous questions considered was whether a mandatory Medicaid expansion that was attached to Obamacare was constitutional in the first place. According to the Roberts Court, it was, but there was a serious catch, explained by Peter Suderman of Reason Magazine in this video:

Got that? States are allowed to opt out of the Medicaid expansion without any retaliation in terms of existing funding from the Federal Government. In effect, this meant that the expansion was completely toothless, and states would only undertake it if they thought that additional money offered by the Federal government was worth it. The idea that states can opt out of anything is a huge jump towards state sovereignty.

But, you might be thinking, so what? Roberts could have gotten all that and more if he’d signed on with the conservatives. This misses the fact that not only did Roberts resurrect states’ rights, but he did it with the blessing of several liberal justices on the court, since the ruling on the Medicaid expansion came down 7-2. This is the equivalent of getting Al Sharpton to vote against affirmative action, and it means that functionally, even the Court’s Left has declared the Constitution itself in favor of state sovereignty over and against Federal overreach. To quote Ken Cuccinelli:

“They preserved our first principles protections, our individual liberty protections. They advanced state sovereignty, strangely enough, while keeping the law. That was not one of the combinations that were even in our top five. That permutation was one that we didn’t spend a lot of time thinking was a likely outcome. But here we are. That’s the one we’ve got.”

#3. Roberts actually set up a limit on the Commerce Clause

This is similar to the situation above, except even bigger. One of the signature judicial “achievements” of the Left has been the erosion of individual liberty using Congress’ power to regulate interstate commerce. This disturbing trend arguably reached its peak in Wickard v. Filburn, a case that said that Congress could regulate everything including how much wheat a farmer fed his hogs because that could have a plausible impact on interstate commerce. In the face of this, liberals rushed to pass every conceivable form of regulation, no matter how nitpicky or micromanaging it was, because if that was allowed, everything was. Successive courts nibbled around the edges in cases like United States vs. Morrison, but ultimately left this expansive reading untouched.

Until now. You see, there was one thing Wickard never did. It never said you could make a farmer buy wheat. Oh, you could regulate how he used it once he bought it, or how he produced it in order to sell it, but you couldn’t say he had to go buy it if he had no intention of doing so in the first place. And as it turns out, you can’t. The Court drew a line in the sand, saying the Federal government can’t create commerce in order to regulate it. This could easily have gone the other way if a liberal had written the opinion. As George Will pointed out:

If the mandate had been upheld under the Commerce Clause, the Supreme Court would have decisively construed this clause so permissively as to give Congress an essentially unlimited police power — the power to mandate, proscribe and regulate behavior for whatever Congress deems a public benefit. Instead, the court rejected the Obama administration’s Commerce Clause doctrine. The court remains clearly committed to this previous holding: “Under our written Constitution .?.?. the limitation of congressional authority is not solely a matter of legislative grace.”

Fortunately, that’s not what happened. Instead, with the support of his conservative colleagues, Roberts wrote this reading of the commerce clause into law:

“The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. .?.?. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. .?.?. Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual couldpotentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and — under the government’s theory — empower Congress to make those decisions for him.”

This is the brightest line in the sand ever drawn on the question of where the interstate commerce power ends. The excuse of the taxing power is, as we’ve pointed out above, a trap for the Left. This standard, meanwhile is very likely to get more rigorous as time goes on. As Cuccinelli says:

“They’ve turned this whole thing into a spending and regulation question with this ruling. The individual liberty pieces were preserved and states got strengthened here in the constitutional structure under this ruling.”

In order to undo the evils of previous decisions like Wickard, the Court first had to take a stand and say, “This much and no further” when it came to interstate commerce. Thanks to Roberts, it has.

#2. This deflates Occupy Wall Street’s biggest cause

Look, we‘re not pretending this case isn’t a victory for the Obama administration. It is. However, it also gives conservatives an unexpected right hook to use against the Obama administration’s Democratic base. Remember how before this decision came out, every liberal within breathing distance was bemoaning the fact that the case Citizens United v. FEC, which they claimed was decided by a runaway “activist court,” had permanently ceded American government to those with money?

You should, because many left-wing protests, including Occupy Wall Street and the Wisconsin protesters, used Citizens United as a rallying cry. Like the Obamacare decision, Citizens United is a 5-4 decision, and had Obamacare come down differently, Occupy Wall Street and their brethren could have used that as yet more evidence that it’s time for a constitutional amendment to “save Democracy.”

Except Obamacare’s decision came down technically in their favor. And that means that all the liberals who were sharpening their knives to go after this “activist court” suddenly have to revise their low opinion and start treating the Court’s decisions as final. Now, of course, it could be said that the same applies to conservatives who like the Citizens United ruling, who now have to endorse the Obamacare ruling. However, there’s a big difference – the Obamacare ruling doesn‘t say it’s unconstitutional to repeal Obamacare. It just says Obamacare is constitutional. Citizens United, meanwhile, says you absolutely cannot enact certain kinds of campaign finance law, no matter how much the bedraggled masses at Zuccotti Park might want you to. In other words, one simply leaves decisions up to Americans. The other hardwires an obstacle to progressive attacks on speech into the Constitution. And thanks to John Roberts’ decision, Leftists now have to either argue against Obamacare or for Citizens United. Arguably the main talking point that motivates their base – too much evil Republican money in politics – has just been frozen out of relevance. Charles Krauthammer puts it best:

Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5 to 4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.[...]

How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a tax, something generally within the power of Congress.

Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the commerce clause is reined in. By denying that it could justify the imposition of an individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old expansion of congressional power under the commerce clause fig leaf.

Law upheld, Supreme Court’s reputation for neutrality maintained. Commerce clause contained, constitutional principle of enumerated powers reaffirmed.

1.  Mitt Romney now will have a much easier time defeating Barack Obama

When it comes to this one, as President Obama might say, “this is not politics, this is math.” In the not-quite-24-hours since Obamacare was ruled constitutional, Mitt Romney has raised a breathtaking $3 million, according to Politico. Why? We’ll let Erick Erickson make the case for us:

Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.

60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground. Oh, and as I mentioned earlier, because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.

It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

How else to put it? Romney has been handed an issue where 60 percent of the voting public agree with him and told to run with it. The reaction of many people who previously were skeptical of Romney shows just how powerful this is – he has transformed from the problematic standard bearer of a party that might potentially have to face thorny questions on health care to the anti-Obamacare candidate: Anti-mandate, anti-massive tax on the middle class, and pro-liberty. Some have claimed his own law in Massachusetts will end up being used against him in this case. If that’s true, we’re at a loss for who could possibly use it. The Obama administration has to run on their record, and the fact of the matter is that running on a law that imposes a massive, unpopular tax on the whole country, is going to look a heck of a lot worse than running while disowning a previous experiment with the idea at the state level and promising to do away with the national version once elected. Romney’s moment of heresy was  years ago. Obama’s is right now.

Do these reasons presuppose a massive gamble on Roberts’ part? Absolutely. Could things go ruinously wrong if the makeup of the Court shifts to the Left after this decision? Yes. Could things go ruinously wrong if Mitt Romney doesn’t win in November? Obviously. But this decision could still turn out to be the nail in the coffin of the Obama Presidency. Or, perhaps more appropriately, this Court could be the death panel that decides it‘s time for Obama’s administration to end its life.

Social Security

I was born in 1936, just after the super progressive instituted a number of policies and government programs to get us out of the depression.  One of these programs was Social Security, advertised to provide retirement funds to retirees after they had made "Contributions" to a fund listed on the modern income allocation fund as FICA.  Additionally, the employer made a similar "Contribution".  Even though it was advertised to go into an account that was used to pay for retirement, it was actually put into the General Fund.  By law, it was not a retirement account because it was not invested in stocks and bonds as most investment programs are, but was used as a source on money for the federal government when it spent more that it took in, the deficit.  However, as late as 10 years ago, Al Gore referred to it as being in a "Lock Box". 

Now, it appears that the truth is being revealed.   The Social Security program was and is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme.  Employees were told that they were contributing to a retirement fund but their funds were being used to pay off older employees retirement commitments.  Not only that, the current government is referring to its obligation to pay what it promised, if not in the law, but at least what it promised, as an entitlement ( a right granted by law or contract, especially to financial benefits from the government), as if an entitlement is something that recipients do not deserve.  Of course there are a number of entitlements that are costing our government that is not deserved.  Any payment to or on behalf of recipients who have not in some way contributed to the program constitutes theft of funds that contributers  originally contributed for other purposes.  Where the law-makers are exhibiting the natural generosity of citizens of the United States, it is never-the-less wrong to take the funds intended for one use and use it for another.  It is wrong for the government to take money from taxpayers and give it to non-taxpayers and even non-citizens regardless of the extent of the need.  Our citizens have demonstrated their willingness to satisfy those needs by contributions to religious institutions and other charitable organizations.

