One of Obama’s Big Lies

“We have heard of the impious doctrine in the old world, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the new, in another shape - that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object.” — James Madison, Federalist No. 45.

One of the main points Obama makes in his numerous and redundant campaign speeches is that he saved the American Auto industry and thousands of jobs with his bailout of General Motors. He continually talks about the jobs he saved and that GM is making cars in the United States that people are buying. This is one of his numerous big lies.

Readers with long memories may recall that Charles E. Wilson, president of General Motors and nominee for secretary of defense, got into trouble when he told a Senate committee, “What is good for the country is good for General Motors, and what’s good for General Motors is good for the country.”

That was in 1953, and Wilson was trying to make the point that General Motors was such a big company — it sold about half the cars in the U.S. back then — that its interests were inevitably aligned with those of the country as a whole.

Michael Barone, Senior Political Analyst for the Washington Times, deconstructs one of President Obama’s favorite talking points on the campaign trail in his latest column. While the president likes to take credit for “saving” General Motors and the American auto industry, Barone points out that billions of dollars later, GM may actually be worse off:

“Things are different now. General Motors’ market share in the U.S. is below 20 percent. It has gone through bankruptcy and exists now thanks to a federal bailout. But Barack Obama seems to think that it’s as closely aligned with the national interest as Wilson did.

When the American auto industry was on the brink of collapse,” Obama told a campaign event audience in Colorado earlier this month, “I said, let’s bet on America’s workers. And we got management and workers to come together, making cars better than ever, and now GM is No. 1 again and the American auto industry has come roaring back.”

His conclusion: “So now I want to say that what we did with the auto industry, we can do in manufacturing across America. Let’s make sure advanced, high-tech manufacturing jobs take root here, not in China. Let’s have them here in Colorado. And that means supporting investment here.”

Obama talks about the auto bailout frequently, since it’s one of the few things in his record that gets positive responses in the polls. But he’s probably wise to avoid probing questions, since the GM bailout is not at all the success he claims.

GM has been selling cars in the U.S. at deep discount and, while it’s making money in China — and is outsourcing operations there and elsewhere — it’s bleeding losses in Europe. It’s spending billions to ditch its Opel brand there in favor of Chevrolet, including $559 million to put the Chevy logo on Manchester United soccer team uniforms — and just fired the marketing exec who cut that deal.

It botched the launch of its new Chevrolet Malibu by starting with the green-friendly Eco version, which pleased its government shareholders, but which got lousy reviews. And it’s selling only about 10,000 electric-powered Chevy Volts a year, a puny contribution toward Obama’s goal of 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

“GM is going from bad to worse,” reads the headline on Automotive News Editor in Chief Keith Crain’s analysis. That’s certainly true of its stock price.

The government still owns 500 million shares of GM, 26 percent of the total. It needs to sell them for $53 a share to recover its $49.5 billion bailout. But the stock price is around $20 a share, and the Treasury now estimates that the government will lose more than $25 billion if and when it sells.

That's in addition to the revenue lost when the Obama administration permitted GM to continue to deduct previous losses from current profits, even though such deductions are ordinarily wiped out in bankruptcy proceedings.

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that GM is bleeding money because of decisions made by a management eager to please its political masters -- and by the terms of the bankruptcy arranged by Obama car czars Ron Bloom and Steven Rattner.

Rattner himself admitted late last year, in a speech to the Detroit Economic Club, that "We should have asked the [United Auto Workers] to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay." Nonunion employees of GM spin-off Delphi lost their pensions. UAW members didn't.

The UAW got its political payoff. And GM, according to Forbes writer Louis Woodhill, is headed to bankruptcy again.”

President Obama is proud of his bailout of General Motors. That’s good, because, if he wins a second term, he is probably going to have to bail GM out again. The company is once again losing market share, and it seems unable to develop products that are truly competitive in the U.S. market.

Right now, the federal government owns 500,000,000 shares of GM, or about 26% of the company. It would need to get about $53.00/share for these to break even on the bailout, but the stock closed at only $20.21/share on August 15th. This left the government holding $10.1 billion worth of stock, and sitting on an unrealized loss of $16.4 billion.

Woodhill writes:

“Right now, the government’s GM stock is worth about 39% less than it was on November 17, 2010, when the company went public at $33.00/share. However, during the intervening time, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has risen by almost 20%, so GM shares have lost 49% of their value relative to the Dow.

It’s doubtful that the Obama administration would attempt to sell off the government’s massive position in GM while the stock price is falling. It would be too embarrassing politically. Accordingly, if GM shares continue to decline, it is likely that Obama would ride the stock down to zero.

GM is unlikely to hit the wall before the election, but, given current trends, the company could easily do so again before the end of a second Obama term.

In the 1960s, GM averaged a 48.3% share of the U.S. car and truck market. For the first 7 months of 2012, their market share was 18.0%, down from 20.0% for the same period in 2011. With a loss of market share comes a loss of relative cost-competitiveness. There is only so much market share that GM can lose before it would no longer have the resources to attempt to recover.

To help understand why GM keeps losing market share, let’s look at the saga of the Chevy Malibu.

The Malibu is GM’s entry in the automobile market’s “D-Segment”. The D-Segment comprises mid-size, popularly priced, family sedans, like the Toyota Camry and the Honda Accord. The D-Segment accounted for 14.7% of the total U.S. vehicle market in 2011, and 21.3% during the first 7 months of 2012.

Because the D-Segment is the highest volume single vehicle class in the U.S., and the U.S. is GM’s home market, it is difficult to imagine how GM could survive long term unless it can profitably develop, manufacture, and market a vehicle that can hold its own in the D-Segment. This is true not only because of the revenue potential of the D-Segment, but also because of what an also-ran Malibu would say about GM’s ability to execute at this time in its history.

GM is in the process of introducing a totally redesigned 2013 Chevy Malibu. It will compete in the D-Segment with, among others, the following: the Ford Fusion (totally redesigned for 2013); the Honda Accord (totally redesigned for 2013); the Hyundai Sonata (totally redesigned for 2011); the Nissan Altima (totally redesigned for 2013); the Toyota Camry (refreshed for 2013); and the Volkswagen Passat (totally redesigned for 2012).

Automobile technology is progressing so fast that the best vehicle in a given segment is usually just the newest design in that segment. Accordingly, if a car company comes out with a new, completely redesigned vehicle, it had better be superior to the older models being offered by its competitors. If it is not, the company will spend the next five years (the usual time between major redesigns in this segment) losing market share and/or offering costly “incentives” to “move the metal”.

Woodhill Continues:

“As a company, General Motors peaked in 1965, when it commanded 50.7% of the U.S. market, and made a stunning-for-the-time $2.1 billion dollars in after-tax profits. Adjusted by the GDP deflator to 2011 dollars, GM made $12.1 billion in after-tax profits on $117.9 billion in revenue.

In 1965, Volkswagen was tiny compared to GM. It produced only 1.6 million vehicles, about 22% of GM’s 7.3 million. VW’s total revenues were only 11% of GM’s. The most powerful engine you could get in VW’s volume family car, the Beetle, had 40 horsepower. The biggest engine you could get in GM’s equivalent, the 1965 Chevy Impala, had 425 horsepower.

In the first half of 2012, Volkswagen sold almost as many vehicles as GM did, 4.6 million vs. 4.7 million. And, its total revenues were much higher, $119.2 billion vs. $75.4 billion for GM. Part of this is the result of currency exchange rates, but VW had a significantly higher operating profit margin than GM, 6.8% vs. 5.7%.

Under the leadership of Ferdinand Piech, who is kind of like a German-speaking, automobile industry version of Steve Jobs, Volkswagen is determined to become the biggest and most profitable car company in the world. And, right now, they are eating GM’s lunch.”

Woodhill concludes with a comparison between Volkswagen and General Motors of their engineering and management styles:

“One way to answer that question is to compare the 2013 Chevy Malibu against the 2012 Volkswagen Passat, as Car and Driver did. Results: VW, first out of six; GM, dead last. However, additional insight can be obtained by looking at how GM’s CEO, Dan Akerson (63), stacks up against Professor Doctor Martin Winterkorn (65), the man handpicked by Ferdinand Piech in 2007 to be his replacement as CEO of Volkswagen AG.

Akerson has an engineering degree, but he also has a Master’s Degree in Economics, and his first big job was as CFO of MCI. Akerson was CEO of General Instrument, and then of Nextel, and then of XO Communications, which went bankrupt in June 2002. He joined the private equity firm, the Carlyle Group, in 2003.

