The Rednex Response to the State of the Union

All I can say is that I would need to be a professional blogger to comment on all the statements, opinions, and rhetoric that I heard during this speech.  Literally, 15 minutes into the speech and I already have a page and half of notes for things I feel I should comment on.  By the 30 minute marker, I had abandoned all hope of being able to cover the speech with any semblance of granularity and decided to just cover the topics I felt most important.

First off, let me state, that was one hell of a campaign speech Mr. President, but gave us little information pertaining to the real State of the Union.  I liked the ideals of job creation, restoring the economy, establishing improved benefits for current and returning soldiers, and the overall tone of “America First”; however, the speech left me with more questions than when you started, as most campaign speeches do.  The biggest question being, HOW??

To recover funds distributed during the bank bailout, you propose a fee on the biggest banks to recoup the remaining monies outstanding, but what will that fee amount to?  In addition, you mock the banks stating:

If these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need.

However, have you forgotten the pay increases that have went to government bodies within the last year.  Why not focus on decreasing the increases, upwards of 541%, that have occurred within capital hill during your one year in office?  Do you not remember, that it wasn’t at the will of the people that the banks were rescued, but via an unpopular policy expansion decision by your administration.  You berate the banks by stating,

“We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy”

but it must be a short memory that allows you to forget that it was the Democratic policy, pushed by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and others, that forced the banks to make those risky decisions.   Thru the Community Reinvestment Act, banks were forced to loosen credit criteria and make loans to people unqualified, and ill prepared, to handle such loans.  Banks were further encouraged by Fannie May and Freddie Mac to participate in these subprime loans by increasing the scope of these “flexible” credit standards in which these government entities would guarantee.  In addition, you talk of using the $30B repaid by banks from the bailout to invest in community banks.  How will that money be invested and doled out?  What steps will be taken to ensure that the money given to the smaller banks will not be used in the same, fraudulent manner that the large banks used those funds?  What steps taken to ensure that the funds are split equally and not just to community banks in areas supportive of you?

You talk of job creation, you pat yourself on the back for the “amount of tax cuts you have enacted”, you even point out the Republican side for not applauding you for those tax cuts.  The reason they did not clap is due to the fact that the policies you wish to enact will increase taxes on most American Families.  They did not refuse to clap out of spite, but because they knew that you are misleading in your statements.  Again, with this knowledge, how do you propose to create jobs?  You talk of the millions of jobs saved, but is that number before or after the counting of jobs in ghost districts that do not exist, or the double counting of jobs for people that worked temporarily only to be displaced within weeks?  With policies proposed like cap and trade, the health care bill, and others that will, by the CBO’s accounts, raise taxes and further hurt the American family, by what method will this reverse the double digit unemployment that plagues us now?  The same unemployment rate the stimulus bill was to keep under 8% if enacted immediately?  How is your new, proposed “job bill” going to succeed when your first attempt was an adjunct failure?

You talk of  building trust with the American voter again thru transparency and accountability.  Again I ask you, how?  Will it be via more broken promises to ensure that the health care debate will be publicized on C-SPAN, but instead spent the majority of time in back rooms closed to the public resulting with shady deals to buy votes, such as the Cornhusker compromise or the Louisiana Purchase?  Will it be via your promise that the Economic Recovery act will be removed of earmarks and pork barrel spending, but actually resulted in billions to pet projects and activities that had little to no impact on the recovery of our economy?  How then Mr. President, do you plan on rebuilding the trust?  How do you tout accountability, when Congress has complained that they have no idea to where stimulus or TARP funds are being distributed?  How can you restore accountability when TARP funds were not used to buy up toxic assets, as promised to the American people, but instead used to buy stock and pave the way for a government take over of the banking system?

You ask for bipartisan support in congress, but in a direct rebuke to the Republican leadership, you stated:

Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions.

This sounds great in a campaign speech, but it seems that you are the one that needs to be reminded that you were elected to serve the citizens.  You have ignored the voice of the people since you were elected.  You proceeded with the bank bailouts, even though you state that you hated it.  You proceeded with the auto bailout, even when the citizens protested.  You push forward with cap and trade, despite the fact that it will raise energy prices and taxes on American families.  You gloss over the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts, who ran on a promise to defeat the health care bill that you continue to try and ram down our throats, as a sign that people were angry at George Bush.  Regarding health care, your own leader, Nancy Pelosi, stated after your address:

If the gate is open, we will go thru it.  If the gate is closed, we will climb the wall.  If the wall is too high, we will pole vault over it.  If we can’t jump high enough, we will parachute behind it.  We will get healthcare passed for the American people.

Her statement is a slap in the face to the American voter who has shown via polls, tea party movements, and the election of Scott Brown that they do not want this health care bill passed. So my question is how will you foster this bipartisanship that you request?   Will you finally see that the Republicans aren’t just saying no to Democratic policies, but instead following the dictates of the people.  When will you realize that Americans do not want this healthcare?  When will you allow the Republicans to bring their viable, patient oriented ideas to the table and stop this government take over of our health care system,?  You asked, “If anyone has a better idea, let me know”, but yet you’ve dismissed the Republican party to the sidelines and ignored their proposals of better ideas.  When will the government get out of our banking, auto, and energy industries?  With all of your talk of “I will”, “I came”, “My administration”, “My goals”, “My direction”, you forget the most basic of principals, which is there is no “I” in “Teamwork”, Mr.. President.  When will you lead by example and begin to listen to the American people?

You stand before Congress and the American people and preach about the evils of the gridlock within our political system.  You defiantly declare that you came to Washington to change the way our political process works.  My question to you is how?  Need I remind you that you had complete control of Congress for the last year?  That with proper leadership, you could have enacted any change you so wished, but instead, we just received more of the same.  The same back room deals, the buying of votes, and the expansion of big government.  Even with “the largest majority in history”, your party has defied your promises and made you look like a fool.  So how will you change the gridlock that is paralyzing our political process when you are unable to even control your own party?    You cannot place the blame on the Republicans because, as stated, your party held unprecedented control.

You speak of campaign reform, admonishing the Supreme Court for “reversing a century of law that you believed would open the floodgates of special interest, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections”.  A admonishment to which Justice Alito responded by mouthing “Not true”.  Not a Joe Wilson moment, but I wish it would have been.  You lied Mr. President.  You stood before your people, and your country, and lied.  Even as you stand there and lecture our Supreme Court, you forget the amount of foreign aid that was funneled into your campaign financing.  You forget the investigations that showed the Nigerian man, who within his own border, raised over “$900,000” for you, the infamous “Mr. Doodad” that was also illegally contributed to your campaign, or the other $3.38M in questionable contributions that your agency refuses to reveal.  So again Mr. President, how do you plan to reform when the very practices you preach against helped finance your way into office?  How can the American voter believe you when you stand before us and lie to place the blame on the Supreme Court for something you took part in and was partially responsible for your election?

You speak of your desire to enhance the security of this country.  While I like your ideas regarding the increasing of care and support for our returning and active veterans, I worry that your promises are empty based on your efforts so far.  When you take actions, such as the cancelling the development of the next air superiority fighter jet, I worry if you honestly have the security of this nation, and it’s soldiers, in mind.  You speak of your will to crack down on terrorists, but again I ask how?  You all but ignored your commanding general in Afghanistan in his pleas for more troops, else “We risk defeat” for months, then only giving him a fraction of his ask.  You bring terrorists within our borders for trial, rather than putting them before military tribunals as appropriate.  You grant terrorists Miranda rights, affording them the same rights of the citizens they wished to harm, thereby increasing risk that they may go unpunished.  You place blame on our military system, declaring to the world that the US tortures it’s detainee’s, when it’s been proven over and over again that this is yet another lie.  So how can the people trust that our national defense lies at the top of your priority list, when your past year has shown evidence to the contrary?

Lastly, you condemn both sides of the aisle, by stating:

Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past.

Issuing a call upon this statement, to again work on repairing the “trust deficit” that the American people have with our government.  Again, I ask you how?  You have defined your first term in office by re-litigating the past, as you put it.  Even this speech itself, was bloated with condemnation and blame placed upon the prior administration.  You take no responsibility for your own actions, but instead, push the fault on to those before you.  You accuse the past President for the overwhelming deficit over his 8 year term, but make no mention how your administration quadrupled that deficit within one year.  You posture that Bush was responsible for the housing bubble, but ignore the fact that it was the policies of your own party, against the advice of Bush’s administration, that were the cause.  So while eloquent, your statements drip with hypocrisy when every day you place the blame for failure on everyone but yourself.  The American people are tired of the excuses.  We’ve grown weary of your blame without personal responsibility for your policies.  You were elected under promises of change, but your personal agenda of socialism is not the change that people want.

