Statesmen: Producing Moral Character in the Citizenry

2009-11-04T19:59:00.001-05:00

'The government that governs best, governs least.' -unknown
Maybe we sould rethink bailouts and healthcare.

Federal Control

2009-10-26T20:52:00.002-04:00

"We must understand that authority that is unconsolidated and unbalanced (and) weak democratic institutions are unable to ensure an economic revival" - Kremlin Deputy Chief of Staff Vladislav Surkov

Like healthcare, Obama? It's scary how much our own president sounds like a communist.

Economic Wisdom of Abraham Lincoln

2009-03-11T14:40:00.001-04:00

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

Honk If you’re paying my mortgage!

2009-03-05T16:05:00.001-05:00

I just heard about this bumper sticker on this news site and think it’s awesome.

To summarize a portion of the article:

The history of mortgage workouts is that most don't work: Even in "normal" times, more than 50% of mortgage workouts become problem loans within six months. And these are definitely not normal times.

Jobs and income and the primary concern: You can lower mortgage rates to zero but the vast majority of Americans won't be able to make payments for very long if they don't have a job. Friday's jobs report is expected to show another 650,000 jobs were lost in February and the jobless rate rose to 6.9%.

Home prices are still falling: There little incentive for people to borrow money (at whatever rate) to buy a depreciating asset, and Sonders believes home prices have another 10-15% to fall nationally before finding a floor.

My Response to Jim Cramer’s Response to the White House

2009-03-05T12:26:00.001-05:00

Jim Cramer, commentator for TheStreet.com and host of Mad Money With Jim Cramer, wrote an article today in response to the White House’s scathing rebuke.

He had some very good points and it’s worth every minute of the read. I do have a response to Cramer’s response and I think Cramer is a little misguided in his hopes for what Obama will or won’t do.

Obama doesn't want people to be rich and wealthy because then why would they be dependent on the government? Without government dependence, the government's role will decline and power will shrink. Washington has every incentive to not allow this to happen. Obama is dead set on ruining the US economy in whatever fashion he can to increase the dependent roles of this country to the point that only through political power will one be wealthy.

Look at the major banks that have been "bailed-out"- they all have contributed large sums of money to politicians and many have participated in the revolving door in Washington by now working in high positions of the government.

The best thing for main street would be to reinvent the government to which they are slaves to. As Thomas Jefferson has said, “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government...”

Dilbert on Bailout Hearings

2009-02-26T13:13:00.001-05:00

Wise/Ignorant Gap

2009-01-31T14:07:00.001-05:00

I was recently reading a blog post over at My Open Wallet and began thinking about the much publicized rick-poor gap and the line of reasoning that goes that the wealthier individuals of society should be taxed at a higher rate until the gap shrinks. This prompted me to start thinking that everyone always focuses on the rich/poor gap. But what about the wise(smart)/ignorant(stupid) gap?

Should we not reward those who are smart and fuel our economy be creating wealth and jobs by lowering the tax they and their companies pay? In reality companies don't pay tax anyway, their customers pay it in higher price goods.

Governments traditionally use taxation as a means to discourage unwanted behavior and in many cases provide a financial means for the government to take care of the side affects of such harmful behavior (i.e. cigarettes and cancer). Why then, do we buy into the logic that taxing the productive citizens of our country at a disproportional rate and funneling wealth down to the least productive citizens, is anything other than the opposite of what government should be encouraging? I agree that some inequality is going to exist and that to a certain extent, there is a common good that must be taken care of.

Engineering a system whereby the less wise citizens pay a higher premium (tax) for their lack of productivity and wealth creation seems to reward the right type of behavior that would be good of society, rather than punishing the productive citizens with larger tax burdens than their counterparts. Maybe a system that taxes users through sales taxes would be the most fair as companies and individuals choose to spend money and buy items. Those that choose to spend more would be taxed at a higher rate than those that spend less.

Failing at New Years Resolutions?

2009-01-05T20:44:00.001-05:00

It’s around this time of year that resolutions are starting to fall apart and fail. The work week for many is now underway and the pressures of life are just too many to try to also squeeze out self improvements with an already busy schedule. In making my new years resolution this year, I am trying a couple of things differently than previous years. Not that I ever really made serious resolutions before (I always thought they were kind of cheesy- made for breaking), but this year, I am really feeling that it might do me some good to write down what I want to have accomplished in 365 days from now; 14,600 hours from this moment. By having an action plan, I can have those around me keep me accountable. By writing down my resolutions, I will be much more likely to accomplish anything than if I just leave them up to chance.

One quote that a friend recently gave me, which is guiding my resolutions this year is, "in five years you will be the same person except for the people you meet and the books you read." What a scary thought! The fact that in five years I will not have changed or become better at anything is a big motivator! The possibility that I might stay the same after being given 14,600 hours of life is just plain wrong.

Now, looking back over the past 2 years, I can’t say that I've read that much or that I have really even changed that much. So, I guess it’s time to put this advice to work and make some resolutions. So, here it goes for my list of new years resolutions:

Complete 5 more MBA courses (with only 4 remaining after that!)
Completely pay off a car loan (only 4 more months!)
Read more…. for enjoyment, personal development, education, and spiritually.
Write more. I hope to be contributing to this blog much more frequently on a more diverse set of topics than in previous years.
Build on my resume by earning a professional certification
Save and Invest more dutifully for our future

Top 5 Year End Financial Tasks

2008-12-31T13:24:00.001-05:00

1. Using the IRS Withholding calculator, take your latest paycheck(s) and determine if you have had enough withheld for taxes. With this being the last day of 2008, it is the last day to contribute to a charity or make other financial contributions which could lower your tax liability. Wouldn’t you rather give to your favorite charity rather than the government?

2. With #1 in mind, now is the perfect time to start or contribute to a IRA. There are two main types of IRAs: Roth and Traditional. You can learn more about them here. The decision factor is that by contributing to your retirement, you can lower the amount of money you might owe the government when it comes time to file your taxes. This means you are essentially investing in yourself as oppose to giving money to the government.

3. Create a “State of your Finances Report” that outlines all your assets and debts at this given point in time. You can do this electronically in Word or Excel, or on a sheet of paper, which ever you prefer. One neat site that I have started using with past year is Mint.com. It will accomplish the same thing and help you maintain financial stability. What you want to accomplish is to see a summary of where you are financially so that you can be better informed to plan for the future.

4. If you created goals or a budget for your financial health this past year, review them in light of your State of your Finances Report to see where you fell in light of your goals. Next, make financial goals and a budget for the year 2009. Microsoft has a good budget example in excel here. A few questions to get you started are: How much debt do you want to pay off? How much in emergency savings do you want to build up? What investments do you want to participate in (may be financial, personal development, etc)?

5. In order to stay on track financially, schedule to review your goals and your finances 4 times over the next year (once a quarter, or more frequently if desired- its up to you). This will allow you to modify your goals or behavior before 2009 is over and ensure that you can hit your goals. For years I did this using Microsoft Excel. More recently I have moved to Mint.com where I can keep a more up-to-date view of the status of my finances. If you use the budgeting feature of Mint.com, it will require a lot more work to keep up with (1 hour a week) as you will need to classify each expense according to the appropriate budget category.

I know finances can be overwhelming but know one is going to be as concerned for your future as you. So “grab life by the horns” and dive in! Send me a message or any questions and begin the transition to financial health and a successful 2009!

Happy New Year Everyone!

Job Satisfaction

2008-12-01T13:26:00.000-05:00

During the holidays we see lots of people and family we have not seen in a long time and we try to catch up on life for the time we have been apart. Questions like, "what's new?", "how is your job going?", "how is school going?" are posed in attempt to uncover life between meetings and to bridge the past with the present.

After hearing answers to "how is your job going" from many of those family and friends, there seems to be a lack of satisfaction in many jobs. Contentment seems to be missing. In searching to find solutions, an article by Richard Miller popped up. Miller has some truth to his article, but do you think it's too simplistic?

Recently at work I was ask the question "do I enjoy my job?" For most of us that would be a simple question, but it caused me to do a lot of reflecting. So...I thought I would share some of my thoughts.

Over the past few years, I have discovered that seeking enjoyment in our job really cannot be found. The job will never provide the enjoyment that any of us seek. That is the real mystery. Many of us might say we do but there was something or someone that prevented us from enjoying it more. “If only I could do this…" “If only this person did this…" The list would go on all falsely claiming that if somehow this one thing was fixed, then I would truly enjoy my job. But the reality is that if you correct that one thing something else would fill its place. After leaving management, I realized that the one big mistake that I made was attempting to fix every complaint my staff had. Instead of only dealing with those that were personnel issues around competency and conduct. After the fact, I realized that most people needed to complain at some point to deal with stress. Some more than others, in fact, there are some people that would not enjoy their job if they didn’t have something to complain about.

True lasting enjoyment will not come from the job. What we do is temporal at best? It effects the immediate, the next few days, months and perhaps years. But few of us will have a lasting effect 50 years from now except with our children. Most of us have a need to feel we are contributing and then mistakenly assume that contributing translates to enjoyment. Enjoyment is a gift from God and cannot be found in things or activities. Look around, why are so many people in our society chasing after material possessions and once they have them still can’t enjoy them. Why are so many people driven by ambition to climb the corporate ladder and once they get the title still can’t enjoy life. Seeking enjoyment in our work can be a dangerous motive.

With all that said, it seems to me the question really should be “Are you content with your job?" Contentment is a byproduct of God’s gift of enjoyment. Contentment with your job allows you to deal with the ever-changing workload. Contentment allows you to deal with the discrepancies of your fellow employees. Contentment allows you to handle the unknown with a smile. Contentment with the job translates to contentment with all of one’s life. That then makes dealing with the stress much easier. Anger is less likely to find a home in the heart of the content person. I know my answer is more philosophy based than personal but that is who I am. I want to approach life as a whole and over the last few job changes I have learned a lot about the true source of enjoyment. That source is my relationship and commitment to Christ.

Am I saying that you can't enjoy your job? Absolutely not, I am saying that enjoying your job will come through the commitment to Christ and His blessings. We can not achieve it by what we do on the job, though our society would tell you otherwise. We need to strive towards contentment which produces enjoyment, but we need to realize that comes from God and seeking Him. It does not come from being a workaholic.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Candy Redistribution

2008-10-30T08:20:00.001-04:00

Obama Bombshell Redistribution of Wealth Audio Uncovered

2008-10-27T08:46:00.001-04:00

Obama makes socialist comments on Chicago radio back in 2001 about taking money from certain people and giving it to others. Very telling about what the next four years could be like.

Bailout in Real Terms: $2292 per American

2008-09-30T15:17:00.001-04:00

At $700 Billion, you could give every single American $2292.

Now, that's what I call a bailout bill. Think about the impact citizens would have on the economy by spending, investing, and or saving $2292.

Investments would go up as smart investors would buy more stock. Spending would surely go up as people are having trouble buying fuel, paying rent, and groceries. Savings would go up (thereby giving the banks their needed capital) as people would be smart and save the cash for an emergency situation. All three would stimulate the economy.

There are a lot more solutions to this "crisis" than sending $700 Billion straight to Wall Street. There are a lot more solutions that can be used that avoid rewarding greedy executives, unlike the current plan.

Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer

2008-09-30T09:55:00.001-04:00

By Jeffrey A. Miron

CAMBRIDGE, Massachusetts (CNN) -- Congress has balked at the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of Wall Street. Under this plan, the Treasury would have bought the "troubled assets" of financial institutions in an attempt to avoid economic meltdown.

This bailout was a terrible idea. Here's why.

The current mess would never have occurred in the absence of ill-conceived federal policies. The federal government chartered Fannie Mae in 1938 and Freddie Mac in 1970; these two mortgage lending institutions are at the center of the crisis. The government implicitly promised these institutions that it would make good on their debts, so Fannie and Freddie took on huge amounts of excessive risk.

Worse, beginning in 1977 and even more in the 1990s and the early part of this century, Congress pushed mortgage lenders and Fannie/Freddie to expand subprime lending. The industry was happy to oblige, given the implicit promise of federal backing, and subprime lending soared.

This subprime lending was more than a minor relaxation of existing credit guidelines. This lending was a wholesale abandonment of reasonable lending practices in which borrowers with poor credit characteristics got mortgages they were ill-equipped to handle.

Once housing prices declined and economic conditions worsened, defaults and delinquencies soared, leaving the industry holding large amounts of severely depreciated mortgage assets.

The fact that government bears such a huge responsibility for the current mess means any response should eliminate the conditions that created this situation in the first place, not attempt to fix bad government with more government.

The obvious alternative to a bailout is letting troubled financial institutions declare bankruptcy. Bankruptcy means that shareholders typically get wiped out and the creditors own the company.

Bankruptcy does not mean the company disappears; it is just owned by someone new (as has occurred with several airlines). Bankruptcy punishes those who took excessive risks while preserving those aspects of a businesses that remain profitable.

In contrast, a bailout transfers enormous wealth from taxpayers to those who knowingly engaged in risky subprime lending. Thus, the bailout encourages companies to take large, imprudent risks and count on getting bailed out by government. This "moral hazard" generates enormous distortions in an economy's allocation of its financial resources.

Thoughtful advocates of the bailout might concede this perspective, but they argue that a bailout is necessary to prevent economic collapse. According to this view, lenders are not making loans, even for worthy projects, because they cannot get capital. This view has a grain of truth; if the bailout does not occur, more bankruptcies are possible and credit conditions may worsen for a time.

Talk of Armageddon, however, is ridiculous scare-mongering. If financial institutions cannot make productive loans, a profit opportunity exists for someone else. This might not happen instantly, but it will happen.

Further, the current credit freeze is likely due to Wall Street's hope of a bailout; bankers will not sell their lousy assets for 20 cents on the dollar if the government might pay 30, 50, or 80 cents.

The costs of the bailout, moreover, are almost certainly being understated. The administration's claim is that many mortgage assets are merely illiquid, not truly worthless, implying taxpayers will recoup much of their $700 billion.

If these assets are worth something, however, private parties should want to buy them, and they would do so if the owners would accept fair market value. Far more likely is that current owners have brushed under the rug how little their assets are worth.

The bailout has more problems. The final legislation will probably include numerous side conditions and special dealings that reward Washington lobbyists and their clients.

Anticipation of the bailout will engender strategic behavior by Wall Street institutions as they shuffle their assets and position their balance sheets to maximize their take. The bailout will open the door to further federal meddling in financial markets.

So what should the government do? Eliminate those policies that generated the current mess. This means, at a general level, abandoning the goal of home ownership independent of ability to pay. This means, in particular, getting rid of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, along with policies like the Community Reinvestment Act that pressure banks into subprime lending.

The right view of the financial mess is that an enormous fraction of subprime lending should never have occurred in the first place. Someone has to pay for that. That someone should not be, and does not need to be, the U.S. taxpayer.

Jeffrey A. Miron is senior lecturer in economics at Harvard University. A Libertarian, he was one of 166 academic economists who signed a letter to congressional leaders last week opposing the government bailout plan.

