Greece’s Misfortune: A Contrast to American Government the People Must Recognize

Greece’s misfortune provides numerous teaching moments for America. Their circumstance is nothing to ignore: Greece is in dire trouble.

There is no question that the nation cannot survive on its own and will need money from another country in order for its own government to continue running. Plain capitalist economics provides very few options for an entity that is so flat broke. There are three options that I see: bankruptcy is one, or a merge with another entity, either voluntarily or in a hostile takeover by another. There is, actually the very rare third option, that Uncle George or Aunt Gertrude donate the money to their “nephew” in trouble with no strings attached.

While Greece is a country and not a business or person, its options are not too different. And while there is time for serious professional or light advocational speculation over their debacle, and which route—or combination of routes—they will choose, let’s put that aside for a moment to recognize a positive application. Greece is doing America a favor here. It is a lesson in both economics and government. Their situation reminds us that Democracies are no more immune to wobbly social economics than any other country’s government using socialism as its economic machine —all governments are susceptible but one—ours.

In all of history, socialism has proven to collapse the society it feeds off as money runs out over time. Without doing any math, history shows it to be so. The length of time before it does depends upon the combination of acts and controls but the end game is still the same. Monarchies, Dictatorships—regardless of style, Democracies, and Communists, by definition have no specific market preference. But America stands as the one lone exception. If was specifically designed to work with Capitalism.

American government, a constitutionally constructed Democratic Republic, is so custom-made that comparing the rest of the world to the U.S. is like comparing a Flintstone’s car to the first James Bond Austen Martin. If the people of America would adhere to the system, custom-created for them, and listen to the original group of coaches and referees who designed it, they would recognize whenever rouge elected officials try to destroy their economic system, Capitalism and interfere in their rights of freedom in tandem, or not.

There is no way to separate Capitalism from the two sets of liberties stated in our Constitution. To do so is to change the nature of our government. The first set, recognizes liberties that neither man nor government can interrupt or usurp without our permission. Those are the inalienable rights derived by none other but Divinity. The second set is vetted through that document, the Constitution and its companion predecessor, the Declaration of Independence, in order to provide states and the federal government power—not equal in relation to each other—to protect the first group of liberties. Any switch from Capitalism to Socialism in our government is an automatic erosion of either set of constitutional rights.

To be clear, the Founders never intended the Federal government to be completely disassociated from monetary discretion. But there is a whopping difference between monetary implementations and economic ones. The government needs money to run. But it is used on behalf of the people, not despite them. From the start of this government, there was debate on the role of government in relation to money and the economic system. The first controversial act of the Duo was in creating a bank. Oddly, that debate started over the issue of canals.

Their concern was whether it was appropriate for the Federal government to incorporate. Of course, the serious concern was that as a corporation the federal government would become a monopoly—the end game of socialism—thus controlling the economy. After passionate debate on both sides, Pres. Washington decided that it was in the best interest of the people for the government to find any and all ways possible to reduce the taxpayer’s burden from debt by creating streams of revenue through investment. –Hence the bank. In the end, his decision went to the intent of the Constitution to protect the people from the effects of government spending and borrowing and he incorporated to institute a national bank.

But the Founders also knew how fragile such an act was. It would take constant vigilance and control by the People to protect the bounds between monetary policies that leverage the people’s public money but also protect capitalism. The national bank was designed not to dominate other banks, but to one of many. The founders knew money policies must remain a matter of intent as they defined it, in order for government to stay out of the people’s business—literally. One turned head, one long blink, one sneeze by the people and their freedoms could be washed away if the economic system of socialism penetrating the protective shell of the Constitution.

Long passed turned heads, blinks, and sneezes, the people and their states are now gazing, eyes bulging, and mouths dropped at the changing nature of this country’s government through a full-on, complete move to socialism.

It is critical for Americans to study the nature of their uniquely custom made government to understand and recognize economic policies that go contrary to that design. Specifically, it is critical for us to see the relationship between Capitalism and our liberties. We are not Greece. We are not a Democracy. We have the only custom designed government system, that when followed, will never collapse from too much government, because both the federal government will remain small and therefore un-intrusive on the people’s economy.