Akerson got his first job in the automobile industry when he was named CEO of GM in late 2010. Recently, he has been hiring and firing top GM executives at an alarming pace, and he is understood to be working on a major reorganization of the company. Akerson recently gave a televised speech to GM employees on the need for “integrity”.

Martin Winterkorn has a PhD in Metallurgical Engineering, and he has spent his entire career in the automotive industry. At the 2011 Frankfurt Auto Show, Winterkorn was caught on amateur video sitting in, and studying Hyundai’s newly introduced i30, a competitor to VW’s best-selling family car, the Golf. Here is an excerpt from a story about this incident published along with the video by The Truth About Cars, an auto industry blog:

“(Martin Winterkorn) pulled on the adjuster of the steering column, and heard – nothing. At Volkswagen, there is an audible (“klonk!) feedback whenever the steering column is adjusted.

Immediately, Klaus Bischoff, head of Volkswagen Brand Design was summoned. He pulled on the adjuster: No sound. “Da scheppert nix,” exclaimed Winterkorn in his heavy Bavarian accent. “There is no rattle!”

Winterkorn was livid: “How did he pull that off?” He, the blasted Korean. “BMW doesn’t know how. We don’t know how.” He, the blasted Korean, must have found out how to battle the dreaded Scheppern.

Tension is high. This could affect careers. Someone quickly explains that there had been a solution, “but it was too expensive.” That gets Winterkorn even more enraged. “Then, why does he know how?” For less money. He, the Korean. There is no answer. Hyundai has beaten Volkswagen at the Scheppern front.

Winterkorn measures the A-pillar, runs his hands over the plastic. He walks away, his entourage trots after him. Deeply in thought and very worried.”

Uh-oh. While Dan Akerson is busy rearranging the deck chairs on GM’s Titanic, Martin Winterkorn is leading VW to world domination via technical excellence.

“The game isn’t over until it’s over”, but if President Obama wins reelection, he should probably start giving some serious thought to how he is going to justify bailing out GM, and its unionized UAW workforce, yet again. And, during the current campaign, Obama might want to be a little more modest about what he actually achieved by bailing out GM the first time.”

When it comes to jobs once again Obama has failed with his GM bailout. One of Obama’s big lies was that by pouring money down the rat hole of General Motors he saved thousands of good paying jobs in the auto industry. This is pure baloney.

According to TradeReform GM producing 70% of autos outside U.S. Dan Akerson states that seven out of 10 GM automobiles are built outside the U.S. hey have 11 joint ventures with Chinese government controlled auto manufacturers. Also they are moving their R&D to China.

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal General Motors is open to deepening its relationship with China's SAIC Motor Corp and could expand the collaboration beyond existing tie-ups in China and India, GM Chairman and Chief Executive Dan Akerson said in a recent interview:

“The pairing with SAIC, China's largest domestic auto maker, is critical to GM's global strategy, not just its plans in China, Mr. Akerson said. He is in Shanghai this week where the GM board is holding its first-ever monthly meeting in China, the world's largest auto market.

A far-reaching partnership with SAIC is a central part of GM's strategy to manage business in China, where conditions are increasingly challenging as global auto makers and local manufacturers jostle for market share and must contend with government regulation. On Tuesday, the two companies agreed to jointly develop a new all-electric car for the Chinese market and which could be sold around the world.”

When the federal government bails out an industry or provides tax incentives or subsidies, or when state economic development agencies do the same, there need to be terms that benefit the U.S. in terms of production and job growth. We can’t subsidize offshoring. Producing here and selling to our wealth producing consumer market need to go together. Once Obama lies about saving jobs in the auto industry.

GM, like Solyndra and other failed Obama energy programs, is not only a flawed investment for the American Taxpayer, it is a disaster. We will never get our money back and eventually GM will have to restructure itself under the rules of the free-market. Obama’s proclivity for picking winners and losers based on his devotion to his union and crony capitalist supporters is nothing short of a crime. He is stealing our money to bolster failing companies to garner votes from people who have no idea as to what he is really doing.

I am sure none of the moderators will bring this subject up in the coming presidential debates. This would focus on Obama’s miserable record and we know they don’t want to do that. After all abortion, women’s rights, free contraception, and gay marriage are much more emotional, though irrelevant, topics than how the government wastes our money.

The Founders vs. the Progressives

"In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” — James Madison, National Gazette, March 29, 1792.

Today when we look back on the words of our Founders we can find a multitude of their thoughts and writings on our rights to property and taxation and the role of government in protecting those rights.

The thinking of The Founders and of their fellow Americans did not limit the meaning of the word "property" so as to apply merely to things material: physical things. They considered that Man's rights in general—separate and apart from material possessions—were also an extremely important, if not the most valuable, part of his property. This general line of thought—reflecting truly American thinking of that day, of The Founders second to none—was never expressed more soundly and clearly than in the essay on "Property" by Madison published in The National Gazette (one of a series of essays by him on various topics so published) on March 29, 1792. Brief but comprehensive in presenting this characteristically American viewpoint, the full text of the essay deserves consideration. Here are a few of Madison’s thoughts on property rights and the government’s role in securing those rights:

"This term in its particular application means 'that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

"In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.”

"In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

"In the latter sense, a man has property in his opinions and the free communication of them.”

"He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.”

"He has property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.”

"He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.”

"In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”

"Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties or his possessions.”

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own.”

"According to this standard of merit, the praise of affording a just security to property, should be sparingly bestowed on a government which, however scrupulously guarding the possessions of individuals, does not protect them in the enjoyment and communication of their opinions, in which they have an equal, and in the estimation of some, a more valuable property.”

"More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or lettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and inalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.”

"A just security to property is not afforded by that government under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.”

"If the United States mean to obtain or deserve the full praise due to wise and just governments, they will equally respect the rights of property, and the property in rights: they will rival the government that most sacredly guards the former; and by repelling its example in violating the latter, will make themselves a pattern to that and all other governments."

When it comes to taxes our Founders had a great deal to say about the potential of the corrosive nature of taxes and wealth redistribution.

“If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.” — Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 21 — 1787.

In Federalist No. 21 Alexander Hamilton had this to say about a tax on consumption as opposed to a person’s wealth:

“It is a singular advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end purposed - that is, an extension of the revenue.

In Federalist No. 12 Hamilton said:

“It is evident from the state of the country, from the habits of the people, from the experience we have had on the point itself, that it is impracticable to raise any very considerable sums by direct taxation.”

And finally Hamilton stated in Federalist No. 35 about complicated and burdensome tax laws:

“There is no part of the administration of government that requires extensive information and a thorough knowledge of the principles of political economy, so much as the business of taxation. The man who understands those principles best will be least likely to resort to oppressive expedients, or sacrifice any particular class of citizens to the procurement of revenue. It might be demonstrated that the most productive system of finance will always be the least burdensome.”

In Thomas Jefferson’s 1816 letter to Joseph Milligan he stated this about wealth redistribution through taxation:

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”

In Thomas Jefferson’s 1816 letter to Joseph Milligan he stated:

“For example. If the system be established on basis of Income, and his just proportion on that scale has been already drawn from every one, to step into the field of Consumption, and tax special articles in that, as broadcloth or homespun, wine or whiskey, a coach or a wagon, is doubly taxing the same article. For that portion of Income with which these articles are purchased, having already paid its tax as Income, to pay another tax on the thing it purchased, is paying twice for the same thing; it is an aggrievance on the citizens who use these articles in exoneration of those who do not, contrary to the most sacred of the duties of a government, to do equal and impartial justice to all its citizens.”

In Federalist No. 10 James Madison stated:

“The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling which they overburden the inferior number is a shilling saved to their own pockets.”

I could go on and on with more examples of what our Founders thought of individual rights, property and taxation. When the new Constitution was written our Founders, especially Madison, knew that a government needed the power to raise taxes to pay for the things government should do. This power to tax was spelled out in Article I, Section 8.1 where it states:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”

But so important was how Congress could spend those taxes our Founders immediately added 7 enumerated powers limiting what the federal government could spend that money on:

• To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

• To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

• To establish post offices and post roads;

• To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

• To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

• To provide and maintain a navy;

• To provide for 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, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

All the other enumerated powers stated in Article I, Section 8 have to do with governance, not spending, although one could make a case that governance would not be possible without money.

It was not until the 16^th Amendment, ratified 45 states in 1913 that a progressive income tax was adopted throughout the land:

“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.”

