State of the Union

I was hopeful...this was an opportunity to hear something fresh and new from the President about working together and inspiring a new generation of prosperity in America. What I heard was more of the same. Are the liberals out of ideas, or are they just daring the other side to make the first move so they can cut them to ribbons? I think this speech was a calculated and political one, designed to continue to outline the agenda that Obama and his supporters are going to live or die rallying around. They can't outline it in any different terms, even by redefining terms from liberal to progressive and taxation to investment, the core is still the same. Government is the answer.
A philosophical difference of opinion with most of Americans, as evidenced by the recent elections, and very cleverly played. Obama and his staff figure that by doing nothing they risk less, and dare the opposition to try and climb the hill that they protect. They are counting on the Tea Party led Republicans to make the first move into the open, and that is likely what will happen. New budget proposals built around calls for "less spending" will surely be a hallmark of the new legislature, which will surely gut some programs, then be prepared for the defensive onslaught from the liberals..."Look at what they are taking away from hard working Americans!" will be the first line of every major address for the next few years, and it may well be effective.
Obama's opponents and the eventual Presidential candidate will have to be very careful trying to overcome this shift in policy from the Obama administration.
Republicans cannot be seen as the bad guys with no new ideas this time around, on top of market corrections that are bound to improve economic conditions in spite of government's best attempts to delay it. Obama is fighting a delaying action, and he will play it cool. His opponents would do well to not underestimate the impacts of acting hastily, they must maintain a clear understanding of the consequences that may result, or Obama will be able to frame his version of America to over half of the American public that now receives benefits instead of paying for them.
As we learn more about Obama, and actually gain some useful insights into this very private individual by virtue of his words and actions over the past few years, I fear that we may underestimate what he has achieved by placing more voters on the receiving side of the ledger. These next few years are critical, and it is plain to me that Obama is preparing a well thought out policy to remain in power. We are setting up an unfortunate battle between those who are voting for government to take care of them, and those who must pay for it. The numbers are almost split 50/50, due to years of manipulation that has led disadvantaged people to stop looking for ways to get ahead using their own means, and start using the means of government programs instead. Turning the tide will take just as long as it took to create the lie, along with certain fortitude and careful planning to draw the line in the sand for 2012.

Election Integrity

It is the home stretch here in the Old Dominion when it comes to the race for Governor, not to mention other Local and State offices. Much has been said of Republican nominee McDonnell's social positions after his 1989 Thesis from Regent University came to light, especially regarding the position of women and marriage. I have to say that when his poll numbers dropped I thought Deeds had his number, only to find out that apparently the dip was short lived. The reality is that the Virginia election is very, very closely watched nationwide; and with over $22 million (did you get that!) collected to support their candidate this is a big deal. Democrats and Republicans alike are jockeying for position to declare how important or unimportant every possible detail should be, and this race really highlights for me how much we have thrown integrity to the wind in order to get a desired result.
When McDonnell first announced his candidacy and Bolling bowed out as a Republican challenger, the Republican side of the ticket was set early and left the Democrats to fight out their candidate in a primary. I was very pleased to see Creigh Deeds chosen to represent the Democratic ticket, not because I particularly like his positions (which I don't), but because I found the idea that Terry McAuliffe could "buy" Virginia to be rather distasteful. I offered my help to the McDonnell ticket early on as a blogger and supporter, but I have to tell you that my support has waned over the following months. Now don't get me wrong, I am still a supporter of McDonnell and there is little to no chance he will lose my vote, but he has lost my passionate support. The reason for this change of heart is simple, I believe he has chosen a route to become elected that erodes his personal positions on many issues that I personally care about. This in itself is nothing new on either side of the aisle, but I am afraid that we are allowing our elected officials and staff to be rather Machiavellian in their approach instead of standing on personal principle. This is not about being divisive, capable politicians like Huckabee are able to articulate their positions without being abusively divisive as you might see on Hannity or from Daily Kos; this is about having integrity to stand for what you believe even if it means you lose votes. Instead of scraping every vote off the floor to gain an advantage, we need public servants that are willing to lead and present their positions in a way that creates passionate followers instead of just voters.
When Deeds lost his edge after the Thesis debacle and appeared to be on the downswing in the race, I found it interesting that the Obama administration started backing up on their support of Deeds which had been so solid just weeks before. They did not have integrity in supporting their man out of fear, fear of being associated with the loser in such a pivotal contest. McDonnell has backed up on issues such as abortion and traditional marriage that were outlined in his Thesis to keep his lead, which is also an issue of integrity. I could make the point that Obama himself is one of the few that has kept his integrity from the campaign, on the very few issues that he dared to make a stand on such as declaring universal healthcare as a right and not a privilege. I would call that "selective integrity," where you make sure your Thesis from Harvard is nowhere to be found, so you can't be called out on the integrity issue down the road.
I would ask my candidate to take a stand, lead us in a direction that makes sense and be able to tell me what that is, and allow room for others to ask critical questions that might open their ability to understand why you believe what you do. If I don't agree with you, at least I know where you stand and can trust you not to move around on issues, which might just let me actually listen to you. That is where real change can begin.

