Most of the main stream media outlets are making a brouhaha about how the diminutive Dennis Kucinich, got Governor Walker to admit that the public sector union’s bargaining capabilities, did not impact his ability to cut this year’s deficit at his state.

Although this may be true, what is not being covered, either due to politics or ignorance, is that beyond the short-term crisis of this year’s budget, there are long term structural problems with Wisconsin’s government that Governor Walker is trying to address.

Most of our states and our country are on the verge of fiscal catastrophes, if we are to be successful in stopping or attenuating the train wreck that we all see coming, responsible politicians must not just address short-term crises, but they must also address the dynamics that exist within our Federal and State governments, that will undoubtedly lead to disasters.  

We know that anyone who is courageous enough to attempt to stop those who have been gamin the system for decades, is going to be savaged for his efforts. This is why it is so important for those of us who have been asking our politicians to be protectors of the public trough, to stand beside them when they are brutally attacked for doing so.

FDR was one of the most pro-union presidents we have ever had, and yet he openly opposed bargaining rights for government unions.

"The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service," Roosevelt - 1937

AFL-CIO president George Meany (1939-1955) opposed it as well.

“The main function of American trade unions is collective bargaining. It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government. Unions, as well as employers, would vastly prefer to have even Government regulation of labor-management relations reduced to a minimum consistent with the protection of the public welfare.” Meany - 1955

If pro union icons like FDR and George Meany openly opposed the creation of public sector unions. Why then the timidity of some conservatives on this subject?

In the private sector, management (owners) pays the workers with their own money, good managers know just how far they can go before putting the survivability of their company in jeopardy, there is an invisible wall of profitability beyond which management will not go, and so while responsible managers negotiate to get the work done for the least possible cost, they also know up to what point they are willing to negotiate. There are concessions that they simply cannot agree to, if they hope to remain in business.

On the other side of the equation you have labor with a completely opposite objective, their goal is to obtain the highest possible compensation for their efforts, yet even though their goal is diametrically opposite to that of management, they also have a vested interest in the company’s success, they are aware that their company must be able to compete with other companies in the market, responsible union negotiators know that if they push beyond the invisible wall of profitability, their own livelihood may be in jeopardy. If anyone doubts what happens when the wall is crossed, Eastern Airlines and our own auto industry provides us with good study guides on that subject.

In the public sector, there is no adversarial relationship between the union and the politician, they are both government workers. Unlike the private sector, management‘s money is not the one at stake, and the workers do not fear for the viability of the government entity. Therefore there are no motivations on either side to curtail excesses; as a matter of fact, management is more likely to be rewarded for being irresponsible, than for taking a cost cutting stance; as we have seen in Wisconsin.

In a typical public sector union negotiation, the politician gains more by caving in to the union’s demands than by not doing so. Both parties are aware that government entities have zero chance of going out of business; the politician knows that the money in play is not his own, and since profitability is not part of the equation, the end results are quite predictable… Group hug! And higher taxes for everyone.

Audits of union contributions demonstrate the conflict of interest that occurs, when thousands of dollars go to politicians directly responsible for union negotiated gains. And while thousands and millions of dollars come and go, it is the taxpayers, who were never present at the negotiating table, who are left holding the bag.

Is it any wonder that the average pay in the public sector is twice that of the private sector today? Do we really need to ask why public sector employees enjoy benefit packages that are non-existent anywhere else?

If we are to avert a national disaster, we need many more Governor Walkers on our midst. We also need to stand by them as they make the tough decisions, in spite of the opposition that they many generate.

This insignificant act, in the overall realm of things, may be in poor taste, but it hardly merits the level of attention that the lame media has provided it. More troubling yet, happens to be the entirely different treatment with which and act of much greater poor taste has been dealt with by the same elite. The same bunch in the media and in government, who has demonstrated zero tolerance for the reverend’s poor taste, lectures us about tolerance, when we express our contempt for the plans to build a victory mosque on hallowed grounds, the same place where three thousand innocent Americans were murdered (by followers of Islam) September 11, 2001.

For reasons unbeknownst to me, the left in this country and indeed around the world, always appears to be in lockstep with the Islamic radicals here and abroad, therefore, it is of no surprise that on the issues of the mosque and the Koran-Burning-Pastor, the Muslims and their fellow travelers from the left are in sync once again. Not to be outdone, our illustrious president, defender of all things Muslims and all things from the left, used the opportunity that the hosting of the iftar dinner on the eve of Ramadan gave him, to lecture us on tolerance and to express his support for the building of the victory mosque. Unfortunately the tolerance that he asked for the mosque’s Imam, was not afforded to the Koran-Burning-Pastor, for whom the president had harsher words, than the ones used for the Fort Hood Killer or the would-be Time Square and underwear bombers.

It seems as though “All the King’s horses and all the king’s men”, have weighed in on the pastor’s misguided plan. Even General Petraeous, whose business is to win a war, has jumped into the political arena, chastising a private citizen and kowtowing to the very people he is suppose to defeat, this inherence of a general into what is clearly a political matter in our country, is something that in all likelihood is against all rules of his command; such an act would ordinarily commandeered a reprimand by most civilian administrations, but not by this one.

I find it particularly interesting that with as many religious figures in our country, who lead a life of servitude to their flocks, getting involved in all kinds of charitable acts, helping the needy the sick and the homeless, the one guy that the main stream media and the administration focuses on, is a guy with a congregation of forty, who wants to burn some Korans.

The magnitude of the pastor’s coverage has been of such proportions, that it will be almost impossible to find anyone who has not heard about the Koran burning project by now, however I would venture to say, that it would be equally as difficult to find anyone that is aware that on May of 2009 the Obama administration had the US military burn hundreds of bibles at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan, to once again kowtow to a bunch of medieval ignorant war lords throwing a tantrum about it.

