October 13, 2010-Congressman John Culberson, representing the Houston area sent a blunt letter to Barack Obama, objecting to the President's attempts to give away top U.S. NASA technology to China. Obama is sending NASA Administrator, Charles F. Bolden Jr. to China to "begin a dialogue on human space flight cooperation between NASA and the China National Space Administration (CNSA)."
The President did not receive ratification from Congress for any such negotiations, but, of his own accord, sent Bolden to China this week. Culberson's two concerns, both founded in Constitutional basis, are that the President was not authorized by Congress to make such a pact with China, and that it is a breach of National Security.
When referring to any duty outlined in the U.S.Constitution, the Founders expected that foremost in decisions would be what the intent of any action would be, making it plain that they must follow the purposes of the Constitution. According to the document that the Federal government is required to protect the states from harm (Art.I Sec.8; Art IV, Sec.4). Additionally, the duties assigned to each branch assure that there is a consensus in those intents. For example, two different places in the Constitution reiterate the need of the Senate to approve treaties created or signed by the President. The President cannot make treaties of his own volition. Several clauses lay a claim to protection by the Federal government to the states. Under the Constitution (Art II, Sec.2), treason is defined as an act of "levying war against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
President Obama has already stated his intention to give China the U.S. top technology that has the capability to produce chemical and other warfare tools. Every past President as a security issue has guarded those technology trade secrets.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Obama's highest technology give away in China trade agreement spells disaster for Houston area
September 26th, 2010 9:00 pm CT.
Containing millions of carbon nanotubes, the NASA biosensor can alert inspectors to minute amounts of potentially dangerous organic contaminants.
Photo: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2009/ps_1.html
"The New American," reports* a disturbing and irrational policy by Obama, who plans to share the nation's top technology secrets with China instead of curtailing their thievery. The technology, forbidden by several past administrations, includes "sensors, optics, and biological and chemical processes," all of which are “identified as having inherent military application".
Obama claims trade will be from private "enterprise" to "enterprise". (But as the article points out, there are no private enterprises in China. There is only China.) Just how Obama plans to expedite this arrangement is curious. It is highly conceivable that he would order U.S. companies to comply with the agreement, even if they 1.) Created the technology and weren’t obliged to give it away; and 2.) Felt it was very un-American (read: treasonous) to divulge such information.
The effect of such a policy is chilling: Many Houston companies are in jeopardy of economic disaster. Demand for products with such technology produced here can be lost to China's manipulative marketing. Their price point can lead to destruction of our export of like products and future products. Even the Houston Technology Center, Texas' largest technology "business incubator" ** for emerging new companies will likely suffer significantly from this give-away. The non-profit organization, which has been responsible for job growth, promotes and funds technology in areas of energy, science, nanotechnology, and NASA/aerospace. It's tremendous success is likely to be derailed along with its clients, if emerging companies know that their innovations will be confiscated at their expense and handed to a highly questionable ally. This is not trade but capture and execution. That may be China's definition of free enterpise, but it certainly is not America's.
Additionally, with a direct exchange between "enterprises" comes knowing who made such technology and where companies are located. Those become vulnerable military targets by China or any allies with whom they also "share". It creates security risks in the Houston area and across the nation.
Fortunately, we are not China. The People run the government here. Texas, as the 15th largest economy in the world has phenomenal power. Filing yet another suit, with an injunction against Obama and the administration, would be a start.
Additionally, Obama will significantly loose comrades in the Congress and may face impeachment for, among other things, aiding the enemy, if we exercise our voting rights. Giving a thief the goods is not a better solution than pre-empting their attempts to steal them.
* http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/4559-obamas-china-trade-solution-give-them-our-hi-tech
**http://www.medindia.net/health-press-release/80-Gulf-Coast-Emerging-Technology-Companies-Positioned-for-Investment-81497-1.htm
Containing millions of carbon nanotubes, the NASA biosensor can alert inspectors to minute amounts of potentially dangerous organic contaminants.