It is both unfortunate and very clear that liberals, who by definition move away from the foundation of the country—as much as Colonial liberals moved away from their country’s foundation—together with this President , Mr. Obama, does not either have a foundation in American government and her history, or they do not care one iota about it. Most would believe the latter, but it is neither here nor there. The net result is the same. Mr. Obama’s newly submitted “jobs bill” is profoundly indicative of this lack of thought to the kind of country this is. This bill adds as many taxes in the form of “offsets” as it supposedly releases. Where Corporate businesses are provided the benevolence of no, or little corporate taxes they will lose credits in lieu of deductions and those deductions must take seven years rather than a little as two before. This allows more revenue to be taxed even though that money has actually already been spent on capital expenses such as autos, machinery, and in one clause, to planes purchased in the aviation industry; or failed drilling in the case of the oil and energy industry. This is horrifying economics as it stifles growth, rather than encouraging it. You might wonder why there are offsets in the first place. Where is that money going? To pay down the debt? No. That would be the only thing that would make sense of this. No, it goes to the jobs, Obama spoke of in his remarks to the Congress.

The 199 page bill provides improvements to over 35,000 schools, enlarges bridges and stretches of highway that, albeit more crowded than their early days, but they are not crumbling. One has to ask two compelling questions: First an economic one. Is it appropriate for the government to expand its projects in a depression, when money from all and to all sources is frightfully tight? Secondly, is it appropriate for the federal government to be doing school districts’ and states’ jobs? Indeed not! There is absolutely no clause or enumerated duty of the Federal government to do this. It is, in fact, the sole responsibility of the states’, according to Art.I Section xviii and the 9th and 10th amendments that clearly state all powers not specific to the federal government in Section 8 belong elsewhere. This bill is another major example of the detriment caused to capitalism when fundamental elements of the constitution are violated.

Conversely, the bill by the same name, filed four days prior to Obama’s bill that was produced by conservative representatives in the House simply removes corporate taxes. That is all. It is two pages—actually one and a half if one only read the text of the bill. There are no lists of jobs determined by the government to be filled; and no dictation of what schools districts and cities, counties and states should improve. There are no taxes configured elsewhere to regain what was lost in removing corporate taxes. The beauty of a bill of this nature, which will be extremely difficult for Democratic liberals to wrap their heads around, is that by leaving the plan as lacking in stipulations as this one does, it actually says volumes more on what it intends to tell American businesses. “Go. Do what you, as the ones in control of the economy, need to do in order to create your unique dreams, inventions, and help your companies grow.”

Contrary to current illiteracy, liberalism (in the form of socialism), in America, is not supportive of our extraordinary system. It would be if we were actually a Democracy–hence the confusion and the justification toward government involvement and intervention. But upon evaluating the differences, one must ask: Who would ever want to ride Fred’s car, when they could have their very own custom designed Austen Martin?

911: Commemorating that part of America that cannot be extinquished

A survey of what the tragedy demonstrates about the American spirit.

9-11 reminds me of some unique and powerful qualities of America that exist nowhere else in the world.

One of the most important of those is dominantly overlooked, and quite honestly, underestimated by the rest of the world. The American people have a fiercely independent spirit that is the fuel that feeds our creativity, our ingenuity, and our determination to win at whatever we put our minds to. But most importantly, that fierce independence is what fuels the ability of Americans to defend another’s life before our own—sometimes standing up to anyone who wrongs us or our friends.

We have always been that way—as far back as this nation was conceived, and even in early Colonial days. Kind George also greatly underestimated that quality, not realizing until too late that those who came here from England were distinctly different from their countrymen. Japan, Germany, China, and many other countries have underestimated our fierce independence and what its produces, when after being attacked by them, we not only didn’t surrender but defended ourselves and all our friends. And one further: after overcoming our attackers, we have, without exception, rebuilt those countries.

I am reminded that Americans think nothing of sacrificing their lives for the greater cause. But Americans who sacrifice their lives do so to save other lives—not to take them. I am reminded that we as a people value life and liberty and that they don’t just go hand in hand, they are one and the same.

Tears still well up for me, when I recall—as if it were yesterday, the voices of unwitting heroes who willingly grounded their jet after they discovered it was to be the tool used to target the White House in an act of terrorism. They went to their deaths protecting their country as much as any soldier. Americans have that spirit of protecting each other and the whole! And our children grow up renewing that spirit.

