Above the Law Obama

From My Good Friend, Jim Stewart:

FROM THE UNITED STATES FLAG CODE: “The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.”



I guess if you are The One, the law doesn't apply to you or your disciples.

Barack Obama - More Terrorist Ties

Fox News reports that a Muslim scholar chosen by Obama to speak at his inaugural prayer service on Wednesday is Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America, a group federal prosecutors claim has ties to terrorists.

In 2007, and more recently, court documents have been filed by federal prosecutors which links the Islamic Society of North America to Hamas, a terrorist organization.

The Islamic Society of North America describes itself as "the nation's largest mainstream Muslim community-based organization." The organization is currently battling a case that lists them as co-conspirators in the Dallas terrorism case against the Holy Land Foundation.

Privilege of a Lifetime - The Presidency of George W. Bush

I am asked often my opinion of the Bush Presidency. Was it a success? Was it a failure? I suppose the answer is, "A little bit of both." Though I believe the man always did what he thought was right, and I agreed with much of what he did, there were also many things I disagreed with when it came to his presidency. If asked for a survey if I approved of his presidency, I would say, "Yes, but with an asterisk."

Inauguration Day on January 20th, 2001, launched the first presidential term of George W. Bush. Already Bush's presidency was mired with controversy. Only 39 days earlier was his win in the battle for the White House made certain by a Supreme Court decision. The decision came as a result of a close election bombarded by ballot re-counts, questionable election proceedings, and headline grabbing "hanging chads."

Inaugural protesters lined Pennsylvania Avenue during Bush's first swearing-in bearing signs of displeasure over the controversial Bush v. Gore ruling - accusing "W" of stealing the election, bearing phrases like "Hail to the Thief," and "Bush = Crook."

Bill Clinton held his farewell rally simultaneously at Andrews Air Force Base, forcing the media to split coverage between the two events, and draining much of the steam out of Bush's Inauguration.

Considering the happenings leading up to that day in January, 2001, and considering what was to come during the next eight years, it seems only appropriate that it was 35-degrees and raining during George W. Bush's first inauguration.

If life is a journey, and if the vessel for that journey is the numerous events we encounter, Bush's presidency was a hurricane navigated by a battered vessel in a storm rivaling Katrina.

From day one partisanship reigned. On that cold day in the rain, when President Bush placed his hand on that rain-soaked Bible to swear under oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, it was the beginning of a storm that would not cease during his entire eight years in office. The Democrat Party and the mainstream media, from the very beginning, were determined to destroy the presidency of the Texas oil man, and regain control of the government as soon as they could sink their claws into it.

Extraordinary circumstances welled up throughout Bush's presidency, creating turbulent seas, and opportunities for the Liberal Left to launch attack after attack against George W. Bush.

During his presidency the United States experienced a terrorist attack unlike anything we have encountered before. Airplanes were flown into buildings, killing thousands of Americans. Two towers fell in New York City, forever changing the skyline of that city, and forever scarring the hearts of Americans. "We Shall Never Forget" became the rallying cry, and when George W. Bush vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice, the nation stood behind him.

Two foreign wars followed, as President Bush attempted to keep terrorism at bay by striking out at the nations that either trained these particular terrorists (Afghanistan); or supported, harbored, and trained terrorists while threatening to use their own weapons of mass destruction against American interests and allies (Iraq).

Al-Qaeda, the organization behind the attacks on 9/11, was pursued and damaged. Saddam Hussein was also dethroned later in Iraq. Attack after attack against the United States was stopped before they were able to commence, while Europe was being hit regularly from London to Madrid, and many points in between. It seemed to be that George W. Bush's hard-line stance against terror was succeeding, or at least here in The States.

The economy was flat during the beginning of Bush's presidency as well, but his tax cuts spurned growth and prosperity for much of his duration in the White House, only to come crumbling down when a housing market collapse, of which Bush warned the Democrats about as they rejected the notion in April of 2001, created an economic downturn we are frantically trying to remedy at this very hour.

The Bush Presidency also encountered, during the entirety of both terms, hard-ball tactics by the Democrats, which created partisan animosity of the likes never seen before by the American Political System. Spurned by a hostile media, Bush was called a liar and a thief. His every word was scrutinized, and his every action was demonized. Democrats that had voted for military action in the Middle East originally became anti-war activists. Because of Bush's lack of ability to communicate smoothly, he was characterized as a bumbling fool, and the people believed the accusations without taking into account all of the facts.

The Liberal Left created an environment of animosity against Bush by demonizing his every action. Many members of the public lost track of the facts. The resolve on 9/11 faded. President Bush's ratings went from some of the highest approval numbers in history to some of the lowest, and as a result, in 2006, the Democrats gained control of Congress, giving them the opportunity to launch the most sinister attacks against the Republican President yet.

I am in no way saying that everything Bush did, or tried to accomplish, was golden. His Medicare Prescription Plan is mired with more problems than one can shake a stick at. Unfortunately, we are seeing a progression towards accepting government paid medical care, and government dependency programs, that are sure to fail, and unfairly force the taxpayer to pay for the medical care and other benefits of those who, more often than not, don't even pay taxes in the first place. Should the insurance system be changed? Yes. But the change needs to be less government involvement, not more. Government needs to quit dictating how coverage must be applied. Wouldn't it be nice if health care insurance was like every other product in the Free Market System? Why can't we buy plans that fit our needs? How about plans that have only catastrophic coverage? What ever happened to choice? Where is the vestiges of free will that Americans have enjoyed for over two hundred years?

"No Child Left Behind" inserts the federal government even more into the public school system, trying to throw money at a problem that is not about funding, but about curriculum and methods used. This idiotic act, in my opinion, is one of Bush's greatest failures as president. I understand what he is trying to do, but the lessons of history continuously remind us that this kind of government intrusion only worsens the situation, not betters it. Besides, from a Constitutional standpoint, education is a local issue, anyway. The federal government has no business being involved and manipulating the system as they do. Besides, if the public school systems of America really wanted to improve, why don't they just take lessons from the most successful education programs in America and follow their curriculums and standards - - - you know, the Private Schools and Home School groups.

George W. Bush's amnesty ideas were yet another failed opinion, and I am glad he didn't spend a lot of time trying to get passed what he desired to do in this issue. In a sense, his reform of immigration would reward illegal aliens that are able to remain in hiding the longest, and then come out of the shadows once amnesty comes calling. Any illegal alien, be it the stereotype of a Mexican squeezing through a hole in the fence, or an Englishman who has remained here on an expired visa for twenty years, is breaking the law. Bush failed to see that we don't need immigration reform. We need to simply enforce the laws currently on the books. And for those who wish to accuse me of being racist, or hating anyone born in another country that doesn't speak English as a first language, you apparently don't know me very well. I believe that America is for Americans, and anyone that desires to become an American using the proper path to residency and/or citizenship should be rewarded with the opportunities that all Americans have. Illegals, however, receiving special treatment or amnesty, is like spitting in the face of those that have come to this country legally, followed the proper protocol, learned the language, and gladly became a citizen - like my Spanish-speaking, Mexican wife.

President Bush also failed to hold on to fiscal conservatism. His presidency was filled with a habit to overspend the taxpayers money, and implement programs that, though they had good intentions, were nothing more than federal government intrusion into arenas the federal government has no business being involved in. The crowning failure, in this respect, was the stimulus package and economic bailout. Government caused the economic downturn, and for some reason President Bush decided to team up with the Democrats and try to use government to fix the problem. In the end, the government manipulation of our economy through bailouts, stimulus packages, and over-regulation, will sink us deeper into economic troubles, and create a recessionary period that may, in fact, wind up becoming the worst recession since the Great Depression. The Free Market didn't fail us. The government failed The Free Market by trying to dictate to it how to function.