Maybe the best recourse would be for you to sit and truly listen to your own words, rather than just reading them off a teleprompter.  It’s time to stop with the rhetoric and begin with action.  Take control of you party, stop the lying, and start listening to the American people.  It’s time become the leader you were elected to be and follow the promises you made.  You are one year into your Presidency, so time to stop placing the blame on the past and realize that your destiny is now in your hands alone.  Your campaign slogan has lost all meaning President Obama.  You are no longer “Change we can believe in”, but instead “Change we fear”.  You have only three years to reverse the damage done.  It’s time to stop preaching to those in Congress and for you to step up as our President.  Only you can determine how history will remember you.  If this speech serves as foreshadowing, you will be remembered as the President big on campaign promises, but lacking in actions.

The Definition of Marriage and it's place in Legislation

The debate surrounding the definition of marriage and how it pertains to the gay rights movement has been steadily growing for years.  The latest volley reported by Fox News, Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis), an openly gay lawmaker, has sponsored legislation that would allow for gay partners of Federal employees to have access to the same benefits as married spouses, to include survivor annuities, health insurance, and travel & relocation benefits to name a few.  President Obama has expressed his support for this measure, with the Senate Homeland Security and Gov't Affairs Committee voting on Dec. 16th to forward the bill for full vote.

Addressing this issue, we need to break the argument into two distinct, but related, parts: The definition of marriage and the assignment of benefits based on that definition.

First hurdle is the definition of marriage and how that pertains to government and legislation.  We must understand that marriage is not a public, nor declared, institution; it is a religious one.  Marriage has existed long before the creation of the US Government and therefore we have to look at how a such an institution would be included in government recourse.

That said, most all religions in the world define marriage with different variations among all of them.  Some allow for the taking of more than one wife, some dictate that the union should outlast life, etc.   For the Judeo-Christian ideal, marriage is defined as the union between a man and woman with a life long commitment as a covenant before God.

Rednex Note:  The actual definition is much more involved than listed above.  Rather than listing all scripture, I condensed for the sake of length of article.

So with this definition, what bearing does it have on the current national debates.  The answer is very simple, it has no bearing what so ever.  I know that answer will surprise many, so let me explain.  As stated above, marriage is religious institution, not one of the state.  As the United States was built on Judeo-Christian values, it's very easy to see how the ideals could percolate up thru our governing system and be seen as state institutions, but to believe so would be inaccurate.  In fact, the First amendment provides for a separation of Church and State :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

                                                             1st Amendment, Bill of Rights

Now, the purpose of this amendment is provide a separation of church and state, not a exclusion of religion and state.  Meaning, the intent of this amendment was to prevent the government from the forcing of one religious ideal (national religion) onto the citizens, but it doesn't provide for a freedom FROM religion, but that's subject for another rant.  In the matter of marriage, for the Federal government to define marriage, it would be in direct contradiction to the First amendment based on it being a religious institution.  Likewise, Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District vs Grumet, upheld that the First Amendment upheld a restriction on the state level to do the same.  Thusly, based on the above, the Government (Fed or State) has no power to define the act of marriage or it's conditions.

Now comes the second part of the argument, while the Government does not have the power to define, they DO have to power to regulate benefits based on the institution, such as the awarding of property after death, parental transfer rights, etc.  However, no where in the Constitution is Congress granted the power to determine such awards.  If not explicitly granted in the Constitution, then the 10th amendment comes into play which states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

                                                             10th Amendment, Bill of Rights   

The 10th amendment allows two very important fundamentals within our Federal structure: A check and balance against the power of an overbearing government by placing power in the hands of the States and the allowance for the act of social experimentation within the states.

The idea of state's being the incubators for social experimentation was proposed by Ben Franklin and in my belief, one of the most far reaching, future insights by our founding fathers.  By preserving the power to the states, we allow for a "test" mechanism that allows for the state to determine and set policy without affecting the citizenship of the nation as a whole.  As an example of action, look to the differences between California and Texas in terms of electrical policy.  While Texas is moving towards a system of deregulation and less state control, California moved in the direction of strict regulation, price setting, and control.  As a result, we have seen California suffer in the terms of it's policy decisions, while electricity has become cheaper and more accessible within Texas.   This has lead to other states starting to follow the Texas model, providing for a better policy direction for the nation as a whole.

The same type of social experimentation should be performed in the arena of same sex partner benefits.  Let the states most passionate about it (California, New England States, etc) enact the policies allowing for the inclusion of same sex partners.  If the idea proves beneficial, their populations will grow, their economies flourish, and other states will follow suit for fear of losing constituents.  Likewise, should the policies fail, then only the states participating will be hurt, leaving others virtually unaffected.  In the end, it will be the people that decide and set the direction, not a subset within governmental control

As for the matter of Federal benefits, it's my personal belief that the taxpayer should not be responsible for paying for benefits for anyone other than the person hired, regardless of straight, married, single, gay.  The Fed hired a person, not that person's wife, kids, or partner.  If a federal employee wishes to have their family covered under the same benefits, then they should be required to pay the differential for inclusion.  Using this method, the matter of relationship would hold no consequence.  As a federal employee, I could cover my neighbor under my benefits during hard times, should I wish to fund the effort.  In this case, sexuality or the acceptance of martial status, becomes moot, saves the taxpayers money, and puts all on a level playing field.  Now many would state that they would be unable, or unwilling, to pay this offset, but this is a much bigger discussion.  Should we move this direction, the total expenditure of the fed would come down, so should taxes.  In addition, we also restart the health care debate and impacts on citizens, best saved for another time.  If unwilling to pay the differential, then the employee should find employment within an enterprise that provides more in line with their needs, rather than relying on the taxpayer to front that cost.

In summary, the idea of marriage belongs where it first evolved, within the religious context.   As such, it's definition has no place, or relevance, within governmental debate.   As for the assignment of benefits, that is a matter left to the states for decision, since, constitutionally, the Fed has no power to interject itself.  Lastly, you will notice I made no mention of private enterprise here.  Private enterprise should be left to do what ever it feels necessary to attract and maintain the people required for it to succeed.  Should they wish to provide, or deny, benefits to same sex couples, they have only to answer to their bottom line and personnel turnover rates.  Should they reside in a state that wishes to legislate such measure, then it would be up to the company to decide to comply or move to a state in line with their policy belief, leading to the free market argument made above.  Again, the proposal of social experimentation, free market, and competition would be the decider of policy, not the moral stance of government stepping outside it's limitations.        

The Second Amendment and the meaning of Militia

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Never in history have 27 words sparked so much debate and controversy.  What is the true meaning of these words?  What did the framers have in mind when they made this the 2nd amendment of the constitution?  While all will agree that the basis of this amendment is to provide the right for American people to keep and bear arms, the phrase "well regulated militia" has put into play the question of exactly "which" Americans should have that right.

Personally, I am a strict Constitutionalist.  I believe that our Founding Fathers were men far beyond their time when it came to the establishment of history's most successful and free government, therefore, we should strictly adhere to their words with little to no interpretation.  However, I also realize that none of the Founding Fathers are alive today to tell of their intent, so some interpretation must be made.

Gun control advocates surmise that the words "well regulated militia" intends to limit gun rights to only those that are actively participate in state militia's, meaning military groups raised and controlled by the states.  Gun control opponents however, contend that the phrase is meant in a general sense, applying to all "able bodied people".

To fully understand, I think we have to look at the timing and purpose of two of this country's most important documents: The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  The US Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, and laid the foundation for the legal authority for the existence of the United States of America, as well as, establishing the framework defining the relationship between the federal government, the states, and it's citizens.  The Bill of Rights, or the first 10 amendments, was proposed by James Madison and went into effect four years later on December 15, 1791, as an answer to state concerns that threatened the ratification of the US Constitution due to a belief that the Constitution failed to safe guard the basic principals of human liberty.

