Why Democrats don't want you to have nice things

Democrats refer to historic tax relief as a "scam"

The Republican Party-controlled United States Congress led by Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky passed historic tax reform legislation this week. This tax relief will lower the tax burden for nearly every American individual and business.

The Tax Policy Center is a nonpartisan joint venture of the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. They are an organization made up of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government.

Howard Gleckman at TPC had this to say about the changes:

"About 80 percent of households would get a tax cut while about 5 percent would pay more in 2018 (the rest would pay roughly the same as under current law). Among middle-income households, about 90 percent would pay less and 7 percent would pay more."

So then why would every single Democratic member of Congress, Senators and U.S. Congresspersons led by Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi of California and Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, vote against the legislation? Why would not one single Democrat want middle-class workers and families to keep more of their own hard-earned money?

The answer is simple: control. It is the answer to the same question asked in the headline accompanying this piece. That answer lies in the fundamental difference between today's American conservatives, found mostly in the Republican Party, and Democratic Party liberal progressives.

Conservatives - and trust me, not all Republicans are true conservatives - want you to keep more of your own money and power. They desire more familial, local, and state control over your finances and your personal lives.

As Republican ad-maker Brad Todd put it per James Hohmann at The Washington Post: “God created Republicans to cut taxes. Big bills are always complicated, but in time the truth comes out when something costs them (the American people) more or less money.”

Liberal progressives want greater state control. The lib-progs believe themselves to be fundamentally more capable than you to make decisions regarding how your money is spent, what your children are taught, and in fact, what you as an individual should think and feel.

Liberal progressives want businesses taxed and regulated so as to have more control over their product output and direction, regardless of the impact on the economy or society. With taxes lowered and regulations loosened on businesses, the worn and tired lib-prog talking point of Republicans "helping only the wealthy and corporations" is once again foisted on the gullible.

The liberal progressives have taken control of the Democratic Party over the last century. Today they are moving ever leftward, marching towards outright Socialism as publicly proclaimed by one of their most popular leaders, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

(Milton Friedman on capitalism over socialism)

Why don't publicly proclaimed socialist Democrats such as Senator Sanders want businesses to receive even greater tax and regulatory relief? Why are even supposed "mainstream" Democrats voting against tax relief for middle-class Americans workers and families?

Liberals Must Stand Up to Obama

The cries have been going out far and wide regarding President Barack Obama from the very beginning.

He is a Chicago-machine politician with a strong lean towards Socialism, and he will plunge the country deeper into debt while dismantling capitalism and further dividing the nation ideologically.

It turns out that all of this is true. Everything that was cried out has either come to pass, is in the process of coming to be, or has been actively and publicly discussed by the Obama administration as a goal and/or actual plan being drawn up.

The debt and the size of federal government has grown, jobs and the economy remain stagnant, the people's political ideological gulf has widened.

There is one big problem here: the only people doing anything about it are Republicans.

Rallying 'Round Romney

I've been a fan of Newt Gingrich for a long time. At the same time that Gingrich was leading the Republicans to victory in the 1994 congressional elections with his "Contract With America", I was making my own shift from lifelong liberal Democrat to social conservative Republican.

Gingrich is a brilliant man, a superb debater, and perhaps the single most informed individual in the entire Party on the entire range of issues.

His performances in the early candidate debates were outstanding. So it was with hope that I began to support his candidacy for the Presidency last year, and with excitement that I watched him bolt to the polling lead a month or so ago.

But as the weeks pass, the first states begin to cast their primary and caucus ballots, and the candidates are exposed to one another in more focused debates and to the press and public at campaign stops that now matter more than ever, Mitt Romney has taken a commanding lead.

The former Massachusetts Governor became the first Republican in modern primary history to capture both the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary.

Romney's doubleheader sweep in the Heartland and in New England show that he has a wide range of appeal. That has always been one of Mitt Romney's strengths.

Elections Have Consequences

For the past year it has become the public mantra of Democratic Party politicians: "Elections have consequences." Whether they were talking about bailing out large corporations or taking over the banking, auto, and health care industries, that simple phrase has been their fallback position.

To some extent, that is true. When the nation elects a leader such as Barack Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, it has definitely sent a message. A majority of the citizens of the United States spoke up in November of 2008 and sent the message that the direction the country was headed during the Bush years was not one that they wanted to continue following.

The American electorate sent a clear message for 'change' to Washington politicians at that point. The problem, however, and it is a big one for the Dems, is that the voters quite obviously wanted 'change' with a small 'c', not the "Change" that marked the Obama campaign's signature slogan.