Founding Fathers

Americans can trace their heritage and history with a certain amount of pride, overcoming pretty long odds to become the most prosperous nation of all time. We can all look back to Washington, Jefferson and Madison with a certain amazement at what they risked in order to gain our independence and create a new nation. Regardless of our opinions of the Founding Fathers and their motivations, religious convictions and social opinions, we can all agree that our respect for those men begets a high honor.
I wonder if our Founding Fathers will continue to be remembered through the ages, for we may be on the cusp of history that will redefine our "Founders" from a different time, and this time is rapidly approaching. I am most proud of our nation being able to put aside race and electing the first African American President, but at the same time I have a sense of foreboding that our new direction is borne of a calculated and precise plan to re-create the United States of America in a very different image.
Use a little investigative work on the web, and it seems painfully true that most of the people in power in the US today have a common background, and it is not one in support of democracy or our republic. There is a calculated effort in play right now to overwhelm capitalism in America, and replace this system with a new order that can be traced to a single source. Take some time to Google up Saul Alinski, a man who hated liberals during his lifetime not because they were not on the right track, but because they were too soft and not willing to employ militant tactics to achieve their ends.
Alinski wrote several books, among them Rules for Radicals, and traces his personal history back to a time when the Communist Party in America was just beginning, in Chicago of all places...If you keep looking, you will find that he proposed a tactical system of subversion that used community organizing to lead a powerful call for change, then overwhelms government systems with required services that cannot possibly be provided, and then allows a new system to prevail after rebellion that places a select few in power. There are two key adherents to this theory, who studied under this man and perfected this system, and those two people are Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Now, before you get mad and call me names, do the research yourself, find the associations and draw your own conclusions. I am open to reasonable discussion, but the facts seem uncontrovertable, and we all should question whether or not this could be true and get it out in the open.
If this is true, then several things should start happening according to this plan. First, government programs will be funded with huge amounts of money, eventually becoming overwhelmed and unable to provide the level of service that has been promised. Community Service programs will equate to brainwashing our young people that America is a terrible country, full of evil and keeping the people of our world under our heavy handed thumbs. Community activism and reform groups will continue to grow with huge funding from our very own government, and the message that our Republican form of government does not serve their needs will be the primary focus. The opposing party will become the "party of no." Taxation will increase until the burden is so great on the working minority of the population that they will do anything to get out from under the burden.
What is the result of all this? A change of government form in the US, whether it be a Constitutional change or based only on reality, that we are transferring power from our Republican form of government to that of an oligarchy (rule by a few powerful people). If you step back and look, this epic shift has already begun, the situation is in place and the select few in control of our future oligarchy are completing the steps one by one. Perhaps I am a cynic, perhaps looking for a magic bullet and there really is no conspiracy, but as we see private meetings and controlled use of the media we should be thinking about the real story. Unfortunately, I feel that in just the past few months we have been unwittingly manipulated into letting this happen, not without protest to be sure, but without any real power to stop the onslaught that is coming. We may well be into a cycle that will indeed lead to rebellion, but I hope that it is a rebellion based on the Tea Party model that puts power back in the hands of the people and takes it out of the hands of government. The Constitution is the key, if we draw the line there we may have a chance, where power not given to the federal government must reside with the states and the people, and limited government is advocated so that this document may prevail and protect the people from the government as it was designed.
Do your research, make your own decisions, but do it quickly before we find the Constitution re-written and statues of Saul Alinski replacing those of George Washington.

New Economic Stimulus Plan

It has taken me a while to catch on, but I think I am starting to get the economic stimulus program that President Elect Obama is proposing. We can see the program taking shape in the inaugural whistle stop tour leading toward the 20th on the mall in Washington, as hundreds of millions of dollars are bring spent to create jobs and stimulate local economies along the way. If people are losing jobs in the recession, all that needs to be done is to hire unemployed workers for security and service jobs along the way, fill up the hotels and provide the local restaurants and street vendors with crazed and trapped DC visitors to spend their money, and viola-instant recovery plan. 