I see that spirit just about every day in America. Just a couple days ago, two people announced over the internet that they would offer their ranches, with stalls, barns, and land to those needing a place to take their livestock, horses and any other animals caught up in the deadly fires of Texas. My children and I have had the humble opportunity to cook up turkeys, bake gourmet cookies and delicious pies and then trek downtown to feed the homeless in subzero temperatures on Thanksgiving Day. We were not alone. Scores of other families were there, sacrificing the comfort and warmth of their homes to give others a reason to be grateful. Americans flourish in making life better for someone else.

9-11 did not cripple America—nor stop our independence and spirit of taking care of each other. It renewed it! We’ll always commemorate that part of America that cannot be extinguished! The rest of the world may never understand it. But we do. They may look at us as consumed with worldly goods—and perhaps rightly so. But in the final analysis, Americans understand in their subconscious, that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is not found in shopping malls and luxury cars, but in the ability to help others, in our own way, not because we were told to by the government, or forced by anyone, but because our deeply independent wills desire to look beyond ourselves to someone else’s welfare.

That is what I see in 9-11.

(Originally published in US Daily Review.)

A LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL TEAPARTY ALERT.COM: Boehner 2, Obama 0

Reprinted from a email newsletter, sent Sept.3, 2011, I received, I have but few words to say:
I laughed audibly for more than a few minutes over this. I love the Constitution, don't you?!

Boehner 2, Obama 0

Such is the scorecard after their latest skirmish, when Mr. Obama, former professor of Constitutional Law, ignored the basic concept of three separate and equal branches of government and demanded to give an address before a joint session of Congress. Speaker Boehner, former tavern-owner and night-school graduate of the University of Cincinnati, refused permission and forced the president to slink away with his tail between his legs.

Not surprisingly, the liberal media was outraged by Speaker Boehner's upholding of a very basic Constitutional provision. The New York Times could barely hide it's disdain:

Any hopes that a kinder, gentler bipartisan Washington would surface once Congress returns after Labor Day were summarily dashed on Wednesday when President Obama and Speaker John A. Boehner clashed over, of all things, the date and time of the president’s much-awaited speech to the nation about his proposal to increase jobs and fix the economy.

In a surreal volley of letters, each released to the news media as soon as it was sent, Mr. Boehner rejected a request from the president to address a joint session of Congress next Wednesday at 8 p.m. — the same night that a Republican presidential debate is scheduled.

In an extraordinary turn, the House speaker fired back his own letter to the president saying, in a word, no. Might the president be able to reschedule for the following night, Sept. 8?

For several hours, the day turned into a very public game of chicken.

By late Wednesday night, though, the White House issued a statement saying that because Mr. Obama “is focused on the urgent need to create jobs and grow our economy,” he “welcomes the opportunity to address a joint session of Congress on Thursday, Sept. 8.”

Liberal commentator Cenk Uygur was nearly apoplectic, writing (spelling isn't changed):

President Obama has now changed the day of his address to Congress to accommodate the Republicans. They were having a GOP presidential debate on the original date he picked. So, Boehner told him to move his speech. He is the president for Christ's sake. Of course, they should have accommodated him, not the other way around. But as usual, President Obama bowed.

So, this leads to the eternal question of whether Obama is just weak or if he is a brilliant strategist who has been playing rope-a-dope all along. I am so silly that I still had hope. My hope this morning was that Obama was laying a trap for the Republicans. He picks a day for his speech that is the same as the GOP debate. Then if Boehner says he won't let him give the speech on that day, he seems so petty and harsh.

That way, either the president gives his big speech on jobs and bigfoots the Republican contenders or the Republicans look disrespectful and petulant for turning down the president. Well, if you're playing rope-a-dope, that's not a bad manuever. But it turns out that's not what he was doing at all. He just stumbled into this problem and then stumbled out when he let Boehner dictate when he could and could not have his speech. That looks so sad.

You see, if you're playing rope-a-dope, at some point you have to actually swing. When your opponent has worn himself out knocking you around the ring -- you counter-attack. But that counter-attack is never coming. We're holding our collective breath in vain.

In other words, Liberals can't decide whether Obama is a brilliant strategist by caving to Boehner's demands or if he might actually be as weak as Conservatives have been saying from the beginning. Either way, Speaker Boehner has done a masterful job of exposing Obama's lack of savvy and leadership experience. Yet another round goes to the Speaker.
.

Address:
611 Pennsylvania Ave SE #260
Washington, D.C. 20003-4303

History is an excellent teacher...