What Obama was trumpeting was "fundamental change", a message that he banged home time and time again. The mass electorate heard those words and decided that he meant a simple change in direction, something they wanted indeed. What he actually meant was to change the very nature of what it meant to be America as a nation.

After winning election, Obama got his house in order, got his Democratic Party leadership organized, and then set out down the path towards that fundamental change from a democratic, capitalist society to a full-blown European-inspired socialist one. The American 'system' that had made us the envy of the world for generations had somehow "failed" in is words and needed to be almost completely trashed.

Problem was, the American public didn't go along for the ride. As the depth and scope of Obama's vision of change came into view and practice, as Dem national leaders like Nancy Pelosi in Congress and Harry Reid in the Senate began to push the legislative agenda, it became crystal-clear to Americans that socialism was the order of the day.

The Democrats were making a fundamental political mistake, one that the Republicans had made a couple of times in the last couple of decades. They assumed that their election to power now gave them a mandate for major changes to America, and they began to institute those major changes.

Quickly, the American public began to voice their concerns. In every major public opinion poll, the public shouted at the top of it's lungs for the Dem leadership to slow things down. Some changes were needed to the system, yes. But almost no one wanted socialist restrictions and control to replace democratic capitalism's freedom and liberty.

Socialism has failed everywhere that it has every been tried on earth. The reasons are quite simple. Taking away incentives from individuals to work harder, to dream bigger, to achieve more results in less production. Citizens come to rely on their government to provide for them. Eventually, the government can no longer do so, because it simply lacks the resources.

You cannot possibly tax individuals and businesses enough to sustain government control. And let's face it, that is the only place that government gets it's money. Government is, in fact, you and I. We pay into the system to keep it functional. We elect people to run things as our representatives. In a socialist system, those representatives just keep raising and raising our taxes to take on more and more control over our everyday lives.

Eventually a system such as the Obama administration is attempting to install will collapse on itself because it is economically unsustainable. But before it does, society will degenerate into a mess of ennui and disillusionment, or worse. If those who have control in a socialist system see that control slipping away, their response has often been to use force to remain in power. They change the laws and keep themselves in the life boats to protect their own interests as the ship sinks around them.

Many Americans did understand that this would be the direction that Obama and the leading Dems would take once in power. Those are the tens of millions who voted against them. They are now being joined by the millions 'in the middle', those Americans who wanted the small 'c' of 'change', not the capital 'C' of Obama's socialism.

Yes, Democrats, elections have consequences. However, what you are failing to remember is the lessons of politicians and Parties past. That there is always another election coming. This November, Americans will again go to the polls. All signs point to the Dems losing control of Congress, which will seriously cripple Obama's ability to continue his agenda.

Obama and Pelosi and Reid have led America down this path of 'Change' at full speed, recklessly disregarding the public's wishes time and time again. Reid and many of his Dem leadership co-horts will undoubtedly pay the price in the Fall of 2010. They will pay that price because, despite their election victories in 2006 and 2008, they are now ignoring the American electorate in 2010.

Now is a time of opportunity for the Republican Party to reassert itself, but it must be willing to return to basic American principles of democracy, capitalism, and traditional exceptionalism in order to take full advantage. The Republicans must reflect core American values, pledge a change in direction to fiscal sanity and responsibility, and to fully and effectively preserving and defending our nation and it's founding principles.

In the fall of 2010, the Democrats will be reminded that elections do indeed have consequences. When they lose their control over Congress, their control over the purse strings and the power and the direction, then they will cry and wail and moan. They will blame one another, point fingers, and become disgruntled. And they will have no one to blame but themselves, because elections do indeed have consequences, the next one as strongly as the last one.

E.U. 21st Century = U.S.S.R. 20th Century?

What lies behind the creation of the European Union, once believed to be simply a device to expand economic relationships and opportunities, but now quite obviously a major attack on individual nationhood? Could this same fate of sacrificing national sovereignty for some ideology occur here in the United States of America?

In 1957 six countries - West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands - signed what became known as the 'Treaties of Rome' establishing a 'European Economic Community' which was an effort to both foster economic opportunity and to begin stepping away from the nationalism that many saw as the root cause of the two world wars that had devastated the continent during the first half of the 20th century.

In 1973 this union of nations was enlarged when Great Britain, Ireland and Denmark joined what had become known as the 'European Community' with institutions covering the economy, energy, and major industry. By the end of the 70's the first direct democratic elections to a 'European Parliament' were being held.