It should be noted that Connecticut, Rhode Island and Utah did not ratify this amendment.

The 16 Amendment flew in the face of what our founders believed and opened the door for the progressives—especially Woodrow Wilson who was a staunch advocate of the progressive income tax—to make much mischief by redistribution the wealth from the wealthier to the poorer. It also gave Congress a unending pot of money to tap for any program the progressives could think of. This includes welfare, food stamps, farm subsidies, investments in energy projects, education, school lunches, and providing free birth control to women.

In the coming three weeks you will hear two basic messages emanating from the conventions being held by the two political parties. The Republicans, in Tampa, will talk about reducing the size of the federal government, lowering taxes and regulations, and allowing the private sector to create jobs and grow the economy. They will also talk about entrepreneurship, personal responsibility, keeping more of what you earn, reducing the deficit, paying down the national debt, energy independence, the free market, securing our borders, saving Social Security and Medicare, and the American Dream

In Charlotte the Democrats will talk about taxing the rich, redistribution of wealth, using the power of the government to restrict you freedom, more environmental regulations, spending more money on hand outs to those who would vote for them, reproductive rights (killing babies), free condoms and contraceptives, ObamaCare, fairness, rights for illegal immigrants, how government was (is) responsible for your success, and the American Dream.

You can see the marked difference between the two parties. In 50 years when (if we can) look back on the 2012 presidential election historians will be amazed at what the progressives were offering the American Electorate — free contraception and taxing the rich. What would Madison Jefferson, Hamilton, Washington and Adams have to say about the Democratic Party platform and Obama?

Professors Ken Bickers and Michael Berry, of the University of Colorado, have a system for predicting the Electoral College outcomes of presidential races. Their model has accurately forecast the winner of every presidential race since 1980. According to an article published by UC-Boulder, they even got the Perot-flavored election of 1992, and the Bush-Gore photo finish in 2000, right.

This year, the Bickers-Berry model shows Mitt Romney winning with 320 electoral votes to Obama’s 218, with a 20-vote margin of error. A popular vote margin of 53-47 percent in Romney’s favor is predicted.

The Bickers-Berry model draws upon a wide range of state and national economic data, rather than collating public opinion polls. It anticipates little lasting effect from factors such as the location of the party conventions, the vice-president’s home state, the party affiliation of state governors, or – according to Bickers — “gaffes, political commercials, or day-to-day campaign tactics.” He finds the focus of voters upon big issues “heartening for our democracy.”

The Associated Press notes that “the model does not account for sudden changes in the economy or unexpected developments in states split 50-50.” There appear to be quite a few states fitting that definition at the moment. The Bickers-Berry model has Obama losing almost every swing state, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Florida.

Interestingly, the model predicts different partisan effects for two key economic factors: “Voters hold Democrats more responsible for unemployment rates while Republicans are held more responsible for per capita income.” That’s obviously not good news for President Obama, who has made double-digit unemployment a permanent feature of the American landscape.

The forecast that has Romney winning with 320 electoral votes is based on five-month-old economic data, with an update planned for September. There are reports today that jobless claims are starting to rise again. Maybe Romney will do even better, when even more dismal Obama economic data is plugged into the Bickers-Berry model.

On the other hand, the professors note that it’s hard to predict if the public will judge the economy in “absolute” or “relative” terms — in other words, will they consider the totality of the Obama record, or will they accept a possible uptick in a few key indicators during October as encouraging signs that the President is turning it around?

This is the first time I have heard of the Bickers-Berry model and It gives me hope. I have seen, however, a marginal uptick in the polls for Romney/Ryan. When reading these national polls you must remember that states like California, New York, and Massachusetts will weigh the national polls heavily toward Obama while States like Texas, Utah, Nebraska, and Oklahoma will weigh in for Romney. Just remember — it’s the Electoral College that matters.

Once the conventions are over and the real hard-nose campaigning begins the people who are on the fence (and there aren’t that many) will begin to make up their minds. The debate is on over the vision the American Voter wants for this Republic — the vision of our Founders or he vision of the progressives.

Just One More Example of MSM Bias

“During the course of administration, and in order to disturb it, the artillery of the press has been leveled against us, charged with whatsoever its licentiousness could devise or dare. These abuses of an institution so important to freedom and science are deeply to be regretted, inasmuch as they tend to lessen its usefulness and to sap its safety.” — Thomas Jefferson, Second Inaugural Address — 1805.

Nothing much has changed since 1805 when Jefferson made the remark quoted above. Rather than speak truth to power — one of the tenants of a free and unbridled press — we have a press that speaks power to truth. Most of our mainstream media and their blog partners are so loaded with “journalists” educated and steeped in progressive/socialist philosophy they truly believe that their job is to slant and twist the news to favor their progressive agenda and suppress news that might put their agenda at some risk. In essence they are dishonest whores of the progressive left.

The latest example is the reporting of the shooting at the Family Research Center in Washington, D.C. this week. On Wednesday morning A gunman entered the building housing the FRC, took issue with the work FRC does (no motive is known other than the gunman uttering a complaint about what FRC does), and began to shoot. A security guard was shot in the arm, but managed to get the shooter down. During his attack, the gunman stated the shooting was about "what this place stands for." The FRC strongly promotes traditional marriage and pro-life issues.

Shortly before 11 a.m. on Wednesday, 28-year-old Floyd Corkins, a supporter of the LBGT agenda opened fire on a security guard at the conservative Family Research Center, located in downtown Washington, D.C. Local news stations, including NBC's Washington station, devoted resources to cover the developing story, as did CNN and Fox News, which regularly updated viewers with progress in the investigation. But MSNBC devoted a scant 17 seconds to the story, in a news brief at 2:51 p.m. by News Nation substitute anchor Jose Diaz-Balart, and ignored noting that it may well be classified as an incident of domestic terrorism.

As the day went on, the shooter was identified as Floyd Lee Corkins II. ABC reported:

“Leonardo "Leo" Johnson, 46, was shot in the left arm Wednesday afternoon at the Family Research Council offices near Chinatown. The Family Research Council is a conservative lobbying organization whose president supports, among other issues, Chick-fil-A’s public stand against same-sex marriage.

"I am not real comfortable with the hero thing, I mean, I was doing my job,” Johnson says.

The alleged shooter, Floyd Corkins, reportedly said he opposed the organization's politics and had 15 Chick-fil-A sandwiches in his bag, federal authorities said Thursday.

Clad in a white jumpsuit and showing little emotion, Corkins, 28, was charged in federal court with assault with intent to kill and bringing firearms across the state. He told a judge that he only had $300 to his name and was assigned a public defender.

Corkins is currently being held without bond and faces a detention hearing next Friday. A mental evaluation is also being ordered.

“Sources say Corkins walked into the Family Research Council and said “It’s not about you, it’s about the policy,” and then shot the guard.

……

Corkins had been volunteering for about the past six months at The DC Center for the LGBT Community, said David Mariner, executive director of the community center, which is in Northwest Washington. He usually staffed the center’s front desk on Saturdays, and his most recent shift was about two weeks ago.”

I waited for the mainstream media to connect Corkins to the homosexual activist community — but this did not happen.

After all, to this day liberals link Scott Roeder, who killed late-term abortionist George Tiller in 2009, to Operation Rescue because authorities found a Post-It note with Operation Rescue’s phone number in Roeder’s car.

And Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards labeled Tiller’s murder as only one of “violent attacks by anti-choice extremists,” quoting from CNN.

And within hours of the Aurora, Colorado, theater shooting last month, ABC falsely linked the killer to the Tea Party.

So if Corkins actually worked at a homosexual organization, and it was during the time when that organization was actively promoting the defamation of Chick-Fil-A, and if on Facebook Corkins listed only two friends, one being David Mariner, executive director of The DC Center (who Mariner quickly defriended), well wow, surely MSM would promote Corkins as a poster child for homosexual violence, right?

And wouldn’t MSM then investigate for deeper connections? Were Corkins and his only male Facebook friend Mariner lovers? Why did Corkins stop working at The DC Center? Did officials at The DC Center notice abnormal behavior, or did Corkins threaten violence against FRC and/or conservatives The DC Center didn’t report to authorities?

No, of course not. Negative profiling by liberals and the media only goes one way.

And will Obama’s FBI charge Corkins with domestic terrorism, or with committing a federal hate crime?

And will Obama and liberals now call on their own, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center, which currently lists FRC as a “hate group,” to temper their inflammatory language against conservative groups?