That being said, the 2nd amendment was meant to amend the constitution so as to protect a liberty sought after by the states.  The exact provision(s) of the constitution that were to be amended were as follows:

The powers of Congress:

To provide for the calling forth the milita to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions

                                                                    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15

To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

                                                                       Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16

The powers of the President:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

                                                                           Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1

So what about these provisions so offended the states that an amendment was needed to allow for ratification?  Well, we have to look at history to fully understand.  We, as a Country, were just coming out of the Revolutionary war.  The term "militia" during this time, meant the same as it did within the text of the constitution, which was a group of trained citizen soldiers under the control of the government (king), to be used in times when a standing army was not present.  If you read the words of the constitution, the founders had the same meaning here.  In addition, we must remember that Cornwallis used the meaning to disarm the citizens, by stating that a militia was not necessary as the British Army was present for the defense of the states.  Had American citizens relinquished their arms as mandated by Cornwallis and not fought, the Revolutionary war may have ended very differently.  The states were very aware of this fact and wished to prevent a second coming of this denial of liberty.  It was a belief that armed citizens WERE the method by which to regulate a specialized militia.

Take for example, our current National Guard.  Many gun control advocates point to this as the example of the "well regulated militia" that the founders had in mind when drafting the amendment.  However, we must remember that the National Guard is an arm of the Federal Government which may be utilized by states when needed.  The National Guard is under the control and influence of the Federal Government, as prescribed by the above listed articles of the Constitution.  How can a people be expected to use the militia as a method of defense against a tyrannical government if that militia is within the power of the Government?  It cannot, which was the purpose of the 2nd amendment to these provisions! 

You must also look at the wording of "the right of the people" shall not be infringed.  Through out the constitution, the usage of "The People" was meant to convey a general understanding of all citizens of the United States.  The preamble begins with "We the People", and surely no one believes that the founders were only speaking for a specific group of citizenship, but instead were referencing all.  In fact, most of all amendments of the bill of rights use this verbiage to make general reference to all citizens.  Why would anyone try to interpret this phrase differently in the 2nd amendment, than they would in the 1st, which guarantees freedom of speech as a "right of the people".  In the context of the 2nd amendment, the phrase was meant to convey a right to all citizens as a condition of "general militia" composed of all able bodied people to defend their liberty.

This idea of "general militia" was tried and proven in our courts of law under the 1990 Supreme court case of Perpich vs Department of Defense.  Within this case, Minnesota Governor Rudy Perpich sued the DOD claiming that it was unconstitutional for the DOD to order the Minnesota National Guard to perform duties outside the state without the Governor's consent.  The Supreme Court ruled against Gov. Perpich by defining a difference between "special militia" as in the case of the National Guard, and "general militia" which they defined as "private citizens with privately procured and owned arms".  So, if we have precedent defining a general militia, how could the 2nd amendment be considered meaning anything but?

Lastly, there is the argument that "well regulated militia" was meant to mean that the groups of citizens must be "well trained and willing" to perform the duties of the militia.  That without this, private citizens could not be considered within the scope of protection.  However, you could liken service in the militia to that of Jury duty.  Jury duty is considered a condition of citizenship.   No one could claim that most jurists are "well trained", nor that many are willing.  However, when called, it is a duty of being a citizen to perform.  Likewise, the duties of a general militia are the same.  While we have an army (like we have lawyers) to protect us, should a time come when we must be protected against the army, or outside enemies, that the call to militia would be made.  In addition, within jury duty, it is made up of common citizens with certain parties being exempt, such as Police Officers, Jailers, Lawyers, Judges, etc.  The reason for the exclusion is that they are too close to the process and likely to be swayed.  Again, a comparison could be made to the militia.  The militia must be composed of common citizens who are not under the influence of the government (Army, National Guard) that could be attempting to derive us of our liberties.  One cannot expect an arm of the government to be used to protect us from said government.  This would be within the calling and realm of a generalized militia made up of people of the community.

After all of this, we need only look at the quotes of the framers and influential individuals of the time to see their true intent:

What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

                       Rep Elbridge Gerry (Mass.), Annuals of Congress (1789)

"...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights...

                       Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 46

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them.

                       Richard Henry Lee, Initiator of the Dec. of Independence

That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...

                       Samuel Adams, Debates in Convention of Commonwealth

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

                       Thomas Jefferson

Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms

                        James Madison, Federalist Papers

The right to arms is absolute and guaranteed.  You need only look at the words of the founders of our country  to see their intent and purpose.  The last measure of protection against an overbearing government is born by the rights of the citizens to bear arms.  Should our armies fail, the armed citizenship is the only hope for self preservation.  We must value and protect these rights as there may come a day in which this basic right becomes the difference between existence and extinction.

Lastly, we as citizens, must stand to ensure that this right is left preserved wholly and completely.  Gun control in any form is an attack upon our freedom.  Many will say that gun rights are plausible, but that a limitation of type of arms should be enforced.   Make no mistake that this reasoning is also an attack and lessening of the power.  To allow a limitation of arms, is in essence, the disarming of the people.  Do I believe that common man should be allowed the use of "military" type weaponry?  Yes I do!  If we allowed the government to limit the type of arms available, then we are left defenseless against all attack.  Should congress state that the allowance of a sling shot constitutes a right to arms, but limits our ability to maintain auto/semi automatic rifles, then what chance do the citizens have against a standing army, either domestic or foreign?  We, as citizens, must take the stance to prevent this erosion of our liberty.  To stand by and not fight delivers us to the yoke of oppression of which we will have no recourse.  It is my opinion that the Framers made this amendment second only to the right to free speech for a specific reason.  They did so because of the sheer importance it has to perseverance of free men.

What can Brown do for you?

It's a message that was spread across Massachusetts, and in stunning victory, a message that the people of Massachusetts decided in which to put their faith.

Man, what an exciting time in politics.  First off, I wish that writing this blog were my only job.  There has been so much I've wanted to say since this historical election, and make no mistake, it was historical; however, my job and life has prevented me from doing so until now.  So bare with me, I've got a lot to say today.

History and Massachusetts just seems to go hand in hand.  From the start of the Revolutionary war in Lexington, Ma, to the Boston Tea Party, to the election of Scott Brown, this state seems to be the launch point for key moments in American freedom and independence.  In the biggest political coup in my lifetime, the bluest of blue states have determined that a Republican is the best person to represent them.  Not since JFK's election in 1952 have they felt in such a way and as thus, represents the ending of a dynasty in the North.  To quote a phrase from talk radio, "Camelot has fallen."

Yes, while the election itself was historical, it's my belief that the impacts of this election will be the studies of political students of the future.  The vast implications that this could have on the political landscape are almost too much to comprehend.  Yes, there will be immediate impacts, such as the ability for filibustering to be put into play for the blockage of the healthcare bill & cap and trade, balancing of power within congress, etc, but it's the longer reaching ripples of this stone that I'm more interested in.

The election of Scott Brown to the Massachusetts senate was not a Republican victory, but yet a victory of the people.  We've already heard the excuses and reasoning for the loss from the left

Rednex note:  My favorite being that Brown's win was attributed to the failed policies of the previous administration. Right, they were so angry at George Bush, they elected a Republican.  That still makes me snicker.

to the victory cries of the right.  Neither have right here in my opinion.  This victory was warning shot across the bow of the political machine by the people of this country, "Listen to us or we will find someone who will!".   The news is already showing that many Democrats have heard the message with calls from key Democrats, such as Finstein (D-Ca), Weiner (D-NY),  Frank (D-MA), calling for a slow down in the health care debate and a call to get more in touch with the people.  However, the most important question, what will the Republican party learn from this win?

Larry Kudlow, National Review Online's Economics editor, put it best in his article "Are Republicans listening to Scott Brown's message?"  Following Larry's lead, I will add my take.

Sen. Brown ran on a simple conservative message:

• Following of JFK's  across the board tax cuts  to stimulate business and the economy
• Reduction of big government and a recall to state power
• Strong military and defense required to strength and protect America
• Call for health care form, but in a logical, reasonable effort

These fundamentals are what resounded with the people of Massachusetts and won him the election.  In a direct antithesis of the Obama administration's direction, it was message that led people to put their trust in Sen. Brown and that will provide the future direction of this country.  Republicans are missing a prime opportunity to cash in and take the lead.  Brown has proven what the people want, so it is now in the hands of the Republican party to rally and show that they understand the will of the people.