During the 1980's, Greece, Spain and Portugal all joined and a policy of open borders was developed that eliminated the need for passports across all of Europe. In 1986 a European flag was adopted and the 'Single European Act' was signed by member nations. This act expanded on the earlier 'Treaties of Rome' and set the goal of having a common market by the end of 1992.

On November 1st, 1993 the 'Maastricht Treaty' came into force. Signed by member nations in February of '92, the treaty formally established the EU and set into motion the creation of the 'Euro' as an official currency. Sweden, Finland and Austria joined up during the 90's, and in 2002 the euro replaced the old national currency in all of the member states.

During the last decade the membership role of nations exploded into eastern Europe to include places like Poland, Hungary, Romania and the Czech Republic, bringing to 27 the current total number of member states, though only 16 are included in what is known as the 'Eurozone' by accepting the euro as their official currency.

On December 1st, 2009 the 'Treaty of Lisbon' came into force after it was signed back in December of '07. This treaty basically centralized power and formalized the state symbols in the EU, weakening democracy by moving true power away from the voters in each nation and handing it over to the EU power structure, and moving one step closer to erasing individual nationalism.

It also established the first-ever official head of state, a long term 'President of the European Council' who is appointed to a 2 1/2 year term by the Council and who may be reappointed one time. Herman Van Rompuy of Belgium was selected as the first President, and is serving now until at least May of 2012.

It further and perhaps most frighteningly established an agency known as 'EuroPol', the European Police Force having full diplomatic immunity in enforcing criminal counts that include, as pointed out by former Soviet political prisoner Vladimir Bukovsky, nebulous charges such as 'racism' and 'xenophobia'.

As Bukovsky pointed out in a recent piece for the Cato Institute: "the authorities have already explained to us, in a very quiet manner, that those who might object to the immigration policy of the EU can be accused of racism. And those who oppose further integration of Europe can be charged with xenophobia."

The structure of the European Parliament was described as a "mad house" that makes the old Supreme Soviet of the USSR look "like a model legislature" due to it's 1,200-1,400 members who do not have a central meeting place and whose members normally only have an opportunity to speak in front of the group for meer minutes each year.

Why is it important to point out the old Soviet Union, which led the way to disillusionment, imprisonment, and death to millions of people during the 20th century? Because the EU is heading down the exact same socialist path, a path that has also reared it's ugly head in America with the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency here.

Back in the 1980's, with Gorbachev sensing power slipping from the increasingly damaged Soviet Union but still believing in the ideology of socialism, he met with the leaders of Europe's leftist parties who shared this vision and together they launched 'Common European Home', a project to organize socialism across all of Europe. They threw all of their considerable support behind the formation of the EU for this very purpose.

In today's Europe, behind the names and lines on your map and the pride of the people in the individual nations, a monster is swallowing up the old world. This behemoth is known as the European Union, a socialist body of cronyism and central government planning. Before the end of this century, if nothing major changes, it will lead to the same disaster that became of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the Soviet Union, in the 20th century.

The great challenge here in the United States is the same as it was during the USSR-led rush to embrace communism and socialism in the last century. That challenge is to not be a follower and join in the rush to give up our national greatness and identity, as well as our individual freedoms. It is the challenge to instead be a leader in the fight for freedom and democracy.

The American people still have the power that the European people have slowly allowed their politicians and power brokers to negotiate away from them. We have the power to stand up and be counted, to kick the socialists and central planners out on their cans, and to hold true to the values and vision of our Constitution.

Will the United States follow the European Union, which itself is following the old Soviet Union, down the path toward socialism by beginning to form some 'North American Union' with Mexico, Canada, and other nations of the Americas, yielding our power and our pride to some nebulous central authority? Or will we stand strong for true democracy and the individual freedoms and liberties given to us as true gifts from God himself? Only the passage of 21st century time will tell.

Obama's State of Anti-Americanism

President Barack Obama strutted in front of Congress and the nation last night to give his State of the Union address. This time his undeniable oratorical skills simply could not save him from the facts that have become clear in his first full year in office. Facts that now have his speeches sounding more and more like skips on a broken record.

Let's start by taking a look at what his programs have actually done over the past year, and see what he said last night. Directly because of the programs and initiatives launched by the Obama administration, our unemployment rate has soared past the 10% mark for the first time in decades and our national debt has been set on course to triple over the next decade.

But what is Obama suggesting that we do as we move into his vision of the future? Spend more, go further into debt, reward cronyism and failed industries. Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress wish to throw massive amounts of good money after excessive and irresponsible amounts of bad.

The President proposed in his speech last night to "take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat." 