The Bush Achievements far outweigh his failures, despite what the sufferers of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" may spout every time they even hear the mention of Bush's name. George W. Bush always tried to do the right thing, defying his accusers more often than not. He didn't abandon his principles on a number of fronts because his approval rating went down amidst the false accusations of the left, nor did he cower and pull out of the regions where our troops are so bravely fighting because a bunch of media cronies declared it was a mistake. And believe me when I say that on September 11, 2001, we had the right man in office.

President George W. Bush encountered in his presidency the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor in 1941. He bravely declared that ". . . the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts," shortly after the attacks occurred. He also stated that he would go after governments and organizations that trained and supported terrorism while doing whatever it took to prevent another attack like 9/11 from ever happening again (or at least during his presidency).

Bush didn't hesitate to put certain wartime actions into place. He enhanced the interrogation of terrorists, using techniques that saved thousands of lives, yet remained humane and were far from being torture when considering the techniques being used against Americans and allies by Islamic terrorists in the Middle East.

He took full advantage of Guantanamo Bay, making use of the prison to hold dangerous terrorists, and receive information from those prisoners that would save American lives. Technology was taken advantage of as well, allowing the U.S. Government to monitor phone and internet activity that would help them catch terror plots before they could come to fruition. This was achieved through many methods, including through the means of wireless eavesdropping, e-mail scanning of particular phrases or words, and heightened security at airports and federal facilities. This saved American lives, though we may never know exactly how many thousands of lives were actually saved by the President's actions. One thing is for sure, however. These are exactly the actions a president must take to keep a country safe and secure, and I believe that these actions by President Bush are precisely what kept us safe and prevented further terrorist attacks.

Through these methods crucial intelligence was obtained, some with the help of waterboarding, a technique which simulates drowning while never placing the recipient in any real danger. Many have debated on whether or not this is a tactic of torture, and I tend to think that it is not. Despite the answer to that question, which varies depending on whom you are talking to, the tactic has only been used three times, and with results that saved many lives - an argument I think greatly justifies the use of the interrogation method. For those that proclaim that this method is indeed torture, after considering the methods used against Americans by Islamic Jihadists, also remember that in a time of war sometimes the tough decisions must be made to protect American lives, and this is one of those decisions - a decision, once again, that was made only three times, and was used on the most hardened al-Qaeda terrorists that in the end saved numerous American lives.

In the face of the growing myth of Global Warming, President Bush also had the strength to recognize the hysteria for what it was, and he refused to sign on to the disastrous Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. Now, partly due to Bush's decision, which delayed the world from jumping head first into the man-made global warming lie, many scientists that originally jumped on the bandwagon of Global Warming have now recognized the falsities of the Gore's pseudo-science, reconsidered their position, and the support for the environmentalist-led agenda is waning. This does not mean, mind you, that I believe we should not be good stewards of the planet. However, I do not worship "Mother Earth," nor will I force my fellow citizens to jump on ridiculous environmental legislation that hurts more than helps in the long run. Besides, the facts are the facts, and in the last decade we have been experiencing a natural cycle of cooling, worldwide, after a natural cycle of warming happened prior. These warming and cooling phases are simply the result of solar flare and sunspot activity (combined with many other natural factors), and are hardly caused by our meager, less than one percent, contribution to worldwide greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - and like it or not, there is nothing we can do to change the course of global climate temperatures - no matter how much we believe we can.

During the Bush Presidency the United States also remained ready whenever disaster struck anywhere in the world. His presidency is filled with decisions to assist the fight against AIDS here and abroad while also providing relief for Tsunami victims, and earthquake disasters. American Troops, while keeping this nation free and protected during the last eight years, were also indispensable when it came to providing the world with help and support in the most dire times of need. And when such disasters struck here in America, Bush was also eager to deploy federal resources where and when allowed to by the U.S. Constitution. However, one must remember that the federal government cannot, by law, intrude on the states unless requested to do so - which was part of the problem with Katrina. No matter how ready the federal government was, they could not act until requested to do so by the state's governor, which is a part of the reason for the delay in FEMA's involvement.

One of George W. Bush's greatest accomplishments is The Surge. After "Misunderestimating" (to use one of Bush's cockeyed words) the enemy in Iraq, and going into the region with far too few ground troops, The Surge turned around a war that, though originally supported by a majority of Democrats in the beginning, had been unpopular to a broad segment of the American Public. The war was being lost, it seemed, and casualties were mounting. Contrary to popular belief, Bush always listened to the generals on the ground, but he had been listening to the wrong ones. When The Surge finally came into play, the tide turned in Iraq, the Iraqi government began to take more initiative, and now as Bush's second term comes to a close, we have essentially won in Iraq, and are now slowly beginning to pull troops out of the region - many of whom are being re-assigned to Afghanistan so that the loose ends in that conflict can finally be resolved.

I believe that George W. Bush will be looked upon favorably after the hysterical lies and myths propagated by the loony left fades, and the facts begin to surface. As the world we live in recognizes more and more the true nature of the enemy we face in Islamic Terror, Bush's decisions, that many believe held at bay any more terrorist attacks, will be seen as the right decisions - decisions that kept this nation safe from further attacks. Regardless of what the left continuously proclaims, I believe that Bush always tried to do what he thought was the right thing to do. He has visibly aged during his presidency, which is evidence that being president of the greatest country on God's green Earth is not an easy job. To be honest, I am sure he was happiest while mountain-biking away from his oval office.

And as this chapter in American History approaches its closing, Bush's final speech was one of his best. He addressed those that opposed him. He explained how his decisions always centered around keeping this nation safe from another 9/11. Bush never gave in to the Washington cockroaches. He remained steady in his resolve. And through it all, he never allowed the illusion of power to cloud his decisions. He recognized, after all, what the Presidency of the United States is truly all about. He said it best when he called it the "Privilege of a lifetime."

Congressional Democrat's Own Stimulus Package

The Congress has beat Obama to the punch with their own stimulus package. Spending, spending, and a little more spending. Of course deficit spending was horrendous when Republicans did it, but suddenly it is fine with the Democrats now that it is them doing it? And those tax breaks they are promising are hardly such, since most of the people receiving them don't pay taxes. They are more like . . . welfare checks.

And where is this money coming from?

You are going to pay for it, not just in taxes, but a collapsed economy destroyed by the fiat money being used by an overpowering governmental body that is hungry for power, and one that cares less about the U.S. Constitution.

Of course, while they are at screwing us with this stimulus package, they are also going to soak the top earners - - - you know, the people that run the businesses and manufacture products in this country.

Of course Obama says he wants to grow the economy from the bottom up. So answer me a question: have you ever seen anyone in the lower income bracket create jobs?

The Agent of Change Changes His Mind About Gitmo

From my good friend Jim Stewart:

Remember when Obama said this?



Now he says this:

President-elect Barack Obama said this weekend that he does not expect to close Guantanamo Bay in his first 100 days in office.

“I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do,” Obama said in an exclusive “This Week” interview with George Stephanopoulos, his first since arriving in Washington.

“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” the president-elect explained. “Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”

"So Help Me God" removed from oath?

A group of "non-theists" led by well known Atheist Michael Newdow tried to have "So help me God" removed from the oath of office that will be recited by Barack Obama on Inaugeration Day. The filed lawsuit, however, did not go too far. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton rejected the call for preventing the ministers from praying or Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts from administering the oath with God in the wording. Obama also indicated he wanted that part of the oath included.