As stated by Kudlow, Republicans MUST take up Scott Brown's message if they wish to succeed. Gone is the excuse that Democrats are in complete control, as with Brown's victory, they now have the power to demand a seat at the political table.   They must take an immediate and finite stance against any measure that will increase the taxes on the American people.  They must rally against the explosive growth of government that is prevailing in the Obama administration and push plans for reduction and control.  They must push for reform in a financially responsible way, utilizing the policies they have previously touted but were ignored by the Democratic party.  Unless they learn the lesson of this victory and hear the cries of the American public, they will suffer the same defeat in 2010 that Coakley was witness to this week.

Republicans - The ball is in your court and your excuses gone.  The people have spoken and the bugle sounded.  Have you heard the call or will you simply rest on your laurels with the misguided assumption that Brown's win points to a Republican return?  To do so would be a grave mistake.  The people are not angry at a party, but a lumbering, stumbling, growing government that refuses to follow the dictates of those it serves.  The vote of 2010 will not be voted along party lines, but according to the voice of the people.  Those who choose to listen and abide will survive, those who don't will fail under the weight of the monster that they helped create.

Haiti - Deserving of aid, but not from the Fed

On Jan 12th at 4:53PM (local time), a magnitude 7.0 earthquake hit Haiti causing massive damage and loss of life.  Major buildings collapsed, including the presidential palace and the National Penitentiary.  With the collapse of the penitentiary, over 4,000 inmates escaped adding to the pressures of the Haitian police force, which usually numbering 4,000 is down to 1,500, with many presumed dead or unaccounted for.  While an official number of deceased has not been released, there are estimates that the death toll may end up being as high as 100,000.

This was truly a disaster of epic proportions for the small island nation.  Looting is rampant and many are left homeless and worried about the safety of loved ones and neighbors.  We've all seen the commercials of various organizations, such as the Red Cross, NFL, and others requesting for people to donate to the cause.  The American people have responded in force, with USA Today reporting that the amount of private donations is on track to break records and even surpass the charity given after the Hurricane Katrina disaster.  Charity of  which totaled $6.47B, thus proving once again, that Americans are the most charitable citizens in the world.

My heart goes out to all those affected by this earthquake.  I take pride in the fact that so many Americans have stepped up to provide relief in a time when they are hurting financially.  However, my support ends when President Obama agreed to send $100M in aid immediately (with more in the coming months) and that Haiti would be a "top priority" within his administration alluding that this disaster would not be another Katrina.

Well of course it won't President Obama!  Katrina was on US soil and affected your constituents, Haiti did not.  Katrina fell under the responsibility of the federal government, Haiti does not.  The facts are simple, America does not have the funds to support the relief effort for the Haitian people.  We are borrowing money from the Chinese to pay our bills and to fund the disastrous policies that your administration is putting in place.  We are now using that borrowed money to "invest" in an area where we will never, ever see a return.  I'm all for the charity of the private citizen helping those in need, but I am completely against the federal government forcing us to be charitable at the point of the taxation sword.  For each penny you spend, for every dime of relief you provide, the American citizen pays an estimated 5x in taxes.  It is not your right, nor within your power, to force the people to provide.

We have dealt with this situation before.  In 1794, the US Congress was faced with a similar situation with regards to the funding of aid for Haitian refugees after the Haitian revolution.  During this time, James Madison led the votes against the granting of assistance by denying that the Federal Government had within it's powers, the authority to provide benevolence.

From the Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 3rd Congress, 1st Session, page 170 (1794-01-10) [3], Madison's speech was summarized:

"Mr. Madison wished to relieve the sufferers, but was afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent, which might hereafter be perverted to the countenance of purposes very different from those of charity. He acknowledged, for his own part, that he could not undertake to lay his finger on that article in the Federal Constitution which granted a right of Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Most notable in this speech was Madison's quote, " I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

Please appeal to our past Mr. President and learn the lessons of our history.  Once again you are stepping outside your authority and becoming less a President, but more a dictator.  The constitution does not grant you the power, nor the right, to provide charity upon the backs of the American citizen.  Step aside and handle the issues that now face the country of which you were placed in charge.  We have climbing unemployment rates, critical deficits, terrorist attacks upon it's people, and a albatross of a depression.  Step aside and let the American people do what they do best, which is provide charity to the world.  We do not need you to do it for us.  Instead, we need you to handle the problems at home, not try to gain world favor by taking the lead in matters outside your jurisdiction.

Want to make real money? Join the Fed!

Well the Christmas and New Year's season is over and it's back to the grind.  While I hope everyone had a wonderful and safe holiday season, it's now time to get back to the reporting of the mismanagement of our government.

The newest news: The way to make real money in this recession is to join the federal government's payroll.  That's right folks, in a time where the government is taking over private enterprise and demanding the limiting of pay and bonuses for private sector employees, when the adjusted unemployment rate is reaching 17%, the federal employee is sitting above the turmoil when it comes to pay.

In a story released by USA Today on 12/10, the number of federal workers making a six-figure income has exploded over the last 18 months from 14% to 19%, NOT including including overtime and bonuses!! Think about that for a second, at 19%, nearly 1 of every 5 federal workers is making over $100,000.   It makes me wonder what the 7.3M unemployed Americans think about that?

Just to condense the facts of the story for you:

Defense department civilian employees earning $150,000+ increased from 1,868 in 12/2007 to 10,100 in 06/2009.  That is an astronomical leap of almost 541% within a 2 year period!

The Department of Transportation only had one person earning over $170,000 18 months ago, but today, there are almost 1,690 earning this generous wage.

In a bill expected to be signed by President Obama, these federal workers are expected to receive another 2% pay increase this year, while the private sector is expected to see only a <1%.  This doesn't take into account the step increases (for longevity) averaging 1.5% per year.

Average salary for nation's 1.9M federal workers: $71.000. Average salary for nations 108M private sector workers: $50,028. 

To be fair, some of the bonuses were enacted by President Bush (3% 2008, 3.9% 2009), so it's not President Obama specifically that I'm ranting about, but big government in general.  At a time when many Americans are out of jobs and all Americans are feeling the bite of a failing economy, our representatives see it as acceptable to vote themselves, and their staff, pay increases.

When will our Government learn to be "representative" of the American people?  Why should so many hurt and suffer, when the government that caused the financial mess to start, continues to thrive?  I fear that the only resolution will come in November 2010, when the backlash against this waste is decisive and impacting.  We must have long memories here.  We must remember that while our neighbors, and ourselves, went without, the machinery of big government was well oiled with the taxpayer money of those suffering.  Much like the health care debate, the fed is exempt from the program, and with this story, it would seem that they are also exempt from the realities of an economic recession.

On the eve of disaster, another health care primer. Pointing out the lies

As many know, Congress is preparing for a vote on the new healthcare act during this Christmas season, specifically tomorrow Dec 24, between 8:00AM and 12:00PM.  In an effort to persuade citizens to contact their representatives for "No" vote, I would like to point a few more myths on the current health care proposal.

Medicare denies fewer claims than private insurance

This is a fallacy often used by the left to promote a government run health care plan.  I'm sure you've all seen the ads, or stories, often projecting the woes of children, showing how the evil private insurance companies have denied health care claims.  Despite the despicable practice of using children in these ads, we find out that this is just wholly untrue.

According to the American Medical Association (AMA) 2008 National Health Insurer Report Card, Medicare denied 6.85% of all claims, higher than any private insurance company, with only AETNA coming close.  In addition, even the White House admits that ~12% of all claims are fraudulent (~$60B), where as, Fortune 500 shows that the total profit made by the top 10 private insurance companies was $8B combined!!  Read that again, Medicare losses almost 7 times as much in fraud as the top 10 insurance companies make in profit!  Begs the question, how can government run health care be more efficient?

Private insurance companies are only concerned with profit

This statement is a play on capitalist mentality.  Of course private insurance companies are concerned with profit, any company in America is else they would cease to exist.  However, is running a private insurance company really as profitable as the leftists would lead you to believe?

In a profitability report ranking the top 10 insurance companies ending Dec. 31st, 2008 shows that private insurance companies are operating on razor thin profit margins.

Blue Cross, 3.4 percent, United Health Group, 3.6 percent, Well Point, 4.1 percent, Aetna, 4.5 percent, Humana, 2.2 percent, Cigna,(loss), Health Net, 0.62 percent, Coventry Health Care, 3.2 percent, Americagroup,(loss)
Universal American, 2.0 percent, Centene, 2.5 percent

Compared to the 14%+ profit margins of other industries, such as oil, you see, Private Health Insurance (PHI) isn't the most profitable of businesses.

