I recently sent a note to my senators, registering my opposition to the massive wealth transfer know as the “bailout”.  I got this back from one of them…

“Dear Mr. Robinson:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the housing market. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

Homeownership is an essential part of the American Dream. Congress should strive to improve access to affordable housing, support community development, and increase homeownership, while not imposing an undue tax burden on Americans….”

It goes on with the usual political blather.

How on earth did we stray so far from our Constitution that a sitting Republican Senator can actually believe this is a valid function of Congress?

My fellow citizens, it is past time for thousands of us to physically descend on our capital and straighten these folks out!

If this seems a bit extreme, please remember this.  If someone broke directly into our homes with the intent of taking everything we have earned, most of us would shoot them without a second thought.  But, let Congress steal our very birthright and we stay silent???  Then shame on US!

How can the present Congress say it any louder — they represent themselves and the special interests. They do NOT represent us!  The only time they remember us is when they need more treasure to plunder.

Tweet This Post 

For obvious reasons, the current campaigning has made me think on the phenomenon we call lying.  We all know that lies come in many degrees, usually indicated by a greyscale that ranges from almost white to totally black and, supposedly, every shade in between.

We all know of the “white lie” aka the social lie, that is told with no intent to harm, indeed sometimes with the intent of avoiding harm.  The proper response to the query “do these pants make my butt look big?” comes immediately to mind.  Other more serious, yet well intended lies might have to do with knowledge that a friends spouse is on the roam and not wanting to hurt the friend by slapping them in the face with the raw truth.

I have little interest in these kinds of lies.  What I do have interest in, and wish everyone had interest in, are the lies people tell in order to be entrusted with governmental power.  The reason is that I believe, to the core of my being, that a self governing nation can exist only so long as the majority of its people are capable of reason and are using that reason to act on facts that are true, not lies.  That is, to act in their own best interest.

To this end, I define lying as both directly making statements that are untrue AND knowingly leading or knowingly allowing others to believe something that is not true, with the express intent of convincing them to put your interest ahead of their own.  A prime example of this was when Bill Clinton repeatedly promised a middle-class tax cut in his first campaign for President only to cite economic data, after the election, that he said showed a tax cut was not possible.  Even though his own campaign had described an even worse economy during the time the tax pledge was being made.

The thing that interests me most about the latter variety of lies is that we the people accept them with so little anger.  Let a person find out that those pants really did make her butt look big, in spite of your assurances, and you are in real trouble.  Let that same person find out that the candidate she just helped elect is doing the direct opposite of what they promised in the campaign and she, like most of us, is inclined to dismiss it as “just politics as usual”.

Yet, I ask you, which of these situations is really of greater importance to you and your loved ones?  There is not even a question here, is there?  Yet, as I write this, Barney Frank is going about Massachusetts bragging about how he helped save the mortgage industry from the evil Bush, when there is almost unlimited evidence that he was, in fact, one of the persons who caused the collapse.  Then we have Obama, for whom the last 20 years are a near void – unless he is lying with every other breath he takes.  And on and on and on it goes, year after year, and we the people still fall for the same crap.

WHY?

• Is it that so many of us are too ignorant to recognize lies when we hear them?
• Is it that so many of us are too lazy to look for the truth?
• Do most of us not care what is happening to the nation that has given us the best standard of living ever known to mankind?
• Do we really believe government can give us something without taking something in return?
• Did it not occur to us that, when we accept the handouts our guy supposedly took from the “rich” that we are paying for it with our freedom and our dignity?

I just don’t get it.  Oh yes, there is one more huge lie that has caught a number of you… some of you really do believe that Obama is Black and will vote for him for this reason alone.

Let me be the first to expose you to an “inconvenient truth”.  Black and White, as we know them in the good old USA have little to do with skin color and everything to do with culture.  And Barack Obama comes from the White socialist elitist culture.  Period.