So we taxpayers, who did not want to do it in the first place, loaned money to banks. It was repaid, but now we lend that same money back out to banks? So what exactly is going to have been "repaid"?

Why again did I lend money to banks in the first place? Do you know why? To save the financial system from collapse? Really?

Why do we taxpayers need to prop up any business that cannot succeed on the strength of it's own hard work, value, worth, and entrepreneurial skills? Businesses large and small have gone under for centuries. Why do we have to save some now with taxpayer dollars?

Shameful Che Shirts

Do you own, or have you owned and worn, or know someone who owns and has worn one of those allegedly 'cool' Che Guevara t-shirts? Do you know the reason that the shirt was being worn? Does the image on the shirt actually stand for something? Do you even know who Che Guevara really was?

The 'Che Guevara' t-shirt and image has become a symbol of sorts for all that is 'counter-cultural'. It is often meant as a protest symbol for those who feel that the 'little man' is being intentionally repressed in some way by government and/or business.

Wanting to help those who are less fortunate than we are is a noble sentiment. So is wanting to effect positive changes on a government or on a society that has become repressive or abusive to it's citizens. So what exactly does that have to do with America, the most free country in the history of the world? And why on earth would this man be an appropriate symbol for such protests anyway?

Ernesto 'Che' Gevara was born in 1928 in the South American country of Argentina to parents of mixed Spanish and Irish heritage. He was brought up in a very political and intellectual environment, and became a reader of the works and teachings of Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin at an early age.

In 1951 he took a year off before entering medical school in order to travel around South America on a motorcycle. During this trip he experienced first-hand the poverty in much of the land, and as a result ultimately wrote 'The Motorcycle Diaries' in regards to the trip. The book was subsequently made into a major release film in 2004.

As Guevara matured into manhood his views became more and more radical, and he eventually established the stated viewpoint that Marxism achieved through armed struggle and defended by an armed populace was the only way to rectify what he believed had become 'American imperialism' in Latin America.

Tearing Down the Wall

Twenty years ago an amazing event happened, one that two generations of Americans and lovers of freedom the world over had a hard time imagining would ever happen in our lifetimes. On November 9th, 1989, at the crest of a wave of liberty sweeping across Eastern Europe, the East German government announced that its citizens could openly visit West Berlin.

The problem with such visits for decades had been the presence of one of the single most blatant symbols of political and cultural oppression in modern history, the Berlin Wall. The Wall was not just symbolic of socialist and communist oppression, it was a literal wall that encircled the 'free' city of West Berlin and included a thick concrete wall, barbed wire, guard towers, and patrolled trenches that would become known as 'the death strip' in history.

During the period of the Wall's existence between 1961 and 1989, estimates show that a couple of hundred people were killed in approximately 5,000 attempted crossings. All were trying to move one way, across the 'Iron Curtain' from the oppression of the Eastern Bloc to the freedom of Western Europe.

The roots of the Berlin Wall stretched back to the end of World War II, when what remained of Nazi Germany was divided by the Potsdam Agreement into four 'occupation zones', each controlled by one of the victorious Allied powers: the United States, Great Britain, France, and the Soviet Union.

Despite the fact that the capital city of Berlin lay entirely within the Soviet zone, that city was also divided into four controlling zones for the Allied powers. Within short order, rifts began to appear between the Soviets and the others on a number of post-war issues regarding reconstruction of Germany, as well as political and ideological differences between the nations.

Almost immediately after the war, Soviet leader Josef Stalin began to orchestrate the creation of and control over an 'Eastern bloc' of nations including Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and the Soviet-controlled section of Germany which he envisioned as a buffer zone of protection for the USSR against the influence or advances of the European democracies.

In 1948, Stalin began to finalize his ultimate plans of a complete takeover of Germany by instituting a blockade of West Berlin, the section controlled by the other Allied powers. His hope was to see the others withdraw from control over and interest in the city. But the Americans and British responded with the 'Berlin airlift' efforts that kept the free section of the city supplied with goods and materials. After almost a year, Stalin finally lifted the blockade.

In October of 1949, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) was declared and would become known as East Germany. This section of Germany was highly influenced by the Soviets and was oppressive to its people. West Germany developed as a capitalist nation in alliance with the United States and the other western nations. Over the years, West German economic growth and political freedoms became increasingly attractive to hundreds of thousands of East Germans, who fled their nation for the freedom and prosperity of the west.