History is an excellent teacher. It is a ledger that calls black black and red red. Learning from it depends on if the record keeper has an eraser.

It seems in today’s political world erasers abound and there are plenty of people hoping that if they can remove certain parts of history they can help recreate the ideas and events that failed in the first, second and even third go-around. It begs the question, “why?” Why would anyone want to deliberately deny certain facts of history on the record—facts that taught great lessons from failure and success? –Facts that sculpt who we are or what we become? The answer is simple: Although history, the record of a group of people, typically, demonstrates how many ideas failed that group of people, it does not necessarily show failure of an individual.—At least not until after the system failed. And sometimes despite overall failure of a practice for the entire body, success on the individual level prevails. The gamble for personal gain and achievement, even if at the expense of the body on which the attempts are being made, is a lucrative temptation few sociopathic and narcissistic minds can resist.

As governor of New York, Franklin D. Roosevelt was conservative. But once in the oval office, he blanketed the nation with the largest federal programs, plans, sweeping changes in judicial power resulting in growth of executive power, and tax schemes ever amassed at one time in our history. In a nutshell, Roosevelt, while he didn’t begin that process, certainly put America on the map as a socialistic tyranny. Among his many socialistic ideas were road projects and other work projects to increase employment statistics. He expanded taxes, including hefty inheritance taxes that included five new kinds of tax: inheritance, estate, succession, legacy, and gift taxes. History has shown that government projects to “create jobs” during the depression failed miserably to achieve any notable and significant improvement in the economy. Likewise, all other plans to build the economy via government intervention have shown that significant improvement did not in reality occur. Overseas, the Soviet Union, and then Japan as late as the 1990’s, also collapsed under the stealth assumption that government economic prowess—socialism–would bring prosperity. It did not, but collapsed under its own weight.

Liberals will accuse conservatives of not having a “plan” for economic expansion and vitality. In that accusation lays a fundamental paradigm, which is actually not in sync with the Founders and Framers of this country. That paradigm expects that all “plans” originate in the government. Believers that the government must do something hold a paradigm that says the government must do something concrete and tangible in order to say they are actually doing anything at all.

What is being overlooked is the converse paradigm that no plan by the government is indeed a plan. It is based upon a philosophy that allows the People to come up with their own plan. And that is a plan. Thomas Jefferson taught, “Were we directed from Washington when to sow, and when to reap, we should soon want bread.” In addition, Benjamin Franklin said, “When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” The intent of the Constitution and its impetus, the Declaration of Independence, promises that all people have a sacred right and obligation to pursue happiness in their own way.

So when Democrats and liberals lay charges at conservatives that they are somehow derelict in their service to constituents by not offering their own concrete “plan”, it is a deception on the intended purpose of the Federal government. It also produces serious side effects that run opposite the claimed intention of such concrete “plans” by actually perpetuating and compounding the problem. When government expands it does not help the free market system, since it dictates what to do. Bur rather, it becomes the economy’s main competitor and a parasite.

Frustration builds when leaders implement historically failed policies. It is a signal of something other than public good because it does not make sense. We have a U.S. President who is so bent on fulfilling his own agenda he will lie to Americans, foreigners, and even himself about historical circumstances, results, basic premises of our society, and projected outcomes in order to achieve those goals. Recall, for instance, when Mr. Obama commented that Islam has always been a part of America’s history? That is a blatant lie. It is so far from truth it borders on science fiction. An extremely small percentage of individuals came from both Jewish and Catholic faiths. And Islam, as well as other unrelated religions played no part in American history. But injecting that statement into American history can justify inclusion of such things as Islamic ideals, –Sharia Law, or mass support for a modern day Muslim Conquest.

Another lie, related to the first example, is Mr. Obama’s comment that America is no longer a Christian nation. That is laughable on its face. While America is certainly a “melting pot”, Christianity is far and away the dominant religion of this country. As of July, an ABC News poll noted that 83% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. Only 4% were Muslim, Buddhist, or even Jewish. The others declared no association. Moreover, Christianity, the bedrock of our social norms and mores, is deeply rooted in this country’s common law foundation.

I suppose we could get derailed with a plethora of “stories” and misinformation this President has a chronic habit of telling, but the examples will serve as an indication of Mr. Obama’s panache for manipulating facts as a means to an end. And more than telling lies, are the deceptions this president conjures when omitting what he is doing, as he is with his infamous Executive Orders. Unfortunately, lies are not the end of this president’s achievements.

