The Failure Factory
I have just finished reading this excellent book written by Bill Gertz, defense and national security reporter for the Washington Times. The premise of the book is how the bureaucracy, unelected political appointments within the federal government, are subverting, even destroying, the national policy, the rule of law, and the Constitution of the United States. I highly recommend this book to everyone.
In my last blog, "The Obama administration, Democrats, Justice Department, and the Black Panthers," I described how unelected officials in the Justice Department subverted the laws of the United States when they dismissed the case against members of the New Black Panther Party charged with voter intimidation. We do not know whether the final decision was made in the White House or the Justice Department. What we do know was that a bureaucrat in the Justice Department was confirmed as the person who ordered the dismissal.
The Justice Department, in collusion with the State Department in the Obama administration, has been overtly soft on terrorism. The decision to try the 9/11 conspirators in criminal court in the U.S., the push to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, the refusal to use interrogation techniques on captured terrorists, the decision to treat terrorism as a "law enforcement" problem, and the decision to immediately give constitutional rights reserved for U.S. citizens to captured terrorists are but a few of the circumstances in which these bureaucrats were instrumental.
The State Department has been infested with Progressives over many years. They adopted appeasement as policy in foreign affairs and in their approach to dealing with Islamic terrorism. They have been operating under the false assumption that the percentage of Islamic radicals who want to destroy the U.S. and western values is a small percentage. Nothing could be more misguided, but that doesn't align with the Progressive agenda -- blame America first.
The ultra-liberals waged a war with the Reagan agenda and tried to undercut his policy decisions at every turn. Colin Powell was one of the worst offenders. As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, he advocated weak military policy in dealing with the threat of Islam in the early years of their radicalization. While it is true that he presided over a successful operation against Saddam Husein's invasion of Kuwait, the policy he advocated to then President George H.W. Bush left Saddam in power, resulting in the war we have been waging in Iraq for the past eight years. The threat of weapons of mass destruction controversy in Iraq is a side issue used to distract by the Progressives; every responsible intelligence service in the world believed they were there. If the State Department had not opposed increasing our intelligence capabilities, especially human intelligence, that misjudgment might not have been made.
In his role as Secretary of State, he and the bureaucrats in the upper levels of the department did everything they could to undermine policy set by President George W. Bush and the Congress. Powell was a RINO (Republican in name only) and consistently opposed a firm stance against America's enemies. I find it hard to believe that he allowed himself to be led around by these radical bureaucrats. They continued advocating appeasement in dealing with international terrorism and their sponsors, Iran, Syria, and North Korea and now Yemen.
The Defense Department, and Secretary Gates, have failed miserably in understanding the grave threat that Islam poses. Anyone who disagreed with their Progressive agenda has either been purged or forced underground. As a result, we have let the international community dictate our military policy, right down to the rules of engagement for our armed forces. They have their strongest supporter in President Obama.
President Obama, with the urging and advice of the State Department, continues to underestimate the danger posed by China and a resurgent Russia to our national interests.
This book will really open your eyes as to how much damage these bureaucrats have done to our national interest. I, again, urge everyone to read it.
The Obama Administration, Democrats, Justice Department and the Black Panthers
The failure or refusal of the Justice Department and the Obama Administration to prosecute members of the Black Panther domestic terrorist group for voter intimidation in 2008 and 2009 indicates just how truly corrupt they are. The Justice Department made a conscious decision to drop voter intimidation charges against members of the New Black Panther Party. The Attorney General, rather than stand up and take the heat, blamed it on career employees in the department. Bureaucrats are guilty of many decisions that undercut policy and laws of the U.S. but this stinks to high heaven.
Two members of the New Black Panthers were videotaped with one carrying a weapon and both reportedly using racially explosive language outside a Philadelphia polling place on election day 2008. Prosecution of these two individuals would have led to almost certain conviction. There is enough talk about race throughout the country, especially by liberals calling people with whom they disagree racists, without letting obvious racial intimidation go unpunished. The Panthers actions had the same effect as a Klu Klux Klan rally outside a primarily black polling place would have had. The attorneys for the two members charged have refused to respond to requests to answer to the charges.
The Washington Times, in an editorial, suggests that the White House itself interfered in the case. The Justice Department has stonewalled all outside inquiries into the case. The top Justice Department political employee, Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, has been identified as the person who approved the decision not to prosecute. Coincidentally, Perrelli consulted with key White House lawyers in person at exactly the time the Black Panther decisions were being made, while he has had little contact with the White House any other time. The Justice Department refused to respond to inquiries by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concerning Perrelli's involvement.