It is not a political statement, but a fact that for years the left inside and outside the media has ridiculed the family values the Family Research Council defends. It is not a political statement, but a fact that had this been at an abortion clinic or the Human Rights Campaign’s headquarters instead of the Family Research Council’s headquarters, we’d be in for a week of handwringing in the media about homophobia and right wing nuts. But because the Family Research Council promotes the values shared by a majority of Americans, but only a minority of the left in and outside the media, this story will move off the radar very quickly.

Instead, the Human Rights Campaign, which aggressively supports gay rights, will go on calling the Family Research Council a hate group, which it did the day before the shooting, the media will give the shooting a passing reference, and it will all be forgotten until Brian Ross and ABC News can figure out a way to pin it on the tea party. It took only 20 hours for CNN to uphold the 'Hate Group' Label for FRC.

Imagine a volunteer for the Family Research Council marching into some gay group’s headquarters with a gun, and after shouting his opposition to the homosexual agenda, opened fire and wounded a guard before being subdued. Never mind evening news. This would be Breaking News! And for days there would be seemingly endless coverage of continued conservative hatred.

These networks are aiding and abetting liberal violence by refusing to identify it as liberal violence. Whether it’s vandalism at Chick-fil-A or rapes in Occupy Wall Street camps, these networks simply cannot find “news” in liberal violence of any kind.

One can easily imagine how the national media elite justify their decision to spike the story. No one was killed, or in danger of dying. There are dozens of shootings a day in the DC area; this is just one more. We have more important things to cover. According the Media Research Center both CBS and NBC spent more than two minutes promoting Team Obama’s “Dream Act” amnesty for students. NBC devoted two minutes and 45 seconds to a Chelsea Clinton story on orphaned baby elephants in Africa.

These same media outlets pounce on allegations of conservative hatred, even when there isn’t a scintilla of evidence. The Oklahoma City bombing was caused by hatred from right-wing talk radio. The Aurora killer was a member of the Tea Party. So too was the man who shot Gabby Giffords. On and on it goes, and over and over, it turns out not to be true.

ABC led “World News” with the story on the FRC shooting and saluted the heroic security guard for saving the FRC from a mass shooting in their offices. They were the exception.

Once again the MRC reported:

“Our taxpayer-funded media were silent. The “PBS NewsHour” offered nothing. It did have time to announce “About four million Bumbo baby seats are being recalled because infants can fall out of them.” NPR offered no story on “All Things Considered” on Wednesday night, but did find time to report on cheating at a national Scrabble tournament. NPR also skipped it on Thursday’s “Morning Edition,” but covered the riveting story of “inter-tribal cattle violence” in South Sudan.

MSNBC’s prime-time lineup, starting with Chris Matthews, said nothing about the shooting at FRC – except for Rachel Maddow, who offered a slightly longer brief than Brian Williams. This is the same network that went over the top and around the bend that someone at a Tea Party rally was carrying a weapon at a rally. So why can’t they produce one full story on an actual shooting at a conservative office?

On Thursday morning, the network pattern continued: ABC offered another full story (adding the LGBT volunteer connection). By contrast, NBC offered a tiny anchor-read update. CBS aired nothing, but did find the time for a story on the 40th anniversary of the movie “Deliverance.” Burt Reynolds in make-believe is somehow more newsworthy than a left-winger aiming to massacre up an office of conservative Christians.

CNN was the most offensive of all. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage was interviewed on Thursday morning’s “Early Start,” and protested how the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate group” designation for several Christian conservative groups – including FRC – is obviously now causing real harm.

In reply, with zero sense of post-shooting decency, CNN anchor Zoraida Sambolin suggested the FRC absolutely deserved the SPLC’s “hate group” label, reading from a 1999 FRC pamphlet on the National Man-Boy Love Association and gay activists. She berated Brown: “It is spewing hate, isn't it? So it’s hate spewing hate.”

Within 24 hours of a gay-left activist shooting at the FRC, the world-class jerks at CNN are still demeaning FRC and social conservatives as “hate groups” that should be drummed out of the public conversation.”

Then we have Chris Matthews, the star anchor of MSNBC and probably the best example of left-wing bias in the media. It was Matthews, who previously linked Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman to the attempted killing of Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, completely ignoring the shooting of the security guard at the conservative Family Research Council.

By Matthews' own past statements, wouldn't an examination of the possible root causes of the FRC shooting be warranted?

On January 10, 2011, Matthews said of the Giffords attack: "Sarah Palin using gun play language. What is she talking about crosshairs and reloading and Bachmann out there with her kind of talk." He hinted, "Why are guns talked about so much, especially on the right? Why?"

On June 10, 2009, Joan Walsh, one of Matthews' favorite guests, linked Rush Limbaugh to the Holocaust Museum shooting. She bloviated:

“There is a very disturbing and disturbed element of political discourse. And I would, I would throw in Rush Limbaugh. Not blaming him, but when you say that our President is more dangerous than al-Qaeda you've gone off into crazy nut job land. You are off the charts crazy. And you are, you are whipping people up.”

On Wednesday, Fox News reported of the FRC attack:

“The suspect "made statements regarding their policies, and then opened fire with a gun striking a security guard," a source told Fox News. WJLA-TV7 reported the suspect was also shot. Sources also said the gunman may have been carrying a bag from Chick-fil-A, the embattled fast-food restaurant whose president came under fire from gay activists after he said he did not agree with same-sex marriage.

Sources told Fox New that after guard took away his gun, the suspect said, "Don't shoot me, it was not about you, it was what this place stands for."

It's sadly not surprising that Matthews, who often likes to jump to conclusions and link conservatives to acts of violence, had no interest in covering an attempted slaughter at a conservative organization.

On the other hand in an example of suppressing news unfavorable to their agenda the MSM pretty much ignored the fizzle of the Chick-fil-A “Kiss-in.” The broadcast networks promoted gay activists’ protest of the fast food company Chick-fil-A, but when that protest fizzled, they did little to cover the failure.

According to a report by the Media Research Center ABC’s Steve Osunsami hyped the protests ahead of time, saying “nearly 100,000 friends and family have been invited online.” After the apparent lack of turnout at the kiss-in, however, the networks stopped reporting on the protest. Only ABC briefly mentioned the results of the kiss-in, after all three networks talked about the protests on the morning of August 3^rd.

“Gay activists scheduled their National Same Sex Kiss-in Day that day as a protest against the pro-traditional marriage views of the firm’s founder and Chick-fil-A’s contributions to pro-family groups.

The only attention ABC gave to the kiss-in was a brief on the Aug. 4 edition of “Good Morning America.” Ron Claiborne reported: “And hundreds of people across the country turned out for the latest round in the culture war sparked by the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain. Gay rights advocates staged a kiss-in on Friday, snapping photos of themselves kissing in front of the restaurant. This came a couple of days after people packed the fast-food chain showing support for the company's president's anti-gay marriage stance.”

After talking up the protests, the other two networks completely ignored the sparse attendance. CBS reported on Aug. 3: “At Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country, today gay rights supporters are calling for a national same-sex kiss day,” but skipped reporting the Chick-fil-A kiss-in altogether in its evening coverage and over the weekend.

Gay activists scheduled their National Same Sex Kiss-in Day that day as a protest against the pro-traditional marriage views of the firm’s founder and Chick-fil-A’s contributions to pro-family groups.

The only attention ABC gave to the kiss-in was a brief on the Aug. 4 edition of “Good Morning America.” Ron Claiborne reported: “And hundreds of people across the country turned out for the latest round in the culture war sparked by the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain. Gay rights advocates staged a kiss-in on Friday, snapping photos of themselves kissing in front of the restaurant. This came a couple of days after people packed the fast-food chain showing support for the company's president's anti-gay marriage stance.”

After talking up the protests, the other two networks completely ignored the sparse attendance. CBS reported on Aug. 3: “At Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country, today gay rights supporters are calling for a national same-sex kiss day,” but skipped reporting the Chick-fil-A kiss-in altogether in its evening coverage and over the weekend.”

I understand that bias that will occur in the press and media. This is natural and I have my own biases, biases on the right. But these prejudices should be confined to the opinion pages and blogs, not the front page of the papers or media that claims to be news. As an example The Fox News Channel, which proclaims “fair and balanced” has its news show and opinion shows. Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, and John Stossel have opinion shows. Bret Baier, Shepard Smith, Peter Doocy, and Bill Hemmer are hard news reporters and will bring on advocates for both sides of an issue. This is what they are the leading TV news service in the nation.