American's Don't Support Bailout

2008-09-29T20:28:00.001-04:00

"only 7 percent of U.S. voters surveyed supported the federal financial bailouts with 65 percent saying they'd prefer letting the firms go under or deal with bankruptcy filings and restructuring."

The Failed Bailout Bill

2008-09-29T15:00:00.001-04:00

by: Pejman Yousefzadeh

We have now seen that the American public and its elected Representatives in Congress are against socializing loss in the business community. Despite all of the artificial spin that this bill needed Republican votes to pass, it could have passed if a mere 10 Democrats changed their votes. Instead, nearly 100 decided to vote down the bailout.

It says something about the weakness of Nancy Pelosi as Speaker that she could not whip her members in line to support a bill that expands government and socializes a significant portion of the economy. I would have thought that this was a Democratic dream come true. And it was. And yet, Pelosi did not have the muscle to get the votes passed.

If the House leadership really wants to get this bill passed, they could steal a page from the playbook of former House Speaker Jim Wright, adjourn for the day, reconvene and call a new legislative day. Then they could try to pass the bill again and twist arms until it is done.

Dollars to donuts says, however, that this is not going to happen. Instead, House Democrats will try to blame Republicans for this bill failing when in fact, House Democrats have the majority and could pass the bill with a mere switch of 10 votes.

If House Democrats can't govern, they should get out of the way and let House Republicans do it. Nancy Pelosi and her caucus just can't do the job.

Burning Down The House: What Caused Our Economic Crisis?

2008-09-27T00:42:00.001-04:00

Except for all the McCain propaganda at the end, it's a pretty decent movie and fair movie that does a very good job explaining the crisis and what caused it.

Contrary to what the main stream media says, wall street as a whole (capitalism) should not be blamed for the actions and policies set forth by OUR congress. There are, in fact, corrupt men in wall street who partnered with corrupt men in government to engineer a win-win situation at the expense of the taxpayer. Capitalism (and our nation or any nation) will only survive when the good and virtuous people are running it. Which means, come this November, you must vote for good men and women who stand by principle and uphold our constitution and not just give lip service to causes that seem noble and just.

Rewriting History – Lies that hurt us all

2008-09-24T08:28:00.001-04:00

The Wall Street Journal detailed Barney Frank’s sorted history of defending the scammers (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac):

• In 2000, then-Rep. Richard Baker proposed a bill to reform Fannie and Freddie's oversight. Mr. Frank dismissed the idea, saying concerns about the two were "overblown" and that there was "no federal liability there whatsoever."

• Two years later, Mr. Frank was at it again. "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems," he said in response to another reform push. And then: "I regard them as great assets."

• Again in June 2003, the favorite of the Beltway press corps assured the public that "there is no federal guarantee" of Fan and Fred obligations.

• A month later, Freddie Mac's multibillion-dollar accounting scandal broke into the open. But Mr. Frank was sanguine. "I do not think we are facing any kind of a crisis," he said at the time.

Three months later he repeated the claim that Fannie and Freddie posed no "threat to the Treasury." Even suggesting that heresy, he added, could become "a self-fulfilling prophecy."

• In April 2004, Fannie announced a multibillion-dollar financial "misstatement" of its own. Mr. Frank was back for the defense. Fannie and Freddie posed no risk to taxpayers, he said, adding that "I think Wall Street will get over it" if the two collapsed.

Article here: http://www.getliberty.org/content.asp?pl=37&contentid=37#Rewriting_History___Lies_that_hurt_us_all

How the Democrats Created the Financial Crisis: Kevin Hassett

2008-09-22T16:24:00.001-04:00

Sept. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The financial crisis of the past year has provided a number of surprising twists and turns, and from Bear Stearns Cos. to American International Group Inc., ambiguity has been a big part of the story.

Why did Bear Stearns fail, and how does that relate to AIG? It all seems so complex.

But really, it isn't. Enough cards on this table have been turned over that the story is now clear. The economic history books will describe this episode in simple and understandable terms: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac exploded, and many bystanders were injured in the blast, some fatally.

Fannie and Freddie did this by becoming a key enabler of the mortgage crisis. They fueled Wall Street's efforts to securitize subprime loans by becoming the primary customer of all AAA-rated subprime-mortgage pools. In addition, they held an enormous portfolio of mortgages themselves.

In the times that Fannie and Freddie couldn't make the market, they became the market. Over the years, it added up to an enormous obligation. As of last June, Fannie alone owned or guaranteed more than $388 billion in high-risk mortgage investments. Their large presence created an environment within which even mortgage-backed securities assembled by others could find a ready home.

The problem was that the trillions of dollars in play were only low-risk investments if real estate prices continued to rise. Once they began to fall, the entire house of cards came down with them.

Turning Point

Take away Fannie and Freddie, or regulate them more wisely, and it's hard to imagine how these highly liquid markets would ever have emerged. This whole mess would never have happened.

It is easy to identify the historical turning point that marked the beginning of the end.

Back in 2005, Fannie and Freddie were, after years of dominating Washington, on the ropes. They were enmeshed in accounting scandals that led to turnover at the top. At one telling moment in late 2004, captured in an article by my American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison, the Securities and Exchange Comiission's chief accountant told disgraced Fannie Mae chief Franklin Raines that Fannie's position on the relevant accounting issue was not even ``on the page'' of allowable interpretations.

Then legislative momentum emerged for an attempt to create a ``world-class regulator'' that would oversee the pair more like banks, imposing strict requirements on their ability to take excessive risks. Politicians who previously had associated themselves proudly with the two accounting miscreants were less eager to be associated with them. The time was ripe.

Greenspan's Warning

The clear gravity of the situation pushed the legislation forward. Some might say the current mess couldn't be foreseen, yet in 2005 Alan Greenspan told Congress how urgent it was for it to act in the clearest possible terms: If Fannie and Freddie ``continue to grow, continue to have the low capital that they have, continue to engage in the dynamic hedging of their portfolios, which they need to do for interest rate risk aversion, they potentially create ever-growing potential systemic risk down the road,'' he said. ``We are placing the total financial system of the future at a substantial risk.''

What happened next was extraordinary. For the first time in history, a serious Fannie and Freddie reform bill was passed by the Senate Banking Committee. The bill gave a regulator power to crack down, and would have required the companies to eliminate their investments in risky assets.

Different World

If that bill had become law, then the world today would be different. In 2005, 2006 and 2007, a blizzard of terrible mortgage paper fluttered out of the Fannie and Freddie clouds, burying many of our oldest and most venerable institutions. Without their checkbooks keeping the market liquid and buying up excess supply, the market would likely have not existed.

But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans, tied in knots by the tight Democratic opposition, couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter.

That such a reckless political stand could have been taken by the Democrats was obscene even then. Wallison wrote at the time: ``It is a classic case of socializing the risk while privatizing the profit. The Democrats and the few Republicans who oppose portfolio limitations could not possibly do so if their constituents understood what they were doing.''

Mounds of Materials

Now that the collapse has occurred, the roadblock built by Senate Democrats in 2005 is unforgivable. Many who opposed the bill doubtlessly did so for honorable reasons. Fannie and Freddie provided mounds of materials defending their practices. Perhaps some found their propaganda convincing.

But we now know that many of the senators who protected Fannie and Freddie, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Christopher Dodd, have received mind-boggling levels of financial support from them over the years.

Throughout his political career, Obama has gotten more than $125,000 in campaign contributions from employees and political action committees of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, second only to Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman, who received more than $165,000.

Clinton, the 12th-ranked recipient of Fannie and Freddie PAC and employee contributions, has received more than $75,000 from the two enterprises and their employees. The private profit found its way back to the senators who killed the fix.

There has been a lot of talk about who is to blame for this crisis. A look back at the story of 2005 makes the answer pretty clear.

Oh, and there is one little footnote to the story that's worth keeping in mind while Democrats point fingers between now and Nov. 4: Senator John McCain was one of the three cosponsors of S.190, the bill that would have averted this mess.

(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a Bloomberg News columnist. He is an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Kevin Hassett at khassett@aei.org

Last Updated: September 22, 2008 00:04 EDT

Henry Ford on the banking system

2008-09-17T07:42:00.001-04:00

“It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

I think America is starting to realize how out of control the banking system really is.

Government employees accused in sex, gift scandal... and they should be trusted with Healthcare?

2008-09-16T22:56:00.001-04:00

This article on MSN Money, by the Associated Press, reports that employees working for the Department of the Interior were found, "wholly lacking in acceptance of or adherence to government ethical standards," wrote Inspector General Earl E. Devaney, whose office led the investigation.

Remind me... why should government employees (who traditionally get paid less than the private sector and have more power than they probably should) be trusted with our healthcare, retirement, education, etc. when they fail to manage natural resources (oil & gas) in an ethical fashion. Low pay and given amounts of power are a deadly combination that are too easy a temptation to use power as a leverage to get wealth.

I know the response will probably be something like, "just because there is a handful of unethical employees, doesn't mean that all government employees will abuse their positions. I can show you more in the private sector that are unethical- just look at Enron." And I would agree with you.

It is a fallacy to think that people, who can be unethical in any position, will be ethical just because they work for a private company or their employer is Uncle Sam and they work for and serve the "public good". People have the potential to be unethical regardless of who pays their paycheck- power and money always corrupt. Whether they are employees of private industry or public government, the choice remains theirs- to be ethical or unethical.

So, because people can be unethical, which should be trusted with essential, citizen dependant services- government or private industry?Unlike government, companies that make up private industry which become corrupt, inefficient, and useless- can, should, and will fail. With private business, unlike government, punishment can extend even as far as shareholders who in essence own a portion of the company. But when departments in governments perform unethical actions, who is accountable and punished? The tax-payer, the citizen, the service dependent family, the public trust.

The government cannot fail because in most cases it is the lone provider of any given service by decree and law. Therefore more people and more money must be thrown at it to continue to provide (raising the cost for everyone); whereas private industry must solve problems in creative and efficient ways while lowering the cost of doing business because of competition. Competition is what breeds innovation and success.

“Competition is the keen cutting edge of business, always shaving away at costs” -- Henry Ford

If government ran the auto industry from the beginning, we would not have the assembly line- we would have 30 employees circling around a stationary car trying to build it in a month at an enormous cost. There would simply be no incentive to create the assembly line which came as a result of needing to lower the cost of auto production in order to offer lower prices to consumers as an incentive to buy from given company.

Governments way of dealing with rising costs is to increase taxes or fees associated with services. Whether talking about natural resources (as the MSN Article highlighted), Medicaid, social security or healthcare, this is not what is meant by being a good steward.

Feminism Quote on Palin- From a Feminist

2008-09-10T20:37:00.001-04:00

"A feminism that cannot admire the bravura under high pressure of the first woman governor of a frontier state isn't worth a warm bucket of spit."

By Camille Paglia

Paglia, while I disagree with a lot of her article, goes on to give a little history lesson and say that, "her style is reserved, discreet, mandarin... [she] is like Annie Oakley, a brash ambassador from America's pioneer past. She immediately reminded me of the frontier women of the Western states, which first granted women the right to vote after the Civil War -- long before the federal amendment guaranteeing universal woman suffrage was passed in 1919. Frontier women faced the same harsh challenges and had to tackle the same chores as men did -- which is why men could regard them as equals, unlike the genteel, corseted ladies of the Eastern seaboard, which fought granting women the vote right to the bitter end. Frontier women were far bolder and hardier than today's pampered, petulant bourgeois feminists, always looking to blame their complaints about life on someone else."

Paglia goes on to list challenges the democratic party must overcome if it is to succeed. Challenges like abortion be strictly linked with the feminist agenda, the death penalty being vehemently opposed for criminals, and the religious like blind adherence that many liberals seem to have.

Despite being far left of center, Paglia is an excellent writer that I thoroughly enjoyed reading and she offers up many thought provoking suggestions and questions to ponder. I disagree with some of the conclusions which she arrives at but I can respect her beliefs and opinions because she is VERY consistent in her beliefs.

Entire Article

Pop, Soda, or Coke? Here's a map...

2008-09-10T17:37:00.000-04:00

Here is a map by East Central University (Oklahoma) that breaks down, by county, which is the most popular terminology for carbonated drinks. Very funny.

It's hard to tell, but I think i'm in a soda county. I grew up in a state that was ALL pop- Michigan.

Obama - Like Jesus?

2008-09-10T15:49:00.001-04:00

I received this email from RedState.com today that was quite comical.

Today, Congressman Steve Cohen, from the floor of the House of Representatives, compared Barack Obama to Jesus and Sarah Palin to Pontius Pilate, saying "Barack Obama was a community organizer like Jesus …. Pontius Pilate was a governor."

The key take away here is that Pontius Pilate, like Barack Obama, thought matters of life were above his pay grade. Likewise, it could be said Pilate had a history of voting "present" on controversial issues.

Source: RedState.com

Obama - "my Muslim faith"

2008-09-08T08:19:00.001-04:00

Story here

Mother Theresa on Abortion

2008-09-07T21:59:00.001-04:00

"America needs no words from me to see how your decision in Roe v. Wade has deformed a great nation. The so-called right to abortion has pitted mothers against their children and women against men. It has sown violence and discord at the heart of the most intimate human relationships. It has aggravated the derogation of the father's role in an increasingly fatherless society. It has portrayed the greatest of gifts -- a child -- as a competitor, an intrusion, and an inconvenience. It has nominally accorded mothers unfettered dominion over the independent lives of their physically dependent sons and daughters"

And, in granting this unconscionable power, it has exposed many women to unjust and selfish demands from their husbands or other sexual partners. Human rights are not a privilege conferred by government. They are every human being's entitlement by virtue of his humanity. The right to life does not depend, and must not be declared to be contingent, on the pleasure of anyone else, not even a parent or a sovereign."

(Mother Theresa -- "Notable and Quotable," Wall Street Journal, 2/25/94, p. A14)

Drudge: OPRAH Won't Host Palin

2008-09-05T13:42:00.001-04:00

BIG DILEMMA: OPRAH BALKS AT HOSTING SARAH PALIN; STAFF DIVIDED Fri Sep 05 2008 08:55:46 ET Oprah Winfrey may have introduced Democrat Barack Obama to the women of America -- but the talkshow queen is not rushing to embrace the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket! Oprah's staff is sharply divided on the merits of booking Sarah Palin, sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT. "Half of her staff really wants Sarah Palin on," an insider explains. "Oprah's website is getting tons of requests to put her on, but Oprah and a couple of her top people are adamantly against it because of Obama." One executive close to Winfrey is warning any Palin ban could ignite a dramatic backlash! It is not clear if Oprah has softened her position after watching Palin's historic convention speech. Last year, Winfrey blocked an appearance by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, timed to a promotional tour of his autobiography. Oprah and executive producer Sheri Salata, who has contributed thousands of dollars to Obama's campaign, refused requests for comment. Developing...

Pets Killed By PETA

2008-09-04T13:06:00.001-04:00

I found this chart and thought it was very interesting. Note: last year, PETA killed 90% of the pets in their custody.