During the time of the decision-making period last spring, two Justice Department officials, Ms.King, acting assistant attorney general, and Mr. Rosenbaum, acting deputy, both opposed going forward with the case. Ms. King has been sanctioned by federal courts for misconduct twice and the two officials had not worked on voting cases since the mid-1990s. Ms. King is best known for her decission that refused to let the majority-black town of Kinston, N.C., hold nonpartisan municipal elections, ruling that the town's blacks were too ignorant to know how to cast their votes if the Democratic Party label was not on the ballot. Mr. Rosenbaum has a history of working closely with President Obama and he led the Justice Department in intervening on behalf of ACORN in a voting rights case in Illinois. Obama was one of the lead attorneys in that case. According to numerous Justice officials, Mr. Perrelli was consulted and ultimately approved the decision for leniency with regard to the Black Panthers. Perrelli raised more than $500,000 for Obama's presidential election. He also served as editor at the Harvard Law Review while Obama was the publication's president.
The Washington Times also reports that the Obama White House and the Democrats are tied politically to the New Black Panther Party, in spite of the fact that they have been identified as a hate group by several left-wing organizations and have been denounced by remnants of the original Black Panther Party. In 2008, the official Obama campaign website featured a page highlighting the endorsement by the New Black Panther Party. One of the members originally charged, Mr. Jackson, held credentials to be an official Democratic Party poll watcher and was an elected member of Philadelphia's 14th Ward Democratic Committee. The charges against him were dropped just in time for him to serve as an official Democratic poll watcher in Philadelphia's municipal elections.
In a farewell address to his Civil Rights Division colleagues before being exiled to a South Carolina office and ordered not to comply with a subpoena from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Mr. Coates was reported as saying that the division's focus under Obama is at risk of " enforcing the Voting Rights Act in a racially biased fashion and turning a blind eye whenever incidents arise that indicate that minority persons have acted improperly in voting matters." This should be obvious from the numerous problems well documented by the criminal enterprise Acorn.
It would appear that the New Black Panther Party has joined ACORN, SEIU, labor unions, and other radical, corrupt organizations with friends in the White House, including the President of the United States.
Rep. Frank R. Wolf of Virginia, a senior Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, asked the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General to investigate "potential improprieties" in the department's dismissal of a civil complaint brought against the New Black Panther Party after its members participated in the disruption at polling places described above.
Rep Wolf is quoted as saying he was "disappointed" in Mr. Fine's "reluctance to investigate the unfounded dismissal of an important voter intimidation case," adding that despite repeated requests for information by members of Congress, the press and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, the Justice Department "continues to stonewall all efforts to obtain information regarding the cases abrupt dismissal." He continued, "This obstruction should be of great concern to you and merit an immediate investigation. Given that the neither the Congress nor the commission can obtain critical information from the department, your authority as inspector general is the only way to learn whether the department has engaged in improper conduct with regard to the dismissal of this case and its hostility to the commissions statutory authorities and responsibilities."
In response to Wolf's and Rep. Lamar Smith's,Texas Republican, inquiries into the dismissal, New Black Panther Party leader Malik Zulu Shabazz has been quoted as issuing the following threatening comment in a statement he issued that said: "These right-wing white, red-faced, red-neck Republicans are attacking the hell out of the New Black Panther Party, and were organizing now to fight back ... We gearing up for a showdown with this cracker ... He keep talking -- we going to Capitol Hill, were just gearing up right now, well go to Capitol Hill."
Seven months later, Mr Wolf still has not received a response from te Justice Department.Mr. Wolf said he believed Justice Department officials involved in the dismissal had engaged in "activities that are an abuse of power, a blatant violation of voting rights enforcement, and potentially even defrauding of members of Congress and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights by obstructing legitimate investigations of this matter.
What is wrong with the democratic party?
The Democratic Party appears to be hell-bent on self destruction. They have allowed the Progressives, with their Marxist radical agenda, to infiltrate and take them over. The Democratic Party is the longest surviving political party in the country, dating back to the founding, once inspired by the principles held by Thomas Jefferson and other true patriots. In 1792, followers of Jefferson adopted the name Republican to emphasize their views opposing centralization of power, then became the Democratic-Republican Party. The Jeffersonian Republicans advocated a decentralized government with limited powers, a far cry from today's Democratic Party. The Democratic Party, as a party distinct from the Democratic-Republicans, took hold supporting the beliefs and ambitions of Andrew Jackson. Had Jackson's ideas and ambitions not appealed to many Americans in the 1820s and '30s, the Democratic Party would not have formed around him.
They were the most important party in U.S. history and dominated American politics between 1828 and 1860, then again between 1932 and 2000. Their ideology could have originally been summarized as follows:
Society must have laws that the majority of people support and accept.
Dissenting minorities are protected and have the right to have an opinion different from the majority.
The people rule and thus, the people elect government.