Jay Seculow, The American Center of Law and Justice Chief Counsel, said of the case, "This is once again a flawed attempt to purge all religious references and observances from American public life. The fact is that this country has a long history of invoking God at inaugural events. Such references are not only appropriate but constitutional as well. This legal challenge is clearly misplaced. . ."

Socialized Medicine in Increments. . . first, the children

According to the Associated Press, the House of Representatives passed a children's health care bill that is yet another step towards a nationalized health insurance system in this nation.

Interestingly, they did not learn from the failures of plans similar to this in other countries, or more recently in Hawaii.

Also, included in the provisions are the state option to cover illegal aliens, an increased cigarette tax (so what happens when everyone finally quits smoking like they have been pressuring people to do? Then where will the money come from?), mandates to the states to include dental coverage (the fed has no business mandating the states to do anything on the local level - constitutionally speaking), and limits the ability for physician-owned hospitals to expand (in other words, how dare your business grow and become successful, and how dare you choose your clients).

This is even more government intrusion into your lives with this Democratic bill, and more is coming with Obama in the White House.

BOHICA

Losing Objectivity

When you love someone, you lose objectivity. When the neighbor kid does something wrong, he's a bad kid - but if it is your child, there are all of these benevolent reasons for his actions. Barack Obama is that kid that can do no wrong.

Have you ever seen in the news when a young man is in court for murder, or another crime, and the camera flashes to the parents and they are defending the child to the end, even in the face of insurmountable evidence? If it was my child, I am sure I would do the same. When it comes to one's child a parent's love is immense.

Sometimes, however, that love is so great that the parent loses all objectivity to the point that it could be dangerous - for the health of that child. The child begins to believe they can do no wrong. They don't believe there is any consequences for their actions. They go through life believing that everything that happens to them is always somebody else's fault.

Perhaps a teenager attends a party, a party with people he or she would not normally be around (or maybe people they hang around in secret), and it gets them into trouble. It couldn't possibly be the teen's fault, right? How could it be their fault? Even though they decided to be in a place they shouldn't be in, around people they shouldn't be around, it couldn't possibly be on them, right?

I remember when I was a kid my dad used to tell me that the best way to stay out of trouble is not to put yourself into the position that will get you into trouble in the first place.

That was very good advice.

Sometimes people tend to be attracted to that kind of trouble, and that kind of company.

Often the company a person keeps is a tell-tale sign of what the heart of that person truly is.

A young man, your son perhaps, may call you sir, or ma'am. He may look you in the eye when he shakes your hand. He may play a good game. Little do you know that deep in the recesses of his pocket is a baggie of marijuana, or coke, or what-not, and that when nobody is looking he is hanging out with the "bad crowd."

Maybe while you are looking you notice he is hanging out with the wrong people, but you shrug it off. "Hey," you say, "kids will be kids. It's not like he's always hanging out with those bad kids, he just knows them as acquaintances. And then when those people he associates with gets into trouble, he assures everyone that although he knew them, it's not like he hung out with them. He knew of them, he bumped into them a few times. It's not like he was friends-friends with them. And then my-my-my, how surprised you are, when this young man grows older and rather than learning through the consequences of his actions, he becomes a manipulator, a legend in his own mind, and eventually, possibly, a criminal, or something more sinister. If only you had recognized this based on the company he was keeping, the clues in his body language, the words he spoke. But see, you loved him so much, you thought the world of him, you thought so highly of him because you love him. But you failed to recognize the signs.

Barack Obama is that loved son. His adoring fans, the Democratic Party, and the hapless Obama voters, are that parent that sees no wrong.

Obama has no experience, but who cares, right? He'll just learn on the job. We love him, we know he can do it.

He's been hanging out with Reverend Wright, and Tony Rezko, and Bill Ayers - everyone around him like Blagojevich and Richardson are steeped in controversy and scandal. Oh, yeah, but he wasn't really friends-friends with them, he wasn't really-really talking to them. But Obama comes from the Chicago political scene which is soaked in corruption. Oh, but yeah, I know, being around that cess-pool and being dunked in it early in his political career doesn't mean that any of the "cess" from the cess-pool stuck to him, right?

When Barack Obama says things he doesn't really, truly, answer any questions, because he couldn't possibly do anything wrong - he's not pro-choice or pro-life, he's a little bit of both. He's not a Christian or a non-Christian, he's a tad of each. He's not in support of the fundamental definition of marriage being between a man and a woman, or is he in support of the gay agenda - he's a little bit of both. He's not a fiscal conservative, or a fiscal liberal - he'll spend like a drunken liberal, yet you'll get your taxes cut - he's a little bit of both. He's not really an anti-war candidate. After all, he's willing to get tough in Afghanistan, and even attack Pakistan if he has to. But he wants us out of Iraq as soon as possible because war is bad. Well, okay, in 16 months or so, even though he began his campaign proclaiming he wanted immediate withdrawal from the region. I suppose even in war, he's a little bit of both.

Maybe I should rename Obama "A Little Bit of Both."

He reminds me of that commercial, the one where the customer wants their bagel toasted and untoasted at the same time. To have the bagel both ways is not possible. Oh, but with Obama it is. Apparently, he knows how to be a little bit of both.

If his teenage daughter was to become pregnant, it would be a mistake, a punishment - wasn't it him that said he wouldn't want his daughter punished with a child? And when a botched abortion is gasping for survival laying on a table, he voted against legislation that would provide medical care to that baby, because Obama would rather that child die on that table because it was originally intended to be put to death by abortion. But, as he said with Rick Warren in that debate at Saddleback Church, he dislikes abortion, and the abortion numbers are coming down, and he is very happy about that. That, he said, is what he is working toward. Oh, wait, there he goes again! He's a little bit of both!

He's a little bit of both with everything.

He's change, and no change. His entire platform was on change. Yet his entire administration, well, nearly entire, is full of Clintonites, Clintonistas, Clinton holdovers from Bill's presidency.

Even hope is something he is a little bit a both of. The campaign was all about hope and change. Hope was one of the main ingredients of his campaign. Yet, there is no hope in the economic situation. He said so himself. We are in for some hard times. Heck, listening to him during the campaign, I was thinking that suddenly everything was supposed to magically improve the day he took office, the economy was going to suddenly improve just because of the improved outlook caused by the messiah becoming president. Hmmm, even with hope, he's a little bit of both.

And the Obama voters, and the Obama Democrats, and the rest of the lefties, don't call him on it - because they love him. Their love has made them subjective. They have lost their objectivity. Their love has rendered them incapable of recognizing his inconsistencies, his uncanny ability to offer no specifics because he stands for nothing, and his dubious connections with people like Rezko, Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Blagojevich.

Yes, Obama is like that kid of the street, the one whose parents let him run wild. He does everything wrong, he hangs out with the wrong people, but when he's around mom and dad, he plasters on that great big smile, looks you in the eye when he shakes your hand, and makes you feel good about him down to your soul, because you love him - and he can do no wrong.

When Faith Is Censored

I am a huge Anaheim Angels fan (I refuse to use the Los Angeles part of the name, Anaheim is not L.A.) and I remember watching Francisco (K-Rod) Rodriguez (Now with the New York Mets) thank God after each and every save that wound up giving him a record 62 Saves on the season. It always put a smile on my face, and gave me a sense of connection with Frankie.

Pointing skyward after a great play, or a team huddling in prayer after a game, or a player beginning an interview after a big win with the words, "First, I'd like to thank God," is nothing new. There have been many players that have been vocal about their faith throughout the history of modern sports. However, as we proceed to the end of the first decade of the new century, it seems as if the media is turning the cameras away from such professions of faith - and it is never a news item anymore.