Photo: http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2009/ps_1.html
"The New American," reports* a disturbing and irrational policy by Obama, who plans to share the nation's top technology secrets with China instead of curtailing their thievery. The technology, forbidden by several past administrations, includes "sensors, optics, and biological and chemical processes," all of which are “identified as having inherent military application".
Obama claims trade will be from private "enterprise" to "enterprise". (But as the article points out, there are no private enterprises in China. There is only China.) Just how Obama plans to expedite this arrangement is curious. It is highly conceivable that he would order U.S. companies to comply with the agreement, even if they 1.) Created the technology and weren’t obliged to give it away; and 2.) Felt it was very un-American (read: treasonous) to divulge such information.
The effect of such a policy is chilling: Many Houston companies are in jeopardy of economic disaster. Demand for products with such technology produced here can be lost to China's manipulative marketing. Their price point can lead to destruction of our export of like products and future products. Even the Houston Technology Center, Texas' largest technology "business incubator" ** for emerging new companies will likely suffer significantly from this give-away. The non-profit organization, which has been responsible for job growth, promotes and funds technology in areas of energy, science, nanotechnology, and NASA/aerospace. It's tremendous success is likely to be derailed along with its clients, if emerging companies know that their innovations will be confiscated at their expense and handed to a highly questionable ally. This is not trade but capture and execution. That may be China's definition of free enterpise, but it certainly is not America's.
Additionally, with a direct exchange between "enterprises" comes knowing who made such technology and where companies are located. Those become vulnerable military targets by China or any allies with whom they also "share". It creates security risks in the Houston area and across the nation.
Fortunately, we are not China. The People run the government here. Texas, as the 15th largest economy in the world has phenomenal power. Filing yet another suit, with an injunction against Obama and the administration, would be a start.
Additionally, Obama will significantly loose comrades in the Congress and may face impeachment for, among other things, aiding the enemy, if we exercise our voting rights. Giving a thief the goods is not a better solution than pre-empting their attempts to steal them.
* http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/foreign-policy/4559-obamas-china-trade-solution-give-them-our-hi-tech
**http://www.medindia.net/health-press-release/80-Gulf-Coast-Emerging-Technology-Companies-Positioned-for-Investment-81497-1.htm
Vet Affairs grades of U.S. Reps unfair & misleading
The problem with reading statistics or a rating system when trying to research candidates and issues is that virtually nothing is as it seams, popularity polls excepted. Rating, or grading systems that declare a candidate--and most likely an incumbent because they have a voting record--does or does not support a particular group, issue or policy can be very misleading and blatantly unfair.
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran Affairs (IAVA) recently graded all U.S. Congressmen and Senators in an evaluation of how well each supported the military and veterans. The report, entitled, "Find out who in Washington really supports our troops and veterans," grades on a score of A to F, using 18 key legislative acts for Representatives, and 12 for Senators as IAVA criteria, with each act in support of IAVA earning one point. The claim from the title and the grading are not only unfair but deceptive.
On the face of it, such grading systems seem legitimate. But the reality? As they say, the devil in the details.
For one, while the report claims no bias to party affiliation there was a distinct divide between good and bad grades among party lines. Democrats got better marks than Republicans. Since Republicans are traditionally more supportive of military, war actions and the needs associated with troops and veterans, it begged the question, "Why?"
A read of the bills themselves--even a read of the summary supplied on the IAVA website--explains and is telling but not a surprise. Bills used as criteria were not necessarily for the specific needs of the veterans. For instance, HR.2346, confusingly called "the Supplemental Security Act," and the "Consumer Assistance to Recycle Act" is a bill the IAVA claims is about stop loss insurance, but actually includes measures for "Cash for Clunkers," and moving terrorists and other war criminals from Guantanamo Bay to the States. But where no political maneuvering occurred, such as in H.R.1211, a bill for better care among female veterans, the vote was unanimous.