There are two ways to project your bias in the media. The first is by having anchors, reporters, and opinion writers obviously in the tank for the agenda they espouse. The other is by having editors and producers select the stories they want to report on and then use certain code words to slant the news. As an example how many times have you heard the “far right extremist” in and news story as compared with the term “far-left extremist?” The answer is rarely, if never.

For eight years our MSM ran negative stories about George W. Bush. That’s because they hated him. On the other hand negative stories are few and far between about Barack Obama and his policies. That’s because they love him.

The job of the fourth estate is to report the truth to power — all power. Not to pick and choose stories that will best fit their agenda. This is the way they dictate the dialog. How can the voters obtain truthful and accurate information so they can make informed decisions when going to the polls?

I am not in favor of any form of censorship as recently demonstrated in Russia with the jailing of young dissenters, who protested the policies and regime of Vladimir Putin. Let the MSM and blogosphere have their opinion pages and writers. But let us have a MSM that will report fairly and accurately on breaking news stories and government policies and officials without using code words and editing out stories that do not match the agenda of the opinion page.

Ron Paul’s Intransigence

“If we move in mass, be it ever so circuitously, we shall attain our object; but if we break into squads, everyone pursuing the path he thinks most direct, we become an easy conquest to those who can now barely hold us in check.” — Thomas Jefferson letter to William Duane — 1811

As of this writing Ron Paul has yet to endorse the presumptive GOP ticket and more specifically the selection of Paul Ryan as the VP candidate. On the other hand is son, Rand Paul the Senator from Kentucky has given his endorsement to the Romney/Ryan ticket.

US News reports that Ron Paul is still mum as his son endorses Paul Ryan:

“The plot thickens for supporters of presidential candidate Ron Paul.

His son, Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul, has endorsed Wisconsin Republican Congressman Paul Ryan as the vice presidential nominee, while Ron Paul has stayed mum not only about Ryan, but about endorsing presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney.

Rand Paul, a favorite of the conservative Tea Party, issued a statement saying that Ryan's controversial budget plan, which has become a big issue in the presidential race, is a serious attempt to control federal spending and lower the deficit, two areas where Rand Paul says President Barack Obama has fallen woefully short.

The pick of Paul Ryan solidifies the Republican ticket's commitment to taking on the pressing issues like the deficit, entitlement reform and tax reform," Rand Paul told Business Insider. "Congressman Ryan's values and commitment to fixing our fiscal mess stands in stark contrast to Vice President Biden—and presents a clear choice to the American people."

The endorsement represents an effort by Senator Paul to present a united front behind the Romney-Ryan ticket, even though Paul has criticized the budget plan that the Wisconsin Rep. promoted as chairman of the House Budget Committee. Paul said it didn't go far enough in cutting the deficit or reducing defense spending.

Rand Paul earlier endorsed Romney, the former Massachusetts governor. The senator will be a featured speaker at the Republican National Convention in Tampa later this month.

But his father, Ron, a congressman from Texas with libertarian views, is still in the presidential race. He has acknowledged that he can't win the GOP nomination, but he has not endorsed Romney and is still trying to have an impact on the party platform. His supporters also want him to speak at the convention, but his influence appears to be fading. He is, for example, having difficulty persuading the Republican National Committee to seat the delegates his supporters say they won at state level conventions.”

This does not surprise me one bit. While agreeing with many of the senior Paul’s libertarian principles I find him to be both intransigent and a hypocrite. Ron Paul and his supporters remind me of the Middle-Age inquisitors who would burn people at the state for heresy. Heresy to Paul and his most fervent supporters believe any opinion that differs from theirs, no matter how slight, is heresy and the person holding that opinion should be shunned or punished. What they really want to be is the only dog on the porch and they are willing to let the country go down the drain by either sitting home on Election Day or voting for Gary Johnson, a Libertarian who has as much chance as a snowball in hell of winning even one state. What they will do, however, is draw votes away from the Romney/Ryan ticket and in a close race this could give Obama four more years. Then what will they do — continue to complain and harp on their principles while the county goes down the drain?

I call Ron Paul a hypocrite because of how he deals with earmarks. He constantly harps on the evils of earmarks but manages to get them for his district inserted into a bill that he then votes against knowing the bill will pass without his vote and then he can say that he voted against them. This is hypocrisy.

Our Founders held many of the beliefs that Ron Paul and his supporters espouse. They also knew that in a Republic there would be many beliefs or factions and that no one faction should rule. This would be tyranny. Paul and his supporters are purists. They believe it’s their way or the highway. If you differ one iota from their platform you are not worthy of their support. You can support 90% of what they espouse, but that’s not good enough. They are great at espousing policy but they do not know how to govern. To govern a county, state or nation you must be able to bring coalitions together.

We have been governed by progressive and socialist policies for almost 100 years and the Ron Paul and his Paulites believe they can change our government and laws overnight. Hey believe that by electing Ron Paul he will wave a magic wand and we will return to 1787. This is not going to happen. Even in 1787 there were conflicting beliefs on how this nation should be governed and it took a Constitution Convention to hammer out a Constitution that would be a workable means of governance.

Suppose Paul was elected and once in office he appointed all of cadre or true believers to cabinet and government posts. He would still have a Congress and hostile media to deal with. He would also have states run by progressives to deal with. Could he eliminate the Department of Education and Health and Human Services by waving his libertarian wand? Could he close all oversees military bases without the approval of Congress. Could he eliminate Social Security and Medicare without having a suitable replacement? I think not.

It is going to take more than one election to move this republic back what it was intended to be. Harping, criticizing, and threatening to take you ball and go home will not accomplish anything. Right now we have a GOP nominee with Tea Party support that if elected will begin the process of tearing down what the progressive and socialist have built. If you are looking for angels to transform what the progressives have done you won’t find any. As the Chinese philosopher Confucius said; “the longest journey begins with the first step” and the first step is to defeat Barack Hussein Obama.++

Can Paul Ryan Clean Up the Chicago Mob?

“Liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood.” — John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law — 1765

One of my favorite shows in the days of black and white television was the Untouchables (latter made into a movie in 1987). The Untouchables were a group of 13 U.S. federal law-enforcement agents, led by Eliot Ness, who, from 1929 to 1931, worked to end Al Capone's illegal activities by aggressively enforcing Prohibition and tax laws against Capone and his organization. In their conduct, they became legendary for being fearless and incorruptible, earning the nickname "Untouchables."

The Untouchables were led by treasury agent Elliot Ness who was an ethical, honest, and fearless law enforcement officer who was charged with cleaning up the mob activities and violence in Chicago lead by the notorious gangster Al Capone. Ness and his agents would go after the illegal stores of alcoholic spirits with tommy guns and axes. They would break up barrels of the illegal beverages, raid speakeasies, and arrest bootleggers. Final they were able to get Al Capone on tax evasion.

Since that time Chicago has been known as a city controlled by a political mob with the latest example of this being Barack Obama who was discovered and rocketed to national notoriety by the Chicago Democratic Party machine, a machine that has a long history of corruption and illegal activities.

Why do I bring this up? Because I can't help but see the ghost of Eliot Ness when I look at Paul Ryan. The paradigm is the same. Of course, this time evil is cloaked in a rogue presidency, and they are making the laws, but the battle is the same: right and wrong, good and evil, etc. And Ryan, like Ness, is righteous and uncompromised.

Eliot Ness took on mob boss Al Capone and his army during the Prohibition Era. He assembled a special force of agents who were known for their incorruptibility — "the untouchables." Like Ness, Ryan came from humble beginnings. And he believes firmly in individual rights.

According to the Republican National Convention Blog, "Paul Ryan developed his political philosophy reading the works of free market authors including Milton Friedman, F. A. Hayek, and Ayn Rand. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” Ryan said at a D.C. gathering four years ago honoring the author of 'Atlas Shrugged' and 'The Fountainhead.'"

When he was announced as Romney's choice for vice president, Ryan's words were a direct rebuke to Obama's socialist rhetoric of class warfare:

"We look at one another's success with pride, not resentment, because we know that as more Americans work hard, take risks, succeed, more people will prosper, more communities will benefit. And individual lives will be improved. ... America, America is just more than a place, though. America is an idea. It's the only country founded on an idea. Our rights come from nature and God, not from government. That's right. That's who we are, that's how we built this country. That's who we are. That's what made us great. That's what made us great. We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes."