What this highlights is that Americans need to be very careful believing what they hear and what they see on the news. We also need to be VERY careful of policy decisions because they always have unintended consequences. It is an economic reality that limited resources DO exist and unintended consequences affect those resources in ways that were not anticipated.

More about PETA

Donald Miller, Author of 'Blue Like Jazz', Prays at the DNC

2008-09-03T21:45:00.001-04:00

Governor Mark Sanford (SC) on the status of our Freedom

2008-08-22T08:27:00.001-04:00

The Status of American Politics

2008-08-21T15:48:00.001-04:00

That state of politics today is downright unfathomable. What is worse for a president: not knowing thyself, or not knowing thy country.

McCain doesn't even know how many houses he owns and Obama doesn't know how many states are in the union.

And we trust these men with a nuke arsenal and the ability to wreck havoc on the worlds economy with a stroke of a pen?

An Open Letter to Rick Warren

2008-08-13T12:29:00.001-04:00

The text of the letter, written by Redstate Contributor Hunter Baker, is below:

Dear Pastor Warren,

I am writing to you to express concern about something that may get lost when you host the candidate forum with John McCain and Barack Obama at Saddleback Valley Community Church which is likely to receive national attention. The decision to address you on this question in an open letter comes with some trepidation, but I have attempted to reach you through your media agency, the church email, and your personal email with no effect. I hope this message in a public forum will come to your attention instead of sitting unread in a pile of fan mail and requests for favors.

You see, I understand and appreciate who you are and what you've done. You are one of the most widely known pastors in the nation and have written one of the best-selling non-fiction books of the past several decades. I have many times walked into friends' homes and have seen The Purpose-Driven Life sitting on coffee tables or bookshelves. When Time named you one of the most influential evangelicals in America, I agreed and applauded the selection.

During this period of well-deserved fame, you have been a good steward of the blessings God has provided. You gave away 90% of your massive royalties and repaid your church for years of salary. Instead of following the sometimes frivolous paths of other celebrity pastors, you focused in on the suffering of AIDS victims in Africa. You and your wife Kay have been outstanding role models. You have avoided making intemperate statements. Neither have you become some kind of caricature of the pastor in politics, ready to drop anything for a talking-heads appearance anywhere, anytime.

In your news release about the candidate forum, you suggest that you will avoid "gotcha" questions. The topics highlighted in the release are poverty, HIV/AIDS, climate and human rights with a special emphasis on character and leadership rather than programmatic details.

There is much to be said for rising above partisan politics. After all, the church is on a mission from God to all the earth. It is emphatically not intended to be a tool for either one of the political parties. We are after bigger game than a balanced budget, the right kind of welfare state, or term limits. We seek redemption for a world we believe has lost its way.

However, there are certain issues that demand the church's involvement, issues of basic justice, issues of life and death. Perhaps the least ambiguous of those issues is the protection of babies throughout pregnancy and immediately after birth. We live in a culture that, strangely, acts as though unborn children are like genies that can be stuffed back into the bottle. We know that isn't true. We know that abortions end with little piles of bloody flesh and bone. Fetuses don't merely cease to exist. They experience violent physical death.

There are many doctrinal issues that divide Christians, but the protection of young life should not be one of them. Pastor Warren, as Protestants, we are part of a tradition that loves to point to the early church -- the young church so pure in our estimation -- still uncorrupted by the power of empire. That church, that persecuted church, was a tireless defender of life. Early Christians counseled against abortion and actively rescued infants exposed to the predators and the wild by Roman parents who vested few rights in human beings shortly after birth. A child of the wrong sex or one who looked weak could be abandoned. How strange it is that today a candidate claiming to be a Christian could oppose the Born Alive Infants Protection Act or a ban on partial birth abortion! To do so is to disclaim not only a major part of Christian teaching, but also a cultural advance in favor of protecting the weak and innocent.

Pastor, you know both John McCain and Barack Obama. You know where they stand on the protection of innocent human life. While it is a fine thing to allow both men to expound upon their experience, their leadership ability, and their attitudes toward challenges of the future like AIDS or climate change, I submit that you would do a disservice to your congregation and to the church at large if you host both candidates and ignore the issue that divides them more clearly than almost any other. Barack Obama has indicated a willingness to change his position on a number of issues, including drilling for oil, the way the Iraq war is conducted, and the proper understanding of gun ownership rights. But his position with regard to abortion rights is positively adamantine. Abortion on demand is non-negotiable. McCain, on the other hand, has consistently voted against a broad abortion license.

Some would respond to me, though I doubt you would, that I am emphasizing one issue unfairly. My answer is that this issue is basic. If the year were 1958, instead of 2008, do you think it would be right to host such a forum and ignore segregation, knowing one candidate was ardently in favor of the separation of the races? You and I both know that it would be wrong to gloss over a glaring breach of that kind. We both know many in the church were wrong in just that way. (It is a terrible irony of history that Mr. Obama now stands with those who favor the persistent removal of an entire class of human beings from legal protection through legal fiat. How I wish it were not so.)

My hope is that you will make no promise to leave the foundational issue of the sanctity of life untouched in this forum. If the lack of that promise means the forum may not take place, then I suggest it would be better to cancel it.

With respect,

Hunter Baker

Public vs. Private Education - by British Comedians

2008-08-07T08:15:00.001-04:00

Do politicians really think like this? Scary thought about our public "servants".

Alexis de Tocqueville Quote

2008-07-24T19:15:00.001-04:00

"The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

My Car Compared to a Toyota Prius

2008-07-08T20:11:00.001-04:00

I came across an interesting web site tonight that allows you to compare the fuel economy of two or more cars. So, if for instance you were thinking about getting a new Toyota Prius to save on fuel consumption, it would show you just how much you would be saving.

Instead of believing all the hype about the car, wouldn't you want to see the cold hard facts about what you would actually save, yourself? I did just that:

As you can see, I would save roughly $1000 a year on fuel if I drove a Prius. However, that does not account for rising gas prices as well as rising maintenance on new technology as a Prius (I assume that those two items equal a zero-sum game). Therefore, I will assume that $1000 is a safe estimate at what I would be saving over the long term.

Now, to make an informed decision I would multiply $1000 by the number of years I would plan to keep the car (5 years = $5000) to get a figure of what I would save driving a new Prius vs. what I paid or am paying for my current Elantra.

This is really good information to know (since a Prius starts at $21,500) and I will re-evaluate when it comes time to replace my car (which cost $10,500).

In summary, my current car will end up costing less than a Hybrid would have- so from a purely financial standpoint, I made the right decision.

Destruction of Capitalism

2008-06-25T10:51:00.001-04:00

In our own generation a distinguished professor from Harvard University has called attention to the "cultural contradictions" of capitalism. Originally, he argued, the menace of unrestrained economic impulse was held in check by the protestant ethic--people worked in response to their calling. But now, with this ethic dissolved, including its moral attitudes toward hard work and saving, only hedonism remains.

"The greatest single engine in the destruction of the Protestant ethic," he wrote, "was the invention of the installment plan, or instant credit. Previously one had to save in order to buy. But with credit cards one could indulge in instant gratification." Or as another scholar put it simply: Capitalism, having defeated all challenges, such as socialism, now faces its greatest challenge--- itself, because it devours the very virtues it needs to thrive.

By: Grains of Sand -- Excerpt taken from The Call, by Os Guiness, p. 128-129

-- Effects now being felt by Bear Stearns, US housing market, and the average American consumer

-- Grains of Sand

My thoughts: American's do not know how to plan for emergency spending (gas price increases, job loss, tragic accidents, natural disasters, etc) so they end up relying on the government to (in a communistic way) provide for their lack of planning. Do you have an emergency savings account that would enable you to live off of for 3 - 6 months? Such a savings account will help deal with the unexpected.

Al Gore banks off Global Warming: $100 Million

2008-06-17T22:12:00.001-04:00

"In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore won an Oscar, a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria."

Also in the article, "In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month." Up to 10% more than the previous year- so much for being green.

What Is Endangered: Climate or Freedom?

2008-05-28T12:46:00.001-04:00

Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Tuesday that he opposes "climate alarmism" and that it is similar to "decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia."

"Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality," he said.

"In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet," he added.

Klaus said a free market should be used to address environmental concerns and said he opposed as unrealistic regulations or greenhouse gas capping systems designed to reduce the impact of climate change.

Source

Importance of Annually Re-Balancing Your Portfolio

2008-05-22T18:00:00.001-04:00

For those that are new to retirement investing and the other things that come with adulthood, portfolio balancing is the process of realigning the weightings of one's portfolio of assets. For example, see the graph below:

In the graph, 50% of the portfolio "weight" is allocated (invested in) a Bond Fund, 10% in Treasury Fund, and 40% in an Equity Fund.

The bottom line and reason to re-balance your portfolio is as follows: it gets you a better return for your investments!

When you first setup your retirement allocations from each of your paychecks, 50% to this fund, 20% to that fund, etc, you did so with the hopes that your investments would grow as the companies you've invested in do good things with your hard earned money. As the money grows, the initial allocations might become out of whack (thereby your exposure to risk falls out of line) and re-balancing your portfolio solves this inevitable change.

What re-balancing does is take your investments and move the surpluses from one investment to another one. Often times this can be setup on an automatic (annual) basis through your retirement account holder.

For more information, visit: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/pf/05/051105.asp

Government Making More Off Oil than Oil Companies

2008-05-22T17:46:00.002-04:00

Our government has repeatedly called oil companies to come before congress and testify why they are making so much money off hard working citizens and the price they pay for gasoline.

Yet the crazy thing is that the government takes a larger cut off each gallon at the pump than any oil company does.

The Federal Government has increased the price of gas by 18.4 cents per gallon. So, instead of being anti-capitalistic by blaming corporate America for this problem, why not look to your representatives who passed this increase on to you.

As the saying goes, "Don't Steal. The Government hates competition."

Environmentalism is new communism

2008-05-06T13:35:00.001-04:00

The Czech President says that environmentalism is the "Biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity."

George Will wrote in the Washington Post May 31, 1992, that environmentalism is "a green tree with red roots... a socialist dream... dressed up as compassion for the planet".

Rush Limbaugh in The Way Things Ought To Be said "With the collapse of Marxism, environmentalism has become the new refuge of socialist thinking".

Christians often buy into ideas based on their view of a biblical mandates but seldom stop to question those involved in propagating the new ideas only to find out later that their idea has been hijacked by people and groups with ulterior motives.

The earth should be cared for, but Christians need to be careful about the extent they take their biblical mandate to care for the earth and examine those who may be leading the charge. Environmentalism might be a disguise for other things.

Below is an article by George Reisman which describes another way of looking at environmentalism.

Communism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes monopolies, depressions, and exploitation of workers by capitalists. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the benefit of the working class and the Socialist State. Capitalists and landowners must be exterminated for the benefit of the proletariat.

Nazism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes racial impurity, national decline, and exploitation of German workers by Jewish capitalists. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the good of the Aryan master race and the National Socialist State. Jews, Gypsies, and Slavs must be exterminated for the benefit of the German Nation.

Environmentalism: The pursuit of individual self-interest causes global warming, acid rain, and ozone depletion. It must be replaced by self-sacrifice for the good of other species – our "fellow biota" – and for the good of the planet, under the auspices of international treaties and a nascent Global Socialist State: the UN. Most of the human race must be exterminated for the benefit of exploited species and the planet. (This is what the environmentalist “extremists” already openly say. The “moderates” merely want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent and thereby reduce the American standard of living to that of a third world country, with a third world country’s infant mortality and life expectancy.)

The Words of Martin Luther King, Jr.

2008-04-24T08:37:00.001-04:00

"The function of education is to teach one to think intensively and critically. But education which stops with efficiency may prove the greatest menace to society. The most dangerous criminal may be the person gifted with reason, but no morals."

When I look at the world around me, I begin to think that King is exactly right.

Newmarket Press, 1983

Europe’s Philosophy of Failure

2008-04-21T23:10:00.001-04:00

By Stefan Theil

In France and Germany, students are being forced to undergo a dangerous indoctrination. Taught that economic principles such as capitalism, free markets, and entrepreneurship are savage, unhealthy, and immoral, these children are raised on a diet of prejudice and bias. Rooting it out may determine whether Europe’s economies prosper or continue to be left behind.

Link

"If countries like France and Germany hope to get their nations on a new economic track, they might start paying more attention to what their kids are learning in the classroom."

Mother Teresa Quote

2008-04-05T01:02:00.001-04:00

"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."

Ordering a pizza with your national ID card

2008-03-31T11:09:00.001-04:00

Do you think that legislation has unintended consequences? Check out this cleaver web site provided by the ACLU (who says they can't do anything right?).

It points to some questionable uses of the national ID number. Unfortunately, I am afraid that a national ID number is not the only way at arriving at this sad destination. Increased government intervention into our daily lives (in the name of security and protection) will only result in greater bureaucracy and control regardless of a national ID number. After all, we already depend on the government for Social Security and Medicare- coleuses failures and complete waste of productivity and tax payers dollars because of the number of strings attached to the money that is paid into these programs.

Colin Powell Quote

2008-03-25T21:52:00.001-04:00

"Don't let your ego get too close to your position, so that if your position gets shot down, your ego doesn't go with it."

Good words for thought and application. It is hard because so many times we strive to find out identity in things around us and things that happen to us. Many times we fail to see that who we are is less than what happens to and around us, but what is in us.

Hillary's Military Experience in Bosnia

2008-03-25T12:36:00.001-04:00

The clip says it all.

Does persistant nagging, redailing and talking to different agents pay off?

2008-03-21T15:57:00.001-04:00

I have long been a supporter of Despair.com and the demotivators that they have created. They seem to carry a bit of truth and humor all in one little statement and picture.

The picture shown above is a very humorous portrayal of many individuals experiences, simply because they take "No we can't do that" as an acceptable answer when dealing with these mega corporations that train people to be an intimidating monster. They are trained to say "NO" or "Our machines can't do that" or "Not that I know of". These are unacceptable!

It seems that constantly, we as the consumer, are not getting the desired outcome that would seem to be the "logical" and "fair" treatment that we deserve simply because we are the paying Customer. If it weren't for us there wouldn't be any company to talk to because they wouldn't be in business. I'm not talking about free handouts or even taking money off each bill, although this is often a positive.

I find myself constantly talking with friends and family about circumstances that have forced them to contact the customer support line of a company. I have recently been faced with this situation and have been asked to write about my experience. My encounter was with a cell phone service provider. I'm not going to give their name because i did eventually get what I wanted and it really doesn't affect the article. I'm not going to give details of what was said for my specific experience but I will highlight a few moments.

I made a total of 7 calls to the main customer service line and 1 call to the local store. I found the most helpful agents to be of the male gender. They also seemed to be the most understanding of the situation and also aware of the processes. I don't know if this was because they listened and let me talk or when men are confronted with a problem they like to solve it and not just leave it. I know this because I'm a man and here is my philosophy, "A stone is better left unturned than turned and left on its side"

I'm not going to go into the specifics of each call but I'll give you hints on what to look for.

7 tips and hints to keep in mind when talking to people and getting what you want.