What should we do?  As former President Clinton has said, "We should not let Social Security and Medicare devour our economy."  My suggestion is simple.  Stop collecting FICA and Medicare payments.  For all of the citizens that have made contributions, pay the accumulated amounts, including the employers portion, normalized to the purchasing value of the dollar at the time it is paid to all of those who have contributed.   So we would be no worse off than we were prior to inactment of the social security act in the 1930's.  At least we wouldn't have Republicans rolling Gran'ma off a cliff or Democrats rationing Medicare to shorten our final days in addition to making them less comfortable.

Society is Too Complex for a Free Market

The following article was inspired by the post of my good friend A. Robert Spitzer 

Our society is too complex to have people living on their own in the woods, cooking over campfires and eating squirrels (Loretta Helwig still shoots and cooks squirrel but I am not crazy about it). Modern society has evolved. I do not agree with the extent of current governmental control. But the pure idealistic free market system has problems. For example, free information is no longer available to the average citizen, who is no longer capable of making informed decisions in our complex society. Free markets result in psychopaths controlling corporations and huge amounts of power and abusing individuals. Corporate structures have become governments of their own. As such, they need to be restricted and controlled just as much as any other government!!”

I admit I have taken a while to respond partially from the demands of the Christmas Season, and family obligations. But mainly I hesitated, because I wanted to be more positive in my article than my initial reaction. I wanted to reply with a simple “Those are the arguments I often hear from those who justify government. That the human conditions requires an external governance to establish order in a naturally disorderly and immoral world.” I wanted to reply, “Who or what can we trust to provide that governance? Certainly not humans, who are naturally selfish and interested in only their own lives. Certainly not those welding such power for their own gain. And certainly not those that believe that life owes them something other than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (or wealth as it was originally written).” But these replies, which have been used over and over, do not seem to impress anyone who accepts the original premise.

All I can do is speak from my experience. Bob has spoken of gradualism that seems to be degrading our government and has found its way into our society. Yes, I have seen the reduction of freedoms during my lifetime. And I have seen the rise of an underclass that has successfully, with their vote, to demand more from society than they contribute. And yes, well meaning people have agreed with them and have been “enablers” rather than take the time to resist the trend. In Birmingham, in which I called home for the first 23 years of my life, I felt free to travel anywhere in the city on my bicycle, and did. I felt safe enough to shop for groceries in a racially mixed grocery store where I was a minority. One of my early jobs as a TV repairman, I serviced sets in homes that were not of my race. My relations with my customers were always cordial, being thanked for returning their sets, of which they were extremely proud because it was often the most valuable thing they possessed. I returned to Birmingham for the 100th anniversary of my home church and found very restrictive fences around the hotel where we stayed. Everywhere I went I found evidence of a dangerous city. That coupled with warnings not to venture out at night.

I proudly claim to be a libertarian. I count myself lucky to be educated by the likes of Adam Smith, John Locke, Ludwig von Mises, Milton Freidman, the Foundation for Economic Education, and the like. Note that I do not use the capital “L” in the word because I am not a member of the Libertarian Party. If you wish to read some of my views on this subject, go to http://www.politico-cat.com/node/32. Included there are the principals of libertarianism. These rules have nothing to do with returning our society to requiring people to live on their own in the woods any more than saying that Judaism requires Israel to use the same weapons used in the battle of Jericho.

But, over my lifetime, it is useful to list positive accomplishments. Even though, in the past 10 years my family faced lymphoma and ovarian cancer, the positive is that I can report that we, with the help of advances made in treating cancer by the medical profession, and prayers from caring friends, we are alive and although suffering from the ravages of age, are still alive. We have enjoyed writing, and even though we don't have any best sellers, we have enjoyed the experience.

Probably the most frustrating effort in my life is that of convincing people that the “National Retail Tax System” now called the “FairTax” (http://www.fairtax.org) has not gained a foothold and been passed into law. But, on the positive side, during the 2008 election cycle one presidential candidate, Mike Huckabee, suggested that if he was elected president, he would try to get it implemented. This year 2015, Mike is still proposing the “FairTax, and another candidate, Dr. Ben Carson, suggested an interest in it. Replacing the 73,954 page (as of 2014) with a 133 page code which distributes the cost of government fairly seems to be a worthy goal. 25-30 years ago, I can remember when I was a group of less than 50 people advocating this system.

I remember in Colorado Springs in the early 1960s reading the Gazette Telegraph editorial page extolling the virtues of libertarian thought and the Freeman” from the Foundation for Economic Education extolling the virtues of a free market. Can a country exist that subscribes to libertarian principles? We are about to find out, the tiny country of Liberland has received about 200,000 applications for membership. The Foundation for Economic Education is growing and offers programs to teach all their view of economics. The report found at http://fee.org/resources/results-from-fee/ gives a positive report of their progress.

A highlight of this year, was listening to various College Choirs presenting their Christmas programs. My wife complains about me being critical of musical organizations and that I would probably find something to criticize a choir of angels if I was at a performance. Either my hearing is getting worse, or the programs we watched were better than they have been in years past. I believe the latter. One aspect of musical performances is the ensemble of the singers. To the uninitiated, that is when each musician or performer is doing his part exactly when it is supposed to happen.

Some years ago, Robert Shaw conducted the Mormon Tabernacle choir. While there he emphasized the importance of ensemble. Since that time, the choir has improved yearly and this year their performance was the best I can remember. Why do I mention this in an article about positive progress? The answer is that the choir is made up of 360 individuals freely cooperating to bring about an objective. The presentations of the colleges exhibit the same cooperation. I maintain that this is the fundamental character of the human. Certainly there are exceptions, and often they get most of the attention.

We have benefited from a number of developments during our stay on earth. I remember the first time I watched TV on my sister's TV set. My mother, dad, and I walked about 5 blocks to her house for the first event.

The schools I attended, the shops where we shopped, the movies houses where we went for entertainment (rarely), and our home did not have air conditioning. The first experience of air conditioning I had was attending the First Methodist Church in Birmingham where they had ice trucks deliver about a ton of ice to the basement and circulated the air from the sanctuary over the ice to cool it during hot summer Sundays. That guaranteed short sermons on particularly hot days, because the ice melted in about an hour. Our first trip to the west coast where I had been assigned a job was in a car that did not have air-conditioning. We bought an evaporative cooler that attached to a window and filled it with ice to get across the hottest part of the trip.

Medical advances during our lifetime, I can't list because I don't remember them all. I do remember that polio (which I had had) and a number of childhood diseases have been all but eliminated. Pneumonia, once a sentence of death, is now treated as out-patient care with antibiotics.

Airplanes: the advance in air travel is even obvious today. But the first commercial flight we made was on a Constellation, an airplane powered by four engines driving propellers. Now, airplanes, even those driven by jet engines, are available for purchase to the public.

And space exploration. I was privileged to be working at Cape Canaveral during the development of some of the early missiles and systems that eventually powered man into space and later to the moon. Sure, the government funded these advances. But individuals, and groups of individuals brought about the successes. I was at Brooks AFB where early astronauts were tested to both establish limits of what they could withstand and to assure they could withstand limits that were set.

And computers: The first computer system I worked with had 32,000 48 bit words of memory, equivalent to about 192,000 bytes in today's world. That computer with its auxiliary memory, magnetic tapes, is pictured below. I am currently working with a computer that has more than 1,000,000,000 bytes of memory and 30,000,000,000 bytes of auxiliary memory. All that fit in a box that is smaller than 3” by 4” (the electronics is less than 2” x 2” and connectors to the outside world taking the remainder of the space)

Then there are cell phones and smart phones. The first cell phones we owned weighed about 5 pounds and had a shoulder strap to assist carrying them about.

The point of the above list is that these advances have been made by individuals and groups of individuals committed to improving the lives of their fellow man. Some would point out that some of these advances were made and funded by the government. Maybe, but individuals, groups of individuals, and more often than not investors, who by today's standards are nothing but greedy Grinchs just looking for a profit.