I leave you with a final thought… an effective lie requires two people.  The one who tells it and the one who  believes it.  You choose to play either role – and doing nothing, not thinking, is a choice in itself.

Tweet This Post 

For those of you with so little to do that you actually read this blog: you may have noticed a bit of silence from the blogger.  This is because I have just had back surgery and, between the pain and the pain medicine, I am not up to my normal, mentally ill standards.  Stay tuned.

Tweet This Post 

Seems the other day a fellow who claimed to be “Joe the plumber” blindsided Senator Obama with a question about taxes and how raising them might affect his dreams of owning his own business.  The Senator replied to the effect that is would be a good thing to “share the wealth”.

Before we go on, I am aware that Joe was not his real name.  Well, it is his middle name but, in the Obama camp, middle names don’t count.  Add to this the fact that “Joe” is not licensed and that he owes the IRS, although not as much as Congressman Rangel, head of Ways and Means, and you can see that this was plainly a setup.

Yet, I am still troubled by the Senator’s answer.   You see, he referred not to his wealth, but to the wealth.  Now, I can’t prove that there is not a blob of wealth out there floating in the ether, and, if there is, and we can recover it, it damned well should be shared.  But, somehow I get the uneasy feeling that “the wealth” in question is “my wealth”.  If that is the case, then I strongly object.  Since it is, be definition, MY wealth, I choose to be the one to decide if, and with whom, it should be shared.

But, I have a suggestion… the Congress is full of very wealthy Democrats.  (We can discuss how they got that way in another rant.)  Anyway, I propose that all the wealthy Dems pool all their wealth, share it all, then let us gauge the overall effect.  If that effect really made a positive difference, then maybe I will be willing to discuss sharing some of my own.  Until then, please get your sticky mitts out of my wallet.

As you probably know, Senator, all the wealth I can spare at this moment is being used to help greedy derivatives traders who might otherwise lose their homes in the Hamptons.

Tweet This Post 

As I write this, a recent poll indicated about 13% of Americans actually approve of the job their Congress is doing.  About 77% disapprove while the remaining 10% could not find Congress on a map.  This is the lowest approval rating since such ratings began (I wonder when that was?).

In the recent voting on the financial bailout package, over 90% of the people contacting their senators and representatives asked them to vote against the package.  As we all know, the bill passed in spite of such overwhelming opposition from the people.

I cannot imagine how the people we send to Congress could say more clearly that they don’t give a rip what we think.  Who do we think we are?  Their bosses?

But, my fellow citizens, there is a reason the people in Congress feel they can ignore our wishes.  There is a reason they are not worried about their abysmal approval rating.  Why, you ask?

Simple.  In spite of all this, we the people are in the habit of returning them to office without regard to their job performance.  Historically, something like 90% of the ones who run for re-election will, in fact, get re-elected.  What is going on here?

I understand that the incumbent has a tremendous advantage.  I understand that we Americans have short political memories.  But I still don’t understand why we keep returning bad people so they can do it to us yet again.

In fact, I can come up with only one plausible explanation… we the people are simply not meeting our responsibility as citizens.  In a word, WE are failing in OUR jobs.  The failure of Congress is merely a reflection of that failure.  We are a strange people indeed.  Think of how many of us will fight and die for our country.  Then think how few of us will do something as simple as casting an informed vote.

Yet of all the problems faced by our country, this is the very easiest to fix.  All we have to do is pay attention, refuse to be bought by the promise of handouts, and cast our votes accordingly.  If even that is too much effort for you, try this:  When you go into the polling place to select your senators and representatives only to find that you are not sure what kind of job they are doing, simply vote against the incumbent.  What could be easier?

Evidently, this problem is not unique to our own time as evidenced by this quote from President James Garfield:

“Now more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress.  If that body be ignorant, reckless and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness and corruption.”

Now go do what’s right!