Additionally, there is a key flaw to the way in which grading was done, which adds to the deception. Using the same scoring a school would use for grades is not an accurate portrayal of the legislator's efforts because of the way the point are divided into respective grades. F grades are based upon agreeing with the IAVA half the time. While 50% for learning purposes might be fair to determine failing to understand a concept with competency, giving a failing grade in support of a cause, when in fact, half the legislative issues were supported is hardly failing. Failing in supporting legislation should be just that, a total failure. There was no one who did not support the IAVA in some issues. Even Paul, arguably the most conservative of the bunch, and Brady voted for just shy of half the measures, but each got "F" marks, as if to suppose they never supported veteran or military legislation at all.
What ever area of Texas or the country a citizen is, it would be well advised to take such scoring systems with a grain of salt, or research the bills, together with their representatives entire record, to really know the score.
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veteran Affairs (IAVA) recently graded all U.S. Congressmen and Senators in an evaluation of how well each supported the military and veterans. The report, entitled, "Find out who in Washington really supports our troops and veterans," grades on a score of A to F, using 18 key legislative acts for Representatives, and 12 for Senators as IAVA criteria, with each act in support of IAVA earning one point. The claim from the title and the grading are not only unfair but deceptive.
On the face of it, such grading systems seem legitimate. But the reality? As they say, the devil in the details.
For one, while the report claims no bias to party affiliation there was a distinct divide between good and bad grades among party lines. Democrats got better marks than Republicans. Since Republicans are traditionally more supportive of military, war actions and the needs associated with troops and veterans, it begged the question, "Why?"
A read of the bills themselves--even a read of the summary supplied on the IAVA website--explains and is telling but not a surprise. Bills used as criteria were not necessarily for the specific needs of the veterans. For instance, HR.2346, confusingly called "the Supplemental Security Act," and the "Consumer Assistance to Recycle Act" is a bill the IAVA claims is about stop loss insurance, but actually includes measures for "Cash for Clunkers," and moving terrorists and other war criminals from Guantanamo Bay to the States. But where no political maneuvering occurred, such as in H.R.1211, a bill for better care among female veterans, the vote was unanimous.
Additionally, there is a key flaw to the way in which grading was done, which adds to the deception. Using the same scoring a school would use for grades is not an accurate portrayal of the legislator's efforts because of the way the point are divided into respective grades. F grades are based upon agreeing with the IAVA half the time. While 50% for learning purposes might be fair to determine failing to understand a concept with competency, giving a failing grade in support of a cause, when in fact, half the legislative issues were supported is hardly failing. Failing in supporting legislation should be just that, a total failure. There was no one who did not support the IAVA in some issues. Even Paul, arguably the most conservative of the bunch, and Brady voted for just shy of half the measures, but each got "F" marks, as if to suppose they never supported veteran or military legislation at all.
What ever area of Texas or the country a citizen is, it would be well advised to take such scoring systems with a grain of salt, or research the bills, together with their representatives entire record, to really know the score.
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Is the Right to Secede Really the Issue?
The question of whether the states have the right to secede from the Union has been circulating even before the two most independently minded states of Texas and Alaska joined the union. Since the question has recently been brought to me again, it seems an appropriate discussion, since it appears to be an enviable power that states seem to hope for and in that context we approach the conundrum: Do the states have the right to secede?
First, the Founding Fathers were quite aware of the right for a people to abandon their present form of government in the hopes of instituting another to preserve their God-given rights. After all, they did precisely that by seceding from England. That is the impetus behind the writing of the Declaration of Independence. The basic element is indeed a right. It is also a bloody one.
The Founders discussed at length the nature of the newly reformed Republic in the context of earlier problems with such a loosely formed Federation—and the Confederation was barely that. Problems such as balancing protection of the states enjoined, with their mutual independence. So, the Founders created a federation of states where the central government was obligated to protect the states as sovereign republican governments. The Constitution created a much stronger bond than the previous one under the Confederacy. It provided needed protection from invasion that left the early United States vulnerable and provided even better protection from neighboring states that would have a tendency of bullying smaller states. In return the constitution provided the central government power to collect revenue (that would be taxes) in order to facilitate those duties for, and on behalf of, the states.
