What is the easiest way to convince someone of the truth?  One way is to prove beyond a doubt, wherein they also have to run dry their excuses for it not being true.  Believe me when I say this, a liberal will say anything including "well I know Im right" when it comes to this approach.  If you don't believe me, I have a post way back on this blog where I was arguing with others about national healthcare.  He actually said "show me what you want but what I believe I believe". (This would be here for anyone wondering)  Another way is for you to say something is going to happen before it does, and it actually comes true.  Beck has basically risen to his status because he has done this.  The conservative movement has the opportunity to do this here with the healthcare bill being passed.  We know the dates everything goes into effect.  We know what exactly will go into effect.  We know how it will affect the market and insurance companies.  We know how it will affect the consumers.  We know the future. 

Earlier this week, Rush had Stacy on again, who is an employee for an anonymous insurance company working out of Atlanta.  She started calling in around 6 months ago (I think) and informing Rush on what was happening behind the scenes at her company.  She has been predicting that her company would last 3-5 years under the healthcare plans there were being introduced from congress, but this week she was much more melancholy than usual.  Her prediction was within 3 years her company would go under and the insurance business as a whole would go along with them.  She stated that the free preventative care would hurt them.  She stated all the pre-conditions would hurt them as well.  However, the main reason she quickened the death of the insurance market is the 85-15 rule being implemented in this signed bill. 

Previous to this bill, insurance companies had to stick to the 65-35 rule.  This means that 65% of their premiums had to go towards claims.  The other 35% went towards everything else in running a business(salaries, equipment, property, etc...) as well as keeping some in reserve in case a large number of people suddenly made claims.  This could be true of say when Katrina hit.  Many people were suddenly using their health insurance and companies needed to have a reserve fund for these occasions.  To stray from the 65-35 rule meant the business would be considered unstable and could be shut down. 

The new bill implements the 85-15 rule meaning 85% of the premiums will go towards claims.  What does this mean for the price of insurance?  It is obvious that insurance companies will not be able to lower the cost of running their business much, if at all.  If they could lower the costs, they would have done so already, for profit motives, however we already know their profit margins are very low, so there is very little room for change there.  So the previous count of 35% must now be jammed into 15%.  How will an insurance company run their business on 15%?  They will need to collect more premiums and make sure they payout more per claim.  The must now collect 2.33 times as much in premiums for their new 15% to equal the old 35%.  With people getting free preventative care, that will help in rising the number of claims, but getting to 85% will not be done with those alone.  I predict that they might inform doctors of their predicament and doctors may charge more, allowing insurance companies to pay more per claim.  I am not sure if there are other outlets for insurance companies, but I do not see any from my point.

These new rules however, do not go into effect until January, according to Stacy, so we will not see the effects to this until after the next elections.  The pre-conditions do not go into effect until after the next presidential election, as well as much of the other changes from the healthcare bill.

We must get this information out now to as many liberals as possible.  No need to convince them now, but plant that seed.  If we do nothing to inform them, when the insurance companies raise rates and collapse shortly after, they might say good riddance for raising the rates and ask for single payer.  Get them thinking now about what will happen in the near future, before it happens and they will remember your words.  Know precisely what is going to happen and speak with detail about each step.  Care not if they believe you, but get them to listen.  We all know insurance companies will collapse at or before 2014, so lets get the word out.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

So, Ive been thinking of a way to remove unwanted incumbents.  Currently, our Congress has something like a 16% approval rating, yet over 90% of incumbents win re-election.  How does that happen?  Name recognition is one reason, campaign laws are another.  All in all, people start voting for the party and pair that with the other advantages, it is very tough for a challenger to remove an incumbent.  What can we do?

This idea stemmed from some discussions taking place with judges here in Minnesota.  There is talk about removing judges from elections and instead have retention votes.  A retention vote is an up or down vote on whether the judge should stay in office, without any challenger.  If they are removed the governor chooses the replacement.  Now, I am not for politicians being chosen from on high, but the retention election is intriguing. 

Imagine on April 4th of each election year, the incumbents up for election must survive an up or down vote, without a challenger, or else they cannot run for re-election.  I believe this allows people to vote on the merits of the candidate, rather than against the merits of the opponent.  Negative campaign ads would be non-existent from the candidate, so there is no reason to vote yes because you dislike the challenger.  If they don't survive, this allows the party to replace them with a new candidate.  If they do survive, the election is run as normal. 

The turnover rate for elections would rise considerably I think.  This is just another idea that ran through my head...any thoughts?

Couple things on my mind.

The Tea Party Express backed Scott Brown on what seems like brand rather than principle. He wasn't exactly a staunch conservative, even though he was much better than the democrat in the race. Why did the Tea Party Express endorse him? The way I see it, the Republican brand has tried to create this "big tent" atmosphere and it has backfired. Instead of gaining popularity, they lost their base while losing those they were trying to win with the strategy. The Tea Party Express should be a beacon of conservative values and not focused on Republican victories. When I first saw their endorsement I thought, "he must be a true conservative", but now I see he is not. My view of the Tea Party Express is now tainted by their choice. The only way this movement can continue to gain strength is for those involved to stick to principle above all else.