BE POLITE- A Danish Proverb I once read says, "If you don't have money, Be polite" In this case you are trying to save money, keep money, get something, or get somewhere. Kill people with Kindness and they will go the extra mile for you.
RESEARCH- "An uninformed individual is not entitled to an opinion" Time Tactics of very successful people by Gene Griessman. Make sure you do your research first. Don't call in uniformed because that is a disaster waiting to happen. If you don't care enough to research, the phone call isn't worth your time.
LISTEN- Morton Blackwell said it well, "To succeed inside a political party, one must cultivate an ability to sit still and remain polite while foolish people speak nonsense." Listen carefully and if you let them talk they will just keep talking themselves into a hole because they think they are "winning" or convincing you. I had the final agent fumbling over his words and backtracking and he kept switching his facts. This opened a window and then it is up to you to take it.
DON'T GIVE OUT TOO MUCH INFO- Explain your situation first and see if the agent is even willing to listen. Many agents really don't care and won't give you the time of day. Don't waste your time with them. Just say thank you and hang up. They won't have your account information therefore they cannot flag your account or leave any comments.
REPEAT THE AGENT EXACTLY- (This runs hand in hand with #3) Most of the time the agent will realize how ridiculous they sound when you simply repeat exactly what they said. This works best when they are digging for something to get you to comply with them. This will often result in them understanding where you are coming from and could result in them making an exception. One of my all time favorite Movies, "Thank You for Smoking" is a great movie to learn from or to just enjoy. When talking to his son about persuasion and proving your point, Nick Naylor makes a fantastic quote. "I proved that you're wrong, and if you're wrong I'm right." This has such a young child like mentality but is very true.
COMPANIES WON'T LIMIT THEMSELVES- There is always a way to get what you need. The only factor is how willing are they to do it for you. In my situation, I needed a number from a terminated contract, with the same provider, to replace my current number. My wife was going to finish out my contract with her number because her parents have the same company. I talked to agents and all but 2 of them gave me the quick "Sorry, we aren't able to do that." I tried to reason with a few of the agents and they didn't want to here it. Finally the last agent I spoke to, after hearing him stumble in his words and trip over his own feet a few times, I explained how there company wouldn't tie their own feet together by not allowing someone in any department to place what ever number they want under any account. I told him that I would really appreciate him if he found out what department is over the numbers and found someone who would do this for me. HE DID! Agents don't have permissions but someone in another department can do it and the good thing is now he knows that now.
REWARD- If you are satisfied with the job of the agent, ask for their information so you can reward them. This might not benefit you but next time they will think hard before turning someone away. They will go farther to help.

These are some ramblings of my experiences in dealing with call center agents and mega companies and how you can get the most out of your time.

NY Governor Calls it Quits

2008-03-12T13:40:00.003-04:00

News Article

It's amazing that people think that a lack of morality in personal life can be separated from morality in public life. The job and "the rest" (family, friends, religion, etc) may be separate in function but the person who engages in both cannot, is still whole.

To sum up why there exists no separation between the private and the public morality we look to Aristotle, who once said, "Moral excellence comes about as a result of habit. We become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, brave by doing brave acts."

As citizens, we must seek to elect and appoint those with the highest morality because it is from this morality that they will rule and govern.

California bans homeschooling

2008-03-07T13:49:00.001-05:00

"California courts have held that ... parents do not have a constitutional right to homeschool their children,"

Scarcity and Global Warming

2008-03-06T08:49:00.001-05:00

When scarcity exists, as it always does, the question that begs for answer is how to determine fair and best use of limited resources. Limited resources exist everywhere: water, oil, land, currency, food, etc. Unlimited desires and needs exist in the world and meeting those needs is the goal of most governments through economic systems and controls.

Today in the Telegraph, an article featuring environmentalists getting upset with airline companies over fuel consumption from flying too few people across the Atlantic. American Airlines flew 5 passengers in a Boeing 777 using nearly 22,000 gallons of fuel, from London to Chicago.

While the claims by the environmentalist group are accurate and correct, would not it be nice if an economic system was in place to fairly distribute the consumption of limited fuel supplies? Oh, right, it's called capitalism.

In a capitalist economy, the cost of scarce resources are driven up or down based on the amount people are willing to pay for the given resource. In the American Airlines case, apparently the cost of flying 5 persons across the Atlantic was worth doing. American Airlines, therefore, paid handsomely to fly these individuals and in doing so were part of helping the economy divide up scarce resources.

Many lobbyist or advocacy groups hope that governments can monitor and manipulate free markets in hope of becoming more just and fair. In all reality, when government gets involved, the scarce resources become less and less fairly distributed and more and more corrupt. Companies and individuals then must turn to bribery and other methods to obtain approval for use of government controlled scarce resources.

Milton Friedman said this of the free market system, "The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another."

Unfortunately, like is seen in Americas distant past, government are biased toward color, race, gender, economic status, etc. and when they make laws and regulations, they solidify the unjustness that is inherent in all of man kind. It is for this reason that the free market is decidedly the best option to ensure the maximum benefit to all people.

Alexander Tyler

2008-03-05T09:14:00.001-05:00

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."

"What's is in your wallet?"

2008-02-28T15:59:00.002-05:00

Current Account Balances by Country

According to the CIA World Factbook

1st: China: $ 363,300,000,000
5th: Russia: $ 74,000,000,000
14th: Canada: $ 28,460,000,000
161st: United Kingdom: $ -111,000,000,000
163rd ( last place ): United States: $ -747,100,000,000

So, you might be asking yourself, "what do I want to do with my tax rebate this year." How about pay down some debt! Credit cards would be a good place to start, then car loans, and then finally why not start an emergency savings account.

Top 10 McCain Quotes

2008-02-19T15:46:00.001-05:00

10. "The first thing that I would do is call in John Kerry, Bob Kerrey, Joe Biden, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, and several others and say, ‘We’ve got to get foreign policy, national security issues back on track.'" -When asked the first thing he would do if elected President, 3/00

9. "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book." -12/18/07

8. "It's not social issues I care about." -2/3/08

7. "F*ck you! This is chickensh*t stuff." -to fellow GOP Senator John Cornyn on the Senate floor during an argument about McCain's amnesty bill, 5/19/07

6. "No, I'm calling you a f*cking jerk." -to fellow GOP Senator Chuck Grassley, when Grassley asked "Are you calling me stupid?", 2/21/00

5. "[C]ertainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to undergo illegal and dangerous operations." -8/24/99, and repeated three other times during the campaign

4. "John Kerry is a very close friend of mine. We've been friends for years. Obviously, I would entertain it." -When asked if he would entertain being Kerry's VP if asked, 3/10/04

3. "By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it." -2/07

2. "I am sure that Senator Clinton would make a good President. I have no doubt that Senator Clinton would make a good President." -2/20/05

1. "I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected, that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government." -4/29/06

Compiled by: HeavyM

The GOP Changed Forever

2008-02-12T08:17:00.000-05:00

by: Paul Joseph Watson

Newsmax, which is largely a Neo-Con news outfit, admits in its new print magazine issue that Ron Paul may have "changed the GOP forever," conceding that he is "sparking an incredible movement of libertarian conservatives in the Republican Party."

Newsmax writes that Paul's message of small government, limited taxation, and reduced intervention abroad "resonates with millions of Americans" and compares the Congressman's impact to that of conservative icon Barry Goldwater, who fundamentally shifted the course of the GOP 50 years ago.

The Ron Paul Revolution is still in its infancy and Ron Paul will only be the figurehead of the movement for a limited period of time. When the time comes, new personalities will emerge but the fundamental drive and purpose of the movement will remain the same.
As we have underscored, America was not demolished overnight and it won't be restored overnight. This is part of a long process that transcends the issue of Ron Paul's presidential campaign. People who are so naive as to lose hope and abandon the cause at such an early stage need to realize that the struggle to revive liberty is a long and arduous battle which really has no end.

Talk of abolishing the private Federal Reserve, eliminating fractional reserve banking and returning America to a truly conservative humble foreign policy is so prevalent that it's a topic of discussion on The Tonight Show With Jay Leno. Such a thing was unheard of five or ten years ago.

Ron Paul's presidential campaign platform has educated millions of Americans about real issues and we can now safely count on the fact that around 10 per cent of the U.S. population are fully awake and aware - that's at least double the amount of support the founding fathers could rely on during the Revolutionary War.

Beyond Ron Paul and beyond the 2008 presidential election this unprecedented freedom movement will remain a major force in politics - but only if Ron Paul supporters can have foresight and understand that the war is not over - it has only just begun.

Ann Coulter on McCain

2008-02-07T13:53:00.001-05:00

"If Hillary is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with Republicans ferociously opposing her, followed by Republicans zooming back into power, as we did in 1980 and 1994, and 2000. "

"If McCain is elected president, we'll have a four-year disaster, with the Republicans in Congress co-opted by "our" president, followed by 30 years of Democratic rule. "

-- He excoriated Samuel Alito as too "conservative."
-- He promoted amnesty for 20 million illegal immigrants.
-- He abridged citizens' free speech (in favor of the media) with
McCain-Feingold.
-- He hysterically opposes waterboarding terrorists and wants to shut down
Guantanamo.
-- He denounced the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
-- He opposes ANWR and supports the global warming cult
http://www.anncoulter.com/

Caring for the poor

2008-02-07T12:21:00.000-05:00

If Christians claim to truly care for the poor and downtrodden, we must stop thinking that political ramifications have no impact on the church. Every law that we, the people, enact or retract impacts (economically, socially, and even spiritually) the people who we are called to love.

When those that make up the church turn their eye to the actions of the government (or fail to get involved in the messy affairs of politics), they are made to be a liar if they say they love the poor because their love for the poor disappears only to be replaced by self gratification through "spiritual programs" and holy acts of righteousness.

It is to this end that many of our founding fathers were devoutly religious and saw to establish a union where man received his rights, not from the government, but from his Creator. Likewise, it is to this end that Christians should seek to see their fellow man enjoy the benefits that their creator has lavished on mankind. To do less is not Christ-like. To give a person a fish to eat but not permit him learning how to fish, is a travesty.

The church often times will hand out fish (in the name of Christ) while they neglect the economic impact of restrictive laws that prevent fishing and in doing so, are loving the fact that they are doing something good for the poor, while neglecting the problem all together.

Thomas Jefferson spoke about a similar economic issue dealing with banking.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks...will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered... The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
- President, Thomas Jefferson

Christians need to love the poor and get involved in what impacts them. Love is more difficult and requires more of us than handing out pieces of fish to those that are hungry.

The Mouse that roared

2008-02-07T12:02:00.000-05:00

February 6, 2008 by dougwead

Well now, Republicans say, we have a nominee. That may very well be but there was only one clear winner in the confusing GOP nominating contest and it was not John McCain. The winner was Ron Paul. And the effects of his win will be felt for years to come.
Ron Paul made a classic political mistake. He told the truth. In debate after debate he pointed at his party, his president, his fellow contenders for the GOP nomination, shouting aloud like the little boy in the proverbial story, “they have no clothes” and lo and behold, we looked and they didn’t. They were all naked.
He showed that the conservative movement has lost its way, its moral authority and its logic. He showed us that we have become a red team versus blue team. That since we have decided that this is a political war and all normal rules are suspended, conservatives can do liberal things to win it. Conservatives can run up big deficits if it helps their side win. They can dole out needless pork if it elects another “conservative” to congress. They can go to war if it makes their president look like a leader and wins him another term.
But in the process, Ron Paul showed us, that we have lost our way. We are no longer conservatives. We are fighting for power not for principles. We have become corrupted by the process and the only way back is to retrace our steps and find all the things we discarded along he way.
Barry Goldwater lighted a similar fire with his Conscience of a Conservative. Its truth and arguments were so obvious and so honest that one laughed aloud while reading it. But Goldwater, himself, was doomed to political defeat. And Ron Paul had no chance to win this election either. One could see that when he first opened his mouth.
And yet, the words and arguments of Ron Paul are still resonating. They still hang over this election. They are haunting and troubling. They are producing blogs and papers and books and like Goldwater’s revolution they will one day very likely produce their own Ronald Reagan. And when those heady days happen a small but hearty band of pioneers, who first had the nerve to join him and start shouting from the street, “They aren’t wearing any clothes,” will be able to say that they could see what the country missed. They were there when history was made.
John McCain and his poorly chosen words, of staying in Iraq a hundred years, have almost guaranteed that he will be the answer to the trivia question, who was the Republican candidate who lost to the ticket that claimed the first woman and black for the presidency? Another question may very well be, “What other candidate ran that year and launched the movement that has dominated national politics for the last generation?”
And the answer will be Ron Paul.

TGI Friday's- $5 off coupon

2008-02-06T08:47:00.001-05:00

TGI Friday's Restaurant has a coupon for $5 off $15 or more that may be used through Feb 29, 2008.

News shocker: Ron Paul was biggest GOP fundraiser last quarter

2008-02-01T16:42:00.000-05:00

Funds by Candidate:
Paul -
Raised $19.95 Million
Spent $17.5 Million
On Hand $7.8 Million

McCain -
Raised $9.9 Million
Spent $10.5 Million
On Hand $2.9 Million

Romney -
Raised $9.2 Million
Spent $27.2 Million
On Hand $2.4 Million

Huckabee -
Raised $6.7 Million
Spent $7.8 Million
On Hand $651,000

Source

Gas Prices Too High? Good News!

2008-01-31T20:36:00.001-05:00

When adjusted for inflation, gas prices have actually dropped for most of the 21st century and only recently reached the same price equivilancy as in 1920. That my friend is because your dollar earns a lot less then it once did.

Purchasing Power: 2008 vs. 1970

2008-01-31T10:15:00.000-05:00

Consider this: a person making $32,000 per year today has the equivalent purchasing power of $5,907 in 1970 dollars. So, the same person making $15.38 per hour today is equal to making $2.84 per hour in real purchasing power in 1970 dollars. It is not the price of goods and services that have risen so much, but the purchasing power of our dollar that has been so drastically reduced.

Our standard of living has been effectively reduced through fiat money inflation.
Is there any wonder that poverty is becoming rampant? The government has no other choice but enforce minimum wages in order to keep the working poor at some level of subsistence.

At the current $5.85 per hour a person has the same 1970 purchasing power of $1.08 per hour, at 40 hours per week that person is effectively making $43.20 per week to make ends meet.

Now, do you actually think that McCain, Romney, Huckabee, Hillary or Obama understand what has happened to our money or how the policies of the Federal Reserve undermine our working men and women, indeed how it undermines our entire Nation? I don't. Ron Paul is the only Republican in the race who understands economics and our country.

After all, Ronald Reagan once said: “Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country.”

No other presidential candidate can claim a conservative record that matches Dr. Paul’s:
-Congressman Paul has never voted to raise taxes.
-Congressman Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
-Congressman Paul has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
-Congressman Paul has never voted to raise congressional pay.
-Congressman Paul has never taken a government-paid junket.
-Congressman Paul supported Ronald Reagan against Gerald Ford in 1976.

In 1978 and subsequent elections, Ronald Reagan endorsed Ron Paul and supported his reelection to Congress.