Thus, the United States government is obligated to protect the body of states and protect the unity of states. This might not sit well with those who say, “Well then, what of the original right to secede— was it a farce?” Indeed not. But before further explanation it is fair to say that while many people will blame Abraham Lincoln for the bloodiest battle in U.S. history, the civil war—because he reasoned a state could not secede as it is part of the union and therefore the union as a whole owned the states, he was not the originator of that reasoning. The Founders were.
The Founders devised a governmental system that gave every opportunity to address grievances to the government. There are double-digit numbers of checks and balances to the U.S. Constitution. And the powers are clearly expressed. Whatever policies the Federal government creates must be applied only to those duties. The creative way in which those duties are dealt with can be varied and broad, but still within the confines of those duties, depending on the need but always staying within the intent of the Constitution. Among them is the duty of the Federal government to protect the right of states to a Republican form of government. (That one clause, alone holds within it three checks on the balance of power.)
This does not contradict the right to secede. The Founders knew that, since men and their fellows enjoin the basic right of freedom, including devising a new system of government or leaving it if the former is not viable, they had to ensure that there would be no reason or want to secede. They devised a government that allowed redress, improvements when wrongs were committed and modifications where needed in order to remove the need or want for secession, because they knew precisely how horrific and perilous secession was. Hence, the real question is not, “Do the states (and thereby their people) have the right to secede?” but rather, “should they secede and at what cost?”
The ultimate question is, “How wise is it to secede?”
Because a state wants to secede, does not mean any of the other states will welcome, encourage, or support the movement. In fact the opposite is likely to happen. Furthermore, there is no written right or process for secession in the Constitution, like there is for adopting a new state or territory. Furthermore, the Federal government itself is likely to vehemently object. And as we have seen of late where the federal government is suing states trying to adjust and repair the deliberate neglect of federal duties, it is more probable that the Federal government will physically and legally oppose secession. It would result in war. The history of secession shows it to be a bloody one. Is there a state willing to risk extinction? And if a state were to successfully secede, what then? As a, now unprotected country, that former state would bear the burden of it’s own protection—from other well-established countries and even possibly formerly friendly state-allies. Even a state the size of Texas or California would find it most likely impossible to defend itself against military might or an aggressive culture. In fact, the civil war came about not because there was no remedy but because the remedies were not honored. In the first place, the southern states broke an agreement—a compromise—set in the Constitution with the dissolution of slavery included. Without honoring the specially designed system that was focused upon unity, there was nothing left but a bloody battle for secession.
On the other hand, with all the powers appropriately applied, remedy, redress, and corrections in policy are all provided for and encouraged through Constitutional means. It isn’t that the Founders wanted to force the states into a governmental prison—tyranny-quite the opposite. It was that they wanted to provide every avenue to prevent the terror of such a violent way of solving a problem, to which they were personal witnesses in the Revolution. Thus, the only reason left to secede is simply the lack of honoring the system as designed. It would be far more wise and prudent to use all resources in restoring and using the system as designed and testing the system as such, before contemplating the alternative during a period of neglect.
First, the Founding Fathers were quite aware of the right for a people to abandon their present form of government in the hopes of instituting another to preserve their God-given rights. After all, they did precisely that by seceding from England. That is the impetus behind the writing of the Declaration of Independence. The basic element is indeed a right. It is also a bloody one.
The Founders discussed at length the nature of the newly reformed Republic in the context of earlier problems with such a loosely formed Federation—and the Confederation was barely that. Problems such as balancing protection of the states enjoined, with their mutual independence. So, the Founders created a federation of states where the central government was obligated to protect the states as sovereign republican governments. The Constitution created a much stronger bond than the previous one under the Confederacy. It provided needed protection from invasion that left the early United States vulnerable and provided even better protection from neighboring states that would have a tendency of bullying smaller states. In return the constitution provided the central government power to collect revenue (that would be taxes) in order to facilitate those duties for, and on behalf of, the states.