Incentive is what drives the capitalist system. Greed may be what some call it, but whatever it is called, without greed capitalism cannot work. This can be seen in all socialist countries where they still have social freedoms to choose their careers, but lack the financial freedoms found in our capitalist system (or what freedoms we used to have). Our per capita is higher than nearly all countries, including all highly populated countries. Our living standards are incredible compared to even that of western Europe, which is supposed to be what socialists over here want to emulate. This can also be implemented in politics. The way I see it, we need to remove the incentive behind lobbyists and bribery. One idea is for terms to be extended to 3, 6 and 9 years rather than 2, 4 and 6, but then set one term limits. Just an idea, nothing more, perhaps you have a better one? In the end it comes down to finding a way to remove the incentive for these politicians to vote special interests over the people.

Why do I always hear that raising taxes will raise more money? I think the end result of taxes is fairly simple, even if our tax code is ridiculous. Last time we lowered taxes (or the last 3 times if you include Kennedy and Reagan) our revenue went up. How is that possible? First, fewer people obfuscate the law and pay the taxes because they are not as harmful as higher taxes. Second, people now have more money to spend. By spending, the company they gave the money to now has more money to spend, etc etc, and the economy is now turning over money at a faster rate. Simply put, more economic growth. With that in mind, can we continually lower taxes and gain more revenue? No. Obviously at 100% we will gain no revenue either, as people have no money to spend and the economy eventually comes to a halt. This leaves me with one logical conclusion, tax revenue is based on a bell shaped curve (roughly). Sure there may be more than one peak, but it roughly forms a bell shape I believe. Both 0% and 100% are set to 0 revenue. A peak must fall between the two and if we lowered taxes and gained more revenue, why are we not lowering taxes again? We should be lowering taxes at least until we start losing revenue, which would reveal a peak tax percentage. This is of course if our goal is for the government to collect as much in taxes as possible (the liberal point of view). In my opinion, we should continue to lower taxes until the government can only do those things which are stated in the Constitution, but thats just me.

How do you treat your dog? Do you take care of it? Feed it? Bathe it? Cut their hair, or have it cut? (If they have hair) Do you take it on walks? Take it to the vet? Etc etc. All in all, what does your control over your dog sound similar to? Your dog has guaranteed housing, food, healthcare, sanitation...oh and did I mention it is free for them? This sounds an awful lot like Pelosi's dream economy. Imagine an economy where your dog doesn't have to worry about losing their job for fear of losing their healthcare. Now, would you rather live like your dog? They are confined to your house or land. They cannot choose when they are bathed. They are given only the type of food you choose to give to them. If it costs too much to bring them to the vet for a health problem, you may choose to put them down. To top that off, if their owner chooses not to feed them, or bathe them or bring them to the vet, tough luck, they have no choice. The difference between living like conservatives want and as progressives want really comes down to whether you would rather live like yourself or your dog.

So, I was talking to a friend last night about the next superpower being China and the repercussions it would have.  Whenever I talk about these things rather than just think about them I usually do some pretty good problem solving and some ideas came to mind. 

First, no country has ever been structured around the global economy.  What I mean by that is when the US economy was shaping up, the world trade was existent, sure, but not to the extent it is today where distance is nothing and cost is the only obstacle.  The entire western world was formed before this time and we are now wilting.  China could be the only country that might make the claim, but it too will fall victim to the effects of it when they become the superpower.  If they truly rise to power, they will undergo the same problems we are today with workers making more money and cost efficiency pushing businesses to outsource.  India will then rotate to the main supplier of jobs as they are beginning to now and the cycle starts over with them. 

What happens however after that?  Shaping economies to gear towards a global economy will be a very tough thing indeed.  In my opinion, true capitalism will be the only way for a country to rise to a superpower and keep the title. 

China will rise up above us for now, after we collapse by our own stupidity.  However, once they begin their rise, their people will not sit back and stay in the poverty they are in.  Soon they will want higher wages, more freedoms, etc etc.  What can China do to combat this?  As a communist country, the cost efficiency is not enough for an open market to thrive and if they allow trade to continue as it does now, they will fall victim to the global market as I stated above.  The other route is for all imports to be stopped, or at least virtually stopped by tariffs.  This will increase tariffs on their exports as well, causing them to go into virtual isolation, much like they did a while back.  They do have 1 billion people as consumers and could make it work for awhile, but it will inevitably prove to cause their downfall as a superpower.  No matter how it is sliced, as a communist country, China would not be able to compete worldwide while increasing their standards of living.  Therefore, they cannot sustain the title of a superpower for much longer than it takes for another country to come claim the title. 

India I am less sure about as I am less knowledgeable about their government structure, so I will not comment. 

A true capitalist country will keep all costs, not pertaining to the development of any item, so low that they should be able to compete while having a higher standard of living than other developed countries.  Innovation is higher in such economies as America has proven over the past 200+ years, which also adds another facet to the private sector that a centralized economy would not have.

That is only my hypothesis because truly I do not know how this will pan out.  History has yet to show us what will happen as the global economy has never been so integrated.  With the entire western world in chaos economically, it will be interesting to see what type of economies thrive and how living standards will compete around the globe. 

What say you?

Sorry I have been gone for so long.  School was hectic and I have recently been accepted into the Air Force as a Navigator, so I have been working through some of that.  For anyone that cares, it will be many months before I leave for training. 

Anyways, I have started keeping a notepad with me at all times because I have little flashes of political ideas (among other things) and I can never remember exactly what I was thinking.  Without further ado...