After years of observing the way that these media outlets operate, I cannot help but to be a bit cynical about their motives, it is interesting that while the economy continues to go under, Iran builds its nuclear arsenal, unemployment rises to Great Depression numbers, and our borders are overrun by illegal aliens fleeing a bloody drug-war, the most important news item of the last few weeks, is an obscure pastor from a small congregation in Florida, whom no one will ever remember after his fifteen minutes of fame.

November 3^rd, cannot get here soon enough!!!

Years of left leaning professors at our universities, have netted a large number of Americans who appear to be disillusion with our capitalist society, they are among our media, academia, government, and oddly enough even within the boardrooms of some of our biggest corporations, where if anywhere, capitalism should be understood.

“Freedom Go To Hell” read a sign being held by a Muslim demonstrator on the streets of Paris. Most of us will agree that this is an absurd position, and yet we do not have the same visceral reaction, when we hear politician’s initiatives to damn capitalism to hell. At first glance, I am sure that most of you are condition to think that the above analogy is off target, yet! What is capitalism, if not economic freedom?

Capitalism is the free manifestation of our wills; it is how we-the-people vote with our monies for the products and companies that provide us with the best goods and services, at the best possible price. It is also how we-the-people, through our monetary vote, doom into extinction companies that fail to earn our trust.

The private sector, unlike government, is not able to sustain failed practices regardless of their consequences, talking points and political operatives are not able to give a positive spin to a negative bottom line, if another company can do the same better and for less, the only alternative for the lesser entity, is to improve or get out. Nothing is more beneficial or cleansing for society, than this simple real-world fact of life.

The freedom to succeed or to fail, is precisely the dynamism that has made our country the most productive and innovative nation in the history of mankind. No government luminaries, if there were to be such a thing, could ever match the innovative, vibrant inventiveness of entrepreneurs, and especially not so, when the pool of entrepreneurs comes from every member of society.

Those who would damn “economic freedom to hell”, site the tremendous success of some over the measly achievements of others, as the primary reason to reel in and control the economy. However envy and concerns about disparities, are not valid enough reasons to penalize achievers, and condemn society to mediocrity.

Serfdom is the alternative to capitalism. Societies that through controls and regulations, interfere with free economic activities, become huge lethargic bureaucracies where politicians choose the winners and losers, and where a ruling class controls and distributes limited resources. These conditions are fertile grounds for corruption, as powerful connected individuals subordinate the appropriate bureaucrats, to gain unequal access to the spoils.

These societies are characterized by inefficiencies and stagnation, because promotions are not obtained strictly on achievements. The pressures of the market do not force government entities, or subsidized companies to choose the most qualified to run their enterprise. Individuals will not prosper strictly on their merits, in most cases the overbearing factor for success, is the allegiance and loyalty to the commissar.

Capitalism is hated by the statist, because it is not about an all powerful government assuring equal results for everyone. The government’s role in a free economic society is to create a secured law abiding environment, with a strict set of rules that apply to everyone, and that are mindful and protective of the individual’s rights. Only then will business flourish with equal opportunities for all. Due to the human condition, this is a lofty goal to achieve, but it should none the less be the government’s ultimate goal, if it is to assure prosperity.

Lincoln said, "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 class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves."

If there is one thing that the left has always done exceedingly better than anyone else, is to portray themselves as something they are not. In the Soviet Union’s “worker’s paradise” there was no crime, no prostitution, no suffering, no destitute, no drug abuse. There were none of the social ills that plagued our free societies, and only schizophrenics that were promptly committed to psychiatric wards (where they belonged) for rehabilitation, dared to dissent of such an Utopian society. 

Likewise, in the US, we all know that FDR’s Keynesian’s economics is what led us out of the Great Depression, and that the Democratic party was always at the forefront of the civil rights movement.

The same relentless and effective propaganda that created the above lore, helped create our Executive in Chief, a guy whom Rush accurately points out, “has zero executive experience and pursues a tried and failed philosophy.” Yet from hearing the media talk about him, he is some sort of intellectual luminary with expertise on energy, healthcare, economics, foreign policy, and the rising of the seas.

It is easy to pontificate from the comfort of a podium in front of a group of cronies or a bunch of self absorbed “intellectuals”, but making decision under fire in the real world is an entirely different thing. The lack of leadership and floundering that we have been witnessing from our president since “day one”, has led some to call him the Ditherer in Chief, but I believe that it can all be surmised with just one word.

Incompetence

Our first clue should have been the spectacle that took place during the staffing of his government, as high level nominees were forced to withdraw due to things in their past that were revealed that had inexplicably eluded the vetting process. Others, like our tax cheating Treasury Secretary, were pushed through anyway, due to media adulation and sheer exhaustion from the opposition.

Then in response to an economic crisis that derived from irresponsible spending and borrowing, the president decides to quadruple irresponsible spending and borrowing. The irrationality of this behavior led some to speculate that the president’s intentions were so sinister, so as to want to implement the “Cloward-Piven strategy”. Cloward and Piven were a couple of Leftist sociology professors, who advocated the complete collapse of the American economy to facilitate the government’s takeover of the same; not being cynical enough to subscribe to such a ploy, I have but to conclude that all we are witnessing is economic illiteracy.

Our foreign policy is equally as incomprehensible; it has become a sequence of embarrassing missteps that go from shunning traditional allies like Israel and England, to bowing to dictators while engaging in their unabashed appeasement.

During the Tiananmen Square-like treatment of the demonstrators in Iran about a year ago, our president remained silent for several days. When he finally emerged from his stupor, it was not to condemn the atrocities that we had all witnessed on television, but to ratify his desire to dialogue with the oppressors. In the mean time, Iran continues to diligently and overtly work on its nuclear program, while our policy consists of begging the Chinese for their support.