Free markets result in psychopaths controlling corporations and huge amounts of power and abusing individuals.?? Really? The ultimate control in a free market is the purchaser. If a product is too expensive or gets a bad reputation, it will not be purchased. Granted, psychopaths occasionally occupy positions of authority in a corporation and occasionally cause temporary profits and gouging of customers. This does not last. Either the stockholders or managers remove the psychopath or the corporation ceases to exist. The corporation is not the only source of information about their product. Customers talk. Private corporations like “Consumer Reports” talk. And free news media talk. Often the psychopath gains his power from the government. Through a perverted tax system, like the one we have today, the government can essentially mandate the success or failure of a corporation regardless of the corporation's integrity. For example, in the last ten years the government decided that some financial institutions were “too big to fail” and used taxpayer money to bail them out. Granted the failure of the institutions can be traced to government's “encouragement” to make loans to high risk applicants. Another example is government's bailing out large corporations that were mismanaged because they represented a major industry. Not only did they bail out the corporation with tax-payer money, they effected the theft of stockholders shares and transferred them to another group who had not risked their wealth. Yes, a corporation with low integrity can exist in the free market. However, in a truly free market they cannot continue unless they change their practice.

When I entered the computer industry, one company sought and almost attained a monopoly on computers for commercial use. One technique was to sell a system that was not adequate for the job. After the installation was in, they would sell upgrades until the requirements were met. Through questionable techniques, their sales force was able to convince managers that their company was the only company that could do the job. A popular reply of their customer's managers to competing salesmen was “No manager has ever been fired for selecting your product.” They also sought to dominate the PC market with a dynamic operating system that featured a CRT/Keyboard interface copied from an existing product already offered by another company. Where is that company now? One that had upwards of 90% of the market. It is still there but most of us consider it an also-ran. No government action brought that company down. Market forces and ingenuity of others did.

Advocates point to anti-trust laws as protecting us from monopolies. Unfortunately they do not protect us from government authorized monopolies. How many choices do you have when purchasing utilities? Postal Service (all though that is contained in the Constitution of the United States)? And soon to be if one party has its way, medical insurance? One company has a virtual monopoly on large medical imaging systems. They also either don't make a profit or are cleverly excluded by the tax code from paying taxes because they are paying none. The government did use the law to break up perceived railroad monopolies. They also instituted rules that restricted railroads from operating freely to make a profit. One such rule – railroads were charging a lower per mile rate for long shipments. Government, deciding that wasn't “fair” required railroads to charge standard per mile rates. Government decided to break up the ATT monopoly, even though ATT kept prices low enough to keep out competition (acceptable in the free market).

Maybe I have lived in a charmed life, because I have never worked in a corporation that did not have a high degree of integrity in its management. Only once, did I leave a company where the CEO was managing a company in a way that was inconsistent with my beliefs in integrity.

Even though I have never worked for a government, I have worked in close association with government employees and government management. Most of them were good and moral people and sincere in execution their jobs (even IRS employees). Often I found that the politics of the job outweighed their good intents. None of them, or management of companies where I was employed, exhibited the lack of integrity that has been brought to light in the current administration. Then it is with no reluctance that I prefer a free market management of the solution to problems to governments. One only need look at the management of the VA (note: I am sure the medical professionals in those hospitals are doing the best they can), the Post Office, the Affordable Care Act, and the government owned brothel in Nevada as compared to Apple, Amazon, Ford Motor, and the like to realize that trust in the government to manage the market is misplaced. I am convinced that the free market can do the job currently assigned to the government more efficiently. Yes, even the FDA and Institute of Health. Even the certification of medical profession can be done through private institutions. Allowing unqualified medical professionals to practice will eventually disappear as the gene pool is cleaned up by the elimination of individuals willing to use their service.

I agree that our society is more complex now that when I was a youth. But only technically. To keep the accouterments of our present life requires more skill and more diverse people. However, I do not agree that personal relations are more complex. As in engineering, we need to tackle the most serious problem first and move to those incidental to the problem. The first step is to accept an underlying moral code well defined in the interpersonal part of the Ten Commandments (see http://www.politico-cat.com/node/85 for a discussion currently underway of Morality). Then move on to the libertarian principals http://www.politico-cat.com/node/32. From there, we can move existing institutions into and subject to free market pressures. And no, we can't do it quickly. And though it appears to be impossible in today's world, that is no reason to dismiss it as an objective.

I believe it is incumbent on concerned citizens to learn about competing systems. It is necessary to learn about free market solutions as well as socialistic or government solutions. The U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights and their formation documents form a giant step toward individual freedom. And yes, there were mistakes in those documents that needed correcting. For a discussion of some of these mistakes, see http://www.politico-cat.com/node/68. Just returning to the principles of our founders would be a large step toward establishing a more free society.

Some Comments about Free Speech

This article on free speech was originally inspired by a sermon by a good friend and is available at http://www.chapelbts.org.  It is interesting that the Federal Communication will be holding hearings on whether to curb free speech.

Maynard Pittendreigh ..., but by and large it was well received. I still stand by my statement that the wounds from sticks and stones "usually" heal, but I acknowledge they don't always.

Free speech is one thing, but this call to violence and the overthrow of the American government, this call to "wipe people out" and to throw bricks, this threatening to kill good people of both political parties has got to stop.

Felix E. Bearden
Free speech is the thing! As long as we have it, people may point out injustices and, in a republic, restrain our government by influencing the vote. Once we yield to the notion that people should not say certain things, as repulsive as it might be, we are ultimately yielding to mind control, where those in power can ultimately tell the dissenters to "shut up" because the dissenters words do not conform the rules set up by those in power.

No, I don't approve of some of what is said by either of the party leaders or out-liers. Unfortunately, discrediting the opposition works. Telling untruths and calling it campaign rhetoric is the accepted practice of our political parties. The only defense we have is learning the truth, telling it to others, and voting for candidates who have character rather than those who promise us something, in many cases what they take from others in the process.

And our defense to ill and hurtful words spoken to us is to examine them. If there is truth to them, we have learned something about ourselves. If not, then those words should be shed like water on an oiled raincoat. And we have learned something about the person who spoke them. Granted, it is the responsibility of the parents to teach, or have this taught to their children along with their moral code and spiritual values.

Even religious institutions are accountable for what they teach. Several teach lessons of hate about races and other religions. Many, admittedly with altruistic motives, have avoided some of the more difficult teachings of their religion, like freedom, the God given rights, and equality of all of His children, the importance of ownership, and the role of profit in society.

As a result of the above discussion, I reread his sermon. And I got ta thinkin', and my girls will tell you that is a terrible thing to see.

If you have read the article "Sermon Topics I Haven’t Seen and Other Stories about my Mother" you will know that my perspective is a little different from what is generally taught in the protestant churches.  Well, here is another.

The position that Maynard takes in his sermon is the traditional one.  His emphasis is on the crowd and their love to hate transition evidenced at the trial of Jesus. It is, and should be despicable to any thinking person that crucifying an innocent man in preference to one who is guilty is acceptable in a civilized society.  And yet it goes on, and on, and on.

The scripture he quotes regarding words and their meaning,
“With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people, who have been made in God's likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers, this should not be.” (James 3:4-11) and Matthew 15, “But what comes out of the mouth proceeds from the heart, and this is what defiles. For out of the heart come evil intentions....” are spot on!!! but let us take another look. 

These scriptures are directed to the individual.  It is a reflection of our individual character if we allow such things to proceed from our mouth. But what if they are restricted by the power of government. 

Our founders wrote "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." for a reason.  And that reason is that our government was to be reactionary.  One could not be punished for what religion they practiced, what they said, or what they wrote unless they infringed on the rights of another.

A person may say what he wishes. Even call someone the "n-word", or some of the many epithets I have been called at one time or another, yell "Kill the Umpire", or yes, even yell "Crucify Him" at a trial.

Are they guilty? Yes, of having an impure heart, of acting in a manner not acceptable in most civilized communities, of sinning against the principles of Christianity.

But, from the constitution given us by our founders, are the crowds guilty of crucifying Christ?

NO! It was one person, one who even recognized the innocence of Jesus.  It was Pilot and no other.  Only God can determine what is in the heart and mind of a man. And the state of forgiveness enjoyed by that man.

Support for Israel

Pro-Israel companies.

Here is a list of 18 companies that we should go out of our way to support and the reasons why.

I strongly urge that we do so.

1. The Chairman and CEO of STARBUCKS , Howard Schultz, is an active Zionist. In 1998 he was  honored by the Fund of Aish HaTorah with 'The 50th Anniversary  Friend of Tribute Award' for his services to the Zionist state in 'playing  a key role in promoting close alliance between the and '.  At a time when other businesses were desperately pulling out of

,  Starbucks decided to help 's floundering economy and invest in ..  It has been revealed that Starbucks still continues to support by  sponsoring fund raisers for   .