Tweet This Post 

I have put off commenting on the “bailout” because I want to discourage the use of vulgar language in the blog.  But, I can’t silently let some of this go by.  For instance, this article from CNNMoney.com. My comments are embedded in italics…
U.S. to buy into top banks
Tuesday October 14, 9:55 am ET
By Chris Isidore, CNNMoney.com senior writer

The federal government on Tuesday announced an extraordinary and historic investment in the nation’s banks – the biggest bet ever made with taxpayer dollars on the U.S. financial system.  Bet?  They are betting with my money?  I thought they had a plan, not a wager.

As a start, the Treasury will pump $250 billion into financial institutions. Nine of the nation’s largest banks have already agreed to take the capital (I’ll bet that took some arm twisting) and in return will give preferred shares to taxpayers and limit on executive pay. (How much is this “limit” and how will we know if other more creative forms of compensation are used to bypass this “limit”?) It is widely expected that half of the $250 billion will go to those nine banks.  (That comes out to nearly $14B per bank.  When did you last get a $14B reward for mismanaging a business?)

“This is an essential short-term measure to assure the viability of American’s banking system,” Bush said in comments outside the White House. “These measures are not intended to take over the free market, but to preserve it.”  (First, nothing lasts longer than a “temporary” or “short term” measure.  Second, why is my money being used to fund an otherwise non-viable bank?  Before one more penny of my money is used, I want to see the crooks who caused this disgrace fined until they haven’t a cent left.  A bit of prison time would be in order as well.)

In addition, the president made a formal request for an additional $100 billion to help out financial institutions. Congress authorized up to $700 billion as part of the financial system bailout enacted on Oct. 3, but it required the president to certify the need for any amount above the initial $250 billion.

The government can use the additional $100 billion to buy troubled assets held by firms (by “troubled” they actually mean “worthless”.) or to make additional capital infusions into banks.  (In case the original $14B did not satisfy their endless greed.)

The president also announced insurance on all deposits in non-interest bearing bank accounts, a move that should calm businesses worried because their payroll and checking accounts exceed the limits backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. And the government will also back most new bank debt – a change designed to spur more lending between banks.  (Of course, this totally ignores the fact that the FDIC itself is broke!)

The package represents the government’s most extensive attempt yet to unfreeze frozen credit markets. The aim is to give banks the confidence to make loans to one another and their customers and help provide the economy the source of funds it needs to operate.  (This is based on an obscure theory of economics, understood only by thieves and people with advanced degrees in economics. Essentially, the theory states that while a little government interference can destroy the economy, a lot of government interference can put Humpty Dumpty together again.)

The move was something that the Bush administration and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson resisted even as the crisis in the nation’s financial system mounted over the last month.  (Resisted as in “please don’t throw me in that briar patch”.)

“Government owning a stake in any private U.S. company is objectionable to most Americans – me included,” Paulson said. “Yet the alternative of leaving businesses and consumers without access to financing is totally unacceptable.”  (Secretary Paulson came from the very industry being bailed out.  In fact, he was one of the over-paid executives.  Remember that his current job ends in just a few weeks.  Anyone want to bet where he will go then?)

The previously announced plan to simply buy the bad mortgage debts held by major banks and Wall Street firms had done little to assure investors or get financial institutions providing the loans necessary to keep the U.S. economy functioning.  (Everything about this “plan” (or “bet” if you believe the opening paragraph) has been an exercise in deception, deflected responsibility and outright fraud.)

U.S. stocks had their worst week in history last week, and most measures showed lending by financial institutions remained frozen despite moves by the Federal Reserve to pump potentially trillions of new dollars into the system. (You did not believe that $700B was the end of it did you?  That was only the down payment.)

This is the biggest transfer of wealth from the honest to the guilty since the S&L bailout.  And, there is no guarantee whatever that our nation’s economy can survive it. If it does survive, I fear it will be at the cost of free enterprise and open markets, taking us one giant step further toward socialism.

All of you who wanted more non-partisan cooperation in government are getting it now.  You see, they are partisan only when fighting over the spoils of power.  When it comes to screwing we the people, they have always been non-partisan.