Newt better not run for President.  I have heard nothing of him making an effort, but I refuse to vote for him if he does.  His personal beliefs are as solid as any, however in the NY-23 election he put party over principle.  In my opinion the time of political parties needs to come to an end.  No matter which party takes hold, even if it is a tea party, they will inevitably become corrupt.  When a party holds a majority, they believe they can pass things that would otherwise never pass the common sense test.  A party can use its leaders to put forth a bill that gives the parties more power instead of stabilizing the country.  Imagine a Tea Party banning schools from refusing to teach Christianity principles.  Would that benefit our country?  No.  Freedom is what made this country great and any ruling party will always remove freedoms in favor of party.  Humans are built that way and as such, there must never be a group with enough power to do such things. 

My idea would be for campaign finance laws be changed so that all funding cannot cross state lines.  With that national parties would dissolve as they would be of no benefit.  State parties would stay in tact, but that is no guarantee that each state will have the same parties.  One state may even still have the Whigs with this law.  I am sure that there would be loopholes that would be exploited, but how much could they actually get done by meandering through legalities?  If that idea is not sufficient, then maybe a change in the primary system.  First, all party affiliation would be removed on the ballot and second the primaries would be run together rather than apart.  A sort of pool would be set up.  Anyone can be in the first vote off and the top 4 survive for a second vote off and the final 2 run for the office.  Removes all parties from putting up candidates they choose.  The people have much more choice.  Anyways, those are some ideas off the top of my head.

Continuing my rant against parties...Republicans were rejected in 2006 for not remaining conservative.  Democrats are being rejected now and 2010 will show that, especially if they try to move forward with healthcare.  Why do people still vote for parties?  I will be sadly disappointed if Republicans sweep back into power without changing their ways.  I am all for tea party candidates coming forward as independents and winning some seats.  It will finally get this country back on the right track.

Brit Hume was on O'Reilly a while back talking about why Obama is having terrorists tried in civilian courts.  I felt his analysis needed to be repeated.  If these terrorists are put on civilian trial, Obama can put them in our prisons.  He is alleviated from making a decision on where they should be placed.  Guantanamo is proving more difficult to close than he first thought and for that reason he doesn't want to make any decisions regarding where to put new terrorists that have been captured.  I did not think of this until Hume made the comment and it makes perfect sense.  Obama doesn't feel that conservatives will hang him for it and he satisfies his progressive friends by continuing his rhetoric about closing Guantanamo while not adding to the prisoner count.

Airline security needs to take a proactive approach and start profiling.  How many 60 year old grandmas from Minnesota have been involved in terrorist activities.  It is obvious that some people are more of a danger than others.  I do not think we should detain anyone at all and it could be done very easily.  Passports keep a tab on where a person has been, so start scanning in passports as we pass through security and a history can be attained without trouble.  All those that are chosen for their baggage to be checked more thoroughly will have been out of the country for an extended period at some point in the past.  It streamlines our security while keeping us more safe by checking a higher percentage of high risk passengers. 

It has been said in the news that there is a "disruptive scheme" taking place with China and Russia.  They made it sound like they were going to refuse to buy our debt for the sole reason of hurting our economy.  Can anyone not think of another reason they might start refusing to buy our debt?  Like say a 12.3 trillion dollar debt?  With no end in sight to the deficits, I might add.  Our economy is sitting on the point of a blade and any waver will send it crashing.  I believe our crash will be exactly timed for when foreign governments decide the risk is too high and will stop buying our debt.  At that time the feds will only have two outs.  One is printing more money to stay ahead of inflation, so they can pay off the deficit.  Hyperinflation then sets in...or....they could not spend and deflation will occur and we still hit a depression.  Either way its bad, but at least if we stop spending and contract the government, we can recover afterwords.

Beck did a special on 20th century dictators a week ago and it was spectacular.  Here is what progressives do not understand about government control and something that conservatives should focus on.  I personally believe that a tyrannical government can be the most efficient and prosperous government possible, if conditions are met.  The person leading must be extremely well educated in everything, and I mean everything...or they must be humble enough to listen to others for expertise.  They must not allow the power to rule them, but instead remain steadfast to their personal beliefs.  As I have already named the impossible I will review.  The most improbable is a person not letting the power go to their head.  At that point they start making decisions that benefit them and their friends, rather than the country as a whole.  Their beliefs begin to warp as the fate of the few around them starts to outweigh the fate of many.  Every whim of a thought may be put into action simply for any small reason.  For example Stalin starving Ukrainians.  If by some miracle that is achieved, they must be educated enough to make the correct decisions.  It is impossible for a person to know enough to run everything, so they must rely on experts, who now have lots of power in their hands and the cycle repeats.  Therefore I argue it is impossible for a Tyranny to meet my standards. 

To break on that to the point at hand, why are conservatives against more government power?  What the government can give, it can take away.  Simple as that.  Sure, even IF the current leaders are all looking out for our best interests, will it always be that way?  What if the next generation becomes even more corrupt than the current and in an attempt to balance the budget decide that all those with +14% body fat are no longer able to have health insurance?  What can the people do now that private insurance is gone?  Nothing...pure and simple.  It is not the actual people in power that are the problem, but government as a whole.  It is not Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol pot, etc, but rather the government that enabled them to use their ambitions to kill millions.  If Hitler was elected president here, he would have no chance of murdering millions of Americans, because of how our constitution is written, he wouldn't have the power.  However as we give away our freedoms, that changes and any person coming to power with evil ambitions would be able to enact their will on the people.  It is the system, not the people.