2. THE  LIMITED STORES , Express, Lerner New York , VICTORIAS SECRET and BATH  & BODY WORKS: The Limited, Inc. was founded by Leslie H. Wexner in 1963 in  Columbus , Ohio . Includes: THE LIMITED STORES, Express, Lerner ,  SECRET and BATH & BODY WORKS, and employs over 115,000 people. Its  founder, president and CEO Les Wexner is a Zionist. He is on the board of  directors of Emet, the Pro-Israel Media 'War Room' whose function is to ensure  that all media in the stays biased in favor of . In 1984, Les Wexner  who is one of the world's 200 wealthiest people created the Wexner Foundation.  Its mission statement is 'strengthening Jewish Leadership in North America and  .' One of the programs the Foundation runs is the Wexner Israel  Fellowship Program which annually brings up to ten Israeli have participated  thus far. The Wexner Foundation sponsors 'Birthright ' - a program that  pays for young American Jews to take free indoctrination trips to . It is  also a long-standing supporter of Hillel - the bastion of Zionism on  campus.


3. THE  HOME DEPOT : Its founder and co-chairman of the Board is an active  Zionist. He created the board of directors of Emet, the Pro-Israel Media 'War  Room' whose function is to ensure that all media in the stays biased in favor  of .


4. DISNEY : Walt Disneys Millennium exhibition at the Epcot Centre in   depicts as the capital of . Of the 8 million dollars it cost to  set up the exhibition, contributed 1.8 million and worked with Disney to  develop its content.



The buy up of Israeli  company Mirabilis, creators of ICQ (internet chat program), for $287m in 1998  forms part of AOLs investment in ..

In 1998, Mr. Ted Leonsis, CEO  of AOL studios (a business unit of AOL) received the Jubilee Award by the  Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. This is the highest tribute ever awarded by  the 'State of in recognition of those individuals and organizations that  through their investments and trade relationships have done the most to  strengthen the Israeli economy.


6. COCA COLA : From 1966 onward Coca-Cola has been a staunch supporter  of . In 1997 the Government of Economic honored Coca-Cola  at the Trade Award Dinner for its continued support of for the  last 30 years and for refusing to abide by the Arab League boycott of .  In contrast Pepsi abided by the Arab League boycott of which ended in May  1991, after 1992 Pepsi is also trading in . In 2001 the Coca-Cola World  Headquarters hosted and was the main sponsor of the American-Israel Chamber of  Commerce Awards Gala. It has been revealed that Coca-Cola sponsors  training programs for its workers on subjects including the Israeli-Arab  conflict. The course content is created by a company funded by the Jewish Agency  and the Israeli government. In July 2002, it has been announced that Coca-Cola  is to build a new plant at Kiryat  Gat.


7. ESTEE  LAUDER : Estee Lauder's chairman, Ronald Lauder, also one time chairman of  the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, is the  current president of the Jewish National Fund (JNF) - Ronald Lauder is an ardent  Zionist.


8. SARAH LEE . (Includes Hanes, Playtex, Leggs, Champion). This is  also not to be confused with the frozen snacks company. This is in regard to the  clothing giant. Sara Lee owns 30% of 's leading textile company Delta  Galil. Sara Lee is the world's largest clothing manufacturer, this opens the  worlds markets to Israel , with cloths originating in and being sold  around the world under one of the many famous Sara Lee brands.

In 1998,  Mr. Lucien Nessim of Sara Lee Personal Products received the Jubilee Award by  the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. This is the highest tribute ever awarded  by the 'State of ' in recognition of those individuals and organizations,  that through their investments and trade relationships, have done the most to  strengthen the Israeli  economy.


9. FOX  TELEVISION, FOX ENTERTAINMENT : The News Corporation Limite is one of the  world's largest media companies with total assets as of September 30, 2005 of  approximately; US $58 billion and total annual revenues of approximately US $18  billion. News Corporation's diversified global operations include the production  and distribution of motion pictures and television programming; television,  satellite and cable broadcasting; the publication of newspapers, magazines and  books; the production and distribution of promotional and advertising products  and services; the development of digital broadcasting. News Corporation is the  world's leading publisher of English-language newspapers with operations  worldwide. The Company publishes more than 175 different newspapers, printing  more than 40 million papers a week.

Murdoch's New Corp. invests heavily  in . Murdoch News Corporation was one of three companies that was  lauded for their support of at the America-Israel Friendship League  Partners for Democracy Awards dinner (25th June 2001);Murdoch himself co-chaired  the dinner. News Corp.'s digital technology company based in   ,

called NDS, has grown from 20 to 600 employees in the past  decade.


10. NESTLE : The Swiss company owns 50.1% of Israeli food maker Osem  Investments. In Dec. 2000, it announced it will invest millions of dollars to  operate the new R&D centre in . In 1998, Mr. Peter Brabeck-Letmathe  on behalf of Nestle, received the Jubilee Award by the Israeli Prime Minister  Netanyahu. This is the highest tribute ever awarded by the 'State of ' in  recognition of those individuals and organizations, that through their  investments and trade relationships, have done the most to strengthen the  Israeli economy.


11. OVERSEAS ADVENTURE TRAVEL : Company is based in Massachusetts , is  known for their many world tours and relatively cheap group travel. The company  donates money to over 50 countries in which it operates in to help fund schools,  food aid, etc. and averages between $5,000 and $25,000 per country. However,  received a flat $1,000,000 from Overseas Adventure Travel, as it's  president is a  Zionist.


12. IBM : IBM invests heavily in . IBM senior vice-president and  general counsel, Lawrence Ricciardi, who noted that his company employs 1,700  people in Israel, said in an interview with the Jerusalem Post, 'This wedge of  land and the huge ideals it represents are very important to IBM.' IBM was one  of three US companies that was lauded at the America-Israel Friendship League  Partners for Democracy Awards dinner ( 25th June 2001 ) hosted by Sharon. In May  2002 the Israel-America Chamber of Commerce awarded IBM the Ambassador's Award'  in recognition of its outstanding contribution to the development of the Israeli  high-tech industry and to advancing trade between the U.S.and Israel. IBM  established operations in 1949 and was the first large American company with a  wholly owned subsidiary in Israel , introducing computers to the  country.


13. KIMBERLY-CLARK : (Huggies, Kotex, Kleenex) In 1998, Mr. Robert P.  Van der Merwe, chairman of Kimberly-Clark Europe received the Jubilee Award by  the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. This is the highest tribute ever awarded  by the 'State of ' in recognition of those individuals and organizations,  that through their investments and trade relationships, have done the most to  strengthen the Israeli economy. Kimberly Clark Corp owns 49.9% interest in  Israeli company Hogla (6/96) through America-Israel PaperMills  $49.9m.


14. RIVER  ISLAND clothing chain, ISROTEL and IBROTEL HOTELS in Spain and Portugal ,  BRITANNIA PACIFIC PROPERTIES. (This one probably relates least to any of us) - a  diversified international investment company, with headquarters in . They said to be one of the largest real estate owners in the  Metropolitan area. It appears that the British based Lewis Trust  Group is one of the companies developing hotels in the Aqaba Region. David  Lewis, the Chairman of the company, is a prominent supporter of . Mr  Lewis's activities have included the raising of money for the Jewish National  Fund. He is also a member of the Israel-Britain Business Council. This  organization is dedicated to the development of the , by  channelling British capital to the occupied territories for the benefit of the  Zionists and the exploitation of the Palestinians.

15. NOKIA : Nokia have started to invest heavily in . Nokia  general manager Lars Wolf said in an interview with The Jerusalem Post (4 March  2001): 'We are really focusing on Israel from all perspectives, because we have  an internal project called 'Project Israel ' which means we a re looking at  Israel from a networks perspective, from the perspective of Nokia Ventures  Organization, and also from the perspective of Nokia Research Center.' Nokia  Venture Partners, a branch of Nokia Ventures Organization, launched a new $500  million fund in December 2000 and allowed that a 'disproportionate' amount of it  would go into Israeli companies. is on the lookout for  Israeli start-ups with which it can  cooperate.


16. TIMBERLAND : (clothing, shoes, boots, jackets, etc.) Timberlands is  a $1.1 billion footwear, apparel & accessories company. Its President and  CEO Jeffrey Swartz is an active Zionist. In a recent 'solidarity visit' to  Israel, where he made it clear he was speaking as the CEO of Timberland, he  suggested sending 100 IDF soldiers to the US for a week as ambassadors for  Israel. Although Timberland is a publicly traded company, his family holds  approximately 47% of the stock and has approximately 81% of the voting  power.