Government should respect and protect individual rights.
Government should also respect and protect individual freedoms.
Civil liberties must be guaranteed for all citizens by the government.
Government must work for the common good.
In today's Democratic Party, it would be hard to find any evidence that they are abiding by these principles. Most, if not all, of these beliefs are embedded in our Constitution, yet today's Democrats have ran far away from these principles. The laws being passed in Congress and signed by the president shred the intent and meaning of the Constitution and have little regard for the individual rights or welfare of the people.
Since the 1880s, every president and every person serving in Congress has taken this oath:
"I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purposes of evasion; and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter; so help me God."
In passing and affirming unconstitutional laws, in usurping powers reserved to the States, in appropriating public money for state and local handouts, and a long list of other actions not included in the Constitution, few, if any, of those serving in Congress or the administration have lived up to their oath of office but rather, have violated that oath and committed treason against the American people. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi put it succinctly when she was asked by a reporter if the health care bill they were considering was constitutional. Her reply, "Are you serious? Are you serious?" Their crimes against the people are fully documented by their names on the legislation they introduced, cosponsored, or signed.
In view of the actions taken by this corrupt Democratic Congress and administration and their obvious abandonment of constitutional principle, the rule of law, and their failure to perform in the best interest of the people, it is time to add them to the huge roll of the unemployed. If the Democratic Party does not purge itself of these radical Progressives, it is doomed to eventual distinction.
"Now, back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But, he said, under the name of Liberalism, the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program...this threat is with us, and at the moment is more imminent." RONALD REAGAN.
____________________________________________________________________________________
The recent election in the most Democratic state, Massachusetts, is the strongest indication of just how far the Democrats are out of touch with the American people. Obama's, Pelosi's, and Reid's big government agenda turned Massachusetts into a swing state and the Independents controlled the outcome of the election.
With the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, there are some indications that the Democrats still don't see the handwriting on the wall. President Obama and the leaders in Congress are searching for a way to salvage the takeover of the health care system. They are looking for ways to scale back the current bills or by passing parts of it through underhanded procedural options such as reconciliation. The Election of Sen. Brown should have told them, if they didn't already know, that the American people want no part of anything presently before the Congress. The people do want health care reform, but not a government run or controlled system resulting in higher taxes and declining quality of care. They keep on saying that the way to go is to put more people in the Medicare system. Medicare is bankrupt and the government owes trillions that they have wrongfully appropriated from Medicare tax receipts. Adding more people to a bankrupt system is just about as stupid as one can get.
President Obama mistook the mandate he was given as unlimited. Instead, he was given a limited mandate to heal the widening breach between the two parties and to restore trust in government through transparency. Rather than abiding by his campaign rhetoric, he and the Democrats in Congress have foisted off a radical agenda that is not supported by the people. They have stifled debate and bullied the moderate members of their own party. They, and the liberal media, mock the tea party movement and conservatives but that is where the majority of support among the American people exists.
Americans are fed up with the bribes and secret meetings that the Democrats have participated in to get a fundamentally flawed health care bill as far as it has come. Dishonesty and corruption in the Democratic leadership are precisely why so many citizens are mad and why congressional approval ratings are lower than leprosy. Obama and the stupid Democrats are still blaming George Bush for the problems in the health care system and the distaste in the public. Are they ignorant or so possessed by the Progressive agenda that they can't see what is going to happen to them. It reminds one of a circular firing squad. If they insist on continuing their highly unpopular agenda, they might as well start packing before the November elections.
Does the two party system work in America?
In all the recent polls, the number of people who prefer the Tea Party Movement to either the Democrats or Republicans is astounding. Americans aren't facing simply an economic crisis, they are facing a crisis of confidence. Political Independents, for the first time in history, now outnumber Republicans and Democrats. The sad fact is that we don't just lack confidence in our financial system, the stock market, and politicians, we have come to lack confidence in ourselves.
President Ronald Reagan saw America as a "shining city on a hill" that raised the hopes of everyone. He did not ask us to trust him, he asked us to trust ourselves. The current administration and Congress' vision of America is that of an all-powerful, socialistic, welfare state where government is the answer to everything. Government is not, and never has been, the solution to anything. Our elected representatives seem to care less about what their constituents think or want. Government is the problem!
Independents generally tend to be mostly fiscal conservative and social moderates. The neither adhere to the rigid conservatism of the far-right nor the ultra-liberal agenda of the far-left. They generally remain in the center-right of the political spectrum, as does the majority of Americans. Those who identify themselves as Republicans or Democrats have both moved to the left of center.