Once this starts to take hold, then we can use this model all over America to employ people in short term solutions so they have money to spend, and even throw in a dose of tax "cuts" to spur the recovery along even further. Never mind that the cost projections for this inauguration are estimated to be 5 to 6 times the cost of the '01 Bush inauguration, or that all of these jobs are temporary at best, or that our spending deficit is at obscene levels and projected to continue for several years. Never mind that defining a tax cut to include people that do not pay income taxes is a play on words at best and deceitful at worst, and never mind that the projected 825 Billion "shock and awe" stimulus project that will likely be voted on within days of Obama taking office includes over 500 Billion in entitlement projects that we were promised would not happen. I was one that intended to wait and see what Obama was going to do, for often those who are the most fervent supporters during an election are among those who are most disappointed after the election, but the respect due to his office must be tempered with some anxiety that he now plans to take our nation in a direction that has be tried before, and failed on the shoulders of oppressive taxes, regulation and government run programs.

This is welfare, plain and simple, promoted by the government using tax dollars that could be used much more efficiently by family, friends and neighbors to provide for those in need than by our federal government. When that money is taken from us, we are less able to provide for those needs on a personal level, and the inefficiency of the programs designed to provide for those needs wastes our combined resources. I am plenty angry about my money being taken and used in ways that I may or may not agree with, but I am more angry about those resources being removed and lessening my ability to support needs that I can see right in front of me.

We have managed to elect a President that is using the current economic mess, one created by the combined reckless spending of Republicans and Democrats alike, as an excuse to actually go even further down the road of reckless spending instead of an excuse for restraint. I use the word restraint because it was the word Barack Obama used during the debates with Senator McCain when referring to economic policies that included entitlement spending. The high cost of this inauguration alone is symbolic of where we are going. I realize a big chunk is being paid for by private donors, but Sharon Stone and Steven Spielberg paying out millions so they can come and weep at their accomplishment of helping elect Obama is less than a third of the total cost. Who pays the rest? The taxpayer.

The government is going to be allowed to intrude even further into our lives, and to take an even greater role in continuing the sloppy and wasteful management of people's needs that can only be solved by limiting governmental influence in their lives and turning over their "care" to local communities, faith based organizations and families that know and love them. We cannot rely on the media to report in an unbiased way on this subject, they are weeping along with the Hollywood elites and can't see through the fog of their own tears, choosing to spend their time whipping President Bush on his way out and coddling the new administration that they elected by virtue of their reporting. If they would only show a shred of fairness and report these inauguration costs as they had blasted Bush about them in '01 (40 million compared to an estimated 200 million for Obama), I would start to give them some credibility again.

People have needs now more than ever, and those needs must be met by other people that know their situation and care about them on the local level. We need neighbors to look out for those that are out of work, helping them with electric and heating bills until they can find something else, keeping an ear open for jobs that can provide for their families. We need businesses to be allowed to spend time looking into ways to promote new income and hire more people, which starts with time spent focused on their business instead of onerous regulation and laws, complicated and overly expensive tax issues and new requirements that will only stifle American entrepreneurship. As a small business person, you can get to a depressing place very quickly, a place that replaces the care and obligation for employees that are helping to grow the business with a feeling of apathy and comments like "let Obama take care of them." 

This is not a healthy place to be, and the more we coddle and support this direction, the worse it will get. I warned of the potential for economic disaster several years ago when the stock market was at 14,000, even to the point of suggesting that a small % of your investments should be in "hard" assets. I wish I had suggested more, for given the direction we are heading, the consequences of inflation and higher interest rates are sure to erode our ability to provide for our families even further. The only "shock and awe" program that can get us moving again in a long term solution is something akin to the Fair Tax, a huge jumpstart in the private sector that will stimulate businesses in a way never seen before, rather than a replay of the Great Depression programs that did not lead to long term employment and paved the way for the eventual demise of our hardworking and productive society.

The Core of Oppression in America

When people hear the word "oppression," they generally think of traditional examples such as slavery or heavy handed taskmasters to define it. The connotation here, however, is much more to the core of the word as it exists in our country today. Oppression has been used most recently to describe acts associated with the financial leaders in our country and the recent Bailout Bill that passed both houses of Congress. It seems that the "Greed is Good" mantra of Gordon Gecko in the 1980's has come home to roost, while greed may be good as it represents the core of capitalism the results can certainly be less than desirable when taken to extremes.