In football, one of the players most outspoken about his Christian faith, is Quarterback Kurt Warner.

Warner originally exploded onto the NFL scene after a short career in Arena Football with the Iowa Barnstormers. When he joined the Rams he wound up leading the team to a Super Bowl, and thanking God every step of the way. Faith is at the core of Warner's life, and he takes every opportunity he can to proclaim such.

Kurt Warner's career after the Rams, as the quarterback aged, seemed to be winding down, and Warner was playing back-up a lot more than starter. Then his chance came to revive his career with the Arizona Cardinals, and he has now taken the Cards to the NFC Championship Game.

As a result of his resurgence, he was asked to be on The Oprah Winfrey Show. While on the show he was given three sentences he could say, so in the middle one he made sure his faith was mentioned. Later, when he watched the show on replay, he realized that they cut it out!

It is a sad state of affairs when we see this kind of action by the media. After all, telling Kurt's story without God is to ignore what drives him.

Warner accepted the Lord after his wife became a Christian. After he accused her of picking and choosing what to believe in the Bible, he studied the Scripture in order to prove her faith wrong. When he began to learn the Bible in the proper context, and studied its various interconnections, he was left with no alternative but to become a follower of Christ.

Kurt, keep praising God. You are a sterling example for the rest of us.

Wilshire and Veteran - L.A. Site of Pro-Hamas Rally

I have attended two rallies before going out to Westwood to stand with Israel yesterday. Both of my previous rallies were "Free Ramos/Compean" rallies, where the opposition was limited, or non-existent, in numbers. Since this is my first big rally, I guess that would make me a protest virgin. The number of Anti-Israel protesters was huge, guessed by many to be about 3,000.

Gawfer, a fellow blogger and local friend, called me up earlier in the week and asked, "Doug, what are you doing this Saturday?" Ultimately, he invited me to join a bunch of other area conservative bloggers to go to the Pro-Palestinian/Anti-Israel Protest so that we could stand with the few Pro-Israel folks that would be there.

I immediately agreed to be there.

Evrviglnt of Political Vindication was one of the organizers, and has great pics of the rally, by the way.

Anyhow, I picked up Gawfer yesterday morning, and along the way we also gathered up Prying1, and arrived ready to rally. Also joining us was Eric of Tygrrrr Express, Joi The Artist, and Gary Fouse. Eric is an American Jew, and was afraid of nothing and nobody. He wound up being interviewed by two local radio stations (News Radio KNX and Liberal Radio KPFK) and L.A.'s ABC 7.

Upon arrival we had to wade through two large groups of Anti-Israel protesters with Eric of Tygrrrr Express leading the way with a huge sign that said, "Terrorists Wear Masks For A Reason." I was wearing a U.S. Navy Veteran hat and holding a sign that said, "Israel, We Stand With You." The opposition flung profanity at us, calling us baby killers and screaming that Israel are the real terrorists. In the background another part of the group was chanting, "Free, Free, Palestine."

As we joined the other Pro-Israel Rally participants the shouting from the Pro-Hamas groups became louder and more pointed toward our little group which at that time numbered 23. The group grew a little as the day progressed, but when compared to the thousands of terrorist supporters, our group was quite small. Not to worry, I was assured, because on Sunday between two and four in the afternoon there was going to be a massive Pro-Israel rally.

When the Anti-Israel protesters began to march the police herded the Pro-Israel group ahead of the terrorist supporters, wanting to keep us away from the possibility of any confrontations. It was then that I had the opportunity to really get to know my fellow supporters of Israel, and to learn the stories they had to tell.

One of these folks was a South American Jew who had earlier been interviewed by a Spanish speaking TV station. He and I spoke for quite a while, and I interviewed him live on Snoopers "Take Our Country Back" radio show. As with most of my companions, he has family in Israel, and relatives directly involved in the fight to protect Israel.

In the end, I found many friends in the fight to support Israel, and I appreciated the time with them.

But the sentence that sums up the entire situation between Israel and her neighbors was not said at the rally, or by any of the pundits on the radio or television. Instead, I read it in an article by Daniel Finkelstein in The Times.

It read, "Israel acts because the world won't defend it."

Live Coverage of Pro-Palestinian Protest on Wilshire Blvd. in Los Angeles, California

I called into Snooper's Blog Talk Radio Show, Take Our Country Back, while I was at the Rally in Los Angeles facing off with anti-Israel/Pro-Palestine protestors. Hear myself, Shane of Political Vindication, and more, on the media player below:

or access episode HERE

Founding Truth with Me and Loki (and joined by Honest Conservative and Snooper) broadcasted a roundtable of Conservatives as we discussed the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, and the importance of Israel's act to defend herself - also, we discuss at length what I experienced at the Rally in Los Angeles, breaking down the meaning of a lot of what I saw and heard at the rally:

or access the show HERE

On Political Pistachio Radio I played audio clips of my experience at the Protest in L.A. where ANSWER staged an anti-Israel/Pro-Palestinian Protest - - - and I stood with Israel.



Or Listen HERE

Pro-Israel Bloggers Unite to Rally in Los Angeles (in answer to ANSWER anti-Israel demonstration/protest)

It began with an idea by Shane of Political Vindication. I receieved a phone call from Gawfer that Saturday, January 10, 2009 an anti-Israel rally by ANSWER was going to be held at the Federal Building in Westwood on Wilshire at Veteran. In response, we were going to join a pro-Israel rally in the area. Prying1 and Bushwack were slated to join us as well, though Bushwack had to bail out due to work. Rumors that Jenn of the Jungle would be joining us, as well as Eric of Tyger Express circulated.

What began as a few bloggers and blog talk radio hosts, however, has become a major endeavor and now we are expecting car loads of people to Stand With Israel.

Join us at the site beginning at noon, or on the radio. Founding Truth and Political Pistachio Radio will be airing live at 5pm and 7pm - and I will be on both shows discussing the rally - and if it is still going on, will be giving live coverage. Snooper will be having a show as well, earlier in the afternoon. Check Blog Talk Radio for listings and times.

5.0 Earthquake Rocks San Bernardino California

I was sitting in my car talking with Loki, getting ready to go into my house, when suddenly it felt like someone rocked my car. I looked around to see if my wife was playing a trick on me, but instead, she came running outside saying, "Did you feel that earthquake?"

A 5.0 quake shook Southern California this evening, centered in San Bernardino. People were rattled, but at this point there is no report of injuries or damage.

UPDATE: The USGS later downgraded the quake to a 4.5.

Roland Burris Rejected, Then Not

Let me get this straight. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, though he had no legal right to, rejected Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich's choice for the U.S. Senate, Roland Burris, who was selected so that he could fill out the remaining two years of Barack Obama's Senate Term. Now, after an outcry from all directions, suddenly Reid has changed his mind.

Is this a power struggle, or what?

Fact is, Blagojevich is still the Governor, even though he shouldn't be, so if he is supposed to be appointing the Senator, then the pick is legal, and Reid has nothing to stand on.

But here's a third kicker.

Perhaps both the liberal Dems and their attempt to stop Blagojevich's choice, and the conservative pundits who are crying that Burris is a legal pick, are both wrong.

The United States Constitution (You know, that document that politicians seem to never follow?), specifically the Seventeenth Amendment, mandates that:

"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years. . .When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."

What this is saying is that every six years, the people of a State get to choose a new senator. Before the 17th Amendment Senators were elected by the state legislatures, rather than the people, and the whole point of the 17th Amendment was to place the appointment of Senators into the hands of the people. Now, note that it says when there is a vacancy, an election must follow. In other words, the appointment by Blagojevich is unconstitutional. The next Senator of Illinois (and Hillary's seat in New York, as well) must be chosen by a special election by the people (that is if they were to be Constitutional).