Medicare has lower administrative costs the PHI companies, thus making it cheaper to operate

Several "accounting" tricks help the leftist to promote this myth.  First of all, Medicare services a predominately elderly population, which translates to a significantly higher expenditures when compared to PHI companies.  So in this regard, when administrative costs are compare to "total costs", then the above is true.  However, when you take the administrative costs compared to a "per-patient" basis, you find a radically different number.  According to research by the Heritage Foundation, administrative costs per patient are 24.8% (on average)   higher with Medicare when compared to PHI.

In addition, Medicare, by virtue of being a government lenity, is not subject to many of the same administrative costs as PHI.  Administrative costs that are subject to inclusion by PHI, such as rent, marketing management, taxes, capital for equipment, etc, are included elsewhere in the federal budget and do not ride on Medicare's books.   A prime example of this is the act of premium collection.  PHI companies are responsible for their own costs of premium collection, however, Medicare doesn't count that cost on their books due to the fact that this is an action performed by the IRS.

Current health care plan will be deficit neutral

Again, this is a lie that is buried with accounting tricks.  In the current healthcare plan, if enacted, we , the taxpayer, will begin to be taxed on the new plan, but won't begin to see the benefits for 4 years.  In effect, we will begin paying for the health plan now, but our benefits won't start until 2014.  Well, of course it's deficit neutral when taxes are levied to pay for it before any expense is paid out!!!  That's akin to going to a Cadillac dealership, buying a car, making the payments on that car for 4 years, then receiving that car at the end of your payments and claiming you got the car for free!  Only in this case, we paid for a Cadillac, but got a Yugo at the end.

Lastly, the amount of tax increases and pre-tax limitation, used to fund this bill, while "making the bill budget neutral" would greatly increase the hardship on American families  earning less than $250,000 /yr.  Some of the facts according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the non-partisan scorekeeper of financial legislation. 

Employer offered pre-tax  Flexible Spending accounts (FSA) will be limited $2,500/yr vs $5,000 currently.

Elimination of payments for over the counter medicine reimbursements by workers covered under FSA or HSA (health savings accounts) which is currently allowed under the tax law

Limitation of the tax deduction allowed for medical expenses.  Down from the current 10% of AGI (adjusted gross income) to 7.5% under the new bill, increasing taxes on those between $50,000 - $75,000 annually.

New excise tax on so called "high cost health insurance plans", which according to the CBO and JCT (joint committee on Taxation), would affect 90% of consumers earning less than $200,000/yr.

Overall, the CBO and JCT predict that will increase taxes on all single people making over $40,000/yr and married couples earning over $75,000/yr.

An excise tax imposed on health insurance providers and medical device makers in 2010, would be passed on to consumers, resulting in higher premiums and cost for health care products, affecting for all Americans, with the hardest hit being those earning less than $250,000/yr.

Individual insurance premiums are expected to increase by an average, an average, of 10% or more when compared to current law.  So much for "free" or "lost cost" health care huh?

Summary

I could continue to go on about some of the falsities, or just flat out lies, being spread about the current health care plan, but I must balance the length of my posts with the amount of information I submit.  I can't make the posts so long that I lose peoples interest in reading.  However, the above gives us more than enough to know what has been said all along, this plan is a bad idea!  It will cost future generations trillions, will lower the quality and availability of health care, and gives the government more concentrated power than as ever been allowed in our history.  I urge you all to write/fax/call your congressman and demand a "No" vote to this monstrosity.  If ever there was a time to become involved, now is that time!

List of Senators that accepted "pay for vote" deals from Harry Reid

Politics is gone.  Will of the people is gone.  The only thing that matters: how much does it cost to sell out your conscience, the people that elected you, and your ideals.

According to the latest Rasmussen Polls, this health care bill is not something that people want.  55% of American's have stated that they do not want this Health Care reform (45% strongly opposed), with only people under 30 favoring the reform.  With the group most likely to use the new bills provisions, senior citizens, 60% are opposed to the bill.  53%  of Americans believe that the passage of this legislation will lower health care quality, while 58% say it will drive costs up.  Lastly, 57% of voters say that passing nothing would be preferable to passing nothing at all.

So, with all of these numbers showing an overwhelming opposition to this health care reform, why are we faced with it's possible passage during this Christmas season?  It's possible because we have a number of senators who, in lack of a better terms, have become political whores who offer their votes to the highest bidder.  Below, find some of the names of those Senators so willing to sell out their people.  Learn these names, they must learn that the American voter will no longer accept whores in our congress.

Harry Reid  (D - Nevada) - Ensured his state was exempted from Medicaid increases even before the bill was submitted

Ben Nelson (D - Nebraska) - Cornhusker compromise:  Nebraska is now permanently exempt from the state share of Medicaid expansion that the bill will cause.  A negotiation that both the Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman and the other Senator, Chuck Hagel have denounced.

Mary Landrieu (D- Louisiana) - Louisiana Compromise:  Was bought for a $300M increase in federal Medicaid funding

Bernie Sanders (D - Vermont) - $10B in pork barrel spending for the creation of state wide healthcare centers, as well as, additional Medicaid funding.

Carl Levin (D - Michigan) - Exemption from hefty excise taxes for non-profit insurers within his state.  A tax that like insurers in 48 other states will be required to pay.  A concession also received by Senator Nelson.

Chris Dodd (D - Connecticut) - $100M in pork barrel spending for the construction of a Univ. of Conn. hospital.

Evan Bayh (D - Indiana) - Agreement to  slash medical device taxes for Indiana.

John Kerry (D - Massachusetts) - Along with Vermont, received the most help in Medicaid funding at $1.2B.  While already covered, the deal was cut to substitute state funding for federal

Max Baucus (D - Montana) - Secured expanded Medicare coverage for victims of asbestos exposure at a Libby, Montana mine.

Kent Conrad (D - North Dakota) - Defended a special deal in which the following Western states receive higher federal reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals servicing Medicare patients.

Democrat Senators of Florida, New York, & Pennsylvania - Medicare Advantage benefits for seniors in these states are protected, while the program will see massive cuts every where else.

Harry Reid showed his character by stating:

“You’ll find a number of states that are treated differently than other states. That’s what legislating is all about. It's compromise,

However, compromise that forces undue financial burden on a majority of  states, while showing favoritism to others, is not compromise at all.  It's not compromise to force a bill down the throats of an opposing American people who have clearly stated that they do not want it's passage, it's called tyranny.  You are a pimp Senator Reid.  The only compromise here is that you used money to "compromise" the will of the American people. 

So much like immoral dealings on the shady streets of a city's underbelly, these Senators have offered up their votes to the highest bidder.  Foregoing the morality of the issue in exchange for money to come their way, the above senators betrayed the trust and well being of those that elected them.  Who would have known that, while prostitution is illegal in American cities, that illegality does not extend to our nation's capital.  Never mind the fact that, while good for their respective states, they have forced all of America to pay for these concessions thru the tax dollars of the working man, including the people within their state's borders.  So yes Senators, you may have a achieved a cost savings for your state, but your constituents will have their tax rates increased to help fund the concessions of others.  Yes, Obama has brought "change" to America, but little saw that this is "change" straight from the pockets of the American taxpayer.

A Libertarian's view on the Republican party

I was asked an interesting question the other day that I felt deserved an answer in this forum.  It's a question that I think many people may be wondering, and that others, without good logical reasoning and explanation, may not understand.  A question that is critically crucial to politics today.

"You call yourself a Libertarian, but you adamantly defend the Republican party.  If you are a Libertarian, why don't you support the idea of a 3rd party or support candidates such as Ron Paul, which would more likely promote your political ideals?"

This is an excellent question!  I love Ron Paul.  I think his ideas are ground breaking and would lead this country in the right direction, however, when the time came, I did not vote for him.  Why?  The answer lies in the American mentality of politics today. 

America was built on a two party system, first with the Federalists/Anti-Federalists which then evolved into the current Republican/Democrat parties of today.  I realize that this system has become a tradition within America. It's the only system that the American voter has ever known and to change something that ingrained in the American voter's psyche would not be easy, nor come quick.  Americans as a whole, are not very tolerant of radical change.  You need only to look at the uproar and backlash to Obama's socialist agenda to see this.  To attempt a three party system would be seen as a radical change and as history has shown, would not be allowed by the voters in our political system.