To add, he cheats the system he has sworn to uphold in order to fulfill his personal objectives. In fact, Mr. Obama cheats so badly, that one has to wonder how long this has been going on in his life. With every president there are times of arguable indiscretion. Those are noted because they are the exception. But with this president it is the norm to ignore the rules.

For example: Mr. Obama just signed an Executive Order version of the Dream Act—you know, the amnesty bill that didn’t have a flying elephant’s chance of passing the House? So, Mr. Obama circumvented the entire Constitution and the Congress by writing his own legislation on it. There is no provision for the president to legislate via any method, including executive orders. It is an impeachable offense as it runs opposite to his oath of office. The Constitution is quite clear: Article I, Sec.1 reads, “ALL legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United Sates, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” But nearly all of Mr. Obama’s Executive Orders are legislation. Unfortunately, the mainstream media has no interest, nor the education, to notice the violations.

The consequences to this behavior are worse than implementing a historically failed practice that is bound to end the same as all previous attempts. One such endeavor falling into the latter category is the Healthcare Act. While the president will use Massachusetts as justification, their system has failed to work as intended. The former socialist block knows full well the myriad of problems associated with a fully implemented government healthcare system. Canada now has nowhere to go to have critical procedures done, such as lifesaving surgery, now that America’s system is no longer available to them in a fully functioning free market.

But the worst of lies and cheating comes in rationale to justify poor public policies such as those related to our economic system. A list of those poor decisions is unnecessary. Americans know what they are—(TARP, ignoring CUT,CAP, & BALANCE, etc.) and the latest, passing a bill to raise the debt ceiling which not only garnered the ire of the public but Standard & Poor’s who, along with Moody’s has warned for months that raising the debt ceiling would not remove the threat of credit rating drops. S&P dropped the United States rating from AAA+ to AA+ immediately following passage of the debt ceiling deal. To that, another lie: Mr. Obama’s public statement in reaction to this was, “…this is the United States of America. No matter what some agency may say, we have always been and always will be a Triple-A country.” The statement had the ring of someone who was saying, “How dare you!” “Some agency” isn’t just any agency. That agency has within its power to rank the United States based upon its behavior. Mr. Obama’s attempt to ignore this is deceit in itself—if not to all of us, certainly to himself. It doesn’t appear he either understands or cares about the players in the game or the rules.

Even those are not the real problem. And nothing I’ve noted is news. Unfortunately, the policies that history would otherwise prove idiotic, brought by lies and cheating, are not the most profound problem and have not created the worst outcome. But these symptoms are only exacerbating it. Those are produced by a byproduct of them. This by-product is that most people cannot figure out what the President’s agenda is exactly. He is unpredictable. The reality is: Americans don’t trust this president—neither his ability to honor them with the truth nor in his leadership capabilities or intentions.

Because of this, money is deliberately withheld from the markets. Businesses hold back for fear that Mr. Obama’s actions will stifle, or sabotage their free enterprise efforts. Consumers are holding back because the market is so unstable they neither predict Obama’s moves nor the economy. Investors are not investing here and savers not saving because they fear their money will suddenly disappear.

The President can say his policies are helping all he wants. But saying it doesn’t make it so. What Mr. Obama needs to understand is that his agenda is not working despite erasing the record. Regardless of whether people know the history of programs and plans such as his or not, they are not responding nor obliging his objectives as the compliant citizenry that the President expected. People know he has a big fat eraser and they can see that he is “fudging” the books. No matter what is erased from the ledger of history, it won’t change what is in the till.

MoveOn.org Video’s Anti-American Agenda

As originally printed on US Daily Review
24 August 2011


By Sheryl Devereaux, Contributor, US Daily Review

This article exposes the agenda of a new video, which has been inconspicuously masked using innocent classroom children to promote its paradigms and plans. It is produced by MoveOn.org, with whom Mr. Obama has been shown to be affiliated.

In a classroom setting, nine children, no doubt feeling privileged to be included in a “TV” production, presented ten objectives for "American progress".