In our hemisphere, Honduras has a constitutional crisis in which a rogue president tries to unlawfully change the constitution. In accordance with the laws of his land he is impeached and legally removed from office. Instead of lauding the rule of law, Obama imposes sanctions on Honduras and demands the restoration of the law breaker. The Honduran people took to the streets and refused to buckle under pressure; our president then buckled under pressure and proposed a face-saving compromise, where we would lift the economic sanctions if they agreed to consider the restoration of the impeached president. The Hondurans “considered” it right up to their next elections, at which time they elected and swore in a new president.

All these blunders were covered by our press for fifteen minutes and always with a positive spin. As the economic woes continue, so does the blame on the previous administration. In what can only be described by my grandmother’s philosophy of life, “if you can’t say something nice, do not say anything at all,” the American media has been silent about the absurdities of the Obama administration.

All the happy talk would have continued indefinitely were it not for an accident in the Gulf that threatens to be the greatest ecological disaster in our nation’s history. The president misread the magnitude of the event and addressed it with the typical tough talk and propaganda of a political event. Unfortunately for him this was a “real life” catastrophe that required actions and not rhetoric. What were needed were drastic measures to prevent the spilled oil from coming ashore.

Unlike Katrina, where forty eight hours after the disaster, a coordinated effort of all the media outlets and top Democratic politicians (current president included) began to accuse Bush of neglect. Thirty days had gone by since the gusher in the Gulf and not a single story in the media addressed the administration’s inaction. Meanwhile, back in Washington the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar pretends to be a totalitarian dictator with his “boot on the throat of BP” metaphor, while the president maintains his “busy schedule” of presidential galas, fund raisers, golf games, sporting events and vacations.

All seemed well for a while… But then the oil began to hit the Louisiana coast, Fox news began to show pelicans submerged in oil and James Carville had his outburst on national television. This signaled to the liberal media that it was OK to open their eyes for a while, no longer could the negligence be ignored; the nakedness of the emperor was now in full display.

It is said that the worst thing that a politician can lose is credibility. To many of us who have always seen Obama as a product of the propaganda machine that manufactured him, his credibility has always been suspect. The oblivious manner in which he has handled this incident has motivated some of his apologist to say that "he really cares, but he is just too calm and cool to show it."

So be it then, we’ll give you calm and cool, but he is incompetent as well.

From the president on down, speech is something that that can’t be left unchecked, you see is too confusing for the “little guy” whom they are always seeking to protect, and so Barrack could say of free speech what he has said about money, “I do think that at a certain point, huh… you have had enough free speech, huh… how much free speech do you need?”

The FCC Diversity Czar, Mark Lloyd, wrote in 2007 that liberal activists should harass conservative stations by filing complaints with the FCC, which could lead to fines and even the taking away of their broadcast licenses. That of course got him the FCC appointment.

The Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, proposed on a white paper written January of 2008 that under certain conditions, the government might ban conspiracy theories, even if they are true, he suggested that the government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories, and of course more importantly, the government defines what is a conspiracy theory. This got him his appointment, by his standards the pay for play Sestak bribery debacle would be one of those conspiracy theories that could be true and so therefore must be off limits.

Not to be outdone, the administration’s new progressive star and Supreme Court Justice Nominee, Elena Kagan, believes that speech needs to be redistributed. I kid you not, according to Kagan  "If there is an 'overabundance' of an idea in the absence of direct governmental action - which there well might be when compared with some ideal state of public debate - then action disfavoring that idea might 'un-skew', rather than skew, public discourse." In other words, it's the government's job to "redistribute speech" end of quote.

This precious bunch believes that the government should tax, ban, make illegal, and silence political opinions not approved by them.

As illustrated above, when dealing with the left’s terms and terminology it is important to understand that the words never mean what they imply, Diversity in this case is just a means through which the government can legally profile the groups they wish to pander to or castigate. Ask any self respecting liberal or progressive if they support the profiling of terrorist or other criminal elements in our society, and their faces will go into convulsions, due to the horror and dismay of the mere entertainment of the thought, on the other hand, ask them if they support affirmative action and a resounding affirmation will await you in between the pounding of their chest.

To achieve this ever elusive fairness the term Social Justice has been coined; in its name the president has shoved legislations like the Stimulus Package, and the Health Care Reform Act. This same quest for Social Justice is what must have driven the members of his party, to have voted lock-step with “The Leader” without so much as bothering to read the legislations being proposed.

Social Justice motivated the president to say that taxes should be raised because it is the “fair” thing to do. As well as to assume the role of regulating the earnings of private citizens through the appointment of a Pay Czar, and to arbitrarily violate the law, by taking shares of a private company from its owners, to redistribute them among union members as payment for their support.

Societies that embrace the politics of envy and class warfare, while yielding to the demagogue’s seductive calls of social justice, will pay with their decline and loss of freedom. History has taught us that Social Justice is the vehicle in which most tyrannies arrive, when a society trades Equal Justice for Social Justice, its citizens cease to be equal under the law. The society ceases to rely on Blind Lady Justice for disputes, while placing its fate on the subjective whims of the Monarch of the moment.

Likewise, politicians who promote social justice legislation favoring one group over another are manifesting their own racism through their actions, even when they truly believed to be doing so for the “greater good”. How can you believe in equality while promoting a favored status of one group over another? Doing so exposes the belief that the favored group is less equal than the rest. The only justice compatible with equality is Equal Justice all.

The founding fathers said as much on our Declaration of Independence, “All men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” Even if in practice equal treatment for all is unattainable, its attainment should always be the government’s main goal.

One of the most egregious aspects of our tax system, aside from its incomprehensible complexities, is that 47% of Americans do not pay Income Tax. Out of this group a large percentage receives “Tax Subsidies” on taxes that they did not pay. Naturally, for many of these non-paying Americans, the perennial increases in taxes to those of us who pay are inconsequential. Many support the politician’s calls for higher taxes, since they may correctly deduce that these tax increases to some, could possible represent pay increases to them.