Independents generally believe in the Jeffersonian principles of a Federal Republic, united among the several States, in the principles espoused in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Any power the federal government possesses is derived from the consent of the people and is limited to those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and nothing more. They abhor the seizure of power away from the States and the people by the administration, the Congress, the federal bureaucracy, and the federal courts. The principles on which this country was founded, laid down by the Founding Fathers, and the intent of the people who ratified the Constitution, are still revered by those with the best interests of our country.
The United States was founded on the constitutional principles of freedom and liberty, limited government, low taxes, religious freedom, and personal responsibility. These principles were also the foundation of the Conservative movement, though those who call themselves Conservatives have strayed away. They have supported some expansions of power by the federal government, restricting freedom and liberty, resulting in increased tax burdens on the people. Not only Conservatives, but a great number have abandoned the concept of personal responsibility.
The Democratic Party is a broken party that has been co-opted by the Progressive movement. They have no principles, have aligned themselves with criminal enterprises such as ACORN and SEIU. The stand for nothing more than big government, big spending, and massive intrusion into the freedoms of the individual. Their prospects for future success, other than in bastions of liberal thinking, is limited by their own actions.
The Republican Party came into being around the time of Abraham Lincoln, though he surely did not adopt all conservative principles. Their ideology could be summarized as follows:
To protect and abide by the Constitution.
To maintain a strong national defense and secure our borders.
To keep taxes low and reduce the size of government.
To balance the budget and be fiscally responsible.
To advocate individual freedom, responsibility, and privacy.
To advocate free enterprise and property rights.
To promote social issues and traditional values.
To freely educate the citizens about their heritage.
To protect the unborn.
Instead of promoting these principles today, many have supported the expansion of federal power into many aspects of American life, education, energy, abortion, compassion for criminals - including illegal aliens, unconstitutional use of public money, and other measures in compromise with the political left to help them in their reelection bids.
It would appear that the Washington Republicans, judging from numerous comments on the election of Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts, have still not learned their lesson. They seem to interpret Mr. Brown's election as a victory for the Republican Party. Nothing could be farther than the truth. Scott Brown aligned himself strongly with Independent voters. He ran under the Republican banner because of the broken two-party system we have today. His ideology and the way he ran his campaign are reminiscent of the tea party movement, which the Republican Party, it seems, would rather ignore than embrace as allies.
Former Republican leader Dick Armey, chairman of FreedomWorks, a national grass-roots organization dedicated to lower taxes, less government, and more freedom, in a column in the Washington Times, said, "If the Republican Party wants to find its way out of the wilderness this year, it will need to live up to its promises of limited government, embrace the tea party movement and allow the movement to set the agenda." In referring back to the Republican takeover in 1994, he surmised, "two of the three components from the '94 Republican Revolution are in place. President Obama is a disappointment to his base and independents. They were looking for change, not new government programs for every problem. Democrats have also failed on policy and own the calamitous stimulus packages and trillion-dollar deficits. Democratic leadership has no credibility on fiscal issues - and the hostile government takeover of health care has been rejected by the electorate."
In a related story in The Washington Times, "Leading figures in the burgeoning 'tea party' movement complain they are being ignored by the Republican National Committee, despite having already shown their clout in taking down moderate Republicans in a New York special House race and the Florida Republican Party hierarchy." Dale Robertson, head of TeaParty.org, which has upwards of 7 million members, said, "I have called the RNC many times, and they still haven't called me back. I've called them, lots of times. I called them this morning. I called them yesterday. It's like they ignore you as they try to figure out a strategy on how to defeat you."
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich told The Washington Times, "It's important for Republicans to recognize they can only be a majority if they find a way to absorb the tea party movement and absorb the anger against Washington and against big government. That's the only way Republicans can prosper in the next few years.
Tea Party leaders say they want more than just talk. They want conservative candidates who oppose big government, higher taxes, illegal immigration, and massive deficit spending. These are the reasons Scott Brown won in Massachusetts. Mr. Robertson said, "We're not going to join them. They need to join us."
Eric Odom, founder of the political action committee, Liberty First PAC, and helped in organizing the first tea party protest declared, "It's time to take control." Matt Kibbe, president of FreedomWorks said, "We should take over the GOP."
If the Republican Party does not get off its high-horse and join with the tea party movement, there is a real possibility that a third party will emerge, larger than either the Republicans or Democrats, and that might not be a bad thing. Both existing parties are disfunctional and, if they don't fix themselves, they will be replaced.
Corruption at the highest level of government
During the Bush administration, regulations were implemented that made union activities more open and transparent to the public and to regulators. LM2 forms were required of unions, and as a result of reporting, the president of the largest Service Employees International Union (SEIU) local in the country, former Los Angeles local member Tyrone Freeman resigned after the Los Angeles Times revealed that he had fleeced fellow union members, who make about $9 per hour, out of over $1 million in 2006 and 2007 alone.