In the first few years, nearly a million people fled the Eastern bloc to West Germany as people began to recognize the oppressive tactics and governing principles of socialism and communism. What became known officially as the 'German inner border' but was more popularly christened as the 'Iron Curtain' by Winston Churchill was the response. Initially a recognized but open border between the post-war zones controlled by the Soviets and the western powers, the 'Curtain' was formally closed with the erection first of barbed wire fences and later more substantial security in 1952 and 1953.

With this major path to freedom blocked, more and more citizens of East Berlin began to flee into West Berlin, the only remaining bastion of freedom behind the Iron Curtain of Soviet and East German oppression. The East German authorities attempted many measure to thwart the massive emigration that ensued, as approximately 20% of the entire GDR population escaped to the freedom of the west up until 1961.

Finally, Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev gave the East Germans the orders to build a physical wall separating East and West Berlin. At midnight on August 13th, 1961, the police and units of the East German army began to close the border. Streets were torn up and barbed wire fences installed to prevent passage. By August 15th, construction of a concrete wall had begun. Many families were literally split apart suddenly, and people were unable to travel to their jobs.

The Berlin Wall was ultimately built up and strengthened over decades in four main elements. The initial 'Wire Fence' effort of 1961 was followed quickly by improvement to that fence between 1962 and 1965. A concrete wall was completed and extended between 1965 and 1975. Finally, the 'Border Wall' was built, extended, and improved between 1975 and 1980, but was continually improved right up until the end in 1989. In the end, the Berlin Wall was more than 87 miles long.

In the beginning, no crossings at all were allowed for over two years between 1961 and 1963. Negotiations between the powers allowed for Christmas visits over the next four years. There were ultimately 8 different official border crossing points between East and West Berlin which were all heavily secured and controlled. It was far easier for West Berliners to cross into the east than vice versa. For the most part, no East Germans were permitted to cross into West Berlin until the fall of the Wall in 1989.

Located near the center of West Berlin, the 'Brandenburg Gate' is one of the main historic symbols of Germany in general and Berlin in particular. On June 12th, 1987, American president Ronald Reagan appeared there and made a speech to help celebrate the 750th anniversary of the city of Berlin. Reagan had throughout his presidency challenged the ideology and authority of communist and socialist regimes, publicly calling the Soviet Union an 'Evil Empire' at one point.

In his speech that day, Reagan directly addressed Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev: "..we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace. There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization, come here to this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate. Mr. Gorbachev, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!"

Inspired by events such as Mr. Reagan's speech, citizens and governments across the Soviet sphere of influence began to crack. In August of 1989, "red" Hungary removed its border fence with a free Austria, and 13,000 East German tourists escaped to freedom. This set off a chain reaction of similar activity in Czechoslovakia, and finally in East Germany itself. Mass demonstrations resulted in the resignation of the East German president in October 1989.

These generally peaceful demonstrations continued to build throughout East Germany, culminating in what was known as the "Peaceful Revolution" and the gathering of a million people in East Berlin on November 4th. In response, the East German government and its puppet-string pullers in the USSR had little recourse but to loosen their grip, and when some pieces of a plan to do so were leaked to a German television network, the story was run on November 9th that "the borders were open to everyone" on what was called a historic day.

After this public announcement on television, which was actually a complete jumping-of-the-gun by the network, Germans began gathering at the Wall, completely surprising and overwhelming the guards. In contacting their superiors for orders, the guards were given no direction, and became overwhelmed by the throngs. The gates were opened and people flocked from both sides, embracing one another in glee. Over the ensuing days and weeks, people gathered daily to climb the Wall, break off pieces, and begin to informally demolish the structure.

Over the next few months, restrictions on crossings became officially lifted, including at the Brandenburg Gate on December 22nd. The following day, visa-free travel began between the states. On June 13th, 1990, official dismantling of the Wall began, and continued until being completed in November 1991. Only a few guard towers and portions remain as memorials.

For three decades, the Berlin Wall stood as a wall of oppression, keeping people from seeking their freedom and liberty and entombing them inside a world of failed communist and socialist ideologies. It was ultimately the will of these freedom-seeking and loving peoples, aided by those of us around the world who share these ideals, that resulted in the awe-inspiring events which began on November 9th, 1989.

Your Fair Share

There are a surprisingly large number of people in America who sincerely believe that they are not getting and so want their 'fair share' which leads to the question: what is your fair share?

What is it exactly that you are owed? And who owes it to you?

The first thing that we need to do before we can determine what your particular fair share is would be to define exactly what it is we are talking about.

What is it that you are missing out on that others are getting and that you deserve?

Tops on most people's list would be, of course, money. Are you getting your fair share of money? And if you don't think so, then why are you not getting your fair share? Who are you comparing yourself against? What do they do for a living? What do you do? Why do you deserve as much or more?