During the 2008 campaign a question posed to candidate Obama by Charlie Gibson, pointed to evidence showing that tax increases had an opposite effect on the government’s ability to increase its revenues and so therefore, why would he (Obama) want to raise taxes? Obama’s response was that with him it was a matter of fairness. My response would have been, Fairness!!! Who died and made you arbitral? (’Fair’ is something that comes to town once a year and then it goes away), a friend of mine likes to say. 

Kidding aside, how fair is it for an ever rising number of Americans to have no skin in the game?

I can’t speak for the days of FDR, or Woodrow Wilson, but never before in my lifetime, have I seen an administration so intent on destroying the founding fathers principles of small government and self reliance, the core principles that have made this, the greatest country on Earth.

In recent days, the administration has been floating a trial balloon to gauge the reactions of the public on the matter of a Value Added Tax (VAT), “independent” liberal thinkers are commenting out loud that due to the mounting deficit a VAT may be desirable. The narrative as expected is that this will be a “fair tax” because everyone will pay it equally, etc, etc.

The VAT is nothing new, it is used in most Socialist European nations; yet, none of these countries are solvent today. In all of these countries the VAT has started small, only to experience a rapid growth throughout the years, but never rapidly enough to keep up with the insatiable appetite of the statist. Aside from its assured dampening on the economy, the net result of this tax has been a perennial high unemployment rate in all of these countries. At the height of our economic bonanza, when unemployment in the US was at 4 to 4.5%, these European models that we are asked to emulate languished in double digit unemployment rates.

The VAT is nothing more than another side of the fence being built around us, reminiscent of the story of how to catch wild pigs (click to read), it is initially sold as a small tax, something like 2% or 3%, so as to not spook the herd, but as has been the case everywhere else, it will quickly grow. It should be worth noting that in Greece, where civil unrest has recently occurred as a result of its inability to fund its entitlement programs, the VAT has grown to 25%.

As for the “fairness” of the tax, once again the narrative does not remotely resemble the ensuing realities. Its susceptibility to tampering, makes it a magnet for corruption, lobbyist will bestow millions of dollars upon the politicians to insure a favorable VAT rate for their products, or an exemption for one reason or another; lobbyist can be quite creative on matters like this.

There is even a more perverse aspect of the VAT used to control the population, with it the government will have a say on all those other aspects of your life that it may not already control through their healthcare plan. By levying punitive taxes on certain items and exempting others, they will “guide” you to eat and drink certain foods instead of others, they will dictate to you the type of car you may drive, the type of house you live in and even the temperature of the air in your own business or home. It may seem farfetched, but if Cap and Trade is implemented, you may even have a VAT on the air you breathe, remember that according to the EPA carbon monoxide is now a poison gas.

Politicians are particularly fond of the VAT, because it can be increased slowly so as to not make the frog jump of the frying pan, but it can also be severe, almost taking the form of a fine in other situations. As in Europe, where at times you find yourself sleeping in a hot noise hotel room with the window open, because due to regulations they are not allowed to turn on the air condition in the rooms until certain times of the year. Not even an offer to pay more helps in these situations, since the fines would be such that they simply won’t risk it.

There are some conservative voices which say that they would be willing to consider the VAT, if the 16^th Amendment were to be repealed; thus, abolishing the income tax. At plain sight this idea may seem more just than our current system, and it probably is. The issue with this approach is the adverse and “unfair” manner that this tax would have on retirees, as well as those of us who have paid income taxes most of their lives. Changing to a VAT this late in their game would essentially create a double taxation for all retirees and those close to retirement; they have already paid for their incomes throughout most of their lives.

Much like the healthcare debate, we all recognize that our tax system is in dire need of reform, but unlike what the Social-Democrats have done with our healthcare, the remedy should not be more malignant than the illness (pun intended). If the goal is to truly seek a “Fairer Tax”, most of us would agree that the progressive tax code that we have today is not it. Punishing the most productive segments of society, while reducing the incentives to produce more, is not in our country’s best interest, as it is not in our country’s best interest to have almost half of the country being carried by the other half or less.

I am of the opinion that the most equitable approach is the “Flat Tax“. An across the board flat tax for everyone, will incent all Americans to pay attention to our politician’s transgressions with our moneys, no matter what income bracket they may be at. If we the people are to prevail over our Modern Day Monarchs, we must not allow the political class to divide and conquer us, we must all have some common interest, and we can start by having everyone have some skin in America’s game.

Steve Forbes is a big proponent of the Flat Tax and there are others who claim to have improvements to his original proposal John Goodman and Laurence Kotlikoff have put together what they call “A Kinder, Gentler Flat Tax”(click to read). As we unite to rescue America and its founding principles this coming November, we should encourage a national dialog about the Flat Tax as part of our agenda. It was estimated that a 17% rate income tax would have sufficed to meet all of Pre-Obama government obligations. It may be more now, but none the less, it would be a lot more equitable and less subject to manipulation than what we currently have.

So as we hear the talking heads trying to steer us towards the VAT in the months to come, we must make a concerted effort to make sure that the VAT falls FLAT instead.

I have always believed that the main reason why Europe has been more susceptible to socialism than America is due to the old world’s history of monarchies whose form of government largely resembles socialism. America on the other hand, was founded in repudiation of England’s monarchy and in contempt of the omnipotent centralized government that it represented at the time.

When the founders of our nation wrote the Declaration of Independence and the ensuing constitution, they made sure to have a government full of check and balances, that would prevent the creation of a strong central government with total power over the citizenry, they wanted to avoid a government that was able to treat people as subjects of the throne, from whom it could take what it wanted, and to whom they would doled whatever goods or perks the monarchs of the moment deem necessary.

Our founders respect for the rights of the individuals, whom they believed were given to them by their creator and not by any government, is the fundamental concept that leads them to create a republic where laws and not the whims of a monarch dictate the norms to follow. They understood that as each of us individually worked to produce for ourselves and for our families, society benefited collectively, not the other way around.