Thus, the United States government is obligated to protect the body of states and protect the unity of states. This might not sit well with those who say, “Well then, what of the original right to secede— was it a farce?” Indeed not. But before further explanation it is fair to say that while many people will blame Abraham Lincoln for the bloodiest battle in U.S. history, the civil war—because he reasoned a state could not secede as it is part of the union and therefore the union as a whole owned the states, he was not the originator of that reasoning. The Founders were.
The Founders devised a governmental system that gave every opportunity to address grievances to the government. There are double-digit numbers of checks and balances to the U.S. Constitution. And the powers are clearly expressed. Whatever policies the Federal government creates must be applied only to those duties. The creative way in which those duties are dealt with can be varied and broad, but still within the confines of those duties, depending on the need but always staying within the intent of the Constitution. Among them is the duty of the Federal government to protect the right of states to a Republican form of government. (That one clause, alone holds within it three checks on the balance of power.)
This does not contradict the right to secede. The Founders knew that, since men and their fellows enjoin the basic right of freedom, including devising a new system of government or leaving it if the former is not viable, they had to ensure that there would be no reason or want to secede. They devised a government that allowed redress, improvements when wrongs were committed and modifications where needed in order to remove the need or want for secession, because they knew precisely how horrific and perilous secession was. Hence, the real question is not, “Do the states (and thereby their people) have the right to secede?” but rather, “should they secede and at what cost?”
The ultimate question is, “How wise is it to secede?”
Because a state wants to secede, does not mean any of the other states will welcome, encourage, or support the movement. In fact the opposite is likely to happen. Furthermore, there is no written right or process for secession in the Constitution, like there is for adopting a new state or territory. Furthermore, the Federal government itself is likely to vehemently object. And as we have seen of late where the federal government is suing states trying to adjust and repair the deliberate neglect of federal duties, it is more probable that the Federal government will physically and legally oppose secession. It would result in war. The history of secession shows it to be a bloody one. Is there a state willing to risk extinction? And if a state were to successfully secede, what then? As a, now unprotected country, that former state would bear the burden of it’s own protection—from other well-established countries and even possibly formerly friendly state-allies. Even a state the size of Texas or California would find it most likely impossible to defend itself against military might or an aggressive culture. In fact, the civil war came about not because there was no remedy but because the remedies were not honored. In the first place, the southern states broke an agreement—a compromise—set in the Constitution with the dissolution of slavery included. Without honoring the specially designed system that was focused upon unity, there was nothing left but a bloody battle for secession.
On the other hand, with all the powers appropriately applied, remedy, redress, and corrections in policy are all provided for and encouraged through Constitutional means. It isn’t that the Founders wanted to force the states into a governmental prison—tyranny-quite the opposite. It was that they wanted to provide every avenue to prevent the terror of such a violent way of solving a problem, to which they were personal witnesses in the Revolution. Thus, the only reason left to secede is simply the lack of honoring the system as designed. It would be far more wise and prudent to use all resources in restoring and using the system as designed and testing the system as such, before contemplating the alternative during a period of neglect.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
War between Obama, Parties & grassroots/ tea parties to define strategy for 2012 General Election
We should expect the next two years to be a lame duck debacle. Except this year does not follow the historical pattern of cycles in politics. I predict this will be one of the bloodiest two years in American political history, but not totally a lame duck era. Obama will struggle to find a way to convince the pubic of his viability for reelection. The Democratic Party will maneuver any and everything in sight against the Tea Party because they believe it is the flying carpet holding up the Republican Party. Members of the Republican Party will preoccupy their time with finding more (Tea Party) candidates than other parties, dedicated to, in particular, Jeffersonian philosophy. They will keep their noses clean because Tea Party folks and grassroots America are cleaning house—literally.