One area where you hear many folks complain about what others are earning is athletics, or entertainment. Why should a ball player or a singer or an actor make millions while you struggle every day at your difficult job and make five figures?

Well, first of all, how much do you generate in income with your production at your job, and how easy would it be to replace you right now, or in a short time?

You Lie!

Congressman Joe Wilson had enough of the lies, and could no longer contain himself.

The Republican from South Carolina had sat patiently in his chair while trying to endure 45 minutes of President Barack Obama droning on about extending his Socialist vision of America into the health care industry.

But then Obama told one lie too many for Wilson during last night's nationally televised attempt at indoctrination and bullying.

The President let slip that his proposed government option would not cover illegal aliens. It was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back for the Congressman.

"You Lie!" shouted Wilson.

If you were watching on television, you heard it plain as day.

The uproar in response was immediate and boisterous as various members of Congress either gasped in astonishment, hollered their disapproval, or mildly cheered the outburst. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, seated immediately over Obama's left shoulder, shot an icy stare in Wilson's direction.

Obama was also stunned by the outburst and momentarily glanced away from his teleprompter, causing him to stumble and mumble a weak "That's not true" as a response.

Unfortunately for Obama, Pelosi and the Democrats, particularly the ultra-liberals on the far left who are pushing the President further and further towards that Socialist disaster, Joe Wilson was the only one actually speaking truth.

Book Review: "Capitalism: A Love Story"

Michael Moore is a maker of documentary films for liberal values and anti-American causes, and his latest titled "Capitalism: A Love Story" is going to be no exception.

In this film, slated to be released in early Fall, Moore will attempt to portray capitalism as the root cause of the American and global financial meltdowns over the past couple of years, calling it "the biggest swindle in American history."

Let's give credit where it is due, Moore is good at his craft. He knows how to push all the right buttons, slice all the right video clips, edit all the right sound bytes, and basically tell a story in the way that his political views and values want that story told. You need a propaganda documentary made? Michael Moore is your man.

This is all well and good as long as you understand going into the theatre that this is what you will be paying your money to see: propaganda. One side of a story, told from a slanted view, through a tinted lens.

The fact is that greedy corporate tycoons and misguided politicians, flawed human beings, have been the problem, not our capitalist economic system.

Now if what you really want is the truth of the matter, explained in depth, with examples and in complete historical and political context, then what you want to do is pick up a copy of a book called "How Capitalism Saved America" by Thomas J. DiLorenzo.

In reading this enjoyable and educational book you will find out why DiLorenzo says "Free-market capitalism, based on private property and peaceful exchange, is the source of civilization and human progress."

Capped, Traded, and Changed Out of Existence

You may not have heard of the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act, sometimes also known as the Waxman-Markey bill after it's Democratic sponsor congressmen Henry Waxman and Edward Markey. You more likely have heard of the term "cap and trade" being thrown around by the news media.

It's all the same stuff, it was passed by Congress last week and is now being considered by the U.S. Senate, and what it all means is a bigger tax bill and higher prices for every single American citizen during these already tough economic times.

No matter what anyone on either side of the issue will tell you, they will never be able to adequately describe for you in just a short article the full scope and impact of Waxman-Markey, or 'cap and trade', but it will absolutely result in more money being taken from the pockets of every single person who is reading this article.

The main announced intent of the increasingly socialist Obama administration with this bill is to forcibly move the United States into 'green' solutions for what it believes to be a man-made global warming problem.

The intent is also to move American industry towards 'cleaner' and more environmentally friendly processes, particularly where energy-usage is concerned.

The problem is that by forcing both companies and private citizens into compliance, the government is raising the cost on all in order to make the changes to meet new standards.

Tea Parties Signal New American Revolt

On the night of December 16th, 1773, American colonists who had grown weary of British taxes on all sorts of goods boarded three ships in Boston harbor and dumped crate loads of taxed tea into the harbor waters. This protest against 'taxation without representation' became known down through history as 'The Boston Tea Party', and is considered a defining moment as the colonists moved towards declaring their Independence just two and a half years later.

Today is April 15th, and it is also the deadline for American citizens to file their income tax returns. All across the country, a new revolutionary movement has been building for months, and it will continue in over 500 locations across all 50 states with today's nationwide 'Tea Party' protest events.

What has ignited this grass-roots, web-based fire storm is the unprecedented turn towards a more massive government structure with greatly increased tax burdens for all American individuals and businesses. It is a bipartisan effort battling the situation that began with President Bush's $168 billion dollar 'stimulus' that has been taken to even worse levels by new President Barack Obama.