So, I was thinking the other day about the Declaration of Independence and how it says we can abolish the government if it becomes destructive.  How would that possibly happen without destroying the government?  It would take a revolution and that cannot be good for the country.  So I came up with a civil, democratic idea that would completely change our government within 6 years.  There are some details I haven't worked out, but here is the basics.

An amendment would need to be passed, in which it would detail the following:

First, a petition would need to be permanently set up at a government website.  Every month, it would keep count of how many people sign the petition.  It would reset to 0 every month, so the running tally can start back at zero.  I figure people voting with their SS#'s would be safe on a government website because they already have our information anyways so it just goes into a database that already contains the information in another form.  This also denies illegals the ability to vote for the petition.  The petition would outline triggering a vote for a complete change of power in the government.  A guesstimate that might work would be a count of 10-15 million people would be needed to trigger the vote for the next election.  A % of possible voters would probably be the best since our population is ever changing and it should increase/decrease with it.

Second, the actual vote.  The next election cycle(or maybe sooner, this is a detail that could be worked out as well) the people would vote on a resolution that would decide whether 100% of all elected officials in the government should be replaced.  In other words, incumbents would not be allowed to run for re-election.  For senators, if they are up in 4 years, when they are up for re-election, they cannot run.  It would take a 70% majority by the people for this to occur and not voting would count as a no vote, among those who did cast a vote in the election process.

As you can see, some of the details are worth debating but basically, 70% of the people want them out as a whole, and by law it happens.  It allows for a civil exchange in hands, even if the same party retains power. 

On top of what was above, I was thinking about how a person who was doing the will of the people could stay in power.  What about them winning with 70%?  Or something of that nature.  If they can get the support needed, they can retain their position and run for re-election.  Again, another detail to be discussed.

What do you think about this possibility, or any changes that would be needed?  Of course I am aware that none of those in power would vote for this, but what of the idea itself?

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Ok, so if anyone has been watching Glenn Beck, you will see that the gloves are off!  I am excited!  I believe we are rising to a climax here and as soon as the economy hits the next drop (which I believe will be soon) things will start to move. 

Right now we have a White House employee leading a boycott against a private citizen.  Van Jones is leading a boycotting of the advertisers for Glenn Beck.  Beck was forced to take a week vacation by Fox, so things would cool down.  Beck came back swinging and things are starting to heat up.  Just imagine if anyone under Bush had done this against CNN or the likes.  My gosh the outcry.

Holder is investigating the CIA.  He has special prosecutors replacing the FBI's, which I remind you is very similar to what the Nazi's did.  They had their own courts and prosecutors, outside the law essentially.  This is very dangerous and must be brought to the forefront!

A bill is being talked about, which would give Obama emergency control of the internet.  Does anyone see where an abuse of power could take place?  Lets imagine that things continue to get worse and tens of millions of American's want to storm the White House.  What if Obama shuts down the internet in America?  How could we coordinate?  Any other number of abuses could be used, and that is the reason this must be stopped.

Of course the healthcare bill and cap and trade are still on the table, and they must be stopped.  The healthcare bill especially, since once it is put into place, removing it will be nearly impossible.  As for Cap and trade, I would like it stopped, but imagine just for a second...  It is voted in, NBC has billions caught up in the carbon trading market.  Republicans come in and repeal it, costing NBC billions.  It could ruin NBC, so it could be good lol.  Anyways, that is wishful thinking I guess.

The tide is turning on democrats, but we MUST not allow republicans to simply sweep back into power.  Now is the time to force republicans to choose whether they will be conservative, or not.  This two party system will only continue to ruin our country if we do not force them to change their ways.  Glenn Beck is doing an "In or Out 2010" list where there are simple choices any congressmen must make. 

1. I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze in government spending until that goal is realized.

2. I believe government should not increase the financial burden on its citizenry during difficult economic times therefore I will oppose all tax increases until our economy has rebounded.

3. I believe more than four decades of U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a travesty therefore I will support an energy plan that calls for immediately increasing usage of all domestic resources including nuclear energy, natural gas, and coal as necessary.

4. I believe in the sovereignty and security of our country and therefore will support measures to close our borders except for designated immigration points so we will know who is entering and why and I will vehemently oppose any measure giving another country, the United Nations, or any other entity, power over U.S. citizens.

5. I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.

Those are all things that any democrat or republican should be able to agree with.  We must take it further on our republicans.  We must vote out those who are not supporting conservative values.  Get those like Graham and McCain out of there!  Do it now, before republicans come back into power, otherwise it will be too late.  I have heard some say that it would be possible for a 100 seat swing in 2010 in the house.  If that is true, I believe at least 10 of those must be third party.  The power of the two party system must be decreased, if this country is ever to come back from ruin. 

Now is the time to get involved!  Now is the time to email you congressmen.  Now is the time to attend protests.  Now is the time to get informed.  Now is the time!  We are at a crossroads and how we collectively act will shape the future of this rebuilding.  Do we want to live in a country where we are not free to own property, or choose our healthcare, or our jobs, or our education?  We want freedom, and if we are to have it, we must let our voices be heard!  Time to let go of any political correctness! Time to bring facts to the table against the shouters!  Time to be louder than the shouters!  Time to make a difference!

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

I've taken some time off, so sue me.  hehe.  Sorry about the break.  I got a job that is taking up lots of my time right now and I am pretty tired afterwards.  This thought hit me this morning and I finally have some time to put my thoughts into words.