17. DESERT EAGLE : Desert Eagles are the only firearms that does  not buy from the or other countries. However, many of the parts of these  firearms are imported from other countries and they are merely assembled in  . Regardless, prides them as their own and it is strictly an  Israeli company.


18. CATERPILLAR : Caterpillar is a company based in that  manufactures large construction equipment such as bulldozers, tractors, various  demolition equipment and has a line of 'tough guy' clothing apparel. Caterpillar  happily supplies Israel with all of its current fleet of D9 and D10 bulldozers,  some of the largest armoured bulldozers in the  world.

Ten Reasons to oppose Government Run Health Care.

The following article is a consolidation of comments on a socialwebsite made by me and augmented by comments by Mary Elizabeth Toddwho has given me permission to incorporate her comments here. 

Some believe that if the "Health Care Reform" is passed, we, the citizens can repeal the law by electing a different majority this fall.  Where that may be true, remember that it takes 2/3rds majority to repeal a law over the presidents veto!  Also beware of language in the Senate Bill that changes procedures that will at least slow the Senate from modifying the law if not prevent it.

1. Abortion

Even though supporters claim that abortion on request is not "in the plan", it is.SCOTUS has ruled that abortion is a medical procedure and as such must be funded under Federal Programs. It is my understanding that it must be explicitly prohibited by law to remove it. What about the doctors and nurses and other medical practitioners for whom it is against their faith to do an abortion for any reason? Do we make them go against their faith or lose their employment? I know one who would chose to give up being a doctor if forced to do so. There is something very wrong with this.

2. Rationing

Under discussion already is a plan to restrict payments to specialists for certain tests -- Electrocardiograms for Cardiologists, in office treatments for Oncologists and the like --in Medicare payments to reduce costs. Reducing costs in the plan IMPLIES rationing across the board. Rationing is already known across the board in England and Canada. If the costs get too much what would happen here? Who would be cut out? What services in our old age would have been deemed not necessary? When the time was right we go to hospice house but who determines when.

Rationing in Medicaid system is a fact. It is state by state but is a Federally funded. Three drugs is all a recipient is allowed amonth.  If you have child with three drugs and that child gets sick there is no way for in Medicaid to bill it. The person has to choose what drug to let go or pay the excess. Medicaid recipients have been advised to reuse feeding pouches to save money despite the danger of infection. Children who need braces for their teeth for medical reasons are often refused. Another needs a replacement tube for her trachea twice a month. Medicaid pays for one.   

VA is not completely free for services previous service men and women. The wait is long for treatment.  The hospitals are often far from where the veterans live and often in very poor condition. Some people have to wait all day for services and travel well over an hour or longer depending where they live.

There are those that need help honestly, but there is also known another group that abuse the system. Unfortunately they are the norm.They taint those honest hard working poor just trying to make it.

3. Debt

Payment for the program adds to an already growing debt (report ofCongressional Budget Office). See http://www.usdebtclock.orgto see a real time view of our debt. If we don't get control of the debt, we will be looking at major decline in our daily lives andhealth care will be the least of our worries. Think of all the other services that will be cut - safe roads, law keepers,etc.  And is it even moral to pass this debt on to our children and grandchildren?

See also http://www.politico-cat/node/34.  When you distribute the benefits in the last 6 years of a 10 year program (during which time you are collecting taxes) you should REDUCE the deficit to 0. In fact, you should reduce the DEBT since there are no benefits for the first 4 years.

4. Payment

Our President has promised that he will not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000. Additional load on those making more WILL discourage investment and WILL slow growth of the private or capitalistic side of our economy, the engine of U.S. prosperity.Additionally, this is part and parcel of "Redistributing the Wealth" which translates to a violation of "Thou shalt not steal." Do we really want class wars? Most of those people have worked hard for that money-not all but most. Many of us have chosen careers that did not pay great.  But for those that did we should celebrate. They followed their dreams. They should not be made to be the bad guys for doing so.

5. Competence

The government has not shown that it can deliver on running Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, VA Hospitals, Indian MedicalCare ("If you are going to get sick, do it before June") or even a "House of Ill Repute". And we now want to turn over16% of our economy to them?

But there are also people and I have known some that make choices to buy toys like a big boat etc, and not health insurance. The government should not require us to pay for their bad choices. As for single mothers. There are responsible single mothers who work in low income jobs to make ends meet, but it more than that.  When everything is given, it robs the person more thanhelps them. This can't be a quick fix. It will fail if that is whatthey do.

Before the government goes charging those of us who have health care because we have sacrificed, let's fix the messed up programs run by the government first.  Not only does the government not run things well, they never re-look at things. So we will be stuck with what they put in place.  It will be too sacred to touch in the future.

6. Reduction of Cost

The law does nothing to reduce the cost of medical care by requiring doctors to practice defensive care and paying huge(40%-60%) of their incomes for malpractice insurance. Democrats willnot pass any thing to restrict incomes of "trial lawyers",their major supporters. There should be a cap in lawsuits. Particularly in the fees that are paid to trial lawyers.

7. Roll of Foundations

No credit is given to the foundations that help people that get seriously ill. We would already have gone bankrupt had it not been from the help from foundations that paid the difference of what our insurance covered and what the costs of the care from my oncologist and the treatment.  To dismiss these organizations and the role they play in providing health-care  to those who need it is to ignore an essential aspect of U.S. capitalist economy.  To supplant it with a government operation is to remove the opportunity of our citizens to be virtuous, and give to those who are in need.

8. Government Option

The government(so-called public) option is really a step toward a single payer (government) plan. Can a private (stockholder held)corporation, who has to have at least as much income as expenditure really survive competing with an entity that can print money to pay bills, forcibly increase revenues by raising taxes, and ration services as is currently the practice in Medicaid, VA care, and Indian medical services?

Groups that are adamant about including the government option have been assured that it will be implemented into law by 2012, or the endof the current presidential term.  That will give the current law, if enacted, time to wipe out its competition.   

9. The Rush.

We have seen how laws rushed though government have been loaded with problems. The stimulus law was loaded with ear-marks and inefficiencies. The "cash for clunkers" program is stumbling, and how many dealers are going to be stuck because the government refuses to pay? And what about the poor, who could have used those clunkers, or us with old cars that cannot get used parts to keep our own running? Most of these programs generated jobs -- but in the government. Who believes these jobs will not stay there.  And now somebody has done the math.  A program to get rid of clunkers costing $3 billion will save our economy less than $300 million a year in fuel costs. 

So why the rush? Could it be that it is the 2010 elections? Are they concerned that they will not be there to do the kind of change they want, not necessarily what is good for the country? If they do reasonably they are in less risk than if they rush towards the cliff like a bunch of lemmings.

Cash for clunkers has not taken into account that these cars were mostly paid for and that people who bought them had more to spend each month than they will now that they are paying a car payment. And yes, those cars could have been donated or at least sold at a lower rate to help the poor. It was not thought out, and we are more in debt. What about all those people that work in the health insurance arena. Where will their jobs go when the government gets in charge? What will happen to the banking industry then?

10. Uninsured

One justification has been the 46 million citizens that are uninsured. The measure of efficacy of our medical system should be the number of citizens that are refused necessary health-care not how many are uninsured. We don't see those numbers, probably because it is not in the interest of the government to publish them. 

The Day the Wind Stopped Blowing.

Click the title to purchase: The Day the Wind Stopped Blowing

Read in on a new Kindle: Kindle Fire HD 7", Dolby Audio, Dual-Band Wi-Fi, 16 GB

Or: Kindle Paperwhite, 6" High Resolution Display with Built-in Light, Wi-Fi - Includes Special Offers

Or: Kindle Fire HD 8.9" 4G LTE Wireless, Dolby Audio, Dual-Band Wi-Fi, 32 GB

You should know that Amazon offers applications that will enable you to read the book on your computer, android pad, android phone, your iPad, and a number of other devices. Just click on one of the links above and browse for a page that will download the application.

Thoughts on Libertarianism

This page includes some thoughts on libertarianism.  It will be initially unorganized because hopefully it will grow  and be rewritten several times.  These are lessons learned from the pages of "The Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph" while and after we lived there.  It was the only newspaper that delivered the truth in its news reporting and its opinions were reserved for the editorial page. 

One experience we had in reference to that was the news of a church bombing in our home city of Birmingham.  When we read the story in the Gazette-Telegraph, we were shocked and immediately called home.  Our relatives and friends reported that what we read there was more accurate than what was reported in the "Birmingham News", the home city newspaper.