As was posted by The Heritage Foundation, "Americans have grown more and more wary of the ever expanding size and scope of the federal government." 

AIG: Angina-Inducing Greed

For those of you who may have just read the headlines and listened to the featured story blurbs on the news regarding insurance giants IAG with passing interest, I will try to give you a simplistic version.

Let's start with the basics. Who or what exactly is the American International Group?

Well, AIG is by their own information "a world leader in insurance and financial services" and "the leading international insurance organization with operations in more than 130 countries and jurisdictions."

Heady stuff, right? I mean, we are talking about the worldwide leader in insurance services and one of the largest financial services organizations on earth as well. We are talking here about the real money. Not just big money, but 'real' money. The kind of money that moves governments and shakes nations.

The folks at AIG are just one of many financial services companies that have undertaken huge losses and faced dire straights as the American economy has gone into reverse over the past year. They blame their particular problems largely on what are called 'credit default swaps" (CDS) in the industry.

Tired of All the Financial Hand-Wringing

Am I the only one who is more than a little bit tired of the end-of-the-world financial hand-wringing going on in the news these days? Every day, day after day, both the local and network news lead with stories about the 'fiscal crisis' or the 'financial meltdown' that is happening at all levels of government. Cutbacks, layoffs, budgets, spending, revenues, stocks, bonds...blah, blah, blah, blah, blah! Now anyone who knows me knows that I take these kinds of things seriously, so this is no sports or entertainment-starved and isolated individual talking here about being fed up. I have read books on economics on my own, not school related. That isn't to brag about any alleged intelligence, just to note that I do really have an interest in these matters. I like to understand what people are talking about, at least to a certain level. But what is happening today in this country is utter and complete doom-and-gloom defeatism. As always, I do have a political take on at least a part of the problem. But it might surprise some of you where I lay that political blame. I blame my own Republican Party and its leadership at the Presidential level and at the Congressional levels. You see, I fully expect Democrats to spend your hard-earned money and mine like a bunch of drunken sailors on shore leave. I fully expect the Dems, leaning more and more towards open socialism these days, to demand government intervention and control over as many facets of our day-to-day lives as they can get their grubby hands on. Those things are a given with me, and with most people who look at the political world with open eyes. But I expect more from my Republican Party, and I am not getting it. Much to the Dems chagrin, George W. Bush was in the White House for eight long years. He had a Republican-led Congress for a part of that time. But despite this advantage in political power, the nation took steps backwards in key areas where Republicans are supposed to move us forward as a part of our very fundamental structure. This was highlighted by their spending your money and mine at a pace that leaves only a one word description - Democrats. For the past eight years Republicans have been as much to blame if not more so for the fiscal problems in which we now find ourselves mired. Republicans are supposed to stand up for two major fiscal principles: lower spending, lower taxation. As we all know, when we lower spending federal money, and we lower the amount of money taken from the pockets of individuals and the accounts of business, we increase freedom. People and businesses have more of their hard earned money and are free to spend it on their own wishes, needs, desires, futures. We also need some solid controls to ensure that people don't go crazy and mortgage away their future on dreams that they cannot handle. Why give someone a mortgage for a $500,000 house when they cannot possibly afford it based on any reasonable estimate of their income and employment history when balanced against the likelihood of future market changes in things like interest rates? But that is just what we allowed to happen over the past decade or so. People were allowed to buy bigger homes than they could afford, or second/vacation homes, or rental properties that they could not afford. It was up to Republicans to be smart and pull in the reigns, or at least to publicly put out stern warnings. It didn't happen. Now another key Republican idea is that we are all big boys and girls. We know very well what we are getting into when we sign on the dotted line. If you signed up for a huge variable rate mortgage that you could only afford because that rate was so low at the time that you obtained it, and then could no longer afford the payments when the rates inevitably went up and were in danger of losing your home, that is absolutely on you. You knew without a shadow of a doubt when you signed those papers that this was a serious risk that you were taking. We all make decisions in life, from what we put in our bodies (food, cigarettes, other people) to what we put in our financial portfolios (properties, stocks, artwork) and we all take on the risks and consequences of those decisions. We love it when things are riding high, but we all know that the party is going to end some day, and we need to make sure that we are prepared for that day. In this case, very few people made the adult decision to let us know that the sky was going to fall, and likely fall hard and fast. Now everyone is running around like Chicken Little, and I am just a bit tired of it all. I want my Republican Party leadership to stand up for fiscal sanity and a return to their roots. They made a good start last week when every single Republican member of the House of Representatives voted against President Barack Obama's massive socialist spending boondoggle that he calls a "stimulus" package. They need to continue that very real and very Republican leadership, and inspire more and more Republican leaders to step forward and take those same positions as we move forward and try to regain both Congress and the Presidency. But even if we can win those elections it won't matter a hill of beans if there is no basic philosophical difference manifesting itself in the actions of Republicans over what their Democrat counterparts would have done. It's not rocket science, it's basic conservative Republican ideals at their best: lower spending, lower taxes, more freedom. Long live democracy and capitalism. Let's put an end to this socialism and defeatist hand-wringing right now.