In addition, one must see the makeup of most third party systems.  Most 3rd parties are just a few degrees off of what the current Republican core values should be.  As the voter watched the Republicans derail and consistently depart from their conservative values and core beliefs, the 3rd party has stepped in to try and correct that course.  The more left that the Republican party veers, the more 3rd parties attempt to fill the void.  However, due to loyalty to the Republican system and the belief that they are supposed to support the same ideals, the end result is that 3rd parties usually only succeed to "split the vote".   Make no mistake, 3rd parties usually have a strong following, but it will not, at any time soon, be able to change the hearts and minds of those people who have identified themselves as Republican, either because of "family tradition" or a hope that the party will come back full circle and represent based on the values they are supposed to support.

Using the above point splitting the vote, you can look back at the 1992 election of Bill Clinton.  During this time, we saw  Ross Perot run as an independent 3rd party candidate to appeal to voters displeased with Federal financial budget deficits and fears of professional politicians.  Many people were moved by Ross Perot's (often mocked) presentations on how to balance the budget and the promise to change the way we practiced politics in Washington.  However, history has shown, Ross Perot won Bill Clinton the 1992  presidency.  The election results were as follows:  Bill Clinton, 43% - George H. Bush, 37% - Ross Perot, 19%.  With many of Ross's votes being siphoned from the Republican party, had Ross Perot not been in that election, predictions show that Bush would have received approximately 2/3's (12.6%)  or more of Perot's votes, meaning that Bush would have won 49.6% to 46%, after distribution of his votes among all candidates.  The same could be said for the 1996 election, however, in a much more narrow result.

So, I recognize that a vote for a third party is, in effect, a vote for the Democratic party.  We must remember, as the Republican party moves more to the left, so does the Democrat party.  With each election, our political parties make a leftist slide.  Democrats seek to turn America into a more socialist, global government party while the Republicans follow suit in efforts for "bi-partisan compromise".  This leads us to the administration that we have in power today.  So, it must be understood, 3rd parties today have little effect but to "split the vote" on the Republican side, allowing for more Democrat victories.

Therefore, I have chosen to throw my support behind the Republican party in an effort to reform the party from within.  After all, it would be easier to mold an existing, popular party, then to promote an new, unknown party to power.   To bring politics back to conservative values, we must first stop the erosion of the only viable conservative party that exists.   Until we are able to stop the liberal, socialist left, there will be no chance for change.  It is my belief, that the American people have finally awoken to the possibilities of the Democrat's socialist agenda, and with current polls, I'm being proven right that America is finding something that they do not want.  Hopefully, this may be the catalyst needed to bring back conservative representation.  Once achieved, it is then a goal to seek reform and change from within the Republican party.  As our conservative representatives see that Conservatism, financial responsibility, strong national defense, etc is what the people want, it will become easier to seek and achieve change from within the party.  

So while the Ron Paul's of the world align with my thoughts and values, I understand that a vote for them is a vote for liberalism due to the siphoning effect they have on votes from the leading opposition party.  While I would love to see Ron Paul as president, it's my belief that the best way to achieve that, is to cultivate his level of conservatism within Republican party.  Politics are fluid.  They change and bend to the will of the people, if and only if, the people exert the pressure required for change.   Right now, our politicians have no reason to fear us, but should we succeed in Senate/House turnovers during the next election cycle, we would give them such reason.  We would be able to use that fear to ensure that our politicians return to listening to their people.   So rather than seeking an outside 3rd party to represent me, I chose to force the existing party to stop the compromising that led them astray, and represent my beliefs thru activism and outspoken appeal.   That, my friends, is why a Libertarian votes Republican.

Ben Nelson sells his soul for ObamaCare

I can't say I'm surprised, but Ben Nelson (D - Nebraska) sold his soul to ObamaCare.  An article by Associated Content details the unhappiness that Sen. Nelson's constituents in Nebraska are feeling for their senior senator due to his betrayal.  Within the article, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee compares Nelson to Judas by stating:

The last time a deal like the one Nelson negotiated with Democratic leaders was when '30 pieces of silver exchanged hands.

Like I said, I'm not surprised by this action.  In essence, Nelson sold out his ideals for a deal in which he negotiated the Federal Government picking up Nebraska's share of Medicaid forever.  This deal amounts to roughly $45M in the first decade adds even more spending on the federal dollar.

With this deal, the Democrats now have their magic 60 votes that could allow them to ram the bill thru legislation with no opportunity for Republicans (or the American people) to stop this monstrosity.  However, as even with a deal that will save his state millions, Sen. Nelson is finding out that his constituents aren't happy about his back room dealings.

Senator Nelson is lucky in that he isn't up for re-election in 2010, but I have a hunch that Nebraska will not forget this travesty soon.  Visit the site dedicated to removing Ben Nelson from office at GiveBentheBoot and get involved.  It must be remembered that Ben not only betrayed Nebraska, but all of America.  He was the crucial 60th vote, and without his support, this bill would have died as it should have.

So thank you Ben.  Like 59 other Senators before you, you have failed to listen to the people, failed to do the right thing, and for 30 pieces of silver, have sold this country out for evil.  How much will your Medicaid subsidies be worth when this bill drives our country to bankruptcy?  What deal have you struck when your people are suffering under the weight of higher taxes imposed by this bill and when the Chinese call in the loans that our government has taken to pay for this evil?  Judas's life was forever changed by the guilt he felt for the "deal" that he cut, and I can't help but wonder, do you even have enough of a conscience left to suffer the same? 

May Chase Bank rot in the deepest depths of Hell reserved for the most vile of corporations

Okay, so this is story has a lot of personal discontent to it, but it's also somewhat politically based.

To start, my story.  Approximately 11 years ago, I declared bankruptcy for reasons outside of my control.  In doing so, I knew that I would have to accept a lot of hardship along the way, but it was a last ditch attempt to dig my way out of bad circumstances.  So declare bankruptcy, I did.  While I don't recommend it to anyone, it was one of the best decisions I ever made.  Now, that doesn't mean it was easy.  I spent many years paying 23.9% interest on an automobile loan, had issues with getting any credit, but I was prepared for that.  During that time, Providian Bank took a chance on me and granted me a credit card with a $500 limit.  Over the next 7 years, through hard work and sacrifice, I was able to increase that credit limit substantially, while lowering the interest rate down to 16%.  During our financial relationship, Providian was bought out by WAMU, but they held to Providian's standards and due to them honoring the terms originally given to me by Providian, I grew very loyal to that credit card and the bank that held it.  They were honest with me, gave me nothing for free, but treated me with respect and rewarded me with higher credit limits and lower interest rates for my good credit behavior.

In walks Chase bank.  Using TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) funds granted to it by the US Government, Chase bought out WAMU.  That's not what the TARP funds were intended for, but that's another conversation.  So, using money granted to it by the US Government, Chase became owner of my credit card.  Now, again, I was loyal to this card and it had a good balance on it.  It was my primary credit card.  By this time, I've owned the card for over 10 years, never missed a payment on it, always paid more than the minimum balance, and had paid the card off several times.  Within 3 months of acquiring WAMU, I noticed that my interest rate on this card had skyrocketed from 16% to a detestable 32.9%!!!  I called Chase and requested that they lower my rate back down, that I was a good customer and didn't deserve this rate.  Their response was that they had sent me a letter informing me of the increase (which they did not!) and that it couldn't be lowered.  They informed me that the rate had been increased to "maintain profitability on my account".  Wow!  Really, you raised the interest rate of 10yr, on time paying, never missed a payment, never going over limit client just so you could make more money??  After several months of fighting with them, getting nothing but rude responses such as "Feel free to close your account" and the like, I decided to pay off the card.  Taking a loan, I paid the balance in full to be rid of the border line illegal interest rate charges but chose not to close the account because I didn't want to hurt my credit score.

Here comes the second jab.  3 months after paying off the balance in full, I DO receive a letter from them stating that "due to account inactivity they have decided to reduce my credit line".  They reduced it by over  2/3rds!!!! To add insult to injury, the letter also informed me that "Had I made a purchase that went above this new limit, I had 45 days to bring the amount beneath the new limit else I would be subject to monthly over credit, increased interest rate for over credit,  and other fees".   So now I have a credit limit that is less than a 1/3rd of what I spent 10 years building simply because I wasn't using the account.  In addition, had I made a good faith based purchase on this account subject to my known, earned previous credit limit, I would be subject to financial discipline for exceeding what I believed to be my appropriate limit.  WOW!