Obama could employ two possible strategies to keep himself in office. He claims he will work with Republicans. This lays the path for blame later, when Obama-style legislation does not pass Congress, and the President claims he truly tried,
but Republicans would not cooperate. Using this strategy would be to misunderstand who put the Republicans in power in 2010—voters across many parties, and of many cultural backgrounds. Newly elected Representative Pete Olson, a Republican from Houston's 22nd District gets this. He sees his election as "more of an assignment from the people to fix things, rather than a victory for a political party." If Obama fails to recognize that grassroots activism is looking beyond party affiliation alone to the intent of each newly elected official; and to recognize the expectation that all parties are expected to clean themselves up, or experience the same wholesale sweep again, he will loose reelection.
Here we go: The same day I wrote this entry an AP wire reported that Obama is appealing to newly elected Republicans to go along with his decision to allow tax cuts to middle class—those earning up to $200,000—but not to the “rich”. Here is a major philosophical rift: Obama not supporting a free market system where Republicans want the cut for everyone so the rich can provide jobs and opportunities for others not so rich. It is again, a matter of government control vs. people control.
If Obama is smarter he might try to blame Democrats for his bad decision-making. If he actually agrees to reverse Obamacare (not likely, but not inconceivable), quits his carte blanche spending policies, and agrees to rein in government, he stands a chance of being reelected on the premise that he was just backed into a corner.
Obama will sell his efforts as what the voter wanted. In his current trip the India, he claims to shore up security and trade agreements that better the economy and national security. But going abroad to solve economic woes won’t appease Americans who want repeal of Obamacare, measures to ensure less government interference, secure borders, and guarantees of less spending and debt.
If Obama tries to use race to push his “immigration reform”, by ignoring current laws on immigration and border security, it will make America angrier. Particularly in border states like Arizona and Texas, the latter which has a huge international border of more than 1200 miles. Houston led the nation in illegal immigration deportation due to crime. Nearly all those suspended were found guilty of crimes, other than simply being in the U.S. illegally. Obama misread the Latino voter when he recently told them to stick with him and he’d be sure to give illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship above those standing in line. Apparently that didn’t sit well with Latino voters. More Latino candidates from the Republican Party were elected than ever. The message was clear. And it wasn’t Obama’s message.
The next two years promise to be a holy war of philosophical dialog, badmouthing and slurring the opponent as future candidates and parties maneuver for power for 2012. The Democrats will launch offensives at the Tea party movement, not realizing that it is not an arm of the Republican Party, and isn’t likely to keep allegiance to any person or party that veers from its objectives of no more party tricks and no more federal intrusion. But I predict Democrats will seek every speck of dirt possible on new Republicans in an attempt to prove the voters wrong. Conservative from every state, such as Senators Hutchison, TX, Lee, UT, and Portman OH, will forge alliances with others for state's rights along with governors. If the Democratic Party tries to muster greater support from unions and other powerful organizations, it will unleash more fury from the grassroots who will see it as an outright attempt to rob their independent voices. The Tea Party will be watching with microscopic focus and call out any impure politics and demagoguery they see. The Republican Party will spend its time reiterating the theme of the newly passed midterm election, focused upon the lead of the Tea Party movement, but reminding the Democrats that they have yet to see the light. And Americans will become more vocal, angry at any unsuccessful measures, and more assembled.
Keep the first aid kit handy; it’s going to be a bloody two years.
Obama could employ two possible strategies to keep himself in office. He claims he will work with Republicans. This lays the path for blame later, when Obama-style legislation does not pass Congress, and the President claims he truly tried,
but Republicans would not cooperate. Using this strategy would be to misunderstand who put the Republicans in power in 2010—voters across many parties, and of many cultural backgrounds. Newly elected Representative Pete Olson, a Republican from Houston's 22nd District gets this. He sees his election as "more of an assignment from the people to fix things, rather than a victory for a political party." If Obama fails to recognize that grassroots activism is looking beyond party affiliation alone to the intent of each newly elected official; and to recognize the expectation that all parties are expected to clean themselves up, or experience the same wholesale sweep again, he will loose reelection.