The underlying principles(from the  Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) of libertarians are

  1. committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary;
  2. that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others;
  3. that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right;
  4. that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty;
  5. that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty;
  6. that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error;
  7. that governments are bound by essentially the same moral principles as individuals;
  8. and that most existing and historical governments have acted improperly insofar as they have utilized coercion for plunder, aggression, redistribution, and other purposes beyond the protection of individual liberty.
From these fundamental beliefs flow all other beliefs and should be referenced back to these as applications are examined.

Questions and Answers


Can a government, like a state government, or the federal government exist in a libertarian state?  Yes! In fact, the Constitution of the United States (original + the first 10 amendments) contain many of the elements of a contract that could serve as basis of a libertarian state.  Several elements of the constitutions would need significant modifications to conform the the principles.  Most notable is the section giving the power of the government to govern interstate commerce which has been improperly used to pass laws contrary to Principles 1-4 and 6 above.  Additionally, the power of taxation, and the means of financing the expense of the government would need to be examined and replaced.

Socialism, Communism, and Communes.

It is conceivable that contracts of local governments organized along the lines of socialistic and communistic lines can exist within the confines of a libertarian state.  If, for example, a community desires to base its existence on a "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" contract, there is nothing that prevents that community from existing.  Unfortunately, the participants would of necessity negotiate away one or more of the principles above.  Ultimately, the participants must be guaranteed a means of exiting the contract.

Religious Freedom

There is no reason that multiple religions can not co-exist in a libertarian state.  The worship or non worship of a god or gods is permitted as long as principles of Libertarianism are observed.


What kind of general economy can exist in a libertarian state?  Ludwig von Mises suggests that a laissez faire approach (see the Austrian School) is the most appropriate.  Unrestricted capitalism that conforms to the libertarian principles would be the economic engine to build the wealth of the libertarian state.  Capitalism has been responsible for the growth of the wealth for most of its history.  Only in the last century has the attacks of the opposition to capitalism succeeded in calling the capitalistic principle into question.  One must examine those attacks in view of the motivations of those making the attacks.

Foreign Aid

The money, misnamed, is quite often a tribute or bribe.  Almost always, someone opposes payment of a bribe.  Unless all individuals in a libertarian state approve such a tribute or bribe or even true aid, it becomes a violation of principle 7 above, specifically the principle that one person should not take from another without the other's permission.

There should be no restrictions on organizations who wish to aid individuals in other countries if they wish. However, the members of the organizations must realize that such aid to peoples of oppressive governments actually benefit the oppressive government by removing some of their responsibilities and pressures to enhance prosperity by making their people more free.


Progressivism as defined by John Halpin is "Progressivism is an orientation towards politics, It's not a long-standing ideology like liberalism, but an historically-grounded concept... that accepts the world as dynamic." In fact, the history of Progressivism indicates that the objectives that would appear to be good on the surface like "social justice", "free education", "universal health care", "protection of the environment" ... assumes that the government is the agency that can bring bring these objectives into reality.  However, it does it  at the expense of individual liberties and rejection of the capitalist approach.  

To My Young Friends

Please, my young friends, take a few moments and read this. Having been there, I really remember being a teenager and I understand that your concerns are more associated with your preparation for your future and dealing with the natural physical needs of your newfound maturity than what the older generation wants you to know. I remember hating history and studies about government. I didn't think there was anything in them to prepare me for the future. I was wrong! So this is an attempt of an old man to help you avoid the mistakes that older generations have made that have left you the world in the state that you now find. Please read the following statements which I hope will put away for future debate. Others have said these things, and often better, but I am writing this from memory so I will not include references.

"Freedom is not free."

"Those who do not learn history are doomed to repeat it."

"Ineptocracy: a form of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or suceed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers."

"The integrity of the leadership of an organization is soon reflected in all its parts." (eg. IRS, State Department, NSA, Justice Department)

"A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference."

'"If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy."

"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world." (My generation has failed to do this and as a result, may be responsible for the failure of the grand experiment called the republic of the United States of America. Our only hope is that our youth can learn from our mistakes and recover.)

"A wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circlue of our felicities."

"To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

"I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies."

"An armed society is a polite society."

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms."

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks."

If you miss this posting, don't worry, I plan to add to in the future. I welcome any discussions on these items and will produce references if requested.

Two Incidents that say volumes.

Muslims in New York City want to build a Mosque a couple of blocks north of what is called Ground Zero of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.  If you have read the constitution, you should know that they have every right to build it there.  Certainly, there are a number of relatives, friends, and the like, of victims of the attack that do not want the Mosque to be built and they certainly have a right to their feelings and to express them.  President Obama has stated his opinion and reminded us of the constitutional right of the Muslims but does not state his opinion beyond that.

A minister in Florida decides that, in commemoration of the event, he was going to burn the Qur'an, considered by Muslims to be the final revelation of God and a sacred document.  Because of media attention this event gained world wide attention.  Threats of Muslims to murder Americans, soldiers fighting for the freedom other Muslims, Christians ministering to Muslims in need and the like, influenced the administration to have the Secretary of Defense  to ask the minister to cancel his event.  Certainly, it can be argued that the ministers action in scheduling such an event was in bad taste. 


What Difference does it make?

There is a group that makes a pretty convincing argument that the U.S. Constitution is now suspended and has been since 1933.  If what they say is true, our President can institute any health-care system, collect any taxes he wishes, and redistribute our wealth any way he and the elite that support him desires. 

Why then should we support the expense of the Senate, House and Supreme Court?

Note that this is a work in progress.  We, and I invite you to help are in the process or verifying or debunking the first statement. 

Constitutional Authority

Article 1, Section 9: "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public Safety may require it."

5th Amendment: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of  War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be of life, liberty, or property, without of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

History and Time Line

This section includes a time line of events that have caused these clauses to be invoked.

The Law

Title 50, Chapter 33, Sections 1541-48 is the law that, as far as we know, controls the administration of War Powers.  It is also interesting to read the Library of Congress article War Powers Research Help to understand how the act has been applied.

Congressional Report

This report, Senate Report 93-549, supposedly traces the history of the invocation of the War Powers Act back to 1933 and makes the point that we have lived under a dictatorship from 1933 to 1973, when the report was issued. 

Dr. Gene Schroeder et al

This site asks for your action. In the article  War & Emergencies Powers they maintain that we are still without a Constitution.  Although the site appears to be well researched, we need to confirm it with our own research.  The action section containing letters to our President, Senators, and Representatives may need to be revised to be less strident.  For example, such a resolution may not be necessary, but can be introduced and passed to re-affirm the authority of the Constitution.  Such letters will be added to this article later.

Some Questions:

Will the declaration of emergency because of the H1N1 virus be used to seize control the government and remove the illusion that we are operating under a Constitutional Republic? 

Will it be used to put the medical care of every person in the United States under the operation of the government?

Will it be used to bankrupt the U.S. so that a shadow government may be placed in charge?


We are too early in the process to state any conclusions at this time.  The reason we are publishing this at this time is that we believe everyone needs to know of the possibility.  We hope that what we read is false and we are not headed for the demise of the life we have enjoyed and without the Constitution that has provided us the basis of this life. 


We recommend Legal Information Institute of Cornell University for searches associated with the U. S. Code.

The article War & Emergencies Powers originally written by Dr. Gene Schroeder et al appears to be researched very well. However, a part of this project is the verification of that article.

The Library of Congress is also a good source with some advice for doing searches. See above reference.

Who Says the US Government Hasn't Defaulted on its Debt

The following list was taken from the article "Who says the U.S. has never defaulted?" by Larry Edelson, available by clicking on the title. They are listed here in reverse chronological order to show that not only has the U.S. defaulted, it has defaulted in our recent history, and is currently defaulting with each increase in the dollar supply that is made by Bernanke and his crowd.  The source: http://www.uncommonwisdomdaily.com

The United Sates Has Effectively
Defaulted At Least Six Times

Default #6: Ongoing: The Intentional, Further Devaluation of the U.S. Dollar

Despite the euro sovereign debt crisis being out in the open, the dollar is plunging in value against the Swiss franc, as well as the Aussie and Canadian dollars. Plus, it has just plunged to a 17-year low against the Chinese yuan.

This is all part of “Bernanke’s Secret Debt Solution” for the United States. He knows darn well that we can never repay our debts without inflating them away … by devaluing the dollar.