Before this time, my credit score was in the 700's and I'm very proud that I was able to build this score after having declared bankruptcy.  I take pride in my score actually, declaring it proof that a person can turn bad circumstances around.  However, because of Chase's actions, my score is now below 700, actions that were not done thru any fault, or mis-action, on my part.  WTH?  Again, I call them and get a "there's nothing we can do, feel free to close the account".   This time, they will get their wish.  They can't hurt my credit score any worse than they already have, so I've shredded the credit card and sent them a letter with the shredded remains along with a very nice, polite detailing of exactly what they can do with that card and how they might best be able to perform my suggestion.

Now I find out that JP Morgan Chase has repaid all $25M given to it from the TARP program.  While one would expect me to be happy that this evil bank repaid the government all the money given to it, I'm not!  We, the taxpayers, fronted that money to them, which they used improperly, but do you think we will get a check back  for their repayment?  Of course not.  2nd, the reason that they were able to repay this money was off the backs and blood of it's customers thru devious, vile predatory practices.  Do a quick Google search on Chase bank and you will find 100's of 1000's of stories just like mine.  Sites have been set up specifically to complain about this bank.  www.chase-sucks.com, www.chasebanksucks.com, and hundreds of other sites.  This bank prayed upon it's customers.  So essentially, this bank doubled dipped.  It was bailed out by a failed, misappropriated, ill-handled government bail out program paid for by the taxpayers (it's clients), then used predatory, vile, despicable practices to raise it's profit margins to pay those funds back. 

Where are our representatives in all of this mess?  Credit companies use credit to enslave the population.  They know, once you owe the money, you are theirs.  They can do what they want because you can't escape their grasp.  The credit reporting system allows this misuse.  Free market can't work here, because if you take your credit from one company to one offering better terms, your credit rating can still be hurt by the original bank.  If your credit rating gets hurt, then it makes the ability to move to a better bank harder, if not almost impossible.   Worst of all, the Government condoned these actions by bailing out the banks in the first place.  Chase should have been allowed to fail.  It wouldn't have killed our economy.  There are many credit unions out there that understand customer service and would have carried on.  However, the Government, in their infinite knowledge, bailed them out and allowed them continue.  They allowed the banks to use the funds improperly.  They allowed this monster to continue.  Chase made bad decisions, Chase over extended themselves, Chase should have reaped the consequences of those actions, but no.  Big government stepped in and enabled them to not only continue, but to take even greater advantage of their customers. 

Need we forget that we are in a horrible economic repression, bordering on full on depression?  With almost 17% of our population out of work, how do they possibly think that devious practices like this will help?  They won't.  Chase will continue to make things harder on it's clients and when they force them to default, the Government will be there to fund them again.  If this can happen to me, someone that was responsible and paid their bills on time, it can happen to anyone.  Especially those that have fallen on hard times due to the actions of our government.  Wake up DC!!  You are killing this nation in every way and this is just one more example.  I hope you are happy with the monster you created.  And Chase, I know there is a special place in hell reserved for you.  I long for the day that you find it.  Until that day, I will never do business with you, or any affiliate of yours, and I will do everything in my power to ensure no one else does either.  Should our government ever get out the way, capitalism and the free market will give your just dues, of this, I am certain.  Bastards!

Bob Marshall proves me right! Our representatives have lost touch with reality.

Today, Bob Marshall (R-Manassas) submitted legislation (Virginia Health Care Freedom Act) aimed at protecting Virginia's residents from the National Health Care Mandates being proposed by Congress.  Per the Washington Examiner, this is the first in what's expected to be a flurry of bills bent on defying the Fed in the next session.

While I completely agree and commend Del. Marshall on his foresight and goal to protect Virginians from this monstrosity, the real statement I would like to focus on comes at the bottom this article as quoted by Del. Dave Englin (D - Alexandria):

"I'm concerned about it because we have a number of newly elected Republicans who came in on the shoulders of the tea party crowd,",  referring to the conservative anti-tax movement. "I'm concerned that they're going to want to demonstrate their right-wing chops with these folks, and they're going to try some of those kinds of things."

Oh really?  You are concerned that representatives are going to attempt to do exactly the things that they promised they would do?  That they are going to do the things that got them elected in the first place?

Del. Englin, you are a schmuck!  You are EXACTLY what is wrong with our government today.  As evidenced by your statements, you are completely out of touch with the people that you represent and the sentiments of Americans today.  People wanted change, but they did not want the change they got.   In fact, according to a recent Gallup Poll, 44% of Americans would now rather have George W. Bush back in the presidency rather than continuing down the socialist road with President Obama.

So even as Obama's approval ratings continue to plummet, even as more and more Americans chose to voice their disapproval of the current administration via Tea Parties, 912Project, and other means, you refuse to listen.  You turn a deaf ear to the people who elected you and ignore the wishes of those that employ you.  In case you forgot, you are a "Representative" of the people, not a "Decider" for the people.  Your job is to listen and represent, not to forward your own ideals. 

Seems to me Mr. Englin, Mr. Marshall has it right!  Will this legislation pass, in most likelihood, no, but atleast he had the testicular fortitude to stand up for sentiments of the people that he represents!  This country wants its change back!  They are expressing this via the election of representatives who "come in on the shoulders of the tea party crowd" as you say.   Maybe you should try listening to people and actually do your job.  See that Obama mania is over and the people want nothing more to do with it. 

I do agree with you one thing thou, you should be concerned.  Not with the "newly elected Republicans" but with the will of the people and how to best perform your duty in representing them.  Continue your ignorant, blind eye ways, and you may soon find yourself out of a job! 

Queer eye for the........Middle school kid????

Fistgate:  The scandal surrounding Obama's pick for "Safe School Czar", Kevin Jennings, just keep getting worse.  For those of you that don't know, Fistgate is in regards to Kevin Jennings and his GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) organization recently providing school age kits to assist in the sexual act of "fisting".  Well, if that wasn't bad enough, the scandal now runs deeper.

In a story released by Gateway Pundit, GLSEN is now being charged with providing sexual literature to children ages 14-21 during a GLSEN 2005 conference by the name of "Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century". 

Those who know me, know that my libertarian ways lead me to a belief that the government should not legislate/interfere with the actions of consenting adults.  What a person does in their bedroom is their action to deal with and be responsible for, and as long as that activity is between consenting adults and causes no harm, it's no one else's business.  However, this literature goes beyond and is now pushing these ideals on to children.

Excerpt from book (full reading on the link)

No Dookie On Your Noodle! Nobody knows better than queer men that shit happens. It’s just a fact of life…and butt sex. While there are steps to take to avoid a mess, they’re not always practical for the boy on the go. Condoms allow you a certain freedom that can be a great selling point if you’re cruising the park and don’t want stray spunk on your new polyester shirt...

In no way do I see how this could be practical for teaching to children of a middle school age.  Children of this age are impressionable and often susceptible to invocation.  You take a child who is already often lost and trying to find themselves, then add in an adult who is teaching such a sensational, taboo subject matter, you are likely to push children to a choice that they are not mentally prepared to make.  The curiosity of children of this age, along with the information being passed to them, will lead them to experiment, just to see what the fuss is about.  How can that be considered proper?

It seems that Leftists are working to bring the decision (and the fight) to the children of our country.  We consistently see the lowering of the age in which we start talking about controversial subjects.  First it was 18 years of age, then 16, now we are down to 14 years and younger!  We must understand that children are still learning the world and maturing mentally and are simply not prepared to deal with subjects of this magnitude.  Do I think that children of a certain age should be made aware of the impacts of sexual promiscuity, of course, to a point.  However, let's be honest, the promotion of an alternative lifestyle and "cruising the park for partners" is not sexual education, its the promotion of sexual risk.  It's the perverse pushing of social agendas on those ill equipped to deal with the repercussions of their choice.  However, from a leftist stand point, it's a viable tactic.  Indoctrinate the minds while they are young and impressionable to further the cause in the future.  After all, who really hears the subject matter when it's a small child making the speech.