Here we go: The same day I wrote this entry an AP wire reported that Obama is appealing to newly elected Republicans to go along with his decision to allow tax cuts to middle class—those earning up to $200,000—but not to the “rich”. Here is a major philosophical rift: Obama not supporting a free market system where Republicans want the cut for everyone so the rich can provide jobs and opportunities for others not so rich. It is again, a matter of government control vs. people control.
If Obama is smarter he might try to blame Democrats for his bad decision-making. If he actually agrees to reverse Obamacare (not likely, but not inconceivable), quits his carte blanche spending policies, and agrees to rein in government, he stands a chance of being reelected on the premise that he was just backed into a corner.
Obama will sell his efforts as what the voter wanted. In his current trip the India, he claims to shore up security and trade agreements that better the economy and national security. But going abroad to solve economic woes won’t appease Americans who want repeal of Obamacare, measures to ensure less government interference, secure borders, and guarantees of less spending and debt.
If Obama tries to use race to push his “immigration reform”, by ignoring current laws on immigration and border security, it will make America angrier. Particularly in border states like Arizona and Texas, the latter which has a huge international border of more than 1200 miles. Houston led the nation in illegal immigration deportation due to crime. Nearly all those suspended were found guilty of crimes, other than simply being in the U.S. illegally. Obama misread the Latino voter when he recently told them to stick with him and he’d be sure to give illegal aliens a pathway to citizenship above those standing in line. Apparently that didn’t sit well with Latino voters. More Latino candidates from the Republican Party were elected than ever. The message was clear. And it wasn’t Obama’s message.
The next two years promise to be a holy war of philosophical dialog, badmouthing and slurring the opponent as future candidates and parties maneuver for power for 2012. The Democrats will launch offensives at the Tea party movement, not realizing that it is not an arm of the Republican Party, and isn’t likely to keep allegiance to any person or party that veers from its objectives of no more party tricks and no more federal intrusion. But I predict Democrats will seek every speck of dirt possible on new Republicans in an attempt to prove the voters wrong. Conservative from every state, such as Senators Hutchison, TX, Lee, UT, and Portman OH, will forge alliances with others for state's rights along with governors. If the Democratic Party tries to muster greater support from unions and other powerful organizations, it will unleash more fury from the grassroots who will see it as an outright attempt to rob their independent voices. The Tea Party will be watching with microscopic focus and call out any impure politics and demagoguery they see. The Republican Party will spend its time reiterating the theme of the newly passed midterm election, focused upon the lead of the Tea Party movement, but reminding the Democrats that they have yet to see the light. And Americans will become more vocal, angry at any unsuccessful measures, and more assembled.
Keep the first aid kit handy; it’s going to be a bloody two years.
Monday, October 11, 2010
National Debt Becomes Bad Math with Bad Intentions for U.S. Constitution
Looking only at the major financial moves of the Federal Government shows a disturbing intent toward an ominous and foreboding outcome. Most Americans feels this anxiety. But how many Americans realize the ultimate potential result of this type of spending and capital confiscation policy?
Before adding up the math, there need to be a very basic review of our Constitutional government: The Federal Government was never set up to support--literally, the programs and projects it is currently involved in. The states were designed to carry on the policies directly for the people. The Federal government was designed to have a simple scaffolding to support the states only, not an intricate one designed to support the rights and beyond, the needs of each state's people.
As such, there are some key powers and duties assigned to the Federal government. Of those were lots of military--eight of the eighteen clauses are about the military and protecting the states; protecting inventions--intellectual property; providing and maintaining "post roads and offices"--providing for the mail; international commerce; uniform rules for becoming an American; bankruptcy laws; punishments for specific crimes that have a larger than state effect; taxes on the states proportional to their population; and, so forth. But there is no duty to provide health insurance, or other social services. That is prohibited by the limits imposed under the Constitution but not prohibited by individual states to enact if they saw fit.