The Marx Brothers would be proud.  Especially Karl.

Tweet This Post 

The present, seemingly endless Presidential campaign has raised a lot of issues relative to lobbying and lobbyists.  To hear the candidates talk, one would think lobbyists are the devil’s own handmaidens.  Well, unless they are contributing to THEIR campaign, sending THEM on junkets, buying THEM expensive meals and gifts.

I beg to disagree.  I happen to think lobbying is an honorable, useful, Constitutionally-protected activity.  That is, so long as all the lobbyist has to give is information.

All kidding aside, lobbyists can provide a very valuable service, by providing details and background on issues a member of Gongress simply does not have the time and staff to obtain otherwise.  Done properly, this makes for a better informed member of Congress and we all know we could use more of that.

The problems start when the lobbyists morph into “bribeists”.   And, make no mistake about it, when you offer a person material goods in order to affect the performance of their official duties, you have bribed that person.  Period.  Could it be that we have a fundamental problem calling things what they really are?

So, next time you hear a politician railing about the evil influence of lobbying (on other politicians, not themselves), ask them if they really mean lobbying or do they mean accepting bribes.

If you have further interest in this subject, be aware that all members of Congress are required to file reports, telling what they have received from or because of lobbyists.  This information can be quite enlightening, especially when compared to the recipient’s voting record.  Plus, you get a good idea what your own Senators and Representative are going for, just in case you ever need that bit of extra help that only money can buy.

Tweet This Post 

Here is a simple observation from the “for what it’s worth” department…

It is a poorly kept secret that, in radio and TV commercials, the louder the pitchman speaks, the dumber the audience is assumed to be.

In addition, loud presentations are more intended to appeal to emotion, rather than intelligence.

Now, if you agree with the above, consider this: political ads, debates, speeches are a form of advertising!  The product being hawked is a candidate or political movement.

Taken alltogether, we must then see that the louder a political advertisement, the more it is aimed at exciting the emotions of the dimmer bulbs in the string.

Think about this the next time you hear your favorite candidate spouting off.

Tweet This Post 

In the run-up to the American Revolution, Thomas Paine observed “That government is best that governs least”.  Over 200 years of experimentation in these United States have proven the wisdom of this observation to my satisfaction.  However, it does not naturally follow that “That government is best of all that governs not at all”.  Some amount of government is required if human enterprises are to perform as desired.  The trick, of course, is to know when one has enough government and stop there.  Seems like it should be easy but all human experience has shown just the opposite.

Personally, I view having a government as akin to using radiation to treat a cancer.  Just the right amount of radiation, under strict control, can actually defeat the cancer.  Yet, uncontrolled doses of radiation will kill the patient more quickly, and more cruelly that any cancer ever could.

So, we need some government, not enough to cause serious damage, and we need a means to keep it contained.  What to do?  Well, a group of men much wiser that I will ever be, a group we call the “Founding Fathers” (or “Founders” for short) got together to address this very  problem.  What they came up with was the Constitution of the United States of America. An amazing document and, to my knowledge, the very best attempt made before or since.

What they constructed was not a collection of ambiguous ideas of such plasticity that the could be easily changed to fit the whim of the moment.  No, what they built was intended to be as rigid as steel, and, very hard to alter so as to discourage frivolous or whimsical alteration.   Yet, as good as the finished product was, the Founders, upon reflection, found it too ambiguous.  So, they quickly added the first 10 amendments to further protect the people from their government.  These 10 amendments, unfortunately called “The Bill Of Rights”, are a series of blunt statements detailing a number of things the government, particularly the Congress, are simply NOT allowed to do.

Before I go on, some may wonder why I find the name “Bill Of Rights” unfortunate.  My reason is that too many people mistakenly interpret this name to suggest that the Constitution is somehow conveying rights to the citizens of the country.  Not even close.  What these amendments attempt to do is protect our natural rights from assault by the government.  I would much have preferred “The Bill Of Protections” but, as usual, they did not consult me on the matter.