The video, found on YouTube, is called “Contract for the American Dream”, and is produced by MoveOn.org. What is so ironic about this is the fact that there is already a contract with America for a dream: The dream is “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”. The agenda being presented is far from constitutionally sound; and it appears that neither the children nor their parents are aware of it. Secondly, they are, I’m certain, quite unaware that all of the points are part of the Communist Manifesto. The ten key points to MoveOn.org objectives are listed below with the corresponding point from the Communist Manifesto following.

1. Invest in Infrastructure. From the Communist manifesto we read, “Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.”—State, meaning national government. Infrastructure is not listed as an enumerated duty of the Federal government except as it pertains to post roads. An argument could be made to say roads that assist in postal carry could be partially justified on the Federal level. But there are arguments against that as well. For the most part, it is a right of the states to develop their own infrastructure. Article I Section 10 does not forbid it, but the Federal Government is limited by the 9th and 10th Amendments as well as the last clause in Art.I Sec. 8, to only those duties in that Article.

2. The Federal government should create jobs—and ‘green’ ones to boot. Our history of innovation was outstanding because creative minds were left to create as they dreamed, not as the government dictated. That is what a free market society is. This goal echoes the Communist Manifesto, “[that] the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state. [Emphasis added]”

3. We should INVEST in public education: The Communist Manifesto claims there should be “free education for all children in public schools…”

4. There needs to be uniform health care—specifically “Medicare for all”. Vladimir Lenin said, “Socialized medicine is the keystone in the arch of the Socialized State.” He later implemented such a public institution.

5. Right to assemble and “work is equal opportunity for all”. Note the careful phrasing of this sentence. The Communist Manifesto stipulates that there must be “equal obligation of all to work”.

6., 7, & 8. Remove the cap on social security tax; realign tax brackets and make the rich pay more; and tax “Wall Street”, respectively. The Communist Manifesto stipulates the government should produce “a heavy progressive or graduated income tax”. Moreover, it clarifies that, “the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state.”

9. We should prohibit companies from having any political say. Note that number 5 above is a mandate by MoveOn.org (on behalf of this administration?) to support unions. Why should they have power to entice workers —and I use that term with great latitude, (think: uniform “block vote”) — then forbid companies a voice? There seems to be a lack of checks and balances here. To the video’s statement that public persuasion should be reserved to “Americans, not companies,” we could argue tit for tat: “Americans not unions”, then. Their goal goes against the Founding Fathers who believed factions were an imperative to liberty, but that their power needed to be checked. James Madison said factions were integral to liberty as a form of freedom of speech.

10. The video argues a need to protect and renew “Democracy…elections for all, and a pathway to citizenship.” We are a Republic, not a Democracy. A Democracy is nationalistic. We are a Federation. –A huge difference. To the point is the irony of an organization that has been sanctioned for election and campaign violations to speak of fair elections, as in the video. We see echoes of their previous objectives in the joining of these two intentions: “elections of all”, and a “path to citizenship”. MoveOn.org has been implicated in more than one illegal or fraudulent election. We have a “path to citizenship” already. It is called immigration and naturalization law

The Humanist Manifesto, the work of John Dewey, who was claimed as the foremost genius of our modern public school system, is eerily similar to the Communist Manifesto, in supporting the ideals of the latter. Both desired to achieve their mandate through the public school system, away from parents, of which the video seems to be evidence.

Sadly, since there is such a gulf of ignorance on the Constitution, most parents and the public will gloss over this video as innocent because the innocent is presenting it. It is another tragic irony that we have become so gullible from our ignorance, yet our friends from former Communist countries look on with jaws dropped and eyes fixed and dilated from stunned dismay that after so many years of fighting Communism we may be on the brink of embracing it.

———————————————————————————————————————————————–

Bio: Sheryl Devereaux is a prolific writer and researcher, speaker, and radio commentator on the Constitution and public policy. You can listen to her show, Foundation of a Nation on allfiredupradio.net or find her on facebook and twitter @sheryldevereaux.

Why Mr. Obama scares Lou Pritchett & me

This open letter is being posted here from Lou Pritchett via links through my email. I add three of my own at the end.

By Lou Pritchett, Procter & Gamble

A LETTER FROM A PROCTER AND GAMBLE EXECUTIVE TO
THE PRESIDENT*

Lou Pritchett is one of corporate America 's true living legends- an
Acclaimed author, dynamic teacher and one of the world's highest
Rated speakers. Successful corporate executives everywhere recognize
Him as the foremost leader in change management... Lou changed the way
America does business by creating an audacious concept that came to
Be known as "partnering." Pritchett rose from soap salesman to
Vice-President, Sales and Customer Development for Procter and
Gamble and over the course of 36 years, made corporate history.