Obama has spent and spent and spent to try and not only help his cronies, but help the economy too.  He is taking this advantage of crisis to input as much socialism as he possibly can.  Fortunately, the people, and some democrats, are waking up and rejecting the healthcare bill so far.  Cap and Trade didn't fare well either previous to that.  So lets take a look at what has happened so far, with all the pet projects we have paid for.

Our economy is stable, for the time being (I will cover that later in this piece), and some have announced the recession is over.  The stock market has risen slightly in response to all the money pouring from our government into the economy.  Free cash is coming left, right and center.  Cash for clunkers is one example of this, though this will hurt us and drive the cost of vehicles up in the long run.  Much of the stimulus money was spent on Obama's cronies, so while it helps slightly, we do not even come close to getting the best bang for our buck.  It also increases corruption(if thats possible) and will again hurt us in the long run.  The take over of GM will kill the American auto industry by forcing GM to make decisions based on politics instead of economics.  The banks owing our government billions will also give our government power over them and will allow them to force their will upon the banks.  Say the government wants a certain minority group to get a special treatment, the banks will be forced to comply(more housing problems is foreseen here I believe). 

That is a quick summary of what is going on in the economy.  I know I didn't cover many things and some of them important, but that is not the focal point of this piece.  I want to know what is going to happen.  Where are we going from here?  Is the recession really over?  It seems so, unless we take into account the common sense of what other countries must be thinking right about now. 

According to:http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt

2.5 trillion dollars of our debt is owned by foreign countries, and that stat is from May 2008.  I would gander a guess that number is well over 3 trillion by now.  At that time China had over 500 billion of it and they are also the one most quickly buying from us, so I would venture to say that they are buying a majority of what we are putting up right now, leaving them approaching 1 trillion themselves.  China and Russia have been front runners in trying for a new world currency.  They believe we have not been responsible with our dollar and with that, they would like to remove the dollar as the world currency.  The government is already finding it tough to coax Americans into buying the Treasury bonds because we believe the same as China and Russia on this matter.  How does this work out if foreign countries refuse to buy our bonds from us, or worse if they sell their bonds back to us.  What do we do?

What is a motivator for people buying bonds from the government?  Safe investment + good interest return =  good investment right?  Up until now, they have been an extremely safe investment, but are they still?  Several economists believe not and Moody's has lowered all state bonds to a negative rating (I forget the exact rating, but you can search that yourself).  The Federal government rating is not as low, but is it far behind?  The spending habits of the feds have been worse, far worse, than the states, only there is one large difference.  The states cannot print their own money.  With the federal government printing its own money, they can fall back and in times of need, print enough to make it through and keep their investments safe(I say that, but it should never be used in this manner).  This is also the power they have abused and people no longer have faith that the dollar is rare enough to be worth something.  So with foreign governments refusing to buy bonds our government is forced to do one of two things.  1) Print the money or 2) Sell bonds.  Option one will inevitably lead to a crash in our economy not seen since hyperinflation of the Third Reich.  This cannot happen or our country will undergo a revolution, in my opinion.  Option two is what I have been talking about and have given reasons as to why this option will be tough.  How can they get people to buy their bonds?  They MUST raise the interest rate.  The security of the bonds are not what they once were and to make the risk worth it, the return must rise.  What happens here?  Inflation occurs.  All interest rates will rise and the dollar value will fall.  If foreign governments actually sell their bonds, it would increase this reaction by multiples.

Now, our government must make one of those choices, but the story does not end there.  Once they choose option 2(while secretly doing option 1 as well), if we continue spending, the interest rates will continue to rise as the security of the bonds decreases.  This inevitably leads to the same result as option 1. 

The only way out is for our government to spend a low enough amount to create a surplus, and fast, to bring our debt under control.  With that, our bonds can once again be worth something and foreign governments will feel safe investing in our country again.  It is a snowball effect each way.  Once the ball gets rolling in one direction, it continues to roll and gain momentum.  We just have to choose the right side of the hill to roll down.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Alright, so the cap and trade passed the house, so it gives us a chance to see which Republicans must go next election.  I got the list with the numbers off:  List

Bono Mack (CA) 202-225-5330
Castle (DE) 202-225-4165
Kirk (IL) 202-225-4835
Lance (NJ) 202-225-5361
Lobiondo (NJ) 202-225-6572
McHugh (NY) 202-225-4611
Reichart (WA) 202-225-7761
Chris Smith (NJ) 202-225-3765

I wouldn't worry about giving them a call, unless you want to hassle them lol.  We need to spread these names far and wide!  These people must!  MUST!!!   be voted out next election!  MUST!

So, I have been researching a bit about czars.  According to, http://www.thedailycougar.com/czars-crumbling-us-checks-system-1.1764220 Reagan created the first czar in a 'Drug Czar', though Biden coined the phrase.  According to Glenn Beck, FDR was the first, though he named them dictators instead of czars.  Ive heard Nixon was the first to have a czar as well.  In any event, none of them can hold a candle to Obama.  Most all the czars of the past, were merely renaming current positions.  The head of some department would become the czar, for example.

Obama is doing something much different here, as he is creating czars for the purpose of having unrestricted authority over their respective jurisdictions, given by Obama himself.  Who do these people answer to?  Congress?  Most certainly not.  They answer to Obama, and Obama only.  It is like the cabinet members being appointed without congressional approval, only much more legal authority falls upon these czars than cabinet members.  They do not fall under the triangle of power that our constitution has set up.  Obama is intentionally creating these positions to obfuscate the constitution.