Watch How Nervous McCain is in the Debate

2008-01-31T10:01:00.000-05:00

CNN Video

Mitt on the other hand looks like he is about to laugh.

In this clip, Ron Paul says this on the Iraq war, "I find it rather silly, because they're arguing technicalities of a policy they both agree with," he said. "They agreed with going in; they agreed for staying, agreed for staying how many years? And these are technicalities. We should be debating foreign policy."

Andrew Romano from Newsweek had this to say in response to the debate: "The other candidates--not to mention reporters--often dismiss the Good Doctor, but as the field narrows, I have to say: it's fun to watch him give them a hard time. He was certainly talking sense tonight."

Radio Interview with Romney on 1% Sales Tax

2008-01-29T18:26:00.000-05:00

"They will not change the tax code because it is total control- total control."

Tax Rebates

2008-01-24T12:04:00.000-05:00

In response to the tax rebate of $300 to $1,200 per family that is brewing in congress right now, Milton Friedman (Nobel laureate in Economics) had this to say: “There doubtless are many causes for the loss of freedom, but surely a major cause has been the growth of government and its increasing control of our lives. Today, government, directly or indirectly, controls the spending of as much as half our national income.”

Basically, this is a plan of wealth redistribution as money is funeled from productive citizens to those that aren't quite as productive or even lazy thereby rewarding those that don't pay taxes by giving them money from tax payers.

10 Most Corrupt Politicians- According to Judicial Watch

2008-01-23T22:31:00.000-05:00

6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR): Governor Huckabee enjoyed a meteoric rise in the polls in December 2007, which prompted a more thorough review of his ethics record. According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.

and

5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY): Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered the former New York mayor’s office “billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons…” ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense. All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani’s former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe in the form of renovations to his Bronx apartment from a construction company attempting to land city contracts.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007

Roe of Roe v. Wade Endroses Ron Paul for President

2008-01-22T15:20:00.000-05:00

"Before the March for Life this morning Norma McCorvey, the former Jane Roe of the infamous abortion case that allowed unlimited abortions nationwide, backed Ron Paul fo the GOP presidential nomination.

McCorvey is now pro-life and she says Ron Paul is the best candidate to make sure abortion is no more. McCorvey runs Crossing Over Ministry and is a frequent speaker across the country on pro-life issues. “Ron Paul states, ‘The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty.’

I support Ron Paul for president because we share the same goal, that of overturning Roe v Wade," McCorvey said Tuesday. "Ron Paul doesn't just talk about being pro-life, he acts on it. His voting record truly is impeccable and he undoubtedly understands our constitutional republic and the inalienable right to life for all," McCorvey added.

Full story at LifeNews.com.

Presidential Endorsements

2008-01-22T15:00:00.000-05:00

New Mexico Governor Gary "Veto" Johnson announced that he is supporting Dr. Paul for president. Governor Johnson is an icon to small-government conservatives and libertarians for his long-standing commitment to the principles of the Founders. You can read our press release here.

This morning, Ron Paul also received the glowing endorsement of Donald L. Luskin, a prominent financial commentator on CNBC and Chief Investment Officer for Trend Macrolytics LLC. You can read Don's editorial in National Review about why Ron Paul is right for America here.

Cal Thomas on the GOP Primaries

2008-01-21T10:50:00.000-05:00

Bestselling author, syndicated columnist, and renowned conservative commentator Cal Thomas praised Ron Paul yesterday on his website. Here's some of what he had to say:

"Where are we after the Michigan primary and just before South Carolina this weekend?

"Mike Huckabee... sounds like a big government Republican. The only one behaving like a real Republican is Ron Paul, who actually wants to cut spending and get government out of our lives. He won't win the nomination because too many Republican are into handouts and redistribution, just like Democrats.

"It's a sad political season if you are a conservative... Maybe a miracle will happen and Republicans will start behaving like Republicans again."

Read all of his comments here.

Fred and Ron

2008-01-16T08:15:00.000-05:00

Fred's a good man, and yes, has a clearly conservative broad outlook. If I can't get a Paul-Thompson ticket, I'll settle for Thompson-Paul, or even Thompson-Giuliani. When a dysfunctional federal government generates systemic problems, though — and there are some doozies just over the horizon — you need systemic solutions. I believe that in current circumstances, that means a withdrawal of federal power from areas where it never had any proper business being, and a return to a strict reading of the federal Constitution. I see the same belief in Paul. I don't see it Fred.

by: John Derbyshire

An Open Letter From An Arkansas Evangelical

2008-01-03T08:39:00.000-05:00

A Plea from Arkansas: Christian Conservatives Need to Take a Closer Look at Mike Huckabee's Record as Governor
by David Thompson

As a conservative, evangelical, politically-active father of four in Arkansas I believe it is imperative for like-minded voters to become more familiar with the Mike Huckabee that just completed 10 years as our governor. I realize it’s sometimes hard to know what to believe during a campaign, so I've tried to include links to published stories, with most coming from years past when the events noted were taking place.

For those who don't know much about me, I attend a very conservative evangelical church in Central Arkansas that includes some other politically active members (past/present elected officials, lobbyists, candidates, etc), and our family currently homeschools our young children. Since 1996, I have been heavily involved in numerous Republican campaigns in Arkansas at all levels (even managing a few). I have also served as vice chairman of the Republican committee in Arkansas' largest county. Yet I don't know of a single person in these circles who is supporting Huckabee for President - although I do know many that are definitely not supporting him. Of course, this is anecdotal evidence, but consider that Huckabee just finished serving 10 years as our governor (and I am sure there are many Republicans in Arkansas who are supporting him - I just don't know them). The truth is, most conservatives in Arkansas had written him off long before his Presidential bid.

That said, here are 7 key reasons I cannot in good conscience support Mike Huckabee as the Republican nominee for President. This is based on his record here and is not a personal attack - I cannot speak for his or anybody's motives. This list is not the result of intense research - it's based on what I know and have experienced first-hand as a politically-active conservative Arkansan. It's a list I could have given you 6 months or even 2 years ago. And I am not attempting to echo or give validity to any criticism he is now receiving nationally (and I don’t think ALL of it is fair). This is the Mike Huckabee we know.

1) Governor Huckabee did lasting damage to the Republican Party and conservative movement in Arkansas.
It's hard to go after Democrats with a conservative message when your Republican Governor is out front releasing violent criminals, providing state benefits to illegals, pushing tax increases, expanding government spending and programs, and constantly walking an ethical tight-rope (more on each of these items to follow). This tied our party's hands - many conservatives got frustrated, apathy set in, and some quit the fight. In addition:
Huckabee insisted on having "his people" controlling the Republican Party campaign organizations that are set up in Arkansas each election cycle. He also insisted that his guy remain as state party chairman when party leaders planned to make a change. The mismanagement and ineptness that followed was so great that the Republican Party plunged into debt and the Federal Election Commission levied the the largest fine ever against a state political party following an investigation of the 2000 and 2002 election cycles. Obviously, this set back the Republican Party of Arkansas for years.
When Huckabee started his first full term in 1998, Arkansas had just elected a Republican Governor, Lt. Governor, U.S. Senator, and 2 Republican Congressmen. Upon his leaving office in 2007, Republicans now hold no statewide offices, have no Republicans in the U.S.Senate, and only one Republican Congressman remains.
It was often said during Huckabee's term that Arkansas had 3 parties: Republican Party, Democrat Party, and the Huckabee Party.
"He destroyed the conservative movement in Arkansas, and left the Republican Party in shambles." - Phyllis Schlafly, president of the national Eagle Forum
"His support for taxes split the Republican Party, and damaged our name brand." – Former Arkansas State Representative Randy Minton (R)
"I think if they knew [his record] it would totally de-energize them . . . his policies are just wrong." – Former Arkansas State Senator Jim Holt’s (R) warning for conservatives around the country who think they have found their candidate in Mike Huckabee.

2) Governor Huckabee's non-stop clemencies continually hindered the work of criminal prosecutors and miffed Republicans. The numbers are staggering - over 1,000 clemencies and commutations of criminals as governor. Most people now are familiar with his push to parole convicted rapist Wayne Dumond, who went on to rape and murder a Missouri woman less than a year after his release. But there are many more troubling facts regarding Huckabee’s pattern of releasing violent criminals. While I cannot speak for Huckabee’s motives, it seems clear that he used poor judgment and was reckless with this executive power.
Huckabee released more criminals than the combined total of every border state to Arkansas (made up of Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Louisiana) - even though the combined population of these states is 16 times higher than Arkansas'. He also issued more than double the clemencies of his three predecessors combined.
In many cases, Huckabee's actions set loose savage criminals convicted of grisly murders over the passionate objections of prosecutors and victims' families. This American Spectator story details some of these violent cases and explains the resulting difficulties they presented prosecutors working with other victims and their families.
Huckabee and his appointees ignored the laws on the books, including the requirement to notify victims' families and explain the reasons for those clemencies. He said to fully explain his reasoning would cost millions of dollars and "take money away from education and Medicaid and other things."
A 2004 investigative article by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette found that prisoners had a better chance of being granted clemency by Huckabee if they had a mutual acquaintance, labored at the governor's mansion under a prisoner work program, or a minister intervened on their behalf. Prosecutors say Huckabee was more inclined to release or reduce the sentences of prisoners if he had direct contact with them or was lobbied by those close to him.
He often refused to learn the facts of the cases (sometimes not even reading the murderer's own confession), made no attempt to get the police/prosecutor's case files, or even get input from the victims' families before making his decision.
The clemency granted to one multiple DUI offender was likely tied to large political contributions from the offender's family, including a soft money political organization run by Huckabee's people.
Good summary article
"Last January, after Mississippi Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, a Democrat, lost his re-election bid, he issued 16 clemencies, and there was a huge outcry. That's how many Huckabee averages per month." – Arkansas Leader, (August 11, 2004)
"He seems to believe that granting clemency to murderers, rapists, drunk drivers and other convicted criminals is a part of the everyday affairs of the governor's office rather than something that he should approach cautiously and selectively." – Robert Herzfeld, Saline County Prosecuting Attorney during Huckabee’s tenure
"I know some of the people that Huckabee let loose have reoffended. Some of them we've caught and some of them we haven't caught......I used to be able to tell the families of victims, in all good faith and candor, that it was a rare event when a governor commuted a sentence and let a murderer back out, or a rapist back out or a child molester back out. But I can't do that anymore." - Larry Jegley, longtime Pulaski County Prosecuting Attorney
"I felt like Huckabee had more compassion for the murderers than he ever did for the victims." - Elaine Colclasure, co-leader of the Central Arkansas chapter of Parents of Murdered Children.

3) Governor Huckabee's pattern was to ignore immigration laws, often in the name of Christianity.
Huckabee opposed immigration enforcement as governor on a number of fronts. Immigration enforcement groups call Huckabee’s record on immigration "a disaster" and reference him as they guy who "scares the heck" out of them.
In 2001, Huckabee’s human services liaison Robert Trevino pushed for legislation to provide driver’s licenses for illegals. It was understood by legislators that he acted with Huckabee's blessing.
In 2001, Huckabee opposed a measure to require proof of citizenship to vote.
In 2005, Huckabee supported a bill that offered illegal immigrants in-state tuition rates and made them eligible for the same merit-based scholarships to Arkansas state colleges and universities as legal citizens. The bill would have violated federal law and was not enacted by the legislature.
In 2005, he opposed a bill that denied some state benefits to illegals and required proof of citizenship to vote (patterned after Arizona’s Prop 200 that has been successful in curtailing illegal immigration in that state). In this story, Huckabee called the measure "un-American….inflammatory….race-baiting and demagoguery." He added that the bill "inflames those who are racist and bigots and makes them think there’s a real problem. But there’s not." He then singled out State Senator Jim Holt, also an openly professing Christian, saying, "I drink a different kind of Jesus juice."
In 2005, Huckabee criticized federal agents for a recent crackdown on illegals, saying that it wasn’t fair to the innocent family members of those targeted in the operation. (No word on whether he also opposes raids on other law-breakers who might also have innocent family members affected by the fruits of their illegal activity.)
In 2005, Huckabee promoted an "open door" policy on immigration as he addressed the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) national convention in Little Rock. LULAC is a left-leaning group that opposes virtually all measures of immigration enforcement.
"He was an absolute disaster on immigration as governor. Every time there was any enforcement in his state, he took the side of the illegal aliens." - Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, a group that played a major role in rallying the phone calls that helped defeat this year's Senate immigration bill.
"I would hope he could be trusted to secure the borders, but given his track record in Arkansas, I don't see the conservative he has portrayed himself to be in Iowa." - Jake Files, a former Arkansas state representative and current chairman of the Sebastian County Republican Party

4) Governor Huckabee was no friend to fiscal conservatives in Arkansas.
Huckabee’s record on taxes, government spending, and growing government programs was miserable. Basically, when the economy got tough, Huckabee expected families like mine to tighten our budgets in order to help state government meet its spending whims.
In 2003, Huckabee called a special session of the legislature to push for a tax increase to make up for spending shortfalls. This led to his signing HB1039, an across the board income tax and tobacco tax increase. Huckabee even refused to consider a Republican proposal to cut spending and use general improvement funds (i.e., legislative pork) to make up for the budget shortfall. Ironically, the same day Huckabee was practically begging the Arkansas legislature to raise taxes (here’s the video), President Bush was also in Little Rock to push for his tax cut plan. (Note: When asked about this video recently, Huckabee gave a misleading response to Fox News, blaming his tax increase plea on a court order. This prompted State Representative Johnny Key, the current Republican Leader in the Arkansas House, to send out a letter correcting the accuracy of Huckabee's statement.)
If that weren't enough, Huckabee called a 2nd special legislative session in 2003 to pass a nearly one-cent state sales tax increase. The measure also expanded the sales tax to include previously exempted services (for more information and context, see reason #6 below).
During Huckabee’s term, Arkansas showed a net tax increase of $505 million, and the average Arkansan’s tax burden grew from $1,969 to $2,902. Governor Huckabee raised more taxes in 10 years in office than Bill Clinton did in his 12 years.
During Huckabee’s 10 years as governor, state spending more than doubled (from $6.6 billion to $16.1 billion), higher education and public schools got big increases, as did social services. Meanwhile, the state added about 8,000 full-time workers to its payroll during that period, a 19% increase (according to the Bureau of Legislative Research).
The conservative Cato Institute gave Huckabee an "F" for his final term as governor on its Fiscal Policy Report Card, saying, "Huckabee’s leadership has left taxpayers in Arkansas much worse off." His grade was lower than 15 of the 21 Democrat Governors. His overall grade as governor was a D.
"The main reason for the drop was his insistence on raising taxes at almost every turn throughout his final term." – Cato Institute explaining why Huckabee had dropped from a "D" to an "F" on their Fiscal Policy Report Card.
"[Huckabee] says he’s pro-family. If you’re raising taxes on the families of Arkansas, causing wives to go out and get jobs to make ends meet, that’s not pro-family." - Former Arkansas State Representative Randy Minton (R)
"In the past, he blamed Democrats for raising taxes...We voted for them, but he proposed them." - Arkansas State Senator John Paul Capps, a Democrat

5) Huckabee left a long trail of ethics questions while Governor of Arkansas
This is an area where I think Huckabee does receive some unfair criticism. Some of the ethics charges against him were frivolous and politically motivated. However, it has been concerning for some time just how much the governor accepted in gifts and how he was seemingly always pushing ethical limits.
During his tenure, Huckabee accepted 314 gifts valued overall at more than $150,000, according to documents filed with the Arkansas' Secretary of State office.
The Huckabees set up wedding registries at local department stores as Mike was leaving office – even though they had been married for 30 years. State ethics laws prohibited Huckabee from receiving gifts of more than $100……but there was an exception for wedding gifts.
Judicial Watch, a non-partisan group dedicted to fighting government corruption, listed Huckabee among their Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians of 2007. Huckabee was one of only three Republican politicians to make the list.