Oppression has also been used by some on the liberal left to describe the lack of compassion shown by conservatives on issues of equality that include social, financial and racial issues. This view represents a philosophical difference between the two schools of thought, and while neither side is always right or always wrong about any individual point of contention, the trend is toward equality in all areas of society. That phrase in itself sounds proper, after all, the rights of life, liberty and happiness for all men who are created equally by our Creator (words of the Declaration of Independence, not mine) are the bedrock of our nation and the foundation of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. While it all "sounds" appropriate, the issue of equality in the sense that it is being represented by the liberal left today is far from foundational thought. The Founders considered self-determinism to be the strength of an emerging America, where each would prosper through their efforts and be picked up again by their neighbors when things didn't go quite right.

Recent comments by Barack Obama concerning the Constitution bring us to the core of the issue at hand, which conservatives including John McCain are totally missing as the focal point of the upcoming election. The issue is not whether Obama is a closet Muslim, or a Socialist, or associated with the wrong people, I believe that Obama is as committed as McCain when it comes to the direction of the country and the common good of its citizens. They both believe their direction is the right one, I can see the passion of both points of view, so this type of attack will only enflame the passions of each side and turn off those in the middle. The current attacks on Obama's character are ineffective because they do not get to the core issue. 

The real issue is much closer to the foundational tenets of our country, and miles away from the peripheral attacks on Obama's character. His questionable associations are a result of his beliefs, not the cause that should actually offend Americans. The more immediate cause of my concern rests in the core issue that Obama and liberals in America believe that the Constitution is a "flawed document" that reflects the "blind spot of our founders that continues in our nation to this day." That is a quote from a 2001 radio interview with Obama when he was commenting that the liberal court under Chief Justice Warren did not go far enough to establish equality outside of social issues evident during the Civil Rights movement. The Warren court was too conservative for Obama, and the apparent intention of the comments was to say that the Constitution had its day but is outdated and in need of reform. I can only assume that his true intent is to "correct" the document to include the basic rights we all are due, including access to health care, retirement and jobs that cannot be taken away. The courts would become a mechanism to accomplish this reform, instead of focusing on the law of the land and ruling on points of law, the court would extend the definition of equality to correct the blind spot of our Founders in all areas of our society.

I have the feeling of a Star Wars movie character, when the Senate voted all powers to the Chancellor the comment was made, "So this is how liberty dies, to thunderous applause." To continue the movie motif, the true heroes of our society (Jedi Knights) are made into villains by the oppressive Emperor who is squashing the rights of all in the name of equality while our individual rights vanish. We will see this evident in the future as we are made to report our personal habits to the Health Care police, any smoking, drinking or obesity will be against the rights of others covered by Universal Health Care and therefore you are not doing your fair share. Expect to have the plug pulled as the government makes decisions on your life based on your importance to them, not your family and friends. That is one example, consider the current financial mess as a result of political manipulation of market forces, and then consider what the effects have been. What will happen when we attempt to manipulate health care markets, and take over 401-K programs and replace them with "safe" government programs that pay 3%? The results will be disastrous.

The real oppressors in our society today are the liberal left, who would rather place government in the rightful position of the community and the church, manipulating people's care for their neighbors into government run programs. We will give people a fish instead of teaching them to fish, squash individual determinism and personal rights in favor of societal equality, giving no encouragement to job creation through business growth and innovation as we take money from those who pay taxes and give it to those who don't through financial equality, all ultimately to move us toward a society that is as far from our Founder's vision as we could possibly be. Even the media will be a part of this oppression, and those who do not participate will simply not be allowed access to the throne room. 

In the most simple illustration, the tax returns of our candidates reflect this difference, McCain and Obama both made a few million dollars last year (subject for another time), McCain and his wife gave over a million to charity and Obama and his wife gave $3000 or so. Obama believes that his taxes should be used for charity since government should take care of those issues, McCain believes it is the responsibility of other people to intervene in situations that need our attention and get personally involved in the solution. The wealthy in America have a different agenda in this election. While the wealthy will support McCain, the super-wealthy will support Obama. I often wondered why this was the case, but now I understand, the super wealthy liberal elite are interested in maintaining a class structure where they have control, by keeping the majority in a situation where they rely on government that is under the control of those super-wealthy. The mere wealthy are interested in getting ahead through ideas and innovation, creating jobs for people and opportunities for the next go-getter to become wealthy. I hope there are a few more Jedi Knights left that can recognize this, before the Emperor begins to consolidate his authority behind the oppressive ideas of his supporters and allow the Harvard Law Review to re-write the Constitution of the United States.  