Default #5: Nixon Permanently Severing the Dollar’s Link to Gold

On August 15, 1971, President Nixon abolished the dollar’s link to gold. This was because there had been a run on the dollar in the late 1960s, since the United States was printing far more money than it could possibly back with gold.

So, foreign holders of our dollars wanted their gold, period. Nixon told them to take a hike and permanently severed the dollar’s convertibility into gold.

In effect, it was a 100% devaluation of the dollar. Since 1971, the value of gold has soared from $35 an ounce to today’s roughly $1,600. Which is merely another way of saying that the U.S. dollar has lost an amazing 97.8% of its value since 1971.

Put another way, in 1971, one U.S. dollar would have purchased you 1/35th of an ounce of gold.

Today, one U.S. dollar purchases just 1/1,600th of an ounce of gold.

And put yet another way, for every $1 Uncle Sam borrowed in 1971 that may still be an outstanding debt — he can now pay that debt back now with currency worth 1/1,600th of its former value.

Call it whatever you want, but as far as I’m concerned, that’s an all-out default. In fact, any time the government devalues the purchasing power of its currency, it’s a default, plain and simple.

So even if the government continues to pay its bills, as long as it’s paying them with currency that it plans on being worth less, it’s still a default.

Default #4: The Liberty Bond Default and Gold Devaluation of 1934

The financing of the United States government stepped up to an entirely new level as a result of the cost of World War I. So starting in 1917, Congress issued “Liberty Bonds.”

The last bond issue, October 24, 1918, was a $7 billion, 20-year, 4.25% percent issue, payable in gold at a rate of $20.67 per troy ounce.

By the time Franklin Roosevelt entered office in 1933, the interest payments alone were draining the Treasury of gold. In addition, the country’s total debt had climbed another $18 billion to $22 billion. Yet, the Treasury had only $4.2 billion worth of gold.

Also, during the Depression, Americans were attempting to redeem their dollars for gold and then hoarding that gold like crazy.

End result: President Roosevelt decided to default on the domestically-held debt by refusing to redeem dollars in gold and, instead, confiscating gold and then devaluing the dollar by 40%, which was essentially also a default on America’s trade partners.

Default #3: The Greenback Default of 1862

In August 1861, to fund the Civil War, Congress created a new currency which became known as the “greenback” due to the green color of its ink.

The original greenbacks were $60 million in demand notes in denominations of $5, $10, and $20 — redeemable at any time at a rate of 0.048375 troy ounces of gold per dollar.

But in January 1862, only five months later, the U.S. Treasury defaulted by refusing to redeem them on demand.

Later, the Treasury issued “greenbacks as non-redeemable legal-tender.” They traded hands at discounts from the original greenbacks of as much as 40%.

In effect, the currency was devalued by as much as 60% to finance the Civil War.

Default #2: The Default of 1790

In addition to its currency issuance, the Continental Congress borrowed money both domestically and abroad. The domestic debt totaled approximately $11 million Spanish dollars. The interest on this debt was paid primarily by money received from France and Holland as part of separate borrowings.

When foreign lending dried up, Congress defaulted on its domestic debt starting on March 1, 1782 — by refusing to pay and, instead, accepting the notes for payments of taxes.

By 1790, Congress repudiated these loans entirely.

Default #1: The Continental Currency Default of 1779

Largely to fund the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress of 1775 issued notes totaling 241 million Spanish milled dollars over roughly a two-year period.

They were the first of the so-called “Continental dollars.” But since Congress had no power of taxation, it made each of the then-13 states responsible for paying them off, prorated based on their population.

But the states couldn’t pay them off. So in November 1779, Congress agreed to redeem the notes — with currency worth less than 1/38th the Continental’s original value.

Why Obama Won

Obama Wins!

The Takers, and Progressives give Obama a win in the election of 2012.

The political pundits are stumbling over each other trying to determine what Romney did wrong, or listing things he should have done to win the election. This writer believes that there is nothing he could do. Only three commentators have touched on the real problem. O'Reilly says that our population “Wants Stuff”, Krauthammer says “the argument, basically, to boil it down, it's the givers and takers”, and Limbaugh says “You can't win against Santa Clause”. Romney's loss should not be characterized in terms of the Hispanic, Black, Youth, Sex, and White votes. It should be characterized in terms of Producers, Takers, and Progressives.

With the help of churches, which refused to take a stand against Obama regarding their right contained in Amendment 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America, the Universities, whose professors ignore basic human rights in order to promote their own liberal agenda, the youth who yet have had to really work for their living, and campaign workers who cast truth aside, the Takers and Progressives, who now constitute over 50% of the U.S. Electorate combined to have Obama is returned to office for another 4 years. The job now is honestly identifying the voters in those terms rather than meekly, in the name of political correctness, identifying other divisions.

Venn Diagram
The Venn diagram represents the voters in the 2012 election in terms of the types of voters, Takers, Progressives and Producers. Yellow represents the Takers, Red, the Progressives, and Green the producers. Orange represents those who are both Takers and Producers, Light Green represents Takers and Producers, Dark Orange is Progressives and Producers, and White represents all three.

Examples of Each

How do we identify them?

Producers (green)

The Producers are the life blood of the capitalistic economic system. They include everyone who is contributing to sustaining and improving the life of others with their own resources. The lowest paid janitor, garbage man, and factory worker to the housewife, honest journalist, teacher, entrepreneur trying to start a business, plant supervisor, manager, CEO and billionaire business investor are all included in this group. By default, retired people who have contributed to plans like Social Security, IRAs, or just banked or invested their money during their productive years and are now living on those funds are also included in the Producers.

The Takers (yellow)

The Takers are those who believe that life owes them something. They include people that are receiving more from the government, and charitable organizations that their net contribution to the well being of others. Government employees, other than the military, generally fall into this group. Even though Government employees generally mean well, they do not realize that their efforts cost as much as 75% of the funding resources, usually tax, that is paid by the taxpayers leaving only 25% which goes to the people and programs for which they are intended. It should be noted that charitable organizations and foundations usually do better, about 50% or more.

The Progressives (red)

The progressives, because of their wealth, education, family, or station in life, believe that they are the ones that should control the lives of others. This includes but is not limited to, what you eat, how much you can make, how much medical care you can receive, what you can say, where you can live, how big your family is, who can be born, and how much of your resources belong to the government. Prominent in that list are the Obamas, the Clintons, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Valarie Jarrett, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and many others that make politics their careers. They often follow the teachings of Karl Marx and Mao who reject capitalistic principles along with many of the Judao-Christian teachings. They generally believe that the ends justify the means, that from those according to their ability, to those according to their need. They seek equality by the redistribution of wealth without consideration of the source of that wealth. Another phrase that identifies them from the Johnson era is “Take from the haves, and give to the have-nots”. And of course, they feel justified to skim some from the redistribution to take million dollar vacations and retire to homes at the expense of those from the wealth was taken. They typically recast meaning of words like investment (the outlay of money for income or profit) to mean outlay of taxpayer money to accomplish some progressive objective, like the Federal Governments “Investment” in “Green Energy”, or education, or Health-care. If a producer thought green energy could be produced to compete with carbon based energy, entrepreneurs would have invested their own resources in bringing it to market without using taxpayer money. The best health-care system, even with its problems and high cost resulted from producers in the health-care arena, not the government.

The Progressive-Takers (orange)

As the name suggests, the Progressive-Takers, are those that believe they are owed something they didn't earn but have the power to control the lives of others. Union Leaders who produce absolutely nothing, but as their vocation strive to increase benefits of organized Takers are a part of this group.

The Progressive-Producers (white)

One would think that there are few of those. Unfortunately, it appears that many successful producers, once they have made it big, believe that they should take Progressive positions. This includes Mitt Romney, and many Republican leaders who have compromised away many of their principles to remain in office. Almost all leaders tend to forget the effect on freedom when considering apparently laudable projects like Social Security, Medicare, welfare programs, education, local emergencies (hurricanes, floods, and the like). Even projects that attack problems associated with parts of the economy that have been successfully served by capitalistic enterprises like health-care. One only needs to look at the projected costs and results of the Affordable Health-Care law critically to understand the freedoms that U.S. Citizens have lost. And they include not only the costs, but also the freedoms.

Governing what insurance companies can and can't cover will necessarily raise the rates paid by all subscribers. And, of course, the government under this program has the authority to establish its own insurance company to compete with the private ones. And, it is obvious that a government “company”, which isn't required to make a profit, pay taxes, and has the taxpayer to underwrite, can charge lower rates, and run the private companies out of business quickly to establish a government monopoly which can raise rates to cover the costs of a “Post Office” like “Company”.