With that said, now let's look at the legislation or executive mandate, already enacted and on the slate to be enacted. Remember, most of this is not news. We're just doing some math here:
Before adding up the math, there need to be a very basic review of our Constitutional government: The Federal Government was never set up to support--literally, the programs and projects it is currently involved in. The states were designed to carry on the policies directly for the people. The Federal government was designed to have a simple scaffolding to support the states only, not an intricate one designed to support the rights and beyond, the needs of each state's people.
As such, there are some key powers and duties assigned to the Federal government. Of those were lots of military--eight of the eighteen clauses are about the military and protecting the states; protecting inventions--intellectual property; providing and maintaining "post roads and offices"--providing for the mail; international commerce; uniform rules for becoming an American; bankruptcy laws; punishments for specific crimes that have a larger than state effect; taxes on the states proportional to their population; and, so forth. But there is no duty to provide health insurance, or other social services. That is prohibited by the limits imposed under the Constitution but not prohibited by individual states to enact if they saw fit.
With that said, now let's look at the legislation or executive mandate, already enacted and on the slate to be enacted. Remember, most of this is not news. We're just doing some math here:
- TARP I (Old news, of course, but this is the beginning of the biggest mess of bad math: The people now own 60% of GMC, and Chrysler along with FreddieMac, FannieMae, and many large banks, whether they wanted to investment or not.) The cost of this program's projected expense is claimed to be $30 billion--including a "pay-back" from AIG stock all Americans now own.
- TARP II (More...) Supposedly included in the above figures as of October 5, 2010.
- Fannie & Freddie: $5 trillion
- Small Business Jobs and Credit Act, a $30 billion bill it, allows "preferred stock and other financial instruments from eligible institutions (Small Business Lending Fund Program)," which doesn't actually go to just businesses, but primarily to banks with the oral agreement and assumption they will lend to small businesses. Weird, the Act grants money to businesses such as the Horse Industry, where buying a horse allows a person up to $500K.
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also coined "Obamacare," forcing everyone (except McDonald's), to buy health insurance that limits their care; decides when they die; whether their particular cancer warrants extended life; pay for someones abortion whether they believe it conscionable or not; and more.)
- Infrastructure Acts: There are several proposals: HR 6246 gives North Dakota millions for rural development. Don't let the infrastructure title fool you, this helps build homes and so forth too. A news brief just announced Obama's interest in a $1Billion infrastructure bill to repair the 'nations crumbling bridges and roads."
There are other budget busting expenditures, of course, but the purpose here is to illustrate a map. A very destructive map. The infrastructure bill Obama is pushing (as above) is designed to "create jobs" just as all the other "stimulus" bills have claimed to do. None of the previous attempts through this means have actually produced the jobs expected. It has increased the per capita debt in this country to explosive--more like implosive levels. The burgeoning spending spree is causing a collision course with two economic brick walls: An unsustainable debt--which most people realize; and, the hot-off-the-press printing of money. The two combined will eventually cause a collapse of the Government.
Do you see the concern I see? Our current national debt is growing at an astronomical $4.17 billion a day! It is currently at over $44,000 per capita of debt. That does not include entitlement program debt. Add another $107 trillion for that. It is estimated that, if we proceed only with the current pace, adding nothing more, the debt will hit 90% of the country's GNP in nine years! Currently, about 60% of the nations income goes to taxes. There is only 40% left to go before we reach a completely Communist system where all goes to the government and the government dictates who, what, and why people get income, goods, and needs met. If the plan is accelerated, a collapse comes more rapidly. At that point, a state of emergency will call for a "new government" to fix the problem since capitalism didn't. (When in reality capitalism was abandoned in order to create the crises.) As long and there is a pen and a check to write on, there is debt to increase. The end goal is not in producing jobs, nor even buying American votes, but in the final collapse of the free market that will signal the end of our system of government. The history of all nations with this system proves the demise. The present administration seems to be banking on it.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