The Obama administration has now moved to gut the rules under which Freeman's theft was discovered. Union officials did nothing to protect the dues paid by their members. According to the L.A. Times, SEIU national president Andy Stern had been made aware of Freeman's activities repeatedly since 2001, but declined to do anything. The Washington Times reported, "The Labor Department also is rescinding another key labor financial disclosure regulation. The expansion of the so-called LM-2 rule, approved during the last days of the Bush administration, requiring unions to report more information about finances and labor leaders' compensation on annual reports."
"The Labor Department noted in a recent disclosure that 'it would not be a good use of resources to bring enforcement actions against union officials who do not comply with conflict of interest rules passed in 2007.'" The regulation, the LM-30 rule, was at the heart of the lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO against the Labor Department in 2008. One of the attorneys in the case, Deborah Greenfield, is now a high-ranking deputy at the Labor Department. She also worked on the Obama transition team.
The SEIU has a long history of close relations with the Democratic Party, and most recently, with the Obama administration. They have funneled millions into the democratic campaign coffers. They are also closely tied, and a major contributor to the criminal enterprise ACORN. They had a significant presence in the demonstrations staged by the "muscle for money" offshoot of ACORN in the intimidation of AIG executives over bonuses that were due and paid legally by insertion of a last minute amendment to the stimulus bill by Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut.
Though the numerous labor unions' number one priority, Card Check, has stalled in Congress, Obama has made up for it in a number of appointments and Executive Orders and Memoranda. One of his first steps was to appoint Wilme B. Liebman, a former Teamsters Union lawyer, to chair the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). He has since appointed a number of union loyalists to top jobs in the Labor Department and to the NLRB.
In April, he appointed SEIU lawyer Craig Becker and pro-union labor lawyer Mark Gaston Pearce to fill vacancies on the five-member NLRB, whose job it is to oversee laws governing relations between unions and employers. Pro-union attorneys now make up the majority of the NLRB.
Another of Obama's first moves was to suspend the pilot program allowing Mexican truckers to deliver goods inside the U.S. The participation by Mexican truckers is included in the North American Free Trade Agreement, a Treaty that has the force of law and, as such, is a constitutional requirement.
In short, Obama is paying back the various unions for their support to the detriment of business and industry.
Second Amendment Gun Rights, Progressives, and the United Nations
There is a movement afoot to cede our constitutional Second Amendment gun rights to the United Nations by the self-described early 20th century progressive Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration. The below link to the article posted on GunRights.org describes what is going on.
In my opinion, this is a treaty that requires Senate ratification. Any Senator who votes in favor of this treaty should be drummed out of office, regardless of your own opinion concerning gun rights.
In addition, this is unconstitutional, since no treaty can be made that strips us of our constitutional rights or is in conflict with the Constitution itself.
What can be done about the deficit?
President Obama has pledged to reduce the deficit created by the out-of-control spending by the Congress and his administration by 50 percent. The Fiscal Year 2009 surpassed $2 trillion, three times that of 2008, though the Bush administration created deficits that were not fiscally sound. How does he intend to accomplish this? There are only three ways to reduce the deficit that I am aware of.
1. CUT SPENDING: We have seen absolutely no desire to cut spending in any fashion. And, in fact, Congress and the president are now planning to increase spending and the deficit by over $1 trillion over the next 10 years to finance the health-care bill now being finalized in Congress. The cost estimate comes from the Congressional Budget Office, who has been notorious for low projections. Any cuts in spending would require reduction of existing programs or scaling back the massive spending increase for the current year.
Since a small fraction of the $700 billion stimulus money has actually been spent, and the banks are now repaying their loans, why not return the remainder to the Treasury to reduce the deficit, rather than keeping it around as a slush fund to be spent at will. It would appear that once Congress and the administration get their greedy little hands on tax dollars, they are extremely reluctant to give them back to the people.
There is much controversy over what we see taking place in the seemingly rebound of the economy as to whether it was caused by the stimulus dollars or simply the normal economic cycle adjusting to the market. Economists differ substantially on the answer and those who credit the stimulus are generally those who favor government intervention. The high unemployment rate would seem to refute the effects of the stimulus.
2. RAISE TAXES: Any politician, other than apparently the Progressive Congress, who votes to raise taxes on any group, person, small business, corporate, excise tax, etc. knows that that is the best way to get sent home without a job at the next election cycle. The amount of a tax increase to cut the deficit in half, without spending cuts, would place such a heavy burden on the American people as to be oppressive. That's how the Boston Tea Party got started.
The idea that the cost of all this massive spending can be borne by the top few, those who have an income over $250,000, is ridiculous. The top 1 percent of taxpayers already pay an amount approaching 50 percent of federal revenue. These are the very people who create the new jobs that keep our economy growing.