His Czar list can be found here: Obama Czar list

One of the most frightening?  The Pay Czar.  The job of the Pay Czar is to regulate the compensation of employees at companies that received financial aid.  Now, lets ignore that the financial aid was illegal for a moment.  I am slightly torn here because they took the aid and are no longer fully private, but does anyone see where this is headed?  What about regulating pay for all private businesses, whether they received aid or not?  He has already said that his goal is redistribution of wealth, so what is to stop him?  His conscience will clearly not do it, and if they are breaking the law already, that will not stop them either.  Simply put, there is nothing that will stop him from taking this pay czar to depths of control never seen in America.

We have a green-jobs czar as well.  Heck, we even have a Guantanamo Closure Czar, and the closing of Guantanamo is looking less and less likely.  Why are these people here?  Lets say the department of energy cannot get something done to force expensive untested energy down our throats, how will the government force the issue?  The Green-jobs Czar decides he is going to create some stipulations and bada bing, bada boom, environmental activists have their way, without going through the legal processes set up by our Constitution.

When I first began hearing about Czar's, I wasn't very concerned, but the more I hear, the more dangerous they are to the people.  If any whim of an opinion crosses their mind, they can move it into law with the enforcement of the executive branch, without using the legislative branch in the least.  Let's keep our eyes on this issue, because the amount of power at the fingertips of these collective czars is incredibly large. 

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

I haven't been able to spend time researching, so Ill just put some of my thoughts up for now.

What is with the Unions and this administration?  If I wasn't pissed off about the unions enough before this, they are side-stepping contracts by jumping to the government for help with these bond payments.  This should not be handled by anything other than what the law says! 

Pay Czar?  How far is Obama going to take these Czars?  Step one is controlling pay of those who took tarp money, step two is expanding based on interstate commerce laws.  They will act like those CEO's making all this money are affecting interstate commerce and will control the pay of everyone.  The interstate commerce clause was not meant for this! 

Palin should be back in the fray in 2012.  It is clear, to even democrats and independents now, that those accusations brought against Palin were false.  Conservatives need to shove those facts down the throats of each and every person they meet for the next 3 years.  She can be a person to rally behind, so lets get her back on track.

Obama thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear capabilities?  What is our country coming to?  Israel will not allow this to happen and we will abandon them in their time of need.  That is my prediction.

Experts say this recession is going to end around years end, so Ive read, but on what grounds do they base this?  Slowing rates of unemployment drops?  See, my father owns a manufacturing business and has noticed no great increase in orders, which means that in 6 months, we won't be on any major road to recovery.  Manufacturing is about 6 months ahead of time.  These experts are all political instead of looking at the facts.  Countries are shying away from the dollar now.  China will not buy anymore.  Russia is selling the bonds they do have.  What does that do to the value of the dollar?  Down down down.  We are printing money like paper, what does that do to the value of the dollar?  Down down down.  The signs are all against the dollar.  Even if all this spending gives us a temporary relief from this recession, it creates a cliff we are heading towards and very soon.  All this spending is forcing other countries to turn away from the dollar, which then causes it so lose its value, so we must increase our spending even more to make up for the inflation.  Its a slippery slope and we are putting on our skis.  What would be my solution?  Remove unnecessary regulations.  Add ones where loopholes are being found.  Creating a larger government is not a solution that can last.  This would also be a perfect time to wean people off of welfare as a recovery begins.  During recovery the most amount of jobs are probably open.  Add regulation after regulation to the welfare program until people are almost forced off of it.  My thought on that anyways.

On my trip to Europe, I noticed how...simple their lives were.  I felt like I was back in the 50's or something.  I also noticed lots of hypocrisy, based on what they scream our way.  I noticed lots of them driving, unlike what they claim.  The only reason they do less driving is because gas is about $6 a gallon.  Plus their countries are so much smaller, it is much different than the United States.  Racism is also something that they always claim we are, yet I only saw about 100 non-white people in all of my visit and I did not stay static on my trip.  We started in Frankfurt, drove along the Rhine north and broke off stopping in The Netherlands.  Visited Amsterdam the next day and stayed up there another night.  Drove to Omaha beach and stayed there a night.  Drove to Paris, visited the city and stayed there for the night.  Stopped in Strasbourg, France to view the Notre Dame of Strasbourg and continued on to Matrei, Austria.  Stayed there for 4 nights while visiting Dachau, Munchen and Salzburg before staying our last two nights in Mosbach, Germany.  They claim we are racists, yet we have the most diverse population in the world.  How dare they judge us! lol  On some other notes, their happy socialist lifestyles are not all they are cracked up to be.  First of all, the average person makes less dollars, yet alone Euros after the exchange rate, than us.  The Euros then go and buy less than our dollar does in the US.  Instead of paying say $50 for some shoes, you pay 60 euros.  So it would be like the average person making around $25,000 or so over here.  Our lifestyles are so much higher than theirs it cannot even be compared, yet democrats clamor for their living conditions.  God help us.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

I just got back from a long family European vacation, so that is the reason for my long break.  I need a day to recuperate, then I will be back strong.  Sorry for the break.

So, the new question for liberals is: Should Truman have been tried for war crimes for dropping the A-bomb on the Japanese?

Some say yes, and some say no. 

Let me first say to those of you liberals who support going after Bush, but say Truman should not have been, lets just review a couple facts here.