The efforts of individuals working for their own self improvement, is what ultimately  generates more production, inventions, abundance, satisfaction and wealth for society as a whole; it is not a coincidence that we enjoy the largest and wealthiest middle class in the world, and that even our poorest segments of society are better off than average citizens elsewhere. Individualism is what has helped Americans build the greatest nation on earth and it is what has always given us the insurmountable advantage that may generate resentment among others, but that in no way reflects anything for which we should ever apologize.

This is why I find it almost incomprehensible to see so many Americans passively following someone whose stated goal is to “fundamentally change America”. To say that we have made mistakes in the past and will continue to make them in the future, is one thing that we can all agree on, we are humans and as such we will always make mistakes, but due to the free nature of our society, our mistakes are openly discussed, solutions are openly proposed and errors are ultimately corrected.

Again I cannot understand how we can not be outraged with the ravishing of our free capitalist society and institutions that is taking place. In the past nine months, we have seen the federal government quadruple our debt, causing our already weak dollar to suffer an additional 15% devaluation in the international markets, the government has taken control of both the mortgage and the banking industries, it has become the largest shareholder of two out of the three US automakers; it has arbitrarily stolen shares from automotive industry investors, and doled them to the unions as payback for their support, plus it is currently seeking powers to seize key companies whose failures they claim would affect the “greater good”.

During this time we have also seen the appointment of more than forty Czars without congressional approval, circumventing the normal vetting process. At the same time that our representatives vote themselves a generous pay raise, a pay Czar is created to regulate the pay of private citizens working for private companies, we are told that this will only apply to those companies that have accepted government help. However, the Federal Reserve has already stated that it will do the same for the entire banking industry as well. In what appears to be some sort of hoax, the administration has also created a manufacturing Czar, perhaps in hopes of replicating the same failed processes of the USSR.

And where is the fourth branch of government on all this? Well they are having cocktails at the White House, our main stream media has become an unreliable source of information, whom as in some sort of 1984’s Orwellian sequel, shamelessly lend themselves to act as mouthpieces of the government.

No one within our main stream media questions the implications of these policies, nor the impact that they may have on our economy as a whole, and nobody ever raises question about their constitutionality, for to do so would anger their lords; instead they are content with talking about the latest polls and the monarch’s popularity with one demographic group or another, no longer are we referred to as Americans, we are all hyphenated-Americans now, this way we are more easily pitted against each other and more readily maneuvered.

As average citizens we find it impossible to understand why these soothsayers of the press are so blind as to not see that if the monarchs get their way, they will be the first to go if they ever dare to step out of line. We observe how actions are being taken that will “fundamentally change” the country that we love, yet feel powerless as we contemplate the destruction or our institutions and the all out assault on our values and constitution.

It is said that it is always darkest before dawn and indeed a new dawn has just begun, an American awakening is taking place, we know that we are a nation under God, we know that America is not evil, we know that we are a beacon of hope for humanity, and so a silent scream has began to emanate within our hearts, it is spreading among all like wild fire, refusing to be silenced by insults and by mobs. It is an awakening devoid of guilt and fear; it is inspiring us to shed the hyphenated names that separate us, and allowing us to stand shoulder to shoulder as just Americans, who in unison will clamor… No, you can’t!!!

Many do so because of false or lack of information, but I believe it goes beyond that, I believe the answer must lie in the psyche of the liberal mind; I often find myself in disbelief when I engage in conversation with some of my liberal friends,   liberals do not seem to analyze problems and solutions the same way that we do. I know this may be insulting to some, but that is not my intent, I have honestly arrived at this conclusion not as a result of anger or disdain, but in a genuine attempt to reach across the aisle, in an attempt to comprehend my fellow men or women; I do so in a compassionate sort of way.

A liberal will react emotionally towards a problem and will be lead to do almost anything (however irrational), if you are able to appeal to their sentiments rather than their rational. You may reach a liberal by fainting compassion, or by exacerbating their hate, either will work, this is why the demagogues from the left must always have a victim and a villain to blame for all of the “victim’s” real or manufactured wrongs.

The past few months offer a unique opportunity to illustrate the above mentioned point of view, these days we have a “demon de jour” every month, first the speculators, then the oil companies, the AIG executives, Wall Street, the predatory lenders, the doctors, the pharmaceuticals, the car companies, the insurance companies; all villains, all corrupt, all greedy, until they succumb to the all mighty benevolent Obama and then by the grace of thee, they suddenly become acceptable decent citizens once again.

What else but pure emotional and irrational acts can possibly explain some of the misfortunes of so many of our societies? Demagogues and progressives are the same everywhere, but the villains change according to the circumstance, Castro had the “Yankees”, Hitler had the “Jews”, the Democrats had “Bush”, and Obama has a new one every month, depending upon what sector of the economy he is set on destroying and taking over at any given time.

To liberals it doesn’t matter that their leader lies and throws fictitious numbers to the wind, somehow they rationalize it as something that needs supporting for the all encompassing “greater good”, it doesn’t matter that the policies and initiatives are destructive and fail miserably, as long as the profess intentions satisfy their emotional state of mind.

Therefore nothing that their leader says or does, regardless of its inaccuracies or failures, will dissuade the liberal from supporting their chosen one, liberals will continue to follow like zombies, because their beliefs are emotionally burnt into their minds, their beliefs are like their religion, theirs is a “faith-based-believe”, as oppose to a “reasoned-based-believe”, which explains why when challenged with facts, however irrefutable they may be, they will not register, those among you who have experience this, know exactly what I am talking about.

Regardless of the evidence before you, you will be accused of having fallen prey to some right wing conspiracy, or to Republican propaganda, or whatever else; and then when all else fails, there is the all times favorite… It’s Bush’s fault.

President Reagan said it best, as he often did; "It's not that liberals are ignorant or stupid, it's just that they believe so many things that aren't so."

I concur.

My kids often laugh at me when they see me watching some old non-HD western movie, but I must admit that I enjoy them. One of the ones I enjoy is an old Burt Lancaster movie called “Valdes is Coming”, in it he plays a simple peasant who is owed some measly amount of money, which he is determine to collect, more on principle than on its worth. Those of you, who are also fans of the old westerns, can imagine what the rest of the story must be like.