Ryan has, according to the Washington Times, "a very conservative voting record during his seven terms in Congress, including repeated votes against spending bills, unemployment-benefit extensions and most of President Obama's agenda."

The Times noted his stellar record on reining in out-of-control government spending — a record that betters those of most of his fellow Republicans: "His chief breaks with most Republicans usually came on spending bills, where he regularly voted against his party leadership when they controlled the chamber before 2007. In 1999, he voted against expanding the Peace Corps, and voted against expanding debt relief to impoverished nations."

I believe that Paul Ryan, an intellectual leader, and his ilk are the antidote to what ails this suffering nation. Barack Hussein Obama and his band of moochers, looters, and destroyers are no match for the likes of him. I underestimated Romney, and I am glad to say it. Paul Ryan was an inspired choice. What a clear and clean message. Despite the media's war on American exceptionalism, capitalism, individual rights, business and businessmen, the producers, the family, and conservatism, Romney did not blink. He picked an uncompromised conservative (and in doing so gave the media the middle finger). Romney chose well.

Dennis Prager states in a recent column in the Patriot Post questioning will a weakened American character defeat Paul Ryan:

“The Republican vice-presidential candidate, Congressman Paul Ryan, is the Democrats' political version of the Anti-Christ. He believes in self-reliance; the left believes in reliance on the state. His moral values are shaped by religion (Catholicism); the left is frightened by religious Christian politicians (and athletes, and members of the armed forces, and talk show hosts, and, for that matter, clergy). He believes in individualism; the left believes in collectivism. He believes in small government and powerful citizens; the left believes in large government and dependent citizens.

Nevertheless, the Democratic Party claims to be overjoyed at his selection as the Republican vice-presidential nominee.

The Democrats' glee -- even if exaggerated -- emanates from their belief that Americans will reject Ryan's economic and social plans to reduce the American debt, unleash private economic growth (the only type there is), and reform unsustainable government programs such as Medicare.

Democrats believe that if Americans perceive that their entitlements may be affected -- even if only beginning a decade from now, and even if the American debt is thereby cut by one third, and even if they, as well as the country, will ultimately benefit -- so many Americans have become so used to government benefits, the Republicans stand little chance of winning the upcoming elections.

In other words, and tragically, the left and Democrats are relying on the decline of the American character that left-wing policies have produced (not only here but in Latin America, Europe, and everywhere else). The Democrats are hoping that older Americans are (irrationally) frightened by Medicare reform even though these reforms will not affect them, and that younger Americans will likewise reject these reforms because they are counting on receiving Medicare as it now exists.

Left-wing social policies are predicated on giving more and more Americans more and more benefits and demanding less and less from them.

The left's party, the Democratic Party, seeks to have the state pay for Americans' health care, give record numbers of Americans food stamps (now in a form similar to ATM and credit cards so that no stigma be involved), provide their children with school meals and provide women with child care and contraceptives, while enabling more and more Americans to pay no federal taxes to pay for any of these benefits.”

Prager concludes:

“Since the Democrats could not win any national election with the votes of liberals alone -- according to Gallup, self-described liberals constitute just 21 percent of the electorate -- the great question of the 2012 American presidential election is this: Have the left and Democratic Party sufficiently weakened the character of enough Americans to enable the demonization of Paul Ryan to lead Barack Obama to victory?”

To the true believers on the left, re-electing Barack Obama is not a matter of what is or is not good for the country; rather, for the majority on the left, the primary motivation is geared solely toward defeating their sworn enemy: conservatives and Republicans, whom many falsely believe are a right-wing horde determined to create a theocracy and impose old-fashioned morality. But what they fear most from the right is a determination to reinstitute unfettered individual freedom and concomitant economic growth, which would relegate the American left to the back bench of American society.

Thus, to them, what the policies of Barack Obama and his radical minions are doing to the long-term fate of nation is immaterial as long as Obama regurgitates his support for the various causes that are near and dear to the coalition that makes up the left. There are two common threads to the belief system of American progressives: 1) an omnipotent central government controlled by them, and 2) an assumption that there is a bottomless pit of money to be siphoned from an equally bottomless pit of wealth. But this is not the same nation that experienced unprecedented prosperity from 1946 to 2007. It is not the same nation in which these narcissists on the left grew up, never knowing national adversity or trauma.

The manner in which these progressives, and their titular leader Barack Obama, are conducting themselves in the current campaign season is indicative of their arrogant and immature mindset. To the vast majority on the left, this campaign is merely a game played out on the playground of American politics, wherein they childishly engage in name-calling and temper tantrums reminiscent of spoiled brats determined to get their way, regardless of the consequences.

Thomas Sowell writes about the choice of Paul Ryan:

“This election is a test, not just of the opposing candidates but of the voting public. If what they want are the hard facts about where the country is, and where it is heading, they cannot vote for more of the same for the next four years.

But, if what they want is emotionally satisfying rhetoric and a promise to give them something for nothing, to be paid for by taxing somebody else, then Obama is their man. This is not to say that the public will in fact get something for nothing or that rich people will just pay higher taxes, when it is easy for them to escape taxation by investing overseas -- creating jobs overseas.

Even if most Americans do not have their own taxes raised, that means little, if they end up paying other people's taxes in the higher prices of goods and services that pass along the higher taxes imposed on businesses.

There are no doubt voters who will vote on the basis of believing that Obama "cares" more about them. But that is a faith which passeth all understanding. The political mirage of something for nothing, from leaders who "care," has ruined many a nation.”

It is time to grow up and understand that the America that could absorb all the excessive spending, promises, and left-wing fun and games is no more. This nation cannot survive on its present course, and if that course is not dramatically reversed, those on the left will suffer as much as if not more than the bulk of the American people they are trying to rule. History has shown repeatedly that when an overwhelming political and social catastrophe strikes a nation, the people turn against the ruling class, often with a vengeance. In the United States, that ruling class is presently dominated by the American left.

With the selection of Paul Ryan as Romney's vice presidential candidate, the choice could not be more clearly defined.

Pro-America vs. anti-America

Individualism vs. Statism

Capitalism vs. socialism

This campaign should be not called "restore America." It should be "Free America."

Do You Have A Right To Your Neighbor’s Labor

“I have no doubt but that the misery of the lower classes will be found to abate whenever the Government assumes a freer aspect and the laws favor a subdivision of Property.” — James Madison

My brother oft times tells me that it takes only a few minutes in any conversation for me to bring up a reference to James Madison — considered by most historians to be the father of our Constitution. I plead guilty to that charge. If Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, is consider the icon of the American Mind then James Madison must be considered the icon of the American Regime.

It was Madison, who along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, authored 85 essays on government and the rights of citizens collectively known as the Federalist Papers. These essays were published under the collective pseudonym of "Publius", in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola, and were intended to advance the argument for a federalist form of a republic as our regime for the government of the newly independent 13 colonies and a replacement of their Articles of Confederation.

One of the more important of these essays was Federalist Paper No. 10, authored by James Madison and published Friday, November 22, 1787. This essay is the most famous of the Federalist Papers, along with Federalist No. 51, also by Madison, and is among the most highly regarded of all American political writings.

Federalist No. 10 addresses the question of how to guard against "factions", or groups of citizens, with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. Madison argued that a strong, large republic would be a better guard against those dangers than smaller republics—for instance, the individual states. Opponents of the Constitution offered counterarguments to his position, which were substantially derived from the commentary of Montesquieu on this subject. Federalist No. 10 continues a theme begun in Federalist No. 9; it is titled, "The Same Subject Continued: The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection". The whole series is cited by scholars and jurists as an authoritative interpretation and explication of the meaning of the Constitution. Jurists have frequently read No. 10 to mean that the Founding Fathers did not intend the United States government to be partisan.

In Federalist No. 10 Madison not only wrote about Factions he also commented of the role of government in protecting the property rights of citizens. In our Declaration of Independence when Jefferson referred to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness he was using “happiness” in the context of John Locke as meaning the right to your property. In Madison’s view property meant your money, your land, your labor, and you opinions.

Central to the tenth paper in the Federalist series is faction. The argument Madison makes is that faction and liberty are inseparable. Instead of focusing on trying to eliminate the causes for faction, the choice that government can control the effects of faction. Madison makes the argument that the means to control the causes of faction is to stamp on dissenting opinions, and remove liberty. In other words oppress until all the society is of the same opinion. This is totalitarianism. Madison dismisses this as being against the nature of man:

“As long as the reason of man continues to be fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.”