Kevin Jennings is a vile human being who has no right being around children, much less having the charge of protecting their safety.  This man should be removed this position, and any position involved with the care of children, immediately.  It's one thing to educate about sexual topics, it's another thing to push ideals and agendas thru the children of America.  I know many adults that wouldn't be comfortable discussing things of this nature, however, we allow this group (GLSEN) and other to push it on the children.  It's time to take a stand and demand that this guy be removed from office.  These topics are the responsibility of the parent, not a stranger, to discuss with their children.   If these topics are to be introduced and discussed, they must be made with an age appropriate audience.

Again, this is not a commentary on homosexuality.  I would have the same reaction if the topic was made to "straight" children of this age and pushed the idea of "cruising for partners" and promotion of promiscuity.  If this is a lifestyle that you choose, when you are mentally prepared to make such choices, more power to you.  It's not for me to agree or disagree, but as long as it doesn't not infringe upon my rights or freedoms, then I do not care what you choose to do within your bedroom.  The topics that GLSEN brings to America's youth are not educational, not commentaries on tolerance, but simple pushing of practices and lifestyles that have no business being pushed on impressionable minds.  This guy, and his organization, make me sick.

Football? They can legislate football?

Wow!  In a time when almost every move our congress is making is being questioned on the grounds that they don’t have the power, this story from Komo news is released.

That’s right folks, the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee has approved legislation that would force the NCAA to determine a national champion by playoff only, stating that the current BCS system is unfair.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I hate the BCS system.  It’s hard to understand and I do believe it can be unfair, but is this really the thing that we want our congressional representatives working on?  In addition, what the hell even gives them the right to think that they can pass legislation on something that has no bearing on national affairs?

Congress, you want to know why America is starting to think you are imbeciles incapable of leading?  You wonder why your constituents think you are out of touch with reality?  You need to look no further than your actions today.  We have the looming health care fiasco, jobless rates approaching 17%, a failed stimulus bill costing the taxpayers billions, government take over of private industry, and yet you find it necessary to take time out of your day to legislate this?’

I’m embarrassed that it was  Texas Rep Joe Barton quoted in this article, but you know, Texas is a football state who takes the game very seriously.  However, our elected officials have more pressing matters at hand than the determination of how to pick a college football championship team.  Moreover, this is yet another example of the Fed sticking it’s nose some place it has no right and trying to exert authority in areas outside it’s jurisdiction.  Come on Congressmen (women), our country took a left hand turn down Shit Ave last November.  How about you guys trying pumping the brakes and see if you can’t get us turned around and back on the right path?  What’s next?  You going to pass a law dictating how American Idol can pick it’s finalist???  I wouldn’t be surprised if you did.

Why is the Tiger Wood’s story newsworthy??

Recently, Tiger Woods crashed his Cadillac Escalade  resulting in some minor injuries.  Unless you live under a rock, I’m sure you’ve heard all the speculations and rumor surrounding this unfortunate accident by now.  It’s been about the only thing being covered by the main stream media as of late.  Even Fox News is releasing stories about potential causes linked to Tiger’s scandalous doings. 

My question:  Who really cares?  So Tiger crashed his car, it happens to about 6 million Americans each year according to the statistics.  So what if the crash was caused by an angry wife who recently found out that Tiger had been cheating on her.  If he was cheating, he deserved to be chased out of the driveway with a golf club, it’s even almost fitting.   Again, who really cares?  What does this have to do with me and how does it affect my life?  Simple answer, it doesn’t!  Sure, there are 100’s willing to jump on the bandwagon and claim that this more evidence of our moral decline, but this is a story of one man.  Others wish to talk about Tiger’s lost endorsements and impact it will have to his career, but again, I DON’T CARE!  Nothing Tiger does, or doesn’t do, in public, in his private life, or in any other aspect has any impact on me.

What this story does do is detract from the issues that are facing America today.  Personally, I think that the current administration should be helping pay for Tiger’s divorce attorney due to the fact that it’s taken the media attention off of them and their current back room dealings.  Thanks to Tiger’s silly miscalculations in judgment, America’s attention has been diverted for the short term.

Everyone, we still have a government trying to force an albatross of a health care upon it’s people.  We have a president, who on one hand condemns those that attacked us on 9/11, but in the same breath calls the perpetrators members of “one of the world’s greatest religions”.  A religion, that by it’s very nature, preaches hatred and death to American citizens, or infidels.   He claims that there “has been no delay or denial of resources necessary to conduct this war”, yet refuses to acknowledge that it took him months to even talk with General McChrystal, then only allowing him a portion of the resources requested.  We have a government intent on raising the taxes imposed upon it’s citizens while claiming that a failed stimulus packages is providing for an economic rebound, even tho our adjusted jobless rate is now sitting at roughly 17%.  We have the issue of “"Climate-gate”, where it has been found that the so-called “facts” of global warming have been skewed, falsely reported, or in some cases, just plain fabricated, to support a broken theory aimed at trying to control the populace. Last, but not least, our government now wants to taken the broken TARP program and redirect the funds to a poorly attempted job recovery effort.

Folks, we still have a lot of turmoil ahead of us.  There is still a major fight for our freedoms and prosperity brewing.  We must not be taken off course by the story of a famous golfer crashing his luxury SUV.  Don’t fall under the switch and bait tactics of the media and keep your eyes on the real issue, our dwindling way of life at the hands of our current government.  Okay, we’ve all taken note, passed our judgments on Tiger around the water cooler, but now it’s time to start paying attention again.  In the grand scheme of things, this story has no consequence, so stopped fanning the flames.

Tea Parties: Should they organize on a national level?

Ken Vogel recently posted an interesting article on Politico.com regarding the perceived unrest within the Tea Party movement alive in America today.  Within this article, he points to some of fracturing and disagreements within local movements and alludes to the idea that the Tea Party movement should organize at a national level, rather than being the independent movement that it is today.

I completely disagree with this idea.  The beauty, the pure force of the Tea Party movement, is the fact that it is individual based.  These parties are for the common man, one who is fed up with the high tax and spend that congress has taken as the status quo, individuals who have grown weary of big government forcing health care, bail outs, and cap and trade down their throats against their will.  The reason that Tea Parties have such a voice is that they are derived of people, and issues, specific to the locale of specific parties presence.

Should the Tea parties begin to organize nationally, I agree that they will have a louder voice, but will that voice be as effective?  Once you start to organize at a national level, people must now start to make compromises to “achieve a unified front”.  Won’t that detract from the true purpose of the movement itself?  The issues that affect the constituents of Vermont, for example, may differ slightly from those of Texas.  If the party were nationally organized, whose ideals will win out to be the policy of the movement?  The answer is simple, the area with the most active members.  Isn’t that exactly the thing that the tea parties are expressing outrage at?  Shouldn’t the people have the ability, and the right, to protest those things that most directly affect them?

The impact that the Tea Party movement is having is to force our representatives to listen to what we, the people, have to say.  To remind them that they work for us, that they represent US.  Should we organize nationally, then who do we aim our voices to?  Since it’s a national voice, it will be aimed at no specific representative, but to the congressional body as a whole.  I see this as being less effective than the current movement.  Now, the Texas Tea party aims it’s anger and opinions to the Texas state representatives.  As all the calls are coming directly from the people who elect them to power, then they will be more likely to listen.  If it were a national voice, then what would force these senators when the opinions are coming from people outside of their districts.  Yes, some of the opinions will be consistent (smaller government, less taxation, etc), but not specific to the issues that face geographic areas.

Again, the pure beauty of the Tea Party movement is that it is made up of like minded individuals speaking out on the governmental injustices that affect them.  The core of it’s effectiveness is that it is comprised of people who refuse to compromise their ideals any longer.  Tea parties are making a difference, you need only to look at the recent elections held in New Jersey and New York.  I urge you to remain strong and stay the course.  I know it can be frustrating for your phone calls and letters to go unanswered.  I know that you can be disheartened to protest the albatross that is Universal Health Care, only to see your representatives to continue to ram it thru, but believe me, your voice is being heard.  Congressional members are starting to worry about their jobs and for the first time that I can remember in my short life, the Republicans are starting to unite and vote against measures that YOU disagree with.  You need only to look at the near unanimous vote against first health care iterations and the stimulus bill.  Only RINO’s (Republicans in Name Only) went against the vote.  Use these gatherings to become informed of the issues and continue to raise your discontent.  Tea Parties are making a difference at the local and state levels and that is where the true power lies.