I don’t know why Sarah Palin’s resignation lead me to remember the above mentioned story line, perhaps it was the quick dismissal from the experts, plus the wide range of theories and assertions from all spectrums of the political arena; which when contrasted with what she herself had to say and the way in which she said it, caused the associative thinking in my mind.

Only time will tell, but the end result of Sarah Palin’s decision to pass the baton to her Lieutenant Governor in Alaska, will not be determine by the pundits who make a living giving opinions, however objective or prejudicial they may be, like the political weathermen that they are, more often than not they are not very accurate with their projected forecast.

Are we somehow forgetting the “inevitability” of Hillary’s presidency?

Since everyone is doing it, I too would like to try my luck at weatherman. I see Palin’s success or failure, plus the ultimate shrewdness of her decision, being judged not by those writing her off today, but by “we the people”; it will ultimately be “we the people” who are going to elevate Palin above all the would-be experts, if indeed this is what she wants.

I don’t know what her ultimate goal is, but I do know that she is the clearest and loudest voice articulating the sentiments of millions of Americans who long for the Republic that is being stolen from them. Today she is being labeled as a quitter, since she has decided to walk away before the end of her term, but her stated reason makes sense to me, she is well aware of Lenin’s assertion that “A lie told often enough becomes truth”, and her enemies are his disciples.

I suspect that if she stayed on until the end of her term, the conversation will never be about her numerous accomplishments (however great they may have been), nor about her innocence of all the ethics accusations levied against her, that will not get any play. The “objective pundits” of the media will instead express with dismay, that she had been investigated fifteen, thirty or fifty times for ethics violations; but what about her innocence? You may ask, it too will be impugned with a timely raised eyebrow and a simple “well… after all, we are talking about Alaska”, no one will ever offer an explanation of what they mean by that, and no one will ever ask.

This is not new, this is what the left has always done and does to destroy their opposition, the tactics being used against her are straight out of Saul Alinsky’s book, "Keep the pressure on. Never let up." (Attack, attack, attack), “Overburden government agencies, to rendered them ineffective”, this is exactly what was done by ACORN during the election, when thousands and thousands of false voter’s registrations were sent to the precincts at all the battle states making their verification an impossible task. Essentially the same tactic in the form of numerous frivolous suits was being employed against the Governor here, thus occupying 80% of her time and that of her staff to ward off the attacks, attacks, attacks.

It is better to retreat a foot than to advance only an inch – Sun Tzu

George Orwell in an essay called “Politics and the English language”, wrote about his famous “1984” novel, in it he described something that very closely resembled what in our own non-fictitious world has come to be known as “Political Correctness”, in his book the word used was “Newspeak” (pronounced new-speak), a fictional language with a reduced and simplified vocabulary, created to satisfy the totalitarian regime and the Party faithful.

Newspeak was the government’s official language, and it was created to accommodate and promote the needs of IngSoc (English Socialism). According to Orwell, in 1984 no one spoke Newspeak yet; but when the administration’s rank and file, plus the media, were instructed to start using it always so that the new language could gain ground steadily, obediently the media and all party members began to use Newspeak words and grammatical constructions more and more in their everyday speech. 

In the real world, those in charge of manipulating public opinion have long believed that through the use of language, they can influence thought and culture, they know that through this mean they can create perceptions that later become “reality” in the minds of the public, if repeated often enough.

“A lie told often enough becomes truth.” -Vladimir Lenin

The advocates of these language changes often claim that the changes are designed mainly to treat others with respect, by not using terminology that offends them. In many instances an argument can be made in favor of the above mentioned, however more often than not what we are being sold, is nothing more than a masquerade of the true ulterior motives.

Such was the case in Orwell’s Oceania; the Newspeak language had nothing to do with sensitivity, its only goal was the manipulation of the truth, as illustrated below:

“Goodthink” defined the party’s orthodoxy or position, "Joycamp" was used to describe a forced labor camp, “Crimethink” was to even consider any thought not in line with the principles of Ingsoc, “Thinkpol” or “Tthoughtpolice” was a force in charge of eliminating crimethink, “Malreported” was any report unfavorable to the government, which the government later deemed untrue, and “youthleague” was a mandatory children’s group under control of the Thought Police.

Even the word free in “1984” was considered Oldspeak (heretic), the word free only existed in a certain context, as in “The dog is free of lice”. The concept of political freedom had been replaced by the word crimethink.

It has often been said that reality mirrors fiction, and so it seems that when we examine many of our current trends, we find that many of the fictional ideas that governed Oceania in “1984”, resemble an awful lot the world in which we live in today.

This past week, congress passed a new law that is making its way to the senate, proposing the “GIVE-ACT”, HR1388 (who can oppose the act of giving?) yet there are provisions in this law that uses the Newspeak term of “Mandatory Volunteerism”, could this possibly be our own “youthleague”? Was that not what Lincoln fought a war for?

Ask anyone who ever lived in a socialist, fascist or communist country, what “Mandatory Volunteerism” can be like, and they’ll be happy to tell you.

During the Russian revolution, the communist who were a miniscule minority of the population, called themselves the Bolshevik party, which meant the majority party, (if they were the majority, they couldn’t be wrong, could they?), Lenin believed in Newspeak.

Closer to home we find more and more Newspeak each day, liberals call themselves “progressives” (who can be against progress?); abortions are referred to as “reproductive freedom”, or “pro choice” (only a troglodyte can be against choice and freedom); the national organization of radically leftist women, conspicuously leaves the “radically leftist” syllables out of their acronym, and simply called themselves NOW (National Organization of Women), anyone who witnessed their behavior during the last election, knows that advancing the cause of women is not foremost on their agenda.