Faction is a normal part of liberty, and wrapped in the fallibility of humankind. John Stuart Mills makes similar arguments as to why freedom of expression should never be curtailed. An individual can never be sure that they are not suppressing a truthful opinion as humanity's reasoning abilities are not perfect. Madison uses a similar argument to Mills as to why liberty cannot be abolished in a functioning government:

“Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

From this Madison concludes that liberty and faction are essential in any healthy government system. What isn't healthy is the violence of faction. Madison argues that controlling the effects of violent faction can be achieved through the Republican model of government.

Any individual needs to be concerned about government using the apparatus of the nation-state for the purposes of coercion. Madison was also concerned with this issue. He saw the violence of faction being when a group of individuals created a faction with a common interest that was adverse to individual rights, the rights of minorities and against the common good. Madison's view of common good is similar to the Aristotlean notion of virtue being necessary in the ruling elite.

Madison also shares Aristotle's disdain for the workability of a democracy. Aristotle wrote that a democracy fails as the individual is too distracted with the day to day trivialities like working and eating to have an understanding of the public good. Aristotle believes that only an idle class have the time and hence virtue to devote themselves to the public good and the glory of the nation-state.

Madison writes that humankind naturally falls into animosity and this clouds the ability of individuals in a democracy to be aware of the common good and articulate legislation for that purpose:

So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities that where no substantial occasion presents itself the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their infriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts.”

Another flaw that Madison identifies in a democracy is that it allows individuals to be their own judge in their own interests. This assumes that an individuals self-interest will blind an individual to the public or common good. A notion that individuals are not capable of public good without the coercion of the nation-state. Madison writes;

“No man is allowed to be a judge in his own case, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time.”

Madison in Federalist Paper No.10 writes that property and its unequal distribution is the most constant source of faction. He is undoubtedly correct, that the new federal government kept in place the practice of allowing one human to own another is testament to this.

Madison argues from the opposing points of view of creditors and debtors. Legislators are subject to the advocacy of their constituents, and if this advocacy is biased by a faction, then there is no justice in the legislation, as the larger party or faction will drown out the smaller factions. With the recent changes in the U.S. system of advocacy being dominated by lobbyists, attorneys, and money, the public good has been ignored by legislators in areas such as spending of the taxpayers’ money. Legislators have created new forms of property and property crimes in an ever expanding definition of what can be owned or controlled by governments and corporate interests. This is the classical definition of Fascism.

Madison states in 1792 Essay on Property:

“This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.

In the latter sense, a man has a property in his opinions and the free communication of them.

He has a property of peculiar value in his religious opinions, and in the profession and practice dictated by them.

He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.

In a word, as a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.”

Madison continues:

“More sparingly should this praise be allowed to a government, where a man's religious rights are violated by penalties, or fettered by tests, or taxed by a hierarchy. Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man's house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man's conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest. A magistrate issuing his warrants to a press gang, would be in his proper functions in Turkey or Indostan, under appellations proverbial of the most compleat despotism.

That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where arbitrary restrictions, exemptions, and monopolies deny to part of its citizens that free use of their faculties, and free choice of their occupations, which not only constitute their property in the general sense of the word; but are the means of acquiring property strictly so called. What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favor his neighbor who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the economical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!

A just security to property is not afforded by that government, under which unequal taxes oppress one species of property and reward another species: where arbitrary taxes invade the domestic sanctuaries of the rich, and excessive taxes grind the faces of the poor; where the keenness and competitions of want are deemed an insufficient spur to labor, and taxes are again applied, by an unfeeling policy, as another spur; in violation of that sacred property, which Heaven, in decreeing man to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow, kindly reserved to him, in the small repose that could be spared from the supply of his necessities.”

I have referenced Madison’s thoughts on factions and property to lay the groundwork for the remainder of this post. I do this in order to illustrate the vast difference in government philosophies that will, hopefully, be presented to the American electorate for the next 84 days.

In 1944 in his annual address to Congress President Franklin Roosevelt presented his vision for American by proposing a second Bill of Rights — rights that would be granted by government. In his progressive agenda he proposed an Bill of Rights based on the equality of results and not on the rights stated in the Declaration. Roosevelt proposed:

“The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

The right of every family to a decent home;

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.”

It was Roosevelt’s plan to institutionalize Progressivism in the United States — something that has come to fruition drip by bit over the past 68 years. Let’s take a look a each of these so-called government granted rights.

The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation.

By this right Roosevelt was stating that the federal government should mandate a minimum wage to be paid by business to their employees. It was Madison who stated:

“He has a property very dear to him in the safety and liberty of his person.

He has an equal property in the free use of his faculties and free choice of the objects on which to employ them.”

A minimum wage not only reduces the chances of employment for unskilled and untrained persons to entry-level positions where they can learn and develop their skills it also causes inflation of prices and in this instance could be considered a tax. The Progressives, while proposing feel-good programs, take no responsibility for the unseen consequences of their actions.

The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

Again we see the Progressives desire to dictate how much a person should earn based on the term “adequate food and clothing and recreation.” What is considered adequate? Some masterminds in Washington, D.C. will sit in an office and decide what is adequate. Should every American be able to have a 60” flat-screen TV or a new pair of $100 Nike sport shoes? Should every American get a two-week vacation to Hawaii or a 10-day cruise?

If you look at what is considered necessary and adequate by our welfare and food stamp programs you would be astonished to see what is considered adequate. If you doubt me just stand in line at the supermarket checkout counter and watch someone with an EBT card or WIC voucher check out and see what is considered adequate by the government. Of course all of this is paid for with tax dollars — dollars are taken out of the economy and your pocket. This is pure Marxism and the root cause of class warfare. In essence one class states I need or want this or that and you have an obligation to pay for it with no accountability accruing to me.

The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

On the surface this sounds good, but once again government intervention has turned the price of food and the freedom of the farmer upside-down. Farm subsidies are nothing more than coercion by the federal government telling the farmer what he can grow when he can grow it and what he can sell it for. Once again the unseen consequences of this program has driven many small, family owned farms out of business and allowed large agribusiness corporations like Archer, Daniel, Midlands to monopolize the farming in this country. Under Roosevelt’s own Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 a small Ohio farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was sued by the United States Government for growing wheat that would be used for his personal use. (See Wickard v Filburn)

The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

Once again we have the federal government intervening how people run their businesses and determining the winner and the losers. It was Madison who stated:

“What must be the spirit of legislation where a manufacturer of linen cloth is forbidden to bury his own child in a linen shroud, in order to favor his neighbor who manufactures woolen cloth; where the manufacturer and wearer of woolen cloth are again forbidden the economical use of buttons of that material, in favor of the manufacturer of buttons of other materials!”

What is considered “unfair”?” Will federal government dictate how fairness is defined. If a furniture manufacturer in North Carolina or a clothing manufacturer in New England believe he can increase his business and serve his customers better by buying furniture from China or having their clothing made in Sri Lanka is it the government role to dictate where and how he should obtain his products?

Progressives believe that the government has the responsibility to regulate all aspects of business today and have passed numerous and onerous laws and regulations, including guitars, on small businesses. Large business, who have lobbyist to support their faction are often immune from these rules.

The right of every family to a decent home.

This “right” has been one of the main causes for our current recession and the collapse of the housing market in the United States. By forcing lending institutions to make loans for mortgages to people they knew could not pay back the government not only destroyed the housing market it damaged people’s lives. Talk about Bastiat’s seen and unseen, this one takes the cake. Yet the progressive masterminds take no responsibility for their actions. They blame the banks they coerced into making these loans by using the force of the Department of Justice and their Civil Rights Division. Banks and lending institution were in fear of being brought into court by the Justice Department for violation of civil rights by discriminating who would be able to pay a loan back. Once the toxic loan was made it was sold to the federal government and the taxpayers took the hit.

This so-called right also pertains to the many public housing projects the federal government has financed where each and every one has failed and turned into a ghetto slum.

The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

The United States has had the best health care in the world. Our cancer survival is much higher than Great Britain with its National Health Care. According to FactCheck.org the U.S. has a cancer survival of 83.9% while the Brits have 69.7% and the average European survival rate is 73.1%:

“It’s certainly the case that we have higher survival rates than the United Kingdom and other countries with nationalized health care. Across the board, the United States boasts a higher five-year relative survival rate than the European average, according to a 2008 study in the British medical journal Lancet. For breast cancer, for instance, the U.S. survival rate was 83.9 percent, the U.K. rate was 69.7, and the average European rate was 73.1.”