What can we do?

Probably very little. But something will be done. Producers and investors alike are getting the message. The more they produce, the more will be taken from them and redistributed. They answer by producing less and hiring fewer people to help them. Some, in their self interest will join the takers or the progressives. One can hope that the United States will establish some equilibrium like many of the European nations but at some point the takers will decide to take everything the producers have and revolution will ensue where the takers are fighting each other for what is left. Our government is already taking steps to raise energy rates by regulating the carbon fuel companies out of business. Once coal is too expensive, the government will go after oil. Electric cars are already out there, but nobody seems to recognize that an electric car has a larger energy footprint that a conventional petroleum powered car.

In order to turn this situation around, the takers will need to be educated about the capitalistic system and its advantages. Our government schools cannot be trusted to do that. That is evidenced by the programs that are now being taught and the attitudes of the teachers that profit is a bad thing, that the government is the ultimate arbiter of distribution of wealth, and that the progressives, who believe that good things should be done but with other people's money, are the true leaders of a culture. Teachers that know and teach propaganda rather than the truth and how to learn.

The Best Bet

Probably go to a third world country where work is still recognized as a valuable commodity. Costa Rica was, when we visited there. One evidence, at least to me, was the condition of the airport terminal in San Jose. I'm sure the janitors there were at the bottom of the pay scale there, but they kept the terminal spotless. People there did things to earn money, even if it was just to keep an eye on your car to keep it from being damaged.

Why rulers aren't made of rubber.

Caitlyn is, what, 5' 9"? Our standards bureau sets a standard of measure with a physical device that is temperature controlled to reduce its changing due to temperature. What would happen if we changed the relation of a foot to inches from 12" per foot to 10" per foot today. Now she would be 6' 9", a foot taller than she was yesterday. Dumb, right. But no more dumb than what follows.

The administration and the media is celebrating the fact that our GDP grew by 3.5%.  This signifies that "the Stimulus is working", "we are backing away from the brink", "we can and have done it". But we used the dollar as a measure. You CANNOT use a variable measure to measure anything except to mislead a large group of people. If we use the purchasing power of the 2005 dollar as a standard we find that the GDP is DOWN from $13,324.6 at the same time (end of third quarter) in 2008 to $13,014 in 2009. That is down 2.3% not up 3.5%.

Why? This reflects the early stages of the inflation caused by the printing of un-backed money by the Fed. Check out "What is a dollar"
Admittedly it is up from $12,901.5 at the end of the second quarter. But even that is only less than 0.9% increase.

And in January 2010 the administration is still talking about the growth of our GDB,  Our advice is to subtract the inflation rate of January, which is 2.6%, from any of the glowing reports from the administration and the media.  Even though FOX is pretty good at being "Fair and Balanced" their economic reporting, except rarely, ignores the fact that the Federal Reserve continues to dilute the value of the dollar by increasing the supply without any real wealth being created and how it effects other economic news.


Would you buy a new car this way?

I just went to my friendly GM (Government Motors) dealer to buy a new SUV to replace the one I bought 5 years ago.  The one I had was fine for a family car but since I used it in by business, I needed to upgrade it for image sake.  I selected one that both satisfied my requirements and had some additional features that had been introduced since I last purchased a car. 

"No problem", said my friendly salesman.

Sure enough, at least from his standpoint there was no problem.

"Sounds good", I replied, "but I cannot afford the additional amount in the payments".

"Have I got a deal for you.  Just sign this contract to extend your current payments for an additional 6 years beyond your current contract at the same payment rate and you can have that SUV." 

That sounded good and the salesman printed the contract for me to sign.  But having worked with contracts for many years I have learned to read them before I signed.  It seemed like a pretty standard contract except in the section labeled  special provisions, a sentence caught my eye that read "The contract includes by reference the document GM-2010, "Provisions for Extended Payment Plan"".  I asked my friendly saleman if I could review GM-2010 before I signed it. 

"You don't need to", he replied,  "It just contains the standard legalese."

At this point, I wondered if he was hiding something. So I pressed on, to the extent that I got up to leave.

"Let me check with the sales manager."  the saleman reluctantly said rising.

The sales manager came over and told me, "We do not have the exact text for GM-2010 yet but will have it before you take delivery of the car."

"OK", I replied, "but can you tell me what is supposed to be in GM-2010?"

After making it almost to the door on my way out and not signing the contract, the dealer manager caught me to explain what was supposed to be in the document. 

"In order for GM to be able to provide you with the SUV that you want at the price that you want, we have instituted the program covered in GM-2010.  In short, you start making payments on your new SUV now but will not receive delivery on it until 3 years from your contract date."

"But I was going to trade in my old SUV. What am I to drive until I get the new one?" 

Manager, "Oh, you can keep your old SUV. But you would have to make the remaining payments."

After I walked out the door, I wondered how many people have or would sign up for such a deal. 

Now, I am amazed at how many people are supporting the Health Reform Bill that has been passed by the House of Representatives and am even more amazed that the Senate has passed a similar bill.

You may be a progressive if:

You believe the government can manage your health care better than you can.

You believe that the government can manage corporations (like General Motors, Chrysler) better than the stock holders.

You believe that profit is evil, that the rich (often retirees, retirement funds, and the elderly) should not profit from their investments that provide new jobs to our citizens.

You believe that security is more important than freedom.

You believe that the "Declaration of Independence" and "Constitution of the United States" are outdated and no longer applicable.

You believe that Social Justice means that the government should take from one group of people and give to another.  Like from the rich to the poor, one geographic area (states with surpluses) to other geographic areas (New York, California)

You believe that the government has the right to transfer ownership of property from one person or group to another person or group. Like from an individual who pays little taxes to a corporation who pays, or promises to pay more taxes. Or like from investors in a company (Chrysler comes to mind) to the union.

You believe that capitalism has failed because 10% of our employees are currently unemployed instead of the natural reaction of insecure employers to the effects of a very complicated health care program and other government programs.

You believe that the answer to the housing problem caused by giving loans to people to buy homes that could not pay them back is to give more loans to people who cannot pay them back.

You believe that the form of government instituted by our founders is a democracy.

Protect our children

I can’t take credit for the following for I was unable to find the post of the originator. It was the first that used a combination of proven techniques rather than promoting only one.

1. Install metal detectors at only entrances that are open for entry. Other doors will be one way out in case of fire or like emergencies. They could be used as exits as long as no one is permitted to enter by an armed monitor. This method has more than proved itself at airports and other venues.

2. Allow trained armed “monitors” to patrol the grounds. These monitors may be hired ex-military or volunteers with firearm safety and use training. I’m sure the NRA, who has ready made courses, would make them available.

3. Allow, not require, qualified teachers to carry concealed weapons. Teachers opposed to weapons would not be required to have one.

4. For emergency drills, secretly randomize the locations of armed personnel.

5. Practice active shooter situations in combination with other drills. Note that part of the success of the shooter in Parkland was due to the confusion of the fire alarm.

6. Advertise the fact that there are armed personnel on the school grounds. Cowards avoid hardened targets.

Because there are so many weapons available, and evil persons always seem to find a way to get them, these measures can be implemented the quickest. Where more work needs to be done regarding who can purchase a weapon and what weapons are available and the Federal Government is necessarily slow in passing laws and implementing them, new laws are not necessary to implement the recommendations above.

An FB friend used cost as an argument against the above actions. Thanks for your estimate.

“My relatively small school has 7 different outside doors, that I can think of off the top of my head. Where is the money coming from to hire armed monitors for all of these doors? And again, mine is a small school out of the hundred and forty three in Gwinnett County, I imagine a high school has twice as many access points. 143 schools times an average of 10 doors, times $7.25 (GA minimum wage) times 7 school hours a day, times 180 school days = $13,063,050 for one county in one state.?? Even though there's a sign on the others that says "All visitors must sign in at front office" the kind of person who's coming in to shoot people is not the kind to sign in at the front doors. You can tell students they're exit only, but all it takes is one child letting someone else in the door because they are friend or neighbor or relative.

Using your cost estimate, that would be about $80 per student per year. If families don’t want to pay that for their child’s safety, should they really have children?”

My response: Using your cost estimate, that would be about $80 per student per year. If families don’t want to pay that for their child’s safety, should they really have children?

An advantage of local financing, in this case Gwinnett County, is that citizens there can determine what kind of security they want. If we leave it up to the Federal Government we will get a one-size fits all plan and pay the 75% overhead for its implementation.