Greed is Not Good

"...Greed -- for lack of a better word -- is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms -- greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge -- has marked the upward surge of mankind. And greed -- you mark my words -- will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA." - Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko in "Wall Street"

The Catholic Church divided sin into two classes - venial sins, which were relatively minor, and the more serious cardinal sins, which became known classically as the 'seven deadly sins'. These were said to "destroy the life of grace" and brought the threat of eternal damnation on those who practiced them, unless absolved through a formal confession or forgiven through an act of perfect contrition by the offender.

One of these was the sin of 'Greed', which is seen as a sin of excess, and is applied in particular to the acquisition of wealth. It is closely aligned to avarice, which can manifest itself in bribery, robbery or theft by means of violence, trickery, betrayal, and even treason. It also covers the scavenging and hoarding of materials, as well as manipulation or abuse of authority.

In the film 'Wall Street', Michael Douglas' character Gordon Gekko delivered the above now-famous speech at a shareholder's meeting. Gekko was trying to woo shareholders to accept a bid that his company was making to takeover the Teldar Paper company.

Gekko's sales pitch highlighted that the current Teldar management was bloated, wasteful, and borderline incompetent. Either that, or they were intentionally abusing their positions to ensure their own personal gain, and those shareholders be damned.

Islamism Series: Goodbye, America

"Imagine a world without the U.S. or Israel, it can happen." That is a publicly pronounced statement by Iranian President and radical iIslamic ideologue Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (pictured) that I read to the police students in my Radical Islam class every week.

But is anyone taking him seriously? How could the United States, the acknowledged "most powerful nation in the history of the planet earth" cease to exist? Could a relatively small nation like Iran make something like this happen?

I mean, the United States defeated the British against all odds, survived a devastating Civil War, and led the world in overcoming both the Fascism of Hitler's Nazi Germany and the Socialism of the Soviet Union, a pair of legitimate world military powers.

You would think that it might be pretty difficult for Iran, at least acting on it's own, to make America completely disappear as a nation.

However, to think that we are invulnerable from a devastating attack from them would be to act with naivete, and that is something that we must not allow to happen. Because not only can Iran cause widespread devastation and seriously cripple, if not destroy, the United States as a superpower, but they are actively engaged in efforts to make that happen.

Throughout history, every mighty empire that has ever come along has fallen.

Does Egypt still exist? Sure. Does Rome still exist? Of course. Is Britain still a strong peopled nation? Most definitely.

But the fact of the matter is that not one of these is the major force in the world today, and at one time in history each one was the dominant power in the world. For the United States to fail to learn this lesson of history is for the United States to doom itself to repeat the process, and to one day either cease to exist or find itself a secondary nation.

Islamofascism

Well, it's about damned time. 

In early October, President Bush finally came clean to the public as to who we are at war with in the War on Terror. 

What had been a generic battle against terrorists and those who make their activities possible wherever we find them was finally crystallized, and those whom we are battling were definitively named. 

President Bush named our actual enemies as the "Islamofascists", and later referred to them as "radical, militant Islam". 

This is something that pundits, researchers, and just plain straight-thinkers like Daniel Pipes have been doing for years. 

Kudos to the President for putting that face on the enemy, for it is vitally important to make the distinction. 

In World War II, it was the Adolf Hitler and the Nazis of Germany, and Hirohito and the Japanese Imperialists that we fought in order to preserve democracy. 

In the Cold War, it was Communism and Socialism, highlighted by the tensions with men like Nikita Kruschev and the Soviet Union. 

Now we can put a definitive face, that of Osama bin Laden and Islamofascism, on this current struggle. This will allow us to focus on enemies, enemy states, future directions, and better judge outcomes. 

Anyone espousing a radical Islamic message is our enemy, and that must include those within that belief system who choose to not stand up and fight themselves, if not physically then at least with public refutations. God bless America.