AN OPEN LETTER TO
PRESIDENT OBAMA

Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike
Any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.


You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive
Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no
Visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth
Growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus
Don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned
Yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to
Publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America '
Crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style
Country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system
With a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly
Capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose
That lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of
Living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics
Against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from
Challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider
Opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both
Omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything
You do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the
Limbaugh's, Hannitys, O'Reillys and Becks who offer opposing,
Conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

*Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will
Probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8-years.

Lou Pritchett

[He scares me too for precisely the same reasons and three more: ]

He scares me because he doesn't care a flying leap about the Constitution as he writes legislation from his desk via Executive Orders;

He scares me because he deliberately waits for Congress to adjourn, again in violation of the Constitution, so he can slip in cronies he already knows won't pass muster with them;

And, He scares me senseless because he lies about every freaking thing there could possibly be to lie about, for what looks like the shear entertainment of it.


*
*
This letter was sent to the NY Times, but they never acknowledged it.
Big surprise. Since it hit the Internet, however, it has had over
500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed
Is that good men do nothing... It's happening right now.*

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/youscareme.asp (the above is correct according to Snopes…..)

Obama's Economic Plan Makes Him Poster Child for Deficiencies in American Math Education

It is clear that America has been deficient in teaching math to our youth. The generation first at historical risk to this problem has now grown up and we can finally see the completed cycle of illiteracy, as those publicly educated youth are now dominant in the work force. No study needs to be done. No survey taken. It is evidenced in our leaders en masse. The most notable of those could be the poster child for math illiteracy--President Obama.

Wednesday, in a press conference, the President demanded aloud to the Congress regarding the upcoming 4th of July recess and the debt ceiling debate,

…You need to be here. I've been here. I've been doing Afghanistan and bin Laden
and the Greek crisis and--you stay here. Let's get it done."

If Mr. Obama is claiming that he has been working on the debt and budget crisis and that they should be too, he did a very poor job of conveying that message during the telecast. In fact, he conveyed the opposite. By his own admission he said he has been working on Afghanistan, bin Laden and the "Greek crisis"--not the spending crisis.

This may not be construed as bad math, except to say it is poor reasoning and some will claim he is hypocritical. But that is not all there is to it. On the heels of saying this, Mr. Obama justified increasing taxes among the rich because, "you can afford it…You'll still be able to ride on your corporate jet: you're just going to pay a little more…"

First, the reasoning of saying that one can to afford more taking by the government is like saying the robber has a right to steal from you because you (or the insurance company) can afford to replace what he/she takes. It is neither sound nor legitimate to take something from someone because in someone else's eyes the other person can afford it. --How ridiculous an argument. If it were a correct principle it would empty our jails. Thieves, robbers, collusionists, conspirators, larcenists, et al. would be allowed to plunder our neighborhoods and businesses so long as (at least in their minds) the victim could afford the loss more than the perpetrator could afford not to pull the heist. But again, that is not the worst math. It's just very poor reasoning.

Where Obama gets in trouble (again) is in his challenge the Congress to stay and duke it out with him on the budget, with which he also offers his solution for them to pass: A solution, by the way, he claims Americans won't mind and will endorse. Pass a bill to provide loans to businesses, he says. Now, why would anyone want to pay more taxes so he/she would have to then borrow on the very money they were just forced to give to the government? This is seriously bad math. Imagine if your neighbor told you to pay them $5000, then you turned around and borrowed the very same money back--with interest. How ridiculous a formula for economic success!

Secondly, as Mr. Obama stated himself, the money is not for every business. No. It is only for those businesses that build roads, highways, possibly windmills, and solar panels, etc. or involve "free trade agreements," as the President put it. In other words, his solution is to only grow that part of the economy that he deems good--roads and foreign trade under such pacts as NAFTA. These government loans require the citizen-borrower to surrender their interest, ideas, and visions about what kind of business to build to Mr. Obama's. Take it or leave it.

When you add up the math and actually account for his words, the stark reality of what Mr. Obama is offering leaves Americans on the short end of the stick. Very, very bad math.