6) Huckabee's education record shows him to be an advocate of the "status quo"
The New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association (NEA) has endorsed Hillary Clinton and Mike Huckabee for the upcoming Primary elections. This is the first time in memory that they have recommended a Republican (in 2004 they endorsed Howard Dean). They likely chose Huckabee because:
Huckabee has consistently opposed virtually all proposals for education reform, including school choice vouchers.
The former president of Eagle Forum of Arkansas said Huckabee "continued the Hillary Clinton education plan" as our governor.
When the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that Arkansas’ public school funding was "inequitable," Huckabee took the ruling as a mandate to raise taxes in order to once again increase school funding...which he did. (To his credit, however, he also used the opportunity to consolidate some of the school districts in the state - although rural legislators severely watered down the proposal.)

7) Huckabee has very little support for his Presidential bid here in Arkansas
For the most part those in his party who know him best are not supporting him.
In October, a University of Arkansas poll showed that, among all Presidential candidates in both parties, only 8% of Arkansans said they were supporting Mike Huckabee.
That same week, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette reported that only one-third of Republicans in the Arkansas Legislature said they were supporting their former governor's Presidential bid.
After this story, the Huckabee campaign published a list of supporters in his home state. The Arkansas News Bureau then reported that as some of the names on Huckabee's Arkansas endorsement list were used without permission and had to be removed.
This is purely anecdotal, but despite my involvement in Republican politics, I am unaware of any of my Republican friends who are supporting Huckabee. I have seen maybe 3 Huckabee for President bumper stickers – and I live in Republican west Little Rock and work 2 miles from the state capitol where Huckabee just completed over 10 years as Governor (my wife says she saw her first sticker today…..guess he's picking up steam here!).
"...if Huckabee didn't have things sewn up with Republicans back home, what kind of message did that send?....The truth is that Huckabee hasn't had that much support from former and current Republican legislators." - David Sanders, conservative columnist for Arkansas News Bureau (November 11, 2007)
Conclusion:
I realize the Republican Presidential field does not leave true conservatives with much to get excited about. However, it is unlikely I will support Huckabee over any of the Republican frontrunners because of his liberal record, his questionable judgment, and his reckless use of power while Governor. Now is not the time for Republicans to compromise on core conservative values. More importantly, we need a leader with a history of using strong judgment as our nation continues to lead the world in the War on Terror.

Two final questions:
1) Given the many vulnerabilities in his record, what is the likelihood that Huckabee would win in a general election? Democrat National Committee officials have already been quoted as saying that they see Huckabee as "easy kill" and refer to him as "the glass jaw -- and they're just waiting to break it." The DNC has issued over 200 attack press releases on Republican candidates - only 4 on Huckabee, the last one coming 10 months ago.
2) Does his record as governor represent someone who should be given greater power and responsibility? Is he Commander and Chief material? Leader of the free world? National Review recently expressed concern, and Huckabee raised eyebrows with recent comments critical of U.S. Foreign policy and our role in the world - he was essentially repeating the Democrat talking points!

Feel free to pass this letter on or contact me if you have any questions about anything stated here. I have tried very carefully to be fair, accurate, and to stick to facts from Huckabee's record. But it's certainly possible I made a mistake somewhere or worded something poorly. I would be more than happy to further dialogue on any of these issues.

Sincerely,
David Thompson
Little Rock, Arkansas
Source: http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/33391ddb-ed1f-4bc3-9d19-cdca6181d5d4

Military support for the Republican Candidates

2007-12-17T16:36:00.000-05:00

NAME: TOTAL [ARMY] [NAVY] [AIRFORCE] [VETERAN] [USMC**]

Ron Paul: 24,965 [6,975] [6,765] [4,650] [5,075] [1,500] - 49.5%
McCain: 17,475 [6925] [6305] [1795] [800] [1600] - 34.6%
Romney: 3,551 [2,051] [0] [1500] [0] - 7.0%
Giuliani: 2,320 [1,450] [370] [250] [250] - 4.6%
Hunter: 1000 [0] [1000] [0] - 2.0%
Huckabee: 750 [250] [0] [500] (2.3% all others)
Tancredo: 350 [350] [0] [0]
Brownback: 71 [71] [0] [0]
Thompson: 0 [0] [0] [0]

Military Support for ALL Candidates

Source: http://thespinfactor.com/thetruth/2007/07/16/military-support-for-the-republican-candidates

Huckabee vs. Paul

2007-12-13T19:59:00.000-05:00

"Essentially Mccain and Thompsons role in the election now are only to serve as Roadblocks to Ron Paul as he makes way for what will be an epic confrontation with the Huckster. If Paul can place well in Iowa, beat Mccain in NH, and then beat Thompson in SC we'll be well on our way to a roller coaster super tuesday counter our Huck vs. Paul tallys.

The polls create a very distinct problem for Huckabee aside from now being in the crosshairs of every nominee. Frontrunner status will kill his turnout. Huckabee supporters will be growing smug that Huckabee has the race locked down and many won't vote due to their security that they got it in the bag. Ron Paul supporters on the other hand have been proven to turnout and no matter what the poll numbers say will be a force to deal with cause of this factor. Ron Pauls graceful and well paced rise continues while Huckabee peaks and leaves himself open for fire.

December will be a month to remember."

Source: http://causeoffreedom.blogspot.com/2007/12/20-poll-watch-huckabee-vs-ron-paul.html

Ron Paul Rises Above Giuliani

2007-12-02T11:04:00.000-05:00

With over one month still remaining in the fourth quarter, Congressman Paul has currently raised $10,259,765. By comparison, Rudy Giuliani raised only $10,258,019 during the three-month period from July to September of this year.

“This milestone is the latest indication that Dr. Paul’s message of freedom, peace, and prosperity is resonating strongly with voters across the United States,” said Paul campaign spokesman Joe Seehusen. “New money means new support.”

Congressman Paul also recently placed first in the New York Young Republicans poll, in Giuliani’s home state.

The Paul campaign has publicly set a $12 million fourth quarter fundraising goal, to be raised by December 31. Congressman Paul is also the first presidential candidate in history to make fundraising numbers publicly available in real-time.

Recently, Paul received widespread recognition for his record $4.2 million one-day fundraising haul on November 5. Over 37,000 citizens contributed in one single day.

Source: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/54/ron-paul-rises-above-giuliani

A complete list of things caused by global warming

2007-11-30T15:49:00.000-05:00

Agricultural land increase, Africa devastated, African aid threatened, Africa hit hardest, air pressure changes, Alaska reshaped, allergies increase, Alps melting, Amazon a desert, American dream end, amphibians breeding earlier (or not), ancient forests dramatically changed, animals head for the hills, Antarctic grass flourishes, anxiety, algal blooms, archaeological sites threatened, Arctic bogs melt, Arctic in bloom, Arctic lakes disappear, asthma, Atlantic less salty, Atlantic more salty, atmospheric defiance, atmospheric circulation modified, attack of the killer jellyfish, avalanches reduced, avalanches increased, bananas destroyed, bananas grow, beetle infestation, bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects, billions of deaths, bird distributions change, bird visitors drop, birds return early, blackbirds stop singing, blizzards, blue mussels return, bluetongue, boredom, bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain Siberian, British gardens change, brothels struggle, bubonic plague, budget increases, Buddhist temple threatened, building collapse, building season extension, bushfires, business opportunities, business risks, butterflies move north, cancer deaths in England, cardiac arrest, caterpillar biomass shift, challenges and opportunities, childhood insomnia, Cholera, circumcision in decline, cirrus disappearance, civil unrest, cloud increase, cloud stripping, cockroach migration, cod go south, cold climate creatures survive, cold spells (Australia), computer models, conferences, coral bleaching, coral reefs dying, coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , cold spells, cost of trillions, cougar attacks, cremation to end, crime increase, crocodile sex, crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems, cyclones (Australia), damages equivalent to $200 billion, Darfur, Dartford Warbler plague, death rate increase (US), Dengue hemorrhagic fever, dermatitis, desert advance, desert life threatened, desert retreat, destruction of the environment, diarrhoea, disappearance of coastal cities, diseases move north, Dolomites collapse, drought, drowning people, ducks and geese decline, dust bowl in the corn belt, early marriages, early spring, earlier pollen season, Earth biodiversity crisis, Earth dying, Earth even hotter, Earth light dimming, Earth lopsided, Earth melting, Earth morbid fever, Earth on fast track, Earth past point of no return, Earth slowing down, Earth spinning out of control, Earth spins faster, Earth to explode, earth upside down, Earth wobbling, earthquakes, El Niño intensification, erosion, emerging infections, encephalitis, equality threatened, Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, evolution accelerating, expansion of university climate groups, extinctions (human, civilisation, logic, Inuit, smallest butterfly, cod, ladybirds, bats, pandas, pikas, polar bears, pigmy possums, gorillas, koalas, walrus, whales, frogs, toads, turtles, orang-utan, elephants, tigers, plants, salmon, trout, wild flowers, woodlice, penguins, a million species, half of all animal and plant species, not polar bears, barrier reef, leaches), experts muzzled, extreme changes to California, fading fall foliage, famine, farmers go under, fashion disaster, fever,figurehead sacked, fir cone bonanza, fish catches drop, fish catches rise, fish stocks at risk, fish stocks decline, five million illnesses, flesh eating disease, flood patterns change, floods, floods of beaches and cities, Florida economic decline, food poisoning, food prices rise, food security threat (SA), footpath erosion, forest decline, forest expansion, frostbite, frosts, fungi fruitful, fungi invasion, games change, Garden of Eden wilts, genetic diversity decline, gene pools slashed, gingerbread houses collapse, glacial earthquakes, glacial retreat, glacial growth, glacier wrapped, global cooling, global dimming, glowing clouds, god melts, golf Masters wrecked, Gore omnipresence, grandstanding, grasslands wetter, Great Barrier Reef 95% dead, Great Lakes drop, greening of the North, Grey whales lose weight, Gulf Stream failure, habitat loss, Hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, harvest increase, harvest shrinkage, hay fever epidemic, hazardous waste sites breached, health of children harmed, heart disease, heart attacks and strokes (Australia), heat waves, hibernation ends too soon, hibernation ends too late, homeless 50 million, hornets, high court debates, human development faces unprecedented reversal, human fertility reduced, human health improvement, human health risk, hurricanes, hurricane reduction, hydropower problems, hyperthermia deaths, ice sheet growth, ice sheet shrinkage, illness and death, inclement weather, infrastructure failure (Canada), Inuit displacement, Inuit poisoned, Inuit suing, industry threatened, infectious diseases, inflation in China, insurance premium rises, invasion of cats, invasion of herons, invasion of midges, island disappears, islands sinking, itchier poison ivy, jellyfish explosion, Kew Gardens taxed, kitten boom, krill decline, lake and stream productivity decline, lake shrinking and growing, landslides, landslides of ice at 140 mph, lawsuits increase, lawsuit successful, lawyers' income increased (surprise surprise!), lightning related insurance claims, little response in the atmosphere, lush growth in rain forests, Lyme disease, Malaria, malnutrition, mammoth dung melt, Maple syrup shortage, marine diseases, marine food chain decimated, marine dead zone, Meaching (end of the world), megacryometeors, Melanoma, methane emissions from plants, methane burps, melting permafrost, Middle Kingdom convulses, migration, migration difficult (birds), microbes to decompose soil carbon more rapidly, monkeys on the move, Mont Blanc grows, monuments imperiled, more bad air days, more research needed, mountain (Everest) shrinking, mountains break up, mountains taller, mortality lower, mudslides, National security implications, new islands, next ice age, Nile delta damaged, no effect in India, Northwest Passage opened, nuclear plants bloom, oaks move north, ocean acidification, ocean waves speed up, opera house to be destroyed, outdoor hockey threatened, oyster diseases, ozone loss, ozone repair slowed, ozone rise, Pacific dead zone, personal carbon rationing, pest outbreaks, pests increase, phenology shifts, plankton blooms, plankton destabilised, plankton loss, plant viruses, plants march north, polar bears aggressive, polar bears cannibalistic, polar bears drowning, polar bears starve, polar tours scrapped, porpoise astray, profits collapse, psychosocial disturbances, puffin decline, railroad tracks deformed, rainfall increase, rainfall reduction, rape wave, refugees, reindeer larger, release of ancient frozen viruses, resorts disappear, rice threatened, rice yields crash, riches, rift on Capitol Hill, rioting and nuclear war, rivers dry up, river flow impacted, rivers raised, roads wear out, rockfalls, rocky peaks crack apart, roof of the world a desert, Ross river disease, ruins ruined, salinity reduction, salinity increase, Salmonella, salmon stronger, satellites accelerate, school closures, sea level rise, sea level rise faster, seals mating more, sewer bills rise, sex change, sharks booming, sharks moving north, sheep shrink, shop closures, shrinking ponds, shrinking shrine, ski resorts threatened, slow death, smaller brains, smog, snowfall increase, snowfall heavy, snowfall reduction, societal collapse, songbirds change eating habits, sour grapes, space problem, spiders invade Scotland, squid population explosion, squirrels reproduce earlier, spectacular orchids, stormwater drains stressed, street crime to increase, suicide, taxes, tectonic plate movement, teenage drinking, terrorism, threat to peace, ticks move northward (Sweden), tides rise, tourism increase, trade barriers, trade winds weakened, tree beetle attacks, tree foliage increase (UK), tree growth slowed, trees could return to Antarctic, trees in trouble, trees less colourful, trees more colourful, trees lush, tropics expansion, tropopause raised, tsunamis, turtles crash, turtles lay earlier, UK Katrina, Vampire moths, Venice flooded, volcanic eruptions, walrus displaced, walrus pups orphaned, war, wars over water, wars threaten billions, water bills double, water supply unreliability, water scarcity (20% of increase), water stress, weather out of its mind, weather patterns awry, weeds, Western aid cancelled out, West Nile fever, whales move north, wheat yields crushed in Australia, white Christmas dream ends, wildfires, wind shift, wind reduced, wine - harm to Australian industry, wine industry damage (California), wine industry disaster (US), wine - more English, wine -German boon, wine - no more French , winters in Britain colder, wolves eat more moose, wolves eat less, workers laid off, World bankruptcy, World in crisis, World in flames, Yellow fever.

and all on 0.006 deg C per year!