Kathleen Doheny writes in WebMD that cancer survival rates vary by states and race:

“A racial gap in survival was evident, with white patients more likely than blacks to survive, especially breast cancer. "The comparison is confirmed right across the USA, in all 16 states," Coleman says of the racial gap.”

Could this mean that those with access only to public health care have a lower rate than those with access to private health care? It is also true that the lowest rate of cancer survival in the United States is for those patients on Medicare.

The United States has developed more advanced medical devices, drugs, and procedures than any nation in the world under a free-market health care system. The one single thing that is draining our health care resources and driving up the costs is what we are paying for the health care for illegal immigrants.

The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment.

Our system of social security is a fraud. Originally touted by the progressives as an insurance program, social security is anything but that. If you and your employer pay into the program your entire working life and die soon after retirement your estate gets nothing except a pittance for burial costs. All of the monies you and your employer paid into the program belong to government to give to some other recipient who manages to outlive you. If this was a true insurance annuity you would receive all of the funds acquired from your contributions, including interest, and not paid out. The program is a fraud and is nothing more than a tax-funded Ponzi scheme where the government takes the money and then decides what to do with. They can stop payments anytime they desire.

Unemployment insurance and welfare is also a fraud as the federal government takes from workers and doles the money out to those who do not work. In socialist Denmark they discovered that as long as unemployment insurance was available people did not aggressively look for work until the last days of the insurance. While they were paying 99 weeks if benefits they found out that the recipients would find a job in week 97 or 98. When they reduced the term of payments to 40 weeks they discovered that people would find a job in week 38 or 39.

Today we have federal unemployment for 99 weeks and an average unemployment rate of 9% (much higher in some states). Unemployment insurance programs should be left entirely in the hands of the states. The federal government has no warrant in the Constitution to pay tax dollars to the unemployed. As Madison stated:

“That is not a just government, nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

The right to a good education.

A few weeks ago I was having a conversation on education with my sister-in-law who is a school teacher. When I expressed my belief that the federal government should not spend one cent on education either in direct payments, grants or student loans she responded “what about the right to an education?” This took me back for a moment as I was a that surprised that a person with a Master’s in education would not know the Constitution.

My reply was to her was very simple. I asked her to show me where in the United States Constitution there was a warrant allowing the federal government to spend tax dollars on education, certainly not in Article I, Section 8. I explained that funding for education was an issue our Founders, while in favor of, left to the people. Otherwise to the states. Education is a state and local issue and the federal government has no business in taxing us for the purpose of sending money back to the states for education, money bound in a wrapper of corrosive requirements and regulations. This includes money for school lunches.

Most Americans pay for education though their property taxes. This money is then passed on to local school boards, run by local, elected officials beholden to the local taxpayer, not some mastermind at the Department of Education. Local control of education has and should be the keystone of public education. It is up to the states to set education standards and policies along with providing addition funding, if needed, to poorer school districts. Each state has it their state constitution as to how public education in that state shall be dealt with.

Some states may spend more per child on education than other states. That is the business of the people of that state. If they are unhappy with the way their state is dealing with public education the people can change their state’s constitution, change those in office overseeing education, or move. As I said above there is no warrant in the Federal Constitution claiming education as a right or in funding it. People in Arkansas are not responsible for funding public education, including school lunches and teacher union benefits in California or vice versa.

In 1979, President Carter advocated for creating a cabinet-level Department of Education. Carter's plan was to transfer most of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's education-related functions to the Department of Education. Carter also planned to transfer the education-related functions of the departments of Defense, Justice, Housing and Urban Development, and Agriculture, as well as a few other federal entities. Among the federal education-related programs that were not proposed to be transferred included Headstart, the Department of Agriculture's school lunch and nutrition programs, the Department of the Interior's Indian education programs, and the Department of Labor's education and training programs.

Upgrading Education to cabinet level status in 1979 was opposed by many in the Republican Party, who saw the department as unconstitutional, arguing that the Constitution doesn't mention education, and deemed it an unnecessary and illegal federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs. However many progressives and Democrats see the department as constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and that the funding role of the Department is constitutional under the Taxing and Spending Clause. The National Education Association supported the bill, while the American Federation of Teachers opposed it.

As of 1979, the Office of Education had 3,000 employees and an annual budget of $12 billion. Congress appropriated to the Department of Education an annual budget of $14.2 billion and 17,000 employees when establishing the Department of Education. Today the Department of Education has over 5,000 employees and an estimated annual budget (2011) of $71 billion dollars.

With the trillions of taxpayers’ dollars spent by the federal government on education since 1979 education has not advanced one iota, in fact it has been dumbed down with federal regulations such as No Child Left Behind, another progressive/socialist good idea with unseen consequences. Once again refereeing to -Frederic Bastiat when he stated in treatise The Law:

"These socialist writers look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases, fans, and other forms, just so does the socialist writer whimsically shape human beings into groups, series, centers, sub-centers, honeycombs, labor-corps, and other variations. And just as the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to shape his trees, just so does the socialist writer need the force that he can find only in law to shape human beings. For this purpose, he devises tariff laws, relief laws, and school laws."

This next presidential election presents a choice between two social contracts: the socialist-fascist contract of Mr. Obama and the Democrat Party, and the limited government-free enterprise-capitalist contract of Mr. Romney and the Republican Party.

(A simple description of Socialism is a philosophy that disfavors individual property rights and autonomy and places them in service to centralized governing elite; a Fascist philosophy cedes industrial control over private-sector market forces to a central government.)

To help you choose your contract, please answer the following question. A simple Yes or No will do.

Do you have and inalienable right to your neighbor's labor?

(I use the term inalienable in the same sense it was used in our Declaration of Independence: a right self-evidently granted by Nature's God and Creator. It is a permission granted to you by no other merit than your existence. It does not come from others or a government; you are born with it, and to diminish it is inherently evil and against the natural order.)

If you believe that you have this right, than it is perfectly acceptable to demand that your neighbor labor for you, and you for him. Practically extending this right, you have a right to the earnings of your neighbors' labor, such as wages and rents — and they to yours. It means that private property is a meaningless fiction. This sort of social contract — where one is not permitted private property — is either indentured servitude or slavery.

If you believe that you do not have this right, then by definition, you must receive permission to acquire your neighbor's labor or private property. You must not steal. You must exchange something of sufficient value in trade for your neighbor's labor.

If you believe that someone less well-off than another self-evidently justifies your forcing the better off to labor for the worse — because it is the right thing to do — then indeed, you obviously believe that your neighbor's labor is yours to claim. You have the same worldview as America's antebellum slave owners and indentured servant contractors. Our Constitution's 13th Amendment established that slavery is forbidden, so how is it that you now wish to philosophically bring slavery back?

Once again to quote Madison; “…nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has in his personal safety and personal liberty, is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest.”

If you believe that it is in the community's interest to provide a safety net for the less well-off in order to prevent more burdensome expenditures, such as a public education or childhood health care, then it might be best to create economic incentives that promote voluntary charitable support for less fortunate.

Consider national health care. If you believe that you have an inalienable right to another's labor, you might compel a hospital to provide emergency services (skilled medical labor and private medical supplies and lodging) to the indigent without compensation at market prices. Such an arrangement requires the hospital to subsidize the emergency room by raising the costs of other hospital services offered to patients who have the means to pay or else the hospital can operate at a loss and eventually shut its doors.

An alternative approach — one that does not claim a right to skilled medical labor or property — pursues tax incentives that make charitable contributions to hospitals compellingly reasonable. If you want to provide a benevolent safety net to those who are willing but unable to work (the only population that merits assistance), then make such benevolent assistance to them more valuable than investing money elsewhere. This might be accomplished by granting a 150% gross income tax reduction for all charitable contributions to health care facilities that serve the indigent. For every $100 one gives to an inner-city health clinic, $150 is deducted from gross taxable income. Let's legislate a social contract that makes benevolent giving economically compelling, without placing a claim on our neighbors' labor.

We concluded our most deadly Civil War (1860-1865) with the affirmation that one did not have an inalienable right to another human being's labor. How ironic it would be to elect a president of color who will return us to such plantation thinking?

On November 6^th you will have the opportunity to select the vision for America that fits your thinking. You can vote for the socialistic/fascistic compact or the vision of America espoused by our Founders — a vision of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The debate is on.