3. INFLATION: What causes inflation? When the supply of money in circulation increases, relative to the rest of the world's currencies, the dollar declines in buying power, especially since the economies of the world are now so closely intertwined. Typically, the cost of goods and services increases faster than wages, therefore, it takes a higher percentage of your income to buy anything. We saw the devastating effect of rampant inflation during the 1970s.
On top of rising prices, you are hit with the double whammy in your tax bill. If tax rates remain constant and your income increases, you pay more of your income to the various governments in the numerous forms of taxation we are burdened with. As a result, your disposable income goes down and your buying power is decreased.
How does the government create inflation? Simply by increasing the money supply, the rate of inflation increases. The government gets more of your income, percentage wise, relative to buying power. They can then buy back debt at a reduced value because the value of the dollar has declined and the national debt and deficit are reduced.
This is the most likely option we will see employed to reduce the deficit. It is already happening. The Fed is printing money at a breakneck pace to keep up with the infusion of cash by the Federal Reserve into banks, insurance companies, automobile manufacturers, the housing sector, and a myriad of other enterprises. By manipulating the money supply, the Fed can create inflation when neither supply or demand for goods and services increases.
Another method is by monetizing the debt, when the Fed prints money to buy Treasury Bonds issued to pay for deficit spending. Late spring or early summer of the past year, Fed chairman Ben Bernanke testified before Congress that the Fed would never monetize the debt. HE LIED. In late July, an auction was held to sell Treasury Bonds with a maturity date of seven years. The majority of these bonds were bought by the Chinese government. Just ten days later, the Fed bought back 80 percent of the bonds that had been issued with money they had printed. This is a dishonest method to monetize the debt through the back door.
To further compound the problem, there is significant concern worldwide over the wild spending spree the U.S. has embarked upon that the rate of interest the government is required to pay to get anyone to buy our debt has doubled over the past few months, thus increasing the deficit to make interest payments or buy back debt. As a result, interest rates are destined to rise due to the credit shortage caused by the government taking up so much of the money supply. The Fed is presently keeping interest rates low artificially for they know that rising interest rates will immediately stifle the economic recovery, but it is coming.
During the 1970s, we saw interest rates above 20 percent for home mortgages and even higher rates and scarce credit throughout the economy. If we continue down the path we are headed, this could happen again and the economy will collapse much further than we have seen so far.
The primary factor in causing this situation is the action by the Fed. What we have spent on TARP, stimulus, and other bailouts and social programs is chump change compared to what the Fed is capable of doing, and already has done. It is time to disband the Fed and return control of the money supply to Congress and the Treasury wher the Constitution mandates it belongs.
Liberal Fear of Guns and Freedom of Speech
Jacob G. Hornberger, founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation, posted the following column in their publication, Freedom Daily:
Liberal columnist David Sirota is scared, and he believes that the First Amendment is intended to eliminate this fear. In a column entitled "Freedom from Fear-- and the Second Amendment," Sirota argues that because some people get scared when they see guns and think the gun owner is going to shoot them if they say the wrong thing, The Second Amendment is a threat to the First Amendment.
The purpose of the Constitution was to call into existence the federal government and, at the same time, to protect us from that government through the grant of very limited powers to the government.
The original Constitution wasn't good enough for the American people, however, who had severe reservations about calling into existence a federal government, one that they were sure would threaten their rights and liberties. Thus they demanded passage of the Bill of Rights, which was intended to be another express safeguard, on top of the Constitution, against the federal government.
Take a good look at the First Amendment. Read it carefully. Does it say anything about gun owners' threat to free speech? About freedom from fear?
No. It says Congress shall be prohibited from infringing free speech. Now, that's quite clear, isn't it? It's Congress that the First Amendment protects us from. Our American ancestors understood that the federal government, especially Congress, was a threat to people's right to exercise free speech.
And why Congress? Because our ancestors understood that historically government officials don't like people criticizing what they're doing. So, they enact laws to punish people for criticizing government officials.
Why did our ancestors enact the Second Amendment? Because they understood that without the right to keep and bear arms, the First Amendment became worthless. Why? Because if government officials realize that people lack the means to resist tyranny with force, those government officials will simply ignore the constitutional prohibition against freedom of speech by enacting laws that criminalize the criticism of government.
Don't believe me? Take a look at what's happening in Iran and China. Government officials are jailing people for criticizing the government knowing that the risk of violent revolution is virtually nonexistent.
But when the citizenry is armed, government officials have to factor that in their deliberations when deciding whether to violate the restrictions of the First Amendment.