Bush reasonings:  3 prisoners were waterboarded. 

Truman reasonings: 2 Atomic Bombs dropped on 2 Japanese cities causing over 200,000(est) deaths of civilians.

How can you possibly, with facts, state that Bush committed war crimes and Truman did not?  It's impossible.  Plain and simple.  If you believe this first case, you are simply doing it for partisan reasons. 


Then there are those who believe neither should be tried(or should have been).  There is no reasoning that needs to be made from me here.  I cannot come up with a single argument in which either should be tried, so I will move on to my last case.

Those that think both should have been tried or should be tried.  First I will break down the Truman case more solidly then I will move to Bush. 

Truman:

To understand why the bomb was dropped, one must understand the circumstances under which is was done.  So, I will use one such piece of information, which is the invasion plans for Japan.  The United States had plans for if Japan did not surrender, and they would not have if we did not drop the bomb.  What would have happened if we did not drop the bomb?

Operation Downfall had two parts and some estimates for casualties were taken.  Operation Olympic is the plans for invading Kyushu and that island alone.  Operation Coronet was the second part of the invasion and would take place near Tokyo

"In a study done by the United States Joint Chiefs of Staff in Apr 1945, at least 456,000 casualties were to be expected for Operation Olympic alone."http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=54

"Low numbers are quoted as reasons to do the invasion, 125,000 for Olympic and to end the war. High numbers, one million US casualties for Downfall"http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfall.html

"Based on the numbers of Japanese troops they believed were available to repulse an invasion and on the brutal fighting spirit they had shown in previous engagement, military planners estimated nearly 500,000 casualties in the invasion of Kyushu with over 100,000 fatalities. For the invasion at the Kanto plains, they estimated 1.2 million casualties with over 260,000 fatalities. To put that in perspective, overall in the war, including both the war in Europe and the Pacific, the U.S. suffered a little over a million casualties with around 300,000 deaths. Operation Downfall, if even close to military estimates, would account for a greater number of American casualties then all the rest of WWII combined. "http://www.pikerpress.com/article.php?aID=1459

This is just in US casualties, imagine the Japanese civilians as we came in for the invasion.  They were brainwashed so entirely, that whole towns ran off cliffs as we invaded other smaller islands.  Would they be defending their homeland vigorously as we came through?  You bet they would!  I have heard millions being the number of people that would died, up to 10 million, but that is the highest end.  Certainly nobody could argue that less than a million would die in the invasion, on the Japanese side alone. 

"216,627 troops were surrendered on Kyushu alone"http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfall.html

Their soldiers fought to the death, unlike the western style fighting in Europe.  If there was over 200,000 soldiers defending that island, it is a good bet that over 90% of them would die for us to succeed. 

Simply put, hundreds of thousands more people would have died if we did not drop the A-bomb on Japan.  There is no way around the facts of that.  In troops alone the numbers would easily exceed 500,000 combined.  Add in the patriotic civilians and the numbers grow exponentially. 

So how can one charge Truman with war crimes if he saved hundreds of thousands of lives? 

For more information I recommend watching a special about it from the history channel.  I have it on my DVR, but you can buy it if you like.  Maybe Ill find a way to get it off my DVR and onto the internet or something. 

http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=69228M

Bush

Bush is more a case of opinion than anything.  Not a single person has died from interrogation techniques used.  Only a total of 3 people were waterboarded and information was given to us which saved American lives.

"the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques... Before the CIA used enhanced techniques ... KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' "http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/did_enhanced_interrogation_sav.html

The CIA memo contends that prior to waterboarding being used Mohammad was not only "...uncooperative but also appeared contemptuous of the will of the American people to defend themselves." However, the CIA contends that after Mohammad was subject to the waterboard technique, he became "...cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles."
http://www.examiner.com/x-6709-LA-Legal-Profession-Examiner~y2009m4d21-Did-Waterboarding-save-Los-Angeles-lives?cid=exrss-LA-Legal-Profession-Examiner

The evidence of waterboarding giving us useful information is out there for all to read.  With that, waterboarding saved American lives at the expense of some displeasure of an enemy to our country. 

Keep in mind that throughout this moral judgement, these terrorists do not fall under the Geneva convention, for they are not dressed in uniform.  According to law, there is no case against Bush for war crimes.

I would like to take this moment to put forth my opinion on the matter.

Torture is necessary if we believe a person has information we need.  Other techniques should come first, but if they do not budge, the President should be allowed to give authorization to waterboarding without being held for war crimes.  If we go down this path of, trying any former president who has a different opinion, of war crimes, we will be handcuffing ourselves from defending this country.  Other techniques were used against Khalid Sheik Mohammed and he did not budge.  I do not support waterboarding of all prisoners, but why would we put ourselves at a disadvantage by removing a way of gaining intelligence.  Why would any prisoner give up any information if they know for certain that they will not have to worry about any inconveniences while in our care?  Even the possibility of threatening them is gone.

Both men saved lives in a calculated move that helped our country and hurt our enemies.  Truman ended up saving Japanese lives as well, and Bush didn't kill any extra terrrorists while interrogating them.  How any sane person could hold them for war crimes is beyond me. 

PS, sorry about the short break.  School is coming to a close and projects and finals have taken up more time lately.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

So, I was gathering information on our welfare and education system, when I felt an urge to write on our mortgage crisis in detail.  Im listening to this book by Mark Levin called 'Liberty and Tyranny:A Conservative Manifesto' and he mentioned something that I did not know about the housing crisis.  I heard about it, but did not understand it.  It really opened my eyes to how incredibly screwed we all are lol.  FYI, I recommend that book to anyone who reads.  Spectacular book.