"You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting a class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves"-Abraham Lincoln

Election Observations....

Interesting observations from the election so far:

-Barack Obama sure seems gifted when offering messages of  "hope" and "change," but falls a little flat when on the attack or trying to be sarcastic. If he is going to get back on track, it will have to be behind inspirational and charismatic messages that rely on people's feelings and emotions instead of policies. I think if he focuses on that he will be the next President regardless of his experience, VP pick, pastor or anything else.

-John Edwards wasn't allowed to speak at the DNC Convention, presumably because he confessed to an affair that he lied about previously. Bill Clinton took his spot at the convention, does anyone else see the irony in this?

-Former Presidential candidate and Baptist minister Mike Huckabee was asked if he could vote for a Republican ticket that included Mitt Romney (a Mormon). He answered that he would vote for the ticket based on their public service, and their religion was not a factor for him. I didn't care for Romney personally at the start of the primaries because I distrusted his Mormon background, but I suppose as far as public service records go the Mormons have as good a track record as anyone. It comes down to not expecting Mitt Romney to declare Mormonism as our national religion any more that I would expect Huckabee to declare Southern Baptists as our national denomination. For me, that's the proper usage of the doctrine of church and state.

-The main hotels at the DNC convention are using room key access "cards" made of recyclable wood instead of plastic, just one example of many "green" items on display at the convention. I am not sure who declared the Democratic party as having a corner on the environment and science, but regardless it seems they don't have the corner on technology since the cards don't work and there are lines to get them re-coded...why is it OK to ride on a carbon-spewing airplane to Denver, go to lavish parties as long as you eat with a spoon and think it is OK to promote abortions that even doctors don't want to perform as long as we use hotel key cards made of recyclable wood?

-I actually enjoyed the fuss over Jeremiah Wright, it put the focus for just a moment on faith and community. I think Americans recognize that any "faith" tradition rooted in extremism really exploits the true nature of most of those traditions, whether Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. I worry that extremism and terrorism are terms that in the future will define those that do not conform to a stated norm, in order to identify enemies of the state. In my view, Christian leaders (can't speak for other faith traditions) should be taking the mantle off the government and replacing government welfare with community welfare, as long as they are allowed to speak openly about their faith in the process. Turning churches into nondescript social replacements for welfare is hollow unless accompanied with Christ's message of love.

-This may be the first election where the "haves" and "have-nots" are pitted against each other instead of two opposing candidates. I am not so sure that a vote for either Obama or McCain is more of a vote for those who believe the government is their salvation or those who believe that the government gets in the way of their prosperity. Reconciling those two points of view is the real division, not the people that hold those points of view.

-This election will definitely be very divisive, whether Obama or McCain wins. If Obama wins, then the stage is set for more open displays of power from minorities, especially the African-American community, as a sort of new sub-nationalism is created within the US borders. If McCain wins, that same community will be very disappointed and withdraw from the American community that has somehow managed to "cheat" them out of victory. There is great passion on the Obama side reflecting the possibilities that he represents, some of it well founded, but unfortunately there is no Bill Cosby around to inject an air of responsibility into this movement that first calls us Americans.  Obama should have asked Cosby to help his campaign instead of Oprah. 

-Are they really going to let Obama give his speech in a Greek temple? There really isn't a place in American politics for such a display, and if this naked self confidence is allowed to continue people are going to rebel against it. The Obama campaign knows this will be a big deal, but they still think its a good move...are they possibly that arrogant about this campaign?

-Is McCain playing golf or saving up his push for later in the fall? I see some ads here and there, but it seems he is content to let Obama win or lose the election on his own, which may be the smartest move of all. 

-Boy, Obama sure made some interesting choices of "friends"that are coming back to haunt him. I am not sure if that tells us he is an extremist, or just willing to let anyone with resources help him get where he needs to be, or just naive about the whole thing since that is really the "norm" in the South Chicago environment?

-I wish they would show election maps based on population instead of states, I think we would be surprised at the concentration of people that will vote for Obama as being in high density areas that rely on government programs as there source of well being and prosperity, and for McCain where the population density is very light representing people that don't want government intervention in their lives other than the original Constitutional mandates. I mean, out in the middle of of nowhere you have to depend on faith, yourself, your family and your community to prosper, in the cities you rely on the government. Since we are not adding land to the US these days, the long term forecast is for the Dems to take over just based on demographics and perpetuate the program mentality, until the Russians get crazy and nuke the cities, the terrorists get them with a virus or the entire economy collapses under the weight of less than 10% of the population paying for the programs that keep the other 90% under roof.