That is what liberals hate. They place their total trust in democracy. They won't say so expressly but they absolutely hate the idea that people have the right of revolution, which is why they continue to pooh-pooh Jefferson's quotation about watering the tree of liberty. If they were honest, they would just come out and denounce the part of the Declaration of Independence in which Jefferson stated that whenever any government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was formed, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it and to institute new government.
What about Sirota's belief that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were intended to protect him from being scared. Its just plain nonsense. The notion originated during the Great Depression, when liberal icon President Franklin Roosevelt used it to implement his socialist and fascist program known as the New Deal. Running roughshod over the federal judiciary, which was declaring much of his program unconstitutional, FDR argued that he was just protecting people's "freedom from fear."
But the Constitution doesn't say anything about protecting people from their own internal fears, anxieties, depressions, or other psychological ailments. These are things that people must conquer on their own. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect us from the federal government.
Finally, Sirota makes a false and fallacious assumption about gun control that is common to liberals. He assumes that because a law is passed prohibiting people from carrying guns, prospective murderers will respect and obey it.
But as libertarians have long pointed out, that's just wishful nonsense. At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if a murderer isn't going to obey a law against murder, then he isn't going to obey a law against possessing a gun.
There is no better place for a murderer to do his dirty deed than in a place that he is sure is a gun-free zone. After all, compare the number of murders in public schools to those that are committed at gun shows.
The right to keep and bear arms protects us from both the federal government and private criminals. For the sake of our safety and our freedom, we can never permit those who live in fear to eviscerate this vitally important fundamental right.
Government Growth and Heavy Debt
"The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of the public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife." THOMAS JEFFERSON, in a letter to Spencer Roane, 1821.
The size of government in-relation to the private sector grew to 40 percent in 2009. The scope of government intrusion into the economy has grown from 7 percent in 1930 to its present level and is beginning to reach levels matched only during World War II. The government made the mistake of spending more money instead of less during the Great Depression of 1929. Expenses doubled from 7 percent in 1930 to 15 percent in 1933. This excessive spending, beyond incoming revenue, greatly prolonged the depression. The years of World War II were particularly hard on the American people with 90 percent income taxes and rationing of goods.
The economy did not rebound for 18 years as a result of the slow decline of excessive spending and taxes by the federal government. Also, people naturally migrated to the U.S. from countries in ruins because we were basically unharmed by the bombing and other effects of the war.
We are on the same path towards destruction of our economy as we were during the 1930s, and seem determined to make the same mistakes. The government seeks to blame personal greed, foreigners, businessmen, corporations, the health care industry, and anyone else they can think of, rather than place the blame where it belongs, on government itself for over-spending.
Fiscal conservatives were up in arms over the excessive spending during the eight years George W. Bush was in office, aided and abetted by the Republicans in Congress. What happened in 2009 was the biggest catastrophe in history. Spending was totally out of control, in-relation to revenue, and primarily aimed at social engineering and entitlement programs that do nothing to enhance the economy, but are rather a severe drain on precious resources.
When Congress enacted the Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA), they did not follow their constitutional authority, to pass a law. What they did was, in effect, make Executive Branch officials into legislators. They gave the U.S. Treasury $700 billion and told them to do whatever they saw fit with regard to financial institutions, with no conditions or oversight. There is a distinct possibility that the EESA violated the non-delegation doctrine. Though the text does not specifically state it, the Constitution's logic and structure, particularly the separation of powers, implies limits on the size and kind of decisions that Congress may confer on the Executive Branch. Article I, Section 1, the Vesting Clause, states, "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested ina Congress of the United States..." All means all, therefore, none shall be vested anywhere else.
Writing in the New Republic, Jeffrey Rosen of George Washington University Law School argues, "The military spending scandals of WW II, exposed by the Truman Committee, showed the risks for corruption and fraud when the Executive Branch is given a free hand to spend vast amounts of money." Even in the unlikely event the Executive Branch exercises its excessive EESA discretion efficiently, the mere exercise would nevertheless subvert the separation of powers which, as Justice Louis Brandeis said, was adopted :"not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power."
The Supreme Court has said, "That Congress cannot delegate legislative power to the president is a principle universally recognized as vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution." The Court has said that properly delegated discretion must come with "an intelligible principle" and must "clearly delineate" a policy that limits the discretion. This is surely not true in the case of the EESA. And yet, there has not been a constitutional challenge brought before the Court in the validity of the EESA, better known as TARP. WHY?
Next, President Bush asked Congress for new authority to bailout automakers, since they did not fit the description of "financial institutions." After debate, Congress defeated the amendment that would have authorized Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson to use TARP money for the bailout. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have violated the law and the Constitution, they did it in spite of congressional rejection. The Constitution plainly states, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law," in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7. Both administrations claimed the auto bailouts were legal because they said so. They are blatantly unconstitutional and illegal. Billions more taxpayer dollars, funded by debt, down the drain. Why has there never been a constitutional challenge to these bailouts?