Source: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

Politician Transparency

2007-11-17T11:16:00.000-05:00

Congressman Ron Paul, who is running for president, has a website where you can track his campaign with very high detail. Check out the site: http://ronpaulgraphs.com/

You can follow money, web page subscribers, donors, projected amounts, etc. Check it out. If you don't agree with Congressman Paul, still check it out and ask your candidate to do the same and make their campaign transparent.

Huckabee: Begs for Increased Taxes

2007-11-12T13:04:00.001-05:00

Drucker Supports Paul for President

2007-11-09T23:15:00.000-05:00

He (Peter Drucker) blamed Keynesian economics for an unhealthy anti-saving mythology, causing "under-saving on a massive scale" in the West, both by individuals and government.

Government, Drucker said, is only good at three things: Inflation, taxation and making war! He once bluntly told a U.S. president, "government is obese, muscle-bound and senile." Yet he wasn't against government, per se. He wanted a strong, healthy, vigorous government. To accomplish this goal, he recommended privatization of many state services. In fact, Peter Drucker and Robert Poole (founder of Reason magazine) invented the term "privatization." Drucker was a longtime supporter of privatizing pension plans, both by government and corporations (he preferred defined-contribution plans like 401k's and IRA's, rather than defined-benefit plans such as Social Security and corporate pensions).

Does this mean that Peter Drucker would support Ron Paul for President? Who knows for sure. But what is known is that Dr. Ron Paul is echoing and restating what one of America's greatest business mind believed and said with all his heart.

Excerpt taken from Mark Skousen in his article titled, "Business Guru Peter Drucker" located here.

Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

2007-11-08T13:12:00.001-05:00

"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in [sic] allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus."

more....

Thoughts on Huckabee

2007-11-07T08:23:00.000-05:00

A politician who believes in the bible but does not follow the constitution is no better than a dictator if he has no respect for freedom and liberty that both documents espouse on mankind. In essence, if he doesn’t follow the constitution then I have little belief that he’ll follow the bible (which is of a higher regard) when it comes to hard choices.

I respect Huckabee as a Christian but I have little respect for his history as a politician. His ten-year economic-policy record as the governor of Arkansas is mixed, at best. His history includes numerous tax hikes, ballooning government spending, and increased regulation.

To me, Huckabee seems to think that government must play the role of God by doing more for the people where God has not provided. Those that think the government must do more and provide more, in my mind, are basically espousing to the idea that we can have heaven on earth and that we can form our idol of government into the perfect solution to provide that heaven on earth, instead of looking to God and our fellow man.

Ben Franklin once said, “This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins.”

The Easter Bunny for President

2007-11-06T08:47:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul's 5th of November Catches the Attention of Drudge

2007-11-05T21:37:00.001-05:00

Ron Paul on the Drudge Report for raising more than $4.2 Million dollars in one day:

"Paul's total deposed Mitt Romney as the single-day fundraising record holder in the Republican presidential field. When it comes to sums amassed in one day, Paul now ranks only behind Democrats Hillary Rodham Clinton, who raised nearly $6.2 million on June 30, and Barack Obama."

Links:
AP - "Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, aided by an extraordinary outpouring of Internet support Monday, hauled in more than $3.5 million in 20 hours."
NY Times
myway
ABC - "Mark it down: A landmark moment entered the annals of political fundraising Nov. 5, 2007."
USA Today
Fox News
USA Daily - "Ron Paul’s record beat John Kerry’s record that came two days after the Super Tuesday primaries in 2004. This makes Paul’s online fundraising effort largest single day online fund raising effort in history by a presidential candidate."
Point-Spreads
The Seoul Times

(many running the AP story)

Next Paul Money Bomb - Tea Party 2007 - "The Boston Tea Party was an act of protest by the American colonists against Great Britain in which they destroyed many crates of tea bricks on ships in Boston Harbor. The incident, which took place on Thursday, December 16, 1773, has been seen as helping to spark the American Revolution. It's time for a new Revolution, but this time the revolution will not be fought with muskets, but with sound ideas & principles. Those ideas & principles are embodied in the Presidential Campaign of Congressman Ron Paul."

Alexis de Tocqueville

2007-10-23T19:02:00.000-04:00

In 1835, de Tocqueville traveled to America to distinguish it and it's prosperity from that of other European nations and their views and theories of Aristocracy. He found out that money-making (individualism through capitalism) was by far the dominant ethic of the time. He also took note that a class system whereby commoners were subjected to the minority of elites did not take place.

In his great work, Democracy in America, he acknowledges the importance of America's religious founding and why he believed religion was the single reason for freedom and prosperity in America.

"Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion--for who can search the human heart?--but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society."

"I sought for the greatness of the United States in her commodious harbors, her ample rivers, her fertile fields, and boundless forests - and it was not there. I sought for it in her rich mines, her vast world commerce, her public schools system and in her institutions of higher learning - and it was not there. I looked for it in her democratic Congress and her matchless Constitution - and it was not there. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great!"

Take the Quiz

2007-10-23T16:43:00.001-04:00

From Neal Boortz' web site today:

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above

3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Jose f Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above

Answers:

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005

Robert Heinlein, "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long"

2007-10-23T13:48:00.000-04:00

Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded—here and there, now and then—are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people.

Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck."

DNA Pioneer Watson- Evolutionist & Racist

2007-10-18T20:50:00.001-04:00

Professor James Watson, founder of the DNA double helix and winner of the Nobel prize in 1962, was recently quoted in a Sunday Times interview as saying he was “inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa” because “all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really". He then went on to say that he hoped that everyone was equal, but that “people who have to deal with black employees finds this not true.”

This is SCIENCE!! (supposedly) He is one of the foremost geneticist and along with Al Gore, received Nobel prizes.

His theory is that because evolution is true, you cannot assume that the people who inhibit the nations of the world are at the same evolutionary point of time. If evolution is adaptation to environment, in order to survive, then what an African has to adapt to in order to survive could be different than the environment of those that live in Europe. Therefore, westerners could be more intelligent because they have adapted more than Africans.

I think all this goes to show that if you follow evolution to its logical conclusion, you have to admit that not all people are created equal- some might have evolved at a greater rate than others. And therefore, some people and races might be more intelligent and stronger, while other people and races might be weaker.

This begs the question: what do science teachers at the nation’s public schools teach? Are they enabling racism and hate by telling our youth that evolution is truth and that absolutes absolutely do not exist?

News Article

Poverty in America?

2007-10-18T09:28:00.000-04:00

Roosevelt observed that capitalism is unequally divided riches while socialism is equally divided poverty. Gulag prison life meant an equal distribution of death among both rich and poor, old and young.

One of the most obvious symptoms of communism is queue lines. The demand for a good becomes significantly larger than the supply of it. A good which is priced at zero will be overused, at the same time, the supply side will be reduced since there are no incentives to rationalize or move into the market. You know the scenery: empty shelves, people queuing up for rotten bread. Or rotten healthcare.

In Sweden, their enchanted, beloved communist healthcare system lets people wait for more than two years before they can get certain surgeries. Welfare state? Hardly, except for the politicians and bureaucrats of course, who somehow manage to pass by the queues and enrich themselves at the expense of others. It almost sounds too Soviet to be true.

Political Power and the Rule of Law

2007-10-15T10:15:00.000-04:00

With the elections over and the 110th Congress settling in, the media have been reporting ad nauseam about who has assumed new political power in Washington. We're subjected to breathless reports about emerging power brokers in Congress; how so-and-so is now the powerful chair of an important committee; how certain candidates are amassing power for the 2008 elections, and so on. Nobody questions this use of the word "power," or considers its connotations. It's simply assumed, in Washington and the mainstream media, that political power is proper and inevitable.

The problem is that politicians are not supposed to have power over us-- we're supposed to be free. We seem to have forgotten that freedom means the absence of government coercion. So when politicians and the media celebrate political power, they really are celebrating the power of certain individuals to use coercive state force.

Remember that one's relationship with the state is never voluntary. Every government edict, policy, regulation, court decision, and law ultimately is backed up by force, in the form of police, guns, and jails. That is why political power must be fiercely constrained by the American people.

The desire for power over other human beings is not something to celebrate, but something to condemn! The 20^th century's worst tyrants were political figures, men who fanatically sought power over others through the apparatus of the state. They wielded that power absolutely, without regard for the rule of law.

Our constitutional system, by contrast, was designed to restrain political power and place limits on the size and scope of government. It is this system, the rule of law, which we should celebrate--not political victories.

Political power is not like the power possessed by those who otherwise obtain fame and fortune. After all, even the wealthiest individual cannot force anyone to buy a particular good or service; even the most famous celebrities cannot force anyone to pay attention to them. It is only when elites become politically connected that they begin to impose their views on all of us.

In a free society, government is restrained--and therefore political power is less important. I believe the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else. In other words, the state as referee rather than an active participant in our society.

Those who hold political power, however, would lose their status in a society with truly limited government. It simply would not matter much who occupied various political posts, since their ability to tax, spend, and regulate would be severely curtailed. This is why champions of political power promote an activist government that involves itself in every area of our lives from cradle to grave. They gain popular support by promising voters that government will take care of everyone, while the media shower them with praise for their bold vision.

Political power is inherently dangerous in a free society: it threatens the rule of law, and thus threatens our fundamental freedoms. Those who understand this should object whenever political power is glorified.

by Ron Paul, Dr. February 5, 2007

Do you want more of the same?

2007-09-19T09:18:00.000-04:00

ALL-TIME LOW POLL: Congress approval at 11%; Bush at 29%...

If you do not want more of the same, then check out http://www.ronpaul2008.com and take a stand for something different. Something Republican. Something strong. Something unique.

*A national survey of 1,011 likely voters, taken September 13 through September 16, found barely one-quarter of Americans, or 27 percent, believe the country is headed in the right direction. Nearly 62 percent think the country is on the wrong track.

Ron Paul may just be what America is looking for.

Thomas Jefferson Quote

2007-09-09T17:54:00.000-04:00

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

Check out Ron Paul, “On the Issues”

You must be a liberal...

2007-08-06T09:42:00.000-04:00

If you voted for the Iraq war when it was the popular thing to do, then claim you were hypnotized by Bush's "lies" when it became unpopular.
If you say Bush is "dumb" even after he beat you in two elections you were positive you would win.
If you believe your Democrat controlled congress should spend it's time investigating and impeaching the president in wartime even though there's no evidence of any crimes.
If you hate Dubya more than you love America.
If your idea of free speech is to shut down talk radio.
If you don't want profiling for terrorists even though evidence is overwhelming that most are Middle Easterners.
If you think personal attacks will ingratiate you to the voters.
If you think the war on terror has nothing to do with the war in Iraq.
If you think that more than ½ of the country is brain dead because they aren't in lockstep with everything you're sure is right.
If you're for abortion but against the death penalty.
If you voted for General Patraeus and the surge, then call it a failure well before he had the troops needed to perform it.
If you think capitalism should be replaced by Socialism, despite hundreds of years of evidence that our economy is number 1 in the world.
If you think we have to dumb down our economy because of the man-made Global Warming scam.
If you think it's our fault terrorists attacked us.
If you think everything will be "hunky dory" if we just talk to the terrorists.
If you think the war on terror is just a bumper sticker.
If you like higher taxes, when all evidence shows that lower taxes benefits everyone.
If you think all American corporations are evil.
If you think government can end poverty.
If you think you can't have a view about foreign policy if you haven't served in the military…that is…unless its' your opinion.
If you believe there is no liberal bias in the media.
If you believe there's a vast right wing conspiracy.
If you believe George Bush had the levies blown up in New Orleans.
If you equate Republicans with Nazis.
If you believe Bill Clinton was impeached for covering up sex.
And finally, you're stunned and dismayed that fellow Liberals, Michael E. O'Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack, are claiming they see success in Iraq, via their article entitled "A War We Just Might Win."

In a Bar, How to Understand Tax Laws

2007-06-19T08:41:00.003-04:00

This is a VERY simple way to understand the tax laws.

Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men - the poorest - would pay nothing; the fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3, the seventh $7, the eighth $12, the ninth $18, and the tenth man - the richest - would pay $59.

That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement - until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20." So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six - the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?"

The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so the fifth man paid nothing, the sixth pitched in $2, the seventh paid $5, the eighth paid $9, the ninth paid $12, leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59. Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.

But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20," declared the sixth man who pointed to the tenth. "But he got $7!"

"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man, "I only saved a dollar, too . . . It's unfair that he got seven times more than me!"

"That's true!" shouted the seventh man, "why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"

"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were FIFTY-TWO DOLLARS short of paying the bill! Imagine that!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.

Where would that leave the rest? Unfortunately, most taxing authorities anywhere cannot seem to grasp this rather straightforward logic!

A bill in Congress makes it a crime for pastors and churches to speak against homosexuality

2007-06-19T08:41:00.001-04:00

If citizens don't aggressively oppose a bill now in Congress, in the near future they will be subject to huge fines and prison terms if they say anything negative about homosexuality.

The proposed law would make it a crime to preach on Romans Chapter 1 or I Corinthians Chapter 6. Or even to discuss them in a Sunday School class. If churches and individuals want to keep the government from telling them what they can and cannot preach and teach about homosexuality, they better get involved now!

House bill H.R. 1592 and Senate bill S. 1105 would make negative statements concerning homosexuality, such as calling the practice of homosexuality a sin from the pulpit, a "hate crime" punishable by law. This dangerous legislation would take away your freedom of speech and your freedom of religion. Consider what has already happened:

A California lawsuit which is headed to the U.S. Supreme Court would make the use of the words "natural family," "marriage" and "union of a man and a woman" a "hate speech" crime in government workplaces. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ruled in favor of the plaintiffs!
CNN and The Washington Post both reported that General Peter Pace, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was fired because he publicly expressed moral opposition to homosexual behavior.

For the Alliance Defense Fund's summary of this bill, click here .

The Demise of the Republican Party

2007-06-11T08:21:00.001-04:00

By Alan Caruba
CNSNews.com Commentary from the National Anxiety Center
June 04, 2007

The firestorm of public outcry against the proposed immigration bill is testimony enough that the Senate and the House need to be reminded that selling out the nation is a very bad idea. There are very good reasons why nations have borders.

The bill is just one more way the Republican Party demonstrated that it has been steadily abandoning its fundamental principles. In essence, the Party has stood for sovereignty, the free market, fiscal prudence, private property, and small government. It was a party that historically has been reluctant to be drawn into foreign wars.

In his new book, "The Invasion of the Party Snatchers," Victor Gold who was a press aide to Barry Goldwater and a speechwriter in George H.W. Bush's administration, recalled the Republican rejection of Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations treaty in 1919. Gold reminds us that the party did not see the nation as "peace-keeper for the planet" because it saw that hubris as "the road to imperial ruin and war without end."

Regarding George W. Bush's pre-emptive war, Gold noted that, "...as to committing American troops to battle overseas, until George H.W. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraq in 1991, no Republican president since William McKinley in 1898 had initiated a war; nor, until Richard Nixon in 1969, had any Republican president opted to carry on a war initiated by a Democratic president."