Fat chance, though. Since when does the government follow the U.S. Constitution?

Our ailing Public School System and Cappuccino. . .

I was listening to a local talk show host the other day and he says, "Los Angeles Unified School District budget is larger than the budget for the entire City of Los Angeles."

Yet, L.A. schools are struggling greatly in test scores, and the "educated ones" can't figure out why. Meanwhile, all those uneducated parents who home-school their kids, or send their kids to private schools taught by people not accredited by the state to teach, are enjoying the fact that their kids score much much higher than kids in the Public School system - and on much smaller budgets.

How crazy is that?

So what do the liberals of the L.A. Unified School District do in response? Well, they ask for more money, of course. Couldn't possibly be that liberal curriculum, could it? Nah. They'd rather throw more money at the problem.

But, as bad as that is, I have to admit Chicago takes the case. In Chicago, the school district just got caught with a $67,000 cappuccino bill!

And that helps our kids how?

Shameful. Just shameful.

Stealing is not Okay, Unless It's The Government

One absolute moral truth is that stealing is not okay, or at least that is what I thought. Apparently, I am wrong on that, because it seems to be okay to steal if you are the government.

Could you imagine if I was a volunteer for a charitable organization that provides to the poor, and donations were low, lower than usual, so rather than finding ways to reduce some of the administrative costs to hopefully free up some money, I decided to go into a rich neighborhood and break into the homes of these people? I walk into their homes and take their money and valuable items. What do you think the response would be? Would there be an outcry?

Of course in my defense, in the liberal tradition, I would cry out, "But they don't need what I took. They've got more than enough! Don't you understand? It's going to go to the poor. That makes it okay! It is a beneficial thing! Don't you have a heart?"

No matter the intention, it would still be stealing - and the people would not stand for it. I would be arrested, and in jail for my crimes. What I did would be considered a criminal action.

However, when the government does the same thing, it is somehow not considered stealing. After all, said Obama, it is about what the government can do for you. He says it is the right thing to do.

Hillary Clinton actually proposed, at one point, taking the "excessive" profits from oil companies to help the poor - welfare money for the poor with the money that the oil companies don't need (after all, they've got more than enough!).

My paycheck is hammered by income taxes, and social security taxes, and medicare taxes so that that money can be given to other people who, frankly, may not deserve it.

"But they're poor," the government says. "You have more than enough, you don't need it. We'll just take it from you by increasing your taxes, and redistribute it to the less fortunate."

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against charity. I believe that giving to worthwhile charitable organizations is a wonderful thing. But charity by Congress, charity by the government, is unconstitutional. Just read Madison's notes. Or read some of Calvin Coolidge's vetoes, for that matter, regarding the government view, or what the view should be, regarding the redistributing the wealth.

I am glad I live in a nation where I have the opportunity to improve myself, make a very good living, make a lot of money through hard work and good decisions, and own property where I can kick my feet up and enjoy my freedom. That is the hope and dream of the American Way. Everybody has the freedom to pursue those opportunities. Everybody in this nation has the right to pursue those opportunities. Yet, we have the government (and I am not just pointing fingers at the liberal left - because there is a large segment of the Republican Party that now believes this way) believing that it is up to them to be a charitable organization, and make sure everyone receives, and receives, and receives.

More than two-thirds of our federal budget is unconstitutional, and a lot of that is government's version of charity. I'm a firm believer that medicare and social security and welfare, for that matter, are all unconstitutional. Of course, now that they are in place, to take any of them away would create such an outcry - because once a society gets used to a hand-out, they soon learn to position themselves to be unable to live without it.

The New Deal by Franklin Delano Roosevelt (or should I call it the Raw Deal?) was the beginning of the end of American Liberty, the Free Market System, and America as it has always been known.

The Great Society of Lyndon B. Johnson, and The New Deal. . . None of those liberal, socialist ideas fixed the problems. In fact, now they have made things worse. Granted, there were those short moments of prosperity. Our most prosperous times have followed fiscal conservatism, most recently the Reagan Era. Our nation enjoyed prosperity that carried through moderate Daddy Bush's presidency, it struggled, but carried. It was rescued momentarily by Gingrich and his gang, during Clinton's attempt to tax us into poverty. That prosperity from the Reagan years, however, eventually came to an end. The last vestige of it is sizzling out now.

George W. Bush, a lot of non-conservative Republicans, and just about every Democrat in existence, seems to think that the best way to save the Free Market is to destroy it with government intervention, with government manipulation.

That's what caused the problem in the first place! We are in this mess because of government manipulation of the economy - government intrusion into our economy, the free market, and our lives!

My friends, the government is stealing from you. But because it's the government, well, they claim it is okay.

And once Pandora's Box of bailouts is opened, Lord knows where it will end.

Warfare Within

Is this nation experiencing warfare within?

Creeping incrementalism, the slow decay of a moral society driven partly by self-serving agendas, is a reality in the United States. It seems that any time a person stands up for standards, or the U.S. Constitution, they find themselves battling the leftward attitude face to face.

We are being attacked with poison arrows, but as Conservatives we must refrain from using the same low tactics the left employs. Instead, moral truths, Constitutional standards, and Conservative Principles must be our sword, armor and shield.

To fight this internal warfare, however, assumes that we are willing to fight this to its conclusion. And it assumes that we understand what we are truly fighting for. In the end, it means that we are fighting for the continuation of liberty in this nation, and for the Judeo-Christian standards that laid the foundation America was built upon.

Sadly, many Conservatives are not in the battle because they are not willing to debate the principles of Conservatism. These folks have been erroneously convinced that being a moderate, closer to the center, is what will advance the Conservative cause.

The Republican Party is loaded with folks like that - which is why John McCain won the nod in the last election, rather than a more Conservative candidate. And the answer to the idea of picking moderates to represent the party was given in the last election. . . it is a losing idea.

Besides, why would anyone abandon their principles for the sake of trying to win? Conservative Principles, Reaganism, is a proven winner - a landslide winner!

Meanwhile, some Conservatives seem to think that the war for America can be won by voting alone. These people are no threat to the socialist radicals that are now overtaking America. That is why it is so important that we become involved.

Contact your politicians. Demand that they become statesmen again, and serve the people as originally intended by our founding fathers. Demand that our leaders follow the U.S. Constitution. Talk about Conservative Principles with family and friends. Invite others to listen to the Conservative Radio Shows, like Political Pistachio Radio, on Blog Talk Radio.

The leftist radicals cannot be stopped unless we confront them. We must put feet to the fight. Let's return America to its roots. Let's return America to the Constitution. Let's make America the nation the founding fathers knew it could be, and should be.

I am a warrior in the battle to take America back from the liberal socialist radicals. Be a warrior in this fight too!

God Bless America.

Richardson's resignation before taking office

Secretary of Commerce to-be Governor Bill Richardson, the Democrat from New Mexico, has resigned from the job before taking the job of Secretary of Commerce under Obama - - - After all, he didn't want his scandal to interfere with the running of the nation. Since when do Democrats worry about scandals interfering with the running of the country?

I wonder, however, if Bill Richardson feels so strongly about the importance of the economic post being filled as he has stated, and he wants to put the nation first, then why didn't he mention the investigations into his, uh-hmmm, dealings, a little bit earlier - like during the initial application process of becoming vetted?

Perhaps he didn't think he did any wrong, after all, he is even now proclaiming that nothing will become of the investigations and he'll be back to work soon enough. Did he only withdraw because he began to feel the heat? (Sounds a bit like Blagojevich, doesn't it?)

And interestingly, where is the media in all this?