IngSoc (English Socialism) in its sleepless nights has in the last few weeks given us additional Newspeak words to enrich America’s vernacular. We are now told that we will no longer refer to enemy combatants as enemy combatants, they will now be known as “foreign detainees”, just as Orwell suggested, the media and the administration’s rank and file have been instructed to start using this term from now on. They have also been asked to no longer refer to the Global War on Terror as such, the new name to be used hence forth, is the “Overseas Contingency Operation”, who knows? Perhaps we will soon be told that the word “terror” much like the word “free” in Oceania, can only be used in a certain context from now on.

But it doesn’t stop there, it appears that the word Terror itself is part of Oldspeak, acts of terror will no longer be referred to as Terrorist Acts; the Newspeak term for these sort of actions is “Man Made Disasters”, with a straight face we are told, that they are not taking money from those who work to give to those who don’t; the Newspeak word for wealth redistribution is “tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes”, the handout is called an “investment on people” who don’t pay taxes, “investing” is Newspeak for welfare these days.

“Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.” -Thomas Jefferson

With our economy in shambles, our esteemed treasury secretary agrees with our Russian and Chinese “FRIENDS” (Newspeak for those who want to kill us), that tossing the dollar aside and going with a new global currency is not such a bad idea. This unelected official has also requested the unconstitutional right to fire CEOs of private industries, and to limit the salary of its employees, much as I am sure was done in Oceania.

Our attorney general is a proponent of amnesty for “undocumented immigrants” (Newspeak for illegal aliens), and is best known for brokering pardons for criminals and “man-made-disaterers” (Newspeak for terrorist) during the Clinton administration.

Our vice president, who was chosen for his vast knowledge in foreign policy, goes to Spain and thanks Zapatero for his help in Iraq, this is roughly the equivalent of thanking Obama for the Iraq invasion.

Our Secretary of State tells the Chinese that their repeated violations of human rights should not be an obstacle to our normal business relations.

Our house of representative voting 100% along party lines passed the largest spending bill in our entire history, an estimated yearly deficit of a trillion dollars a year for the next 10 years, and not a single conscientious objector placed his country ahead of his party’s line.

And our president goes abroad to the G20 meeting, and calls America an arrogant country that does not appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world, (what leading role?), he calls us dismissive and derisive of the old continent, that same old continent that has made such great contributions to humanity as, Fascism, Nazism, Communism and now Socialism.

But he didn’t stop there, our “Blame America First in Chief” (Newspeak for president), meets with the Russians and apologizes for America’s part in allowing our relations to “drift”. Little things like Russia’s cutting off natural gas supplies to our European allies, invading Georgia, threatening Poland with missiles on its border, coercing Kyrgzstan into removing us from the Bagram Air base, and poisoning Ukraine’s  president, had in our president’s view nothing to do with the “drift” in our relations.

Frankly I wish that creative colloquialism was the only thing that we had to worry about with the current one party rule in America, I pray that the omnipotent all seeing all powerful tyrannical regime of Oceania, will never occur in our lifetime, and that the current administration is successful at keeping us out of harm’s way from the despots that will surely come our way, to attempt to take advantage of America’s real or perceived weakness on the world’s stage at the G20.

A wise man said that “a method which fails repeatedly may possibly be wrong”, still far too many people do not allow facts to get in the way of their opinions, and treat facts as though they were… an inconvenient truth. In the 20^th century, virtually every perverse doctrine that suffocated freedom, slaved the governed and threatened world peace, began as Socialism; this was true of Fascism, Nazism and Communism.  Although the argument can be made that Socialism does not always progress into one of the previously mentioned doctrines, the fact is that Socialism will always (without exception) limit freedom and individuality by forcefully taking away from the population the fruits of their labor, and by imposing itself upon the private sector, this destruction of incentive ultimately produces slough and laziness, thus reducing personal and collective productivity to the detriment of society.

Due to the nature of human behavior, is not difficult to conclude that governments, although a necessary evil, are by nature conducive to corruption, never was the adage of “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” truer, than when applied to the complexities of governing, consequently it stands to reason that the larger the government the more fertile ground there is for corruption.

Of further distress, is the inherent arrogance of the socialist, who believe themselves better equipped to tell the individuals how to manage their lives and how to choose what is in their best interest. On the economic front, their interference with the private sector, and their stated goal to control the nation’s industries, is precisely the type of actions that puts the socialist in a collision course with the essence of the American experiment, as well as with the liberties that our forefathers fought so valiantly to preserve.

The common sense approach to economics that most sensible individuals understand and adhere to in their own lives when it comes to spending their own money, do not apply when a group of politicians are allowed to spend the people’s hard earned money, with little to no accountability. These days, is doesn’t matter whether the politician calls himself a Republican or a Democrat, fiscal responsibility is no longer part of our elected officials DNA.

The constant pounding of the left wing media, the unabashed demagoguery of politicians, and the general public’s apathy and unwillingness to educate themselves beyond the headlines being fed to them daily, has tilted the balance towards the left in our country. This is why there is a large group of politicians in Washington today, who in typical liberal elitist arrogance believe that they are able to control the largest economy in the world from the their high and mighty pedestals of Capitol Hill, ignoring that only the freedom of the marketplace can help the economy rid itself of poor business practices, while promoting productive investments that lead to long-term prosperity and well paying meaningful employment.

As if the rampant spending of the Bush years has not been enough, the situation looks even bleaker when we consider the makeup of the current political landscape; all indications are that the spending will increase, which probably means that our economic situation will continue to get worse before it gets better. Even if the large amounts of bailout monies were to generate the false sense of abundance that the government is seeking in the short term, the repercussions of keeping sunken companies artificially afloat will have devastating consequences in the long run.

 One does not need to be an economist to understand the simple concept of supply and demand, which establishes that the greater the abundance of any item, the less valuable it becomes. The unfettered printing of dollars being dumped into our economy with little accountability will make the dollar even less valuable, causing inflationary pressures that will hurt the elderly and the poor on fixed incomes the most. We are already hearing rumblings about the devaluation of the dollar, something that will be an even greater blow to millions of Americans who have already seen their retirement accounts depleted due to the rapid decline of their investments, and the instability of the financial markets.