Gold's book is a scathing look at the depths to which the present Republican Party has fallen and the way George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have come to represent everything that Republicans have fought against from the days when Lincoln first led the party.

Gold makes no bones about it. He wants the present GOP to die so it can be born again to its former principles. The elections of 2008 are likely to bring out masses of Democrats who feel rejuvenated by the failures and missteps of the White House and the GOP. The recently reported falloff of financial support for the GOP, estimated to be as high as forty percent, might actually suggest they're doing something wrong.

More than a few Republicans who simply do not want to live in an America that intrudes into the most private decisions of people's lives, that throws overboard the Constitutional protections of privacy, judicial protections, and whose elected representatives have engaged in an orgy of spending, are desperately seeking real conservative leadership.

So far, however, the Republican candidate debates have more nearly resembled "The Weakest Link" than any promise of a strong commitment to conservative principles.

America has had its political dynasties, the Adams and the Roosevelts, but they have been few and I think most Americans are wary of more Clintons. They are not likely to want any more Bushes after the last six years of the President's rejection of everything for which the Republican Party has stood.

The President has been utterly indifferent to the invasion of millions of Mexicans and others who have illegally crossed our borders, placing all manner of burdens on native born and naturalized Americans. He has made it known that he is eager to sign the proposed immigration "reform" law. This is a security and sovereignty issue of major proportions and it is a total sell-out whether it's Democrats or Republicans voting for it.

As yet little known to the general public, the President has advocated a "North American Union" that would eliminate the sovereignty of the United States, melding it with Canada and Mexico, to be run by bureaucrats along the lines of the European Union. Its official name is the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" and it offers neither. This non-treaty's staff is zealously pursuing this, squirreled away in the Department of Commerce, far from the Congressional oversight needed to thwart its "harmonizing" efforts to change our trade and other regulations.

Bush has also turned to the Dark Green side, endorsing the utterly bogus "climate change" agenda that involves reducing "greenhouse gas" emissions. The fact that 95% or more of greenhouse gases consist of water vapor continues to be unreported and ignored by those who want to destroy the economies of industrial nations with "cap-and-trade" schemes. Global warming? It's the Sun. Get over it!

In the area of fiscal prudence, the GOP seems to have lost its wits. Looking back over his two terms in office, with the support of the Republican Party the President never vetoed a single spending bill in six years until the most recent one that put a timeline on further military engagement in Iraq. Despite efforts to address the vast default that awaits Social Security, the GOP added a prescription program to the bloated Medicare program.

The President's selection of Harriet Myers as a Supreme Court nominee and then of Alberto Gonzalez as Attorney General were suspect in the court of public opinion; the former withdrawing from consideration, the latter subject to much criticism. His two Supreme Court choices, Roberts and Alito, however, are a counter-balance of good judgment.

Gold reflects the widespread feeling that elected Republicans no longer have any regard for the voters. "I'd just like to know there were still Republican senators around who didn't think of the people who elected them as knuckle-walking Pleistocene morons." This can, of course, be extended to Democrats as well.

Gold warns that what has been passed off as a new kind of conservative politics under the aegis of the neo-cons and the pressures of evangelical groups is "merely a recycled model of the old Liberal politics that led to the decline and fall of the Democratic Party in the 1960s."

We are left to wonder how long it will take for those who regard themselves as Republicans to desert today's GOP, mostly by refusing to vote for its candidates, while waiting for new leadership to replace those that have eviscerated it.

(Alan Caruba writes "Warning Signs," a weekly column posted at the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center. The views expressed are those of the writer.)

Copyright 2007, Alan Caruba

Importance of Investing

2007-05-23T14:22:00.001-04:00

The magic of compounding interest is an important factor in growing your retirement fund. Even when you save small amounts in your early work history, the returns earned on that money will build on the base and, over time, will likely help you come out much further ahead than if you wait until later in life to begin your retirement savings. You should begin contributing to your retirement fund as soon as you begin your first job out of college (if not sooner). This will make the question of whether you're contributing enough to your retirement fund a non-issue in later years.

TheStreet.com
Don't Retire Poor -- Avoid These 10 Pitfalls
Wednesday May 16, 10:53 am ET
ByJeffrey Strain

Ann Coulter on Falwell

2007-05-18T08:00:00.001-04:00

"Falwell was a perfected Christian. He exuded Christian love for all men, hating sin while loving sinners. This is as opposed to liberals, who just love sinners. Like Christ ministering to prostitutes, Falwell regularly left the safe confines of his church to show up in such benighted venues as CNN. "

Entire Article

Rabbi mourns death of great Christian leader and friend of Israel - Reverend Jerry Falwell

2007-05-16T13:30:00.001-04:00

It is with great sorrow that I come to you to tell you of the death of a true friend of Israel and the Jewish people—and a man that I was honored to call a personal friend as well.

The Rev. Jerry Falwell passed away today suddenly at the age of 73. When I started The Fellowship 25 years ago, he was among the first Christians to step forward and express interest in being involved in our bridge-building work. And, over the years, he proved his solidarity repeatedly. His involvement helped break down the barriers of mistrust that characterized the relationship between Jews and evangelical Christians at the time.

There were those who remained skeptical of Rev. Falwell's support. I recall on one occasion nearly 30 years ago, I invited him to speak at my synagogue and was criticized by many in the Jewish community who questioned his motives. But this did not deter him one bit in his unfailing support for Israel and the Jewish people. Very directly, but always graciously and lovingly—I never saw him behave otherwise towards people—he would remind those who questioned him that, as a Christian, his support of Israel was based on eternal biblical truths and, because of that, it would not falter. I am happy to say that he managed to win over many of his skeptics through the consistency and obviously genuine quality of his love for Israel and the Jewish people.

The Rev. Falwell once said that "the Bible Belt is Israel's safety belt." Over the years, he helped me realize the truth of that saying. Wherever there are faithful, Bible-believing Christians, I can be assured of finding true friends and supporters of Israel. And the Rev. Falwell himself did much to ensure that "safety belt" remained strong as ever.

Please take a moment today to join with me and Fellowship staff to pray for the many friends and family of Rev. Falwell, and all the staff and students at his school, Liberty University, who mourn the loss of their leader and are now left to carry on his great legacy. He will be sorely missed. I also invite you to share your thoughts and memories of Reverend Falwell with us.

With prayers for shalom, peace,

Rabbi Yechiel Eckstein
President

Privatize the Postal Service

2007-05-02T08:39:00.001-04:00

I found this article by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D., very interesting and enlightening. It reminds me how wonderful and efficient our capitalistic society is- how fair and truly unbiased when compared to government run companies.

It was posted on Tuesday, May 1, 2007, at 12:00AM. Enjoy!

The United States Postal Service has announced that the price of a First Class stamp will rise to 41 cents this month.

I don't have a problem with that. My complaint is much bigger. I don't understand why the post office still exists.

First-Class Incompetence

Forty-one cents to send a letter anywhere in the country doesn't strike me as extreme.

I'm much more bothered by the long lines at the post office, the clerks who snarl at me, and the letter carrier who brings me Greg Albion's mail about every third day.

Who is Greg Albion? And if I'm getting his mail every third day, who's getting mine?

Community-Building USPS Style

I'll admit that I have an axe to grind on this one. My mail delivery is the worst in the country. That's not a throwaway exaggeration -- I mean that when the post office did an internal audit, service in my ZIP code was the very worst.

Our mail delivery is so bad that novelist Jonathan Franzen, author of "The Corrections" (though most famous for saying that he didn't want to be in Oprah's Book Club), wrote an entire essay in The New Yorker on what's gone wrong in the 60614 ZIP code.

How bad is bad? I live in one of those places where a letter carrier's house catches on fire and after the blaze has been put out, the firefighters find 11 years' worth of undelivered mail smoldering in the attic. Our letter carrier frequently gets "one house off," meaning that everyone on the block gets the mail that should've gone one home to the east or west.

This is actually a nice community-building exercise, as it requires lots of neighbors to speak to each other at the end of the day in order to retrieve their bills and magazines. It does, however, get old after awhile -- particularly if your neighbor goes away for the summer and you have to contact his ex-wife to unlock the house to retrieve your paycheck.

No Public Good

But that's not even my primary complaint. The key frustration -- and herein lies the larger point -- is that we can't do anything about it. That's what's so rotten to the core about any unnecessary government monopoly.

I once went to the manager of my local post office to complain. She dutifully explained how I could send a letter to someone somewhere to file a formal grievance. As I was leaving, I asked, "Is this going to make any difference?"

She replied, "Probably not." While I admire the candor, I can't stand the system. Can you imagine someone at FedEx saying that?

That's the fundamental economic problem. A government monopoly means that the law precludes anyone else from doing your job. (In the United States, no private firm is allowed to deliver First Class mail.)

I don't have a problem with the government running the army, printing the currency, operating the courts, protecting the borders, or even installing stoplights. A basic economics text would explain why the private sector can't provide those kinds of "public goods" as efficiently as government.

A Dated Concept

But delivering mail?

A hundred years ago there were legitimate reasons for the government to deliver the mail. The costs of reaching every address were so high that it would've been prohibitive for private firms to build competing national mail delivery infrastructures. We know that's changed; private firms now routinely compete to deliver overnight mail around the globe.

But the government monopoly on First Class mail persists, and it creates terrible incentives. What would your day look like if 1) You were virtually impossible to fire, and 2) A large segment of the population had to use your services by law?

If I were in that position, I'd be at the driving range instead of worrying about whether every sentence in this column has a subject and a verb.

What Governments Should Deliver

I'll admit that shoddy mail delivery isn't at the top of the list of society's key problems at the moment. I don't expect it to come up in the presidential debates. But the lessons from the post office monopoly do offer lessons for much more significant social issues.

First, we should avoid government monopolies whenever we can. If you put good, motivated, smart people in a system with rotten incentives, you usually get rotten outcomes. (And over time, the good, motivated, smart people prefer not to work in that system.) Do our public schools operate more like the post office or FedEx?

And when we do a health care overhaul, let's not be allured by the supposed efficiencies of a single government provider. (Though there's no reason why government can't fund health care, or broaden insurance coverage, as long as citizens are allowed to choose their own health care providers.)

Second, it obscures the larger point of what government should and shouldn't be doing, particularly as we (rightfully) urge countries around the world to end wasteful subsidies, purge unnecessary regulation, and sell off their inefficient state run monopolies. There's no reason for governments to run airlines, pay farmers not to grow things, license businesses that aren't dangerous -- or deliver mail. Here's a good chance to practice what we preach.

Market Wisdom Short-Circuited

How much would a stamp cost if we had a competitive market for First Class mail? I have no idea. In fact, the price of postage might go up and down. The current monopoly forces some postal customers to subsidize others. Logically, it should cost less than 41 cents to send a letter from downtown Chicago to downtown New York, and more than 41 cents to send a letter from Big Swamp, Fla., to Igloo, Alaska.

Having a single price for postage doesn't make any more sense than United Airlines charging $300 for every flight from and to anywhere within the country. Of course, if it's easier for consumers to pay a flat rate for stamps rather than dealing with variable rates, a private firm would find a way to accommodate that desire instead.

The lovely thing about markets is that they give you an option for exit if you don't get what you want -- which is what makes it more likely that you'll actually get what you want.

There's a profound difference between FedEx (in which I own stock) and the post office (which I supposedly own as a taxpayer). At FedEx, and most other such enterprises, there are lots of people with an incentive to make me happy. And if they don't, I can go somewhere else.

Going Postal

So forget about raising the price of stamps; that's small change, literally and figuratively. We should go much further: Eliminate the monopoly on First Class mail and sell off the post office to one or more private bidders. The U.S. government could clearly use the revenue. Think of it as a big government yard sale.

Will it happen? Probably not. Politicians would get an earful from the huge number of postal workers who would be threatened by the shake-up. But I feel better for having offered my analysis. Of course, with it and 41 cents you can mail a letter.

121 DAYS I am working for the government

2007-04-30T09:11:00.000-04:00

It’s depressing to see the taxes translated into days– 121 DAYS I am working for the government. 1/3 of the year. Every third day. Anyway you cut it, it’s ugly.

For those who doubt the chart regarding taxes, take a look at your check. Add federal income tax, SS, medicare, state income tax and local income tax if applicable. Look at your phone bill, electric bill, car fee or tax each year and include inspection sticker if applicable, gasoline tax, home property tax. Some states even have sales tax on groceries, and I don’t mean coke and candy, I mean meat and vegtables as well.

Don’t forget the taxes that companies must pay (property tax, federal and state corporate taxes, payroll tax, minimum wage laws) before making a profit on the product or service. You are paying that too!

I’m sure the real tax burden for most Americans is almost 50%.

Man is inescapably religious.

2007-04-27T08:12:00.000-04:00

I was reading an article by a government professors this evening titled, "Models of Historical Interpretation", which is extremely deep, profound, and honestly sometimes confusing. This author cites some pretty good quotes and I wanted to share one with you in light of the seemingly chaotic world in which we live. The quote is by Rousas John Rushdoony:

"Man is inescapably religious. He may deny God, but all the categories of his life remain religious, and all are categories borrowed from the Triune [Three-in-One] God. Since the only world man lives in is the world God created, his thinking even in apostasy is inevitably conditioned and governed by a God-given framework. They may deny God's sovereignty [ultimate authority], but they cannot stop believing in sovereignty; they merely transfer it to man or to the State. Total law and planning, I.e., predestination [the means], is inescapable; denied to God, it is simply transferred to the scientific socialist State which predestinates or totally governs or plans all things; if deity be denied to the God of Scripture, it merely reappears in man or the State. And if the church ceases proclaiming the Gospel, then religion does not perish; it reappears as politics or economics, and salvation [the end or goal] continues to be offered to inescapably religious man.

Salvation is a necessity of man's being, and the goal of salvation [the end or goal] is new life and freedom. If salvation be not accepted in God through Christ, then it is accepted in man, or in an order of man such as the State."

From this quote, the problem that republicans, Christians, democrats, independents, and all Americans is not that they support or denounce a particular law, piece of legislation, voting record, or opinion; but rather that we all deny God's sovereignty and the power of his salvation when we look to the government [state] for the things we should be looking to God for. In essence there needs to be a separation between church and state in the strictest sense where we look to government to provide for the common defense, the general welfare, and the prosperity therein and in strict compliance with the founders intentions of our representative republic and look to the other institutions ordained by God (church, family, etc) to provide the rest. We are in essence lacking faith that God can take care of us and instead putting that faith in things that man has built with his own hands (state = tower of babble).

When we look to politics in the form of peace talks to solve the worlds problems or when we look to economics in the form of sanctions' or wealth redistribution for the poor, we are forgetting that only Jesus Christ can change a sinful heart into a new creation. Evil cannot behave in a manner consistent with goodness unless the foundation of the evil is removed or suppressed.

Mankind will never be able to talk enough to ensure peace nor will they ever be able to give enough money to rid the world of poverty and hunger. It is only through the regenerating power of the Gospel that this world will be radically changed and that old things will become new again. (2 Corinthians 5:17)