Oh wait, that's right, they are too busy swooning over Caroline Kennedy, the Senatorial replacement for Hillary in New York - who has absolutely no experience whatsoever - heck, she hasn't even been the mayor of a town of 7,000 people! Oh, wait, she's royalty - Kennedys get that kind of pass in the world of the Democrats.

Sticking to my guns. . .

I own eight rifles, four handguns, a couple b.b. guns, a couple pellet guns, and a musket that is on a plaque on the wall at my house up on the Oregon Coast. I fired my dad's .22 rifle a few times when I was a kid, but it wasn't until my military career began that I truly gained respect for higher caliber weapons.

The guns I own primarily were bequeathed to me when my father died in 1999, though my ownership of guns before that were not necessarily non-existent. However, in the last decade, my appreciation of weapons has grown, and my opportunities to fire weapons increased with the advent of a neighbor of mine - a fellow gun enthusiast - taking me to the range with him.

Anyway, my guns bring me pleasure, and they provide me with a sense of security. Private ownership of my weapons is also a freedom that I enjoy, and I believe is a Constitutional right given to us for many important reasons.

I have the right to bear arms, according to the Founding Fathers, and I expect to fully take advantage of that right.

I understand the anti-gun argument of the liberal left, and gun control crowd. Guns can kill innocent people in the hands of the wrong person. Guns can be dangerous in the hands of the uneducated when it comes to gun-safety. Guns can be used in ways they were not necessarily intended to be used.

Humanity as a species began as hunter/gatherers. It was the gun that eventually made methods of feeding the family more efficient. And, it was the gun that launched this nation. It was the gun that freed the slaves, and ended slavery. It was the gun that defeated Napolean. It was the gun that halted the march of the tyranny of Naziism, and Adolf Hitler. It was the gun, in the long run, that stopped the death of millions of innocent people, because the gun was also in the right hands.

I guarantee you if someone else is pointing a gun at you and intends to kill you, without a weapon of your own, you will feel quite vulnerable. I, myself, have been in a situation where had it not been for a gun in my hands, I would be dead. And a ruthless individual who would get their hands on a gun, whether they were legal or not, would be running around free - to kill again with his illegally gotten gun.

Gun control and gun bans do not take guns away from the criminal element. They only take guns away from those intent upon protecting themselves.

Of course, the argument in opposition to what I am saying would be something like, "If there was no such things as guns the need to use them to protect yourself would not be necessary as well." Indeed, that is true - and then the criminal element would be using a bow and arrow, or a bat, or a hammer to use as an offensive weapon. Would you have those items banned too, if that was the case?

It is no surprise that cities with stricter gun laws have higher crime rates. Cities with more relaxed gun laws have lower crime rates and lower murder rates. There are some towns with gun requirements (Like Kennesaw, Georgia) that basically say that if you live in the town (with the exception of felons, the disabled, and those with religious convictions against gun ownership) you will have a gun on your property. Towns like that have a zero murder rate.

Every time, worldwide, gun laws become more strict, violent crime percentages go up. And even if none of these statistics were available, and you had to only decide whether or not guns in the hands of the public should remain legal, based on your common sense, common sense would dictate that criminals intent on stealing from people, and harming people, and willing to do so with a violent tendency using weapons, will still get their hands on guns, or will get their hands on any weapon it takes - while the innocent remains unarmed - after all, criminals prefer their prey unarmed.

Imagine, a criminal desiring to steal your things, and harming anybody that gets in the way, breaking into your house. They are quick, efficient, the alarm is nothing to them. They are out of there before the police can arrive. And because they are in such a hurry, they've got a gun for the quick elimination of obstacles. They are willing to eliminate anyone that gets in their way to slow them down without even batting an eye. Now, if you don't have a gun, are you going to grab a baseball bat? Hide in the closet? What are you going to do?

If you have a gun in such a case as detailed above, and this criminal, not only bent on stealing from you, but on self-preservation as well, hears the click-click of your weapon, their self-preservation instinct is going to override their intent to steal or kill - and they will depart in more cases than not. In most cases, when a home is owned by a gun owner, and someone breaks into that house, the result is seldom a gun fight. Usually, the result is a fearful flee by the assailant. And when properly educated with gun safety, a gun can be a safe, productive, security device - as well as a pleasurable tool - after all, that is what it is. A tool. Even a hammer, in the wrong hands, can become a deadly weapon. But in the hands of a carpenter it can be a useful, and important tool. I believe guns should be banned no more than hammers should be banned. After all, like hammers, guns are a valuable tool in the war on crime, protecting your family, and as a safeguard against tyrannical governments, and tyrannical ideologies.

In the end, it is the gun that keeps you safe. And it is the gun that let's freedom ring.

Israel Moves Into Gaza with Troops and Tanks

Israel sent thousands of troops, backed by tanks and helicopter gunships, into the Gaza Strip as they lauched a ground offensive in Gaza last night. This action follows a week of airstrikes into Gaza that were aimed at stopping rocket and missile attacks against Israel from the Muslim controlled region. Since 2005, after Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, relinquishing full control to the Palestinians (and eventually to the terrorist group, Hamas) 6,500 rockets and missiles have been fired into Israel, primarily targeting civilians, killing indescrimitantly.

Hamas, while living up to the "Death To Israel" chant you hear often coming from the lips of Islamists, has used women and children as shields while proclaiming to the world that Israel is in fact the aggressors. Palestinians, and the rest of the Muslim world, continuously remind us that they are committed to Israel's destruction, will never recognize Israel as a nation, and will never end the violence against the Jewish State; yet the moment Israel responds with military actions against the continuous onslaught of violence against them, the Muslim world (and liberal left media alike) screams out that Israel's response is an unbelievable display of disproportionate aggression.

You'd think, if you believe what you read in the newspapers and news magazines, or even kind of believe what you hear on the alphabet news channels, that the Palestinian casualties in a few days of Israeli strikes are astronomical when compared to the deaths of Israelis over any period of time, when in reality the constant pounding of Israel by her neighbors has taking its toll - and the toll has become such that Israel has finally taken action.

Could you imagine if Mexico, declaring that the Southwest United States belonged to them (as the Muslims have declared regarding the Jewish lands), decided to start lobbing rockets into San Diego, San Antonio, and Yuma? How long do you think it would take before the United States took action? Would Americans then be crying out once America took action to stop the attacks? Would the U.S. response be seen as disproportionate? Would we sit still if Mexico or Canada suddenly declared that they were committed to our destruction as a nation, and were willing to use any violence necessary to destroy us? Would we stand for even a single attack against our soil? If you are not sure of the answers to those questions, remember how you felt on September 11, 2001 when the Twin Towers fell.

And here is the real kicker. If any nation other than Israel fights a war and loses, that nation simply lost a war. But Israel, surrounded by the enemy, and existing in a world filled with nations that desire their destruction, must win every war - for to Israel, to lose a war is to cease to exist.

Heroes Weekend on Political Pistachio Radio

Taking Chance Home on Political Pistachio Radio ---- Tonight at 7pm Pacific

The first weekend of 2009 is Heroes Weekend on The Political Pistachio Radio Revolution. Tonight the account of Valor, Honor, and Respect - Marine Lieutenant Colonel Strobl escorting the remains of Lance Corporal Chance Phelps home - and also information on the movie starring Kevin Bacon that takes this story into the theaters.

Monica Brown, Silver Star Recipient - The tale of bravery and heroism in Afghanistan ---- Sunday Night at 7pm Pacific

Monica Brown is the second woman since World War II to receive the Silver Star. She's an Army Medic that risked her own life to save the lives of a pair of critically wounded paratroopers. Her story received the spotlight when 60 Minutes interviewed her. Tonight we will discuss her story in this second installment of Heroes Weekend on the Political Pistachio Revolution.