Then, the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These bailouts are expected to cost up to $200 billion by the end of 2010. The necessity for the bailouts came from meddling in the sub-prime mortgage market by congressman Barney Frank, Senator Chris Dodd, now Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, as well as the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations. The government is doing everything possible to hide the details of these transactions from the American taxpayers, who have an unquestionable right to know. Judicial Watch was forced to file a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to make the transactions public.The documents show that past Treasury Secretary Paulson and current Treasury Secretary Geithner forced the executives to take $250 billion from the government, thus giving the Treasury control of these two Government Sponsored Enterprises, all shrouded in secrecy, behind closed doors. Obama's promise of transparency doesn't seem to mean much.
Much of the TARP funds loaned to banks and other institutions have been repaid with interest. Rather than paying down the debt, reducing the defecit, to take some of the burden off the shoulders of the taxpayers, the government is keeping the money in a slush fund to finance more government intrusion into business and industry. On top of that, we now are facing unwanted health care reform that will put the government intrusion into the economy far over 50 percent.
Where is the outrage from Congress? Why is the American president allowed to ignore and trash the Constitution of the United States? If the Justice Department is so intent on prosecuting people for legal opinions, this looks like a great place to start.
"A rigid economy of the public contributions and absolute interdiction of all useless expenses will go far towards keeping the government honest and non repressive." THOMAS JEFFERSON, in a letter to Marquis de Lafayette, 1823.
One Person – One Vote
Apportionment.US has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi that alleges, instead of following the Constitution, Congress has allowed a system of representation where a vote in Mississippi is worth only about half a vote in Rhode Island or Iowa.
Because of the growth of population in the U.S. to more than 300 million, combined with a decision at the turn of the last century setting the number of U.S. representatives at 435, voters in the U.S. are not treated equally. The organization states on its website, "The inequality today is severe and unjust. The primary measure that the Supreme Court has used to determine voter equality is to compare the largest and smallest districts. According to the 2000 census, Montana was the most under-represented and Wyoming was the most over-represented. In simple terms, it took 1.83 Montana voters to equal just 1 Wyoming voter, which is grossly unfair. "The Supreme Court, in Karcher v. Daggett (1982), already has ruled that a deviation of 0.6984 percent, which is over 90 times smaller is unconstitutional.
The case was filed on behalf of voters in the most under-represented states, including Mississippi, Montana, South Dakota, Delaware, and Utah. The defendants named are U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke, Census Director Robert Groves, President Barack Obama, and the U,S, House Clerk Lorraine C. Miller, who has provided the documents allowing Mississippi 4 House seats, 1 to Montana, 3 to Utah, and 1 to South Dakota.
"The lawsuit argues that the provision in the United States Code that freezes the size of the House at 435 members is unconstitutional, egregiously violating the well-established principle of 'one person, one vote' affirmed in multiple Supreme Court decisions. At the state level, the implication of 'one person, one vote' means that each state must ensure a population variance of less than 1 percent across all its federal congressional districts so that voter equality is strictly maintained. At the national level, however, this principle has not been applied, and the population variance between the most under-represented congressional district and the most over-represented district exceeds 80 percent." Our Constitution was crafted around the idea that all citizens deserve an equal voice in the decisions of their government. If someone's vote in Iowa or Wyoming counts for more than mine, how is that equality?"
If the action is successful, there would be required a significant increase in the membership of the House of Representatives to meet the Constitution's requirement of "one person, one vote. This could result in the most significant change in the structure of the federal government in almost a century. The lawsuit seeks to shift power away from special interests and return it to the people.
Michael Farris, attorney for the plaintiffs, said, " By reducing the district size, we will get people with more focus on their jobs, loyalty to their own districts. In any event, we've got to obey the Constitution, which was carefully crafted under the principle that we were going to have equality in the House." The case is the first of its kind "seeking to correct inequality, which clearly violates the Framers' intent."
In 1790, each House member represented about 33,000 people. Today, that total is about 700,000, and growing, The 2000 apportionment population of the U.S. was 281,424,177, making the district size with 435 representatives 646,952 people. But in Wyoming, the district includes only 495,304 people and in Rhode Island each district had only 524,831. But Montana' district had 905,316 and in Delaware it was 785,068. Change is not unprecedented: the original House had just 65 representatives and it was modified as the population grew until 1911.
Large parliaments are not impossible. The House of Commons in Great Britain and the Bundestag in Germany each have over 600 members. Our population is greater, yet our representation is smaller than other western democracies.