It all starts with derivatives.  If you do not know what they are, they are, as used by the banks, allowing outside companies to invest in the mortgages banks loan.  For example, AIG could pay Bank of America 200k for a loan worth 250k based on the risk of the loan.  AIG can then make 50k off the loan if it pays off and the bank gets a quick 200k back for it.  You ask why a bank would do that?  Well, it all starts with the CRA bill.

The bill: CRA bill: Clinton

Notice part B:"It is the purpose of this chapter to require each appropriate Federal financial supervisory agency to use its authority when examining financial institutions, to encourage such institutions to help meet the credit needs of the local communities in which they are chartered consistent with the safe and sound operation of such institutions."

What does that entail?  One example, is that if banks wanted to merge, their CRA score would need to be high enough.(City Journal)  Or if a bank wanted to buy another bank, their CRA score would need to be high enough.  There are some other things I have heard, such as the interest rate from the fed to that bank being worse based on their score, but I cannot verify that, so it is hearsay. 
Here is also another example: IBDeditorials
"April 1998
HUD announced a $2.1 billion settlement with AccuBanc Mortgage Corp. for alleged discrimination against minority loan applicants." 
Lawsuits are now being done to banks who don't have a high enough CRA score.  Would that be motivation enough?

So lets start after the CRA bill has been passed shall we?

Banks are now beginning to lend to higher risk persons to keep their CRA score high enough for the federal government.  By doing this, it leaves less money for less risky loans and it is more likely the bank will not have the profits they would by otherwise using the money to loan to safer people.  Subprime lending has already been started by the banks at this time, but they are looking for an easier way to keep their CRA score high enough without taking the risk themselves.  What do they do?  Create derivatives in the banking industry.

Before I go any further, it is important to note the effect subprime lending had on housing prices.  Suddenly people feel they can buy more expensive homes and more people are then moving and buying homes.  Housing prices begin to rise because of this.



According to that graph prices began to rise shortly after Clinton signed the CRA bill in 1995.  That red line should always be fairly flat even if the blue line moves up.  Housing up until 1995 was always close to the inflation rates, but what the subprime lending did was make affordable housing, not affordable.  Without this bubble, we do not have this crisis today, but since we do, it is important to know to what extent our trouble has expanded.

Lets imagine for a moment that derivatives were not in existence during this crisis.  What is the outcome?  Banks are forced to loan within their means and while the economy was booming, all was fine and dandy, until 2006.  Starting in 2006 (mysteriously the year democrats took over congress) the economy leveled and the prices of housing began to fall.  Also the price of gas was hitting all-time highs which put extra stress on the average person.  With the prices of housing falling, people began to get upside down in their loans and with other prices rising due to oil costs, they could not make their payments.  What happens, but defaults begin to rise.  Not just the higher risk loans, but loans from the average household.  Banks are now caught in a trap where they have no money and people are not paying in as they should anymore.  Banks collapse, but the problem is only within the banks means and only found in the banking industry.  It is hard, but manageable. 

Lets bring Derivatives back into the equation.  What happens now?

So, we are at the phase where banks are trying to find easy ways to avoid the risk and keep their CRA score high for the federal government.  They start allowing other companies to invest in the mortgages for profits.  Sure the banks take a minor hit on each one, but they turn around and loan the money anyways and their CRA score is raised at a small loss.  The banks also don't have to worry about the risk of those mortgages, so in the end, they probably come out even on the money side, and their CRA score is much higher for it.  As we move to 2006, all is fine and other companies are making profits as loans are paying off so far.  As the housing bubble bursts though, risky and non-risky loans start defaulting as they would have without derivatives.  What is the problem now?  Banks are stuck with these loans and are going into major debt as they would have.  A problem added on top is other companies who invested in the mortgages, are now underwater as well. AIG was a major investor in these loans and look how that has panned out for them.  Instead of the problem being concentrated, it is spread out.  The banks were able to lend more money due to the investors paying off the loans immediately, so they turned around and made more loans.  The banks are in just as much trouble as if derivatives did not exist, however we have loads of debt spread out among many companies now. 

Just how much trouble are we in?

I have heard numbers as high as 1 quadrillion, or 1000 Trillion, but I will use a more credible number, though not less scary.
According to Warren Buffet we have a $516 Trillion derivative market waiting to burst on us. 
Derivatives New Ticking Time Bomb

There isn't enough money in the world to pay this off.  This is why the government MUST stay away. 

This has two scenarios.
1)Government gets involved
2)Government stays an observer and repeals laws that caused this

1)
If the government gets involved they are putting the entire country on the hook for this money and it is impossible to pay back.  It will inevitably end in bankruptcy for our country and possibly anarchy with all our welfare programs running dry.  Is there another scenario?  I do not believe I see one.  The housing bubble has still got a long way to fall until prices are back where they should be and I don't see it stopping before that time.  I showed you that video of Beck where we are still at an inflation price of 170k and we need to fall to 100k for prices to be even with inflation.  As the prices continue to fall, our economy cannot turn around.  The people will be in too much debt for the economy to flourish as it did before, because we will have no money. 

2)
The government stays on the sidelines.  This is preferable, though we will still have some rough times.  The banking and companies invested in the loans, will crumble, but the country will not be