The links above are to listen live, or to catch the archive later - Political Pistachio Radio

Taking Chance Movie Trailer, Starring Kevin Bacon

In the words of Sonnabend, You Gotta See This. . .

Taking Chance Trailer

Obama Citizenship Eligibility Still Not Resolved, And A New Case Has Surfaced

According to World Net Daily a growing number of people are concerned over Barack Obama's citizenship eligibility to be President of the United States. In fact, a recent America Online Poll resulted in only 40 percent (when I took it) saying there is no issue to be investigated.

So far the lawsuits that have been filed, including Berg's and Donofrio's, have not done too well. Berg has no standing (but really, does anyone have standing on this case? Why does't the judicial system quit playing games and just enforce the U.S. Constitution and ensure eligibility of the President-elect?), according to his state Supreme Court (U.S. Supreme Court conferences and motions scheduled for January 9 and 16). Donofrio of New Jersey was denied a full hearing.

In Washington State, however, a new case has emerged. Attorney Stephen Pidgeon, while representing 12 plaintiffs, claims to have standing under a Washington Statute that allows "any" registered voter to challenge the eligibility of a candidate in any election. The suit intends to subpoena Hawaii for Obama's birth certificate.

Thanks to Andrea Shea King for alerting me to the information on this case.

Now, as I have said before, I don't know if Obama was born in Hawaii, Kenya, or the moon, and if he was in fact born in the United States, then great, welcome to the presidency. But there is evidence that he may not be eligible, and as a result, confirmation of his eligibility must be pursued. The fact that Obama has not simply provided the proof and put the rumors to bed adds to the questions being raised.

This is too big of an issue to be ignored.

Stay tuned, it may get interesting.

Is Capitalism Dead? The Murder of the Free Market System. . .

In the media, and from the Liberal Left, I continuously hear that Capitalism is dead - a failed economic system that is finally going to be replaced by the nationalization of private industries. They claim that the free market is somehow at fault for the economic slowdown. That it is all the free market's fault.

Capitalism DID NOT cause the economic slowdown! Government manipulation of the economy did! In other words, the exact opposite of Capitalism caused this slide towards recession. The government stuck its fingers into the housing market demanding that the lenders lend to people that they wouldn't normally lend to - higher risks - because government was proclaiming that everyone has a "right" to own a home.

And the government stuck their fingers into the American Auto Industry by requiring them to jump through many hoops created by the environmentalist lobby, and to make cars in such a way that were not in a way that the industry desired and knew would be profitable.

This is nothing new. Government regulations and industry requirements way back long ago began to require an insurance system for everybody because everybody had a "right" to insurance paid health care - in the 1940's and 50's government policies encouraged the popularity of health insurance as a form of employee compensation. The creation of this modern health insurance system essentially eliminated the fee-for-service system of before, which also, in turn, did away with the competitive nature of the industry which was a natural safeguard against medical services becoming too expensive for the consumer to be able pay. That way, everyone could have healthcare, and the government could regulate it and tax it to death. And of course, after that, the lawyers got in on it, bringing with them malpractice suits. Yet it is the very same types of idiots that are now blaming the insurance system they created on sky-rocketing costs. And to fix it the government wants to get into the health insurance system themself. . . when they can't even run their existing programs without going into the red!

The Free Market was doing fine. Capitalism is a natural tendency of humanity, and for the hundred or so years of this nation's existence the Free Market made this "Republican" experiment prosper. A Free Market System has made the United States the richest nation in the world.

But we haven't seen true capitalism, and a true free market, much at all since the creation of The New Deal. Or should I call it The Raw Deal?

Franklin Delano Roosevelt began the ball rolling, and the liberals have continued it on, moving this nation in the direction of socialism, and now our economy is struggling because of it.

The Free Market did not die by its own hand. The Free Market System was raped, and strangled, by government. That is why the economy is going into the tank. And that is why a massive recession may be on the horizon. With the bail outs, and more government intervention, the noose is tightening tighter around the neck of the free market system and capitalism.

Historically, nations that have embraced capitalism have prospered, and nations that have embraced socialistic government control of their market have not. Nations who were once in trouble, and have begun to move in the direction of capitalism, such as China and India, have begun to prosper. Nations who have moved farther to the left, like the nations of Europe, have found themselves in economic difficulties.

The United States has been the richest nation in the world, but with the move to the left, with the noose around the neck of capitalism, and the free market system, the economy is suffering. And now, the Liberal Democrats are jumping up and down shouting, "See? The Free Market System has failed! See? Capitalism doesn't work!"

You Morons!

The Free Market System, and Capitalism, does work - it was YOU who killed it! It was YOU that demanded the government take control of our economy! It was YOU, liberal left, that killed . . . murdered, the Free Market. And believe you me, when the American People begin to realize that our move in the direction of more nationalization and government control is strangling them even moreso, fiscal conservatism, the Free Market, and Capitalism will return.

Capitalism is growing in some countries to this day.

Our greatest export is Capitalism. Unfortunately, as it succeeds elsewhere, we fail to see that our very life as a nation depends on continuing to nurture capitalism by removing the government from our lives - by limiting regulation - by removing heavy taxes that impede business growth - because, after all, isn't it business that creates jobs? Isn't it business that produces goods? And isn't it the Free Market that keeps the cogs of our economy turning?

Belt Tightening, Driving Forces Behind Economic Slowdown, Tax Holidays

Why is it that so many people are so convinced that we are in a deep recession? The worst, some would say, since The Great Depression. Are we headed into an economic period so disastrous that it will rival the economic trials that followed the 1939 Stock Market Crash?

I posted a month ago that what we are experiencing is not a recession, but merely the beginnings of one should the government continue their course of manipulating the economy with bail outs and stimulus packages. That same day The National Bureau of Economic Research declared that the U.S. economy entered a recession in December of 2007.

I based my opinion on a number of pieces of data. Partly, I made my decision that we are not yet quite in a recession due to the typical definition of a recession, which is two consecutive quarters of declines in the gross domestic product. Often, that is accompanied by double digit unemployment, but not necessarily in all cases. Some would simply say, and I suppose the National Bureau of Economic Research came to this same well thought out and complex determination, that "a recession is when it hurts, and a depression is when it hurts real bad."

If a recession is defined as a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production and wholesale and retail trade, then perhaps there is an argument it began a year ago, rather than is looming on the horizon. But isn't that a slight departure from the definition of two consecutive quarters of declines in the GDP? And when one considers what is going on, is it truly the most severe economic downturn since The Great Depression? Or is this something that was conjured up partially through overstating what it is through the media and political sector?

In the end, I suppose, whether or not we are actually in a recession is not a big deal. Fact is, we are experiencing belt tightening times. My concern, however, is by overstating the economic difficulties with claims that this is the worse economic times since The Great Depression, as the liberal left and mainstream media has been doing, they are actually creating a recession capable of becoming a serious depression by simply creating such a hysteria among the masses. In other words, proclaim something is horrid long enough, and eventually, because people believe it is, it will become a reality. Hmmmm, sounds like the tactics behind the Bush Derangement Syndrome, doesn't it?

So, just because all of those experts with alphabet honorifics before their names due to their years and years of ardent schooling at the National Bureau of Economic Research has declared that we've been in a recession for a year it is automatically so, regardless of the fact that the GDP doesn't agree yet? Of course. Just like all of those scientists from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knew for a fact that man-made global warming was the cause of the recent period of planetary warming, and that our sea levels were going to rise and demolish coastal cities, and the polar bears are all going to die, and if we don't start giving the environmentalists money and start buying hybrids and start wailing and crying every time a tree falls somewhere in the forest this whole planet is doomed - while never taking into account the possibility that global climate shifts may be actually part of a natural cycle involving the sun and there isn't diddly squat we could do to cause it, or reverse it.