Still we continue to make “economic” decisions that have more to do with politics than with the economy. We are told that we are bailing out the automobile companies, when in reality it is the unions that we are bailing out. If we were interested on the long term survival of the industry, we would insist on their reorganizations, so that they can rid themselves of bad debt and obligations, allowing them to emerge stronger and able to compete. But politics as well as the lack of faith on the free market, leads our politicians to throw billions of tax payer’s dollars to a business plan that no private investor would spend a single penny on. 

It has indeed been a year of ironies; we have placed in charge of resolving the financial crisis, the same politicians that caused the crisis, by forcing financial institutions to play Russian roulette with our monies, and we are rewarding with billions of dollars our most poorly run and dishonest industries, regardless of their incompetent or reprehensible behavior.

Since the early 1960s during the Viet Nam years and continuing in crescendo with each decade thereafter, the left has cultivated a sentiment of open hatred towards all of America’s institutions, the office of the presidency, our armed forces, our flag, the sanctity of life, the institution of marriage, religious men and women, and the rest of our traditional American values as put forth long ago by our forefathers. These venomous seeds planted at all levels of American society, seem to have finally been harvested on November 4^th 2008.

How else could we have possibly elected a candidate that found it difficult to wear an American flag on his lapel and who removed it from the surface of his plane? Someone who openly accused our military of air rating villages and killing civilians, someone whose list of friends and allies are the equivalent of the who-is-who of the “Hate-America-Society”, someone who rips our constitution and refers to it as a “charter of negative liberties”, who then talks about how to get around the limits that the constitution places on government, in hopes to achieve his desired plans for wealth and property redistribution, someone who openly discusses how to change the constitution, not in the democratic way foreseen by our forefathers, but through the use of “carefully selected” activist judges, the least democratic of all the branches.

To those of us who have lived within the bowels of socialism, is painful to see how like a phoenix that rises from the ashes of the toxic burnt trash heaps of society, the left works its way into the throngs of power by fanning the darkest passions of humanity, greed, envy, resentment and hate. Their discourse may sound appealing, filled with populist claims for justice, fairness and equality, but the reality as evident everywhere they have succeeded, is that the only true objective of the left is to subjugate the population, to seek unequivocal control and to perpetuate themselves in power.

Although the Soviet Union no longer exists, its ideology has thrived in our schools and universities for the last 60 years, this is why we now have several generations of people in government, civil service, business, education and mass media, that have been educated in universities where teaching patriotism is viewed as some sort of act of fascism, and where capitalism is said to be a system for exploiters and the greedy. Therefore when Obama says that he wants to “spread the wealth”, there is no indignation by an unsettling large segment of our fellow citizens, who simply lack the understanding of how such measures would totally transform our free society and destroy our entire economic system.

Back in the mid 1980s an ex-KGB defector by the name of Yuri Bezmenov was interviewed by a Ed Griffin. On this interview (that can be found on YouTube), Mr. Bezmenov gives a chilling account of what needs to be done to take down a country like ours, and later marvels at how far along the process had progressed in American society.

Below are the four steps as expressed by Bezmenov:

1-      Demoralization - "It takes from 15 to 20 years to demoralize a nation. Why that many years? Because this is the minimum number of years required to educate one generation of students in the country of your enemy exposed to the ideology of [their] enemy. In other words, Marxism-Leninism ideology is being pumped into the soft heads of at least 3 generation of American students without being challenged or counterbalanced by the basic values of Americanism; American patriotism."

2-     Destabilization - "Promise people all kinds of goodies, and the paradise on Earth.  To destabilize your economy to eliminate the principal of free market competition; and  to put a big brother government in Washington D.C.;"

3-   Crisis – "It may take only up to 6 weeks to bring a country to the verge of crisis.  You can see it in Central America now; and after crisis, with the violent change of power structure and economy, you have the period of so called "normalization" [which] it may last indefinitely."

4-     Normalization – "A cynical expression, borrowed from Soviet Propaganda.   When the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in 1968, comrade Brezhnev said "Now the situation in brotherly Czechoslovakia is normalized".  This is what will happen in [the] United States if you allow all the shmucks to bring the country to crisis." 

When asked about what America could do to defend itself, Mr Bezmenov said:

“Well, the immediate thing that comes to mind is, of course, there must be a very strong national effort to educate people in the spirit of REAL patriotism, number one. Number two, to explain [to] them the real danger of socialist, communist, welfare state, Big Brother government. If people fail to grasp the impending danger; nothing ever will help the United States.  You may kiss goodbye your freedoms.   All this freedom will vanish in 5 seconds - including your precious lives.”

We need to put his comments in perspective, as they were spoken back in 1984, but who among us has not seen the demoralization that we have been subjected to in recent years, we are told how the entire world hates America, a premise that I would qualify by saying that the rest of the far left loons and the enemies of freedom throughout the world hate America, the good will free loving people of the world look at us as there last hope.

During the last eight years the left and their spokesman’s in the main stream media, have been telling us that we live under a constant state of crisis, the war, oil prices, the middle east, the environment, etc. and last but not least the financial crisis, brought about by the same socialist who through the enactment of social engineering projects, together with the coercing of our financial institutions,  promised “paradise on Earth” to their constituents, thus causing the destabilization of our entire economic system, something which they falsely blame on the un-viability of free markets.

During this “greatest economic crisis since the great depression” the voices from the left cannot even wait for a normal government transition to take place on January 20^th, they are instead asking that it be move up to December 1^st.  According to the newly appointed Chief Of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, the number one rule is to, “Never allow a crisis to go to waste; they are opportunities to do big things.” Much like the Czechoslovakians waited back in 1968, it appears that all that remains for America to do at this time, is to anxiously await its own period of “Normalization”.