At any rate, what we got was the U. S. Constitution.  (I consider the first 10 amendments to be part of the original in that they were constructed so quickly and primarily by an author of the initial effort.)

This Constitution is very clear in its purpose:

1. It describes, in great detail, how our federal government is to be constituted, hence the name.
2. I describes, in even greater detail, how our federal government is to operate.
3. Most of all, it intends to severely limit, contain, and constrain the reach and power of the very government it created.

All of this is simply amazing and noble in both concept and intent.  In my humble view, our Constitution is perhaps the greatest document ever written.  But it has one fatal flaw.  The same fatal flaw as all the constructs of mankind.  It is no better than the people who implement it.

What this means is simply this: if our Constitution is to succeed in its goal of protecting “we the people”, then “we the people” must protect and defend our Constitution.  Indeed, the oath of office for most federal positions as well as members of the U.S. military actually contain these very words.

Yet we see egregious violations and misapplications of our Constitution at every turn.  And, these seem to become ever more blatant with the passage of time.  To the extent that some are beginning to consider our Constitution as an archaic thing that is beside the point in this brave new world.

Let us be more honest than that.  Despite a number of additional amendments, some very poorly thought out and themselves a violation of constitutional principles, we have yet to see our original Constitution changed because it was wrong.

At the end of the day, maybe even at the end of our nation, our Constitution did not fail us.  We failed it.

As a result, we now have a government that acts without restraint. It voraciously devours our freedom, our material wealth, and now even our hopes for a better future.  And, it will not stop until there is nothing left to devour.  That is, unless we step up to our responsibilities.  Soon.

I will leave you with a supporting observation from the patriot Patrick Henry:

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests”

Tweet This Post 

As I write this, we are on the eve of another election.  You know about elections, right?  These are the periodic orgies of fun, games, lies and name calling where a huge group of people, most of whom haven’t a clue how their government or their national economy are supposed to work, get together to choose the persons most likely to improve these things.

On the surface, it seems a silly prospect but, it is a long established fact.  If you get together a sufficient number of uninformed people, work them into an emotional frenzy with a prolonged battering of lies, half truths and appeals to their fears, they will collectively produce an outcome that is a marvel of wisdom and farsightedness.

No, I am not making this up.  It really works.  Well, at least we continue to pretend it does.  Which brings us to a deadly serious question:  Can a functionally-illiterate, mostly uninformed populace effectively practice self government?  I think the answer is obvious.

True enough, America is still a great country and has been for over 200 years.  I credit this far more to the brilliance and far-sightedness of the Founders than to our own actions.  I submit that our current situation bears this out.

Let me be clear about something.  Most Americans are an honest, trusting, hard working people who, collectively, have built a grand nation and have never shrunk from the responsibility of defending and protecting what they have built.

The issue here is that the honesty and trusting nature of true Americans is being used against them.

Their trusting nature is being abused by liars who have no regret whatever so long as their own person power is preserved and extended.

Their native generosity is being abused by the greedy, in the name of the needy.

The fruits of their hard work are being squandered by legions of vote-buying power mongers.

In short, they were sold out by those they entrusted to lead them.  Now, the situation has reached the point where the “leaders” hardly even need consider the true Americans — they have created a legion of dependents sufficient to guarantee the continuation of their power.

How did we get to this point?  Simple.  By extending the voting privilege to the non contributing elements of our society.  To an element that exists, primarily, on the lucre stolen, by government force, from the productive.

The answer to this nonsense is a plain as the nose on your faces (my apologies to the nose less).  The privilege of voting should be awarded to those who earn it.  And, make no mistake, voting is a privilege, not a right.

Yes, I do have compassion for people who, in spite of their best efforts, find themselves in a situation of need.  I am all for extending temporary relief to them.  What I do not favor is turning over to them the very governance of the country.  This is insane.

Tweet This Post