Yeah, those kinds of experts.

We can't always depend on the experts.

That doesn't mean that this isn't a difficult time with a definite recessionary feeling. After all, times are tough. I was in the construction industry for twelve years, specifically residential homes construction, and I chose that line of work after working for a city, and being a banker, and being a financial consultant that sold securities and insurances - and being in construction for those years was quite lucrative for me. I made a lot of money operating a trenching machine. Howevr, as the old addage goes, all good things come to an end.

When the housing market bubble burst, as many of us knew it eventually would, life got a little difficult.

My wife and I are not big spenders. I bought my house in 1989. Although many times I could have bought into a much larger and more expensive house, we never did. My thoughts were, "Why get into a larger house with a larger mortgage and have less money remaining for savings, or traveling, or to do other things with that I enjoy, when this house, the one I live in, is adequate. I have two kids and three bedrooms. I never needed more bedrooms, and I knew tht once my kids grew up and moved out, my house would essentially becoming bigger for my wife and I. When I wanted an office, I added it on to the house. When we wanted a swimming pool, we put one in. Rather than move into something more expensive, and in turn, something that would put us deeper into debt, I just made my existing house better.

I have a very low mortgage payment that many people would envy. But it is because I didn't want to overextend myself, and I didn't use my mortgage as an ATM machine, either.

When it comes to automobiles, I have always bought used, or at least until I bought my truck in 2000. I bought the truck new, but to this day, it is the only new vehicle I have owned. But I have never had a car payment. Well, I actually got a loan for that truck, but paid it off in a few months. I had done that once before with another truck back in the nineties. I couldn't see myself paying all that interest to someone when I can make payments to myself first, essentially saving the money, and then going and buying the vehicle I want with my own cash. All it took was a little patience, and a willingness to not spend that money frivilously on other things while I was saving. I suppose it also took the willingness to not buy things that are more than necessary, more luxury, than I need.

I am not putting people down for wanting nice things. I buy some things that are more a luxury than a need, sometimes. It is a great thing if you can afford those kinds of items, and you enjoy them when you are able to purchase something like that. I have no problem with that. But when you do it to the point that you are over-extending yourself, and you put yourself into a position that if things go wrong you may not be able to climb out from under it, it is not a good thing. That kind of budgeting is one of the driving forces behind the economic slowdown.

Now that people can't afford to go out every night, drive their larger vehicles constantly, or buy this and buy that because they can, they figure it must be a recession. I have been through hard times before, where we had to change our standard of living to survive, and these are not those kinds of hard times. The economy seems to be a little more difficult than before, moving sluggishly forward, and it will be for a little while - but this is hardly the worse economics since The Great Depression. With the government's manipulation of the economy it may very well wind up a recession, however. Right now, at this point in the economic downturn, it is simply a matter of tightening our belts, not being so frivilous, and for those that are losing their jobs it may mean changing what you do for a living. That's what I did.

When the construction industry, linked as it was to the housing market, died, I had no work. My wife and I, since we don't live frivolously, and we are quite frugal, had some money in the bank, and we survived the slowdown for a while (hoping it may pick up again). We realized, however, that we weren't going to be able to maintain our standard of living, no matter how careful of spenders we are, with the lack of hours I was getting in the construction industry. So I went to work for somebody else, a trucking company. Right now I am on the road on my way to work long before most people are considering even crawling out of bed, often before four o'clock in the morning, sometimes as early as two in the morning. I am not used to these long, hard hours, to be honest with you. I am not used to not even having time to eat dinner because I get home and go straight to bed, for the most part. Sometimes I catch a bite to eat on the way home. I am not complaining or whining. I am just saying that the adjustment was difficult. But sometimes that is what one must do. It is definitely harder, more difficult, than it was a few years ago - but that does not make it a catastrophe. That does not make it the worst economic crisis since The Great Depression. But it is difficult. I won't argue with you on that.

When I drive home at night I have noticed the traffic jams around the malls. The Wal-mart parking lot is packed with cars and people walking between their vehicles and the store. People are still buying, people are still consuming, and for the most part, people are still surviving. And those that are having major difficulties, like the ones losing their homes, I feel bad for them, and I understand the fears and frustration - but that is what happens when you bite off more than you can chew, and then as luck would have it, a difficult economic downturn arrives.

Was that new SUV with a loan that barely fit in your budget worth it? What about that big house with more rooms than you need? Is it something that you regret now? Was deciding to buy a house before you were truly ready your idea, or the so-called predatory lenders? You are the one that wanted that loan in the first place, weren't you?

Toyota posted, for the first time in 75 years, a loss last quarter. The increase of gas prices, of which have come back down (so much for the greedy oil companies theory), and the economic downturn, have definitely had their impact on the automobile companies. Toyota is not going to suddenly fold because of this. I don't think we should panic. But it is a telltale sign that times are tough.

The big three American auto-makers have not been putting out a decent product for years. They have been a failure, partly because of government regulations and demands, partly because of poor management, partly because of the deals they have been making with the unions that have placed a stress on their ability to make a profit. Now, the Big Three are asking for a hand-out. Congress said, "No," but Bush wrongly overrode Congress, and the American People, and provided a temporary, plastic bandage for the gushing artery anyway.

What I don't understand is with the failed mortgages, and with the failed banks, and with the failed auto-makers, why is it that government feels it to be necessary to bail these entities and people out? If they go under will it really completely destroy the U.S. economy? Is it necessary to abandon free-market principles to save the free-market system when it was abandoning free-market principles that put us in this mess in the first place?

A self-adjusting free market economy, if left to its own devices, will do what it has always done: Failures, if necessary to the market, will be replaced by another company, or with another industry that performs the function better. If all of these entities are allowed to fail, the industry learns from it. Failed policies proven to be failures are avoided in the future. Rather than becoming victims, the people and industries that did not succeed will pull themselves up by the bootstraps and try, try again.

Unfortunately, Government would rather strap some temporary boots made of paper mache on your feet, without any bootstraps attached. I am sure you'll be able to walk for a little while, but they are only temporary, and in the end we will wind up in the same economic situation, and worse. The bail outs are not going to work. They have already proven not to work.

The government gave the banks money so that they would begin lending again, and the lending institutions pocketed the money instead. Handing out money does not fix the problem. But, you see, that is the problem with government. Whenever they are faced with a problem, they start throwing money at it. Your money. This is why I have a problem with stimulus packages as well.

What is interesting about Bush's stimulus package, and Obama's upcoming stimulus package, is that they write checks from the government, which comes from the taxpayers, to give to a wide range of people that includes a large segment that didn't even pay taxes in the first place. I have a better idea. How about we follow the lead of Congressman Louie Gohmert, Representative out of Tyler, Texas? He is recommending a tax holiday. That is two months of paying no Federal Income Tax, social security tax, or whatever.

Stimulus packages add the cost of bureauocracy with administrative costs. The check has to be printed, the postage has to be paid, added costs that the taxpayer is not noticing comes with a stimulus package. Tax holidays don't have to be administered, printed, and mailed. How about avoiding those costs, and not sending checks to people who don't pay taxes anyway, and truly giving the taxpayers a break for a couple months. Now that, my friends, is a stimulus package.

Something like a tax holiday may be exactly what we need to put more money in the hands of the taxpayers, and stimulate the economy, and help us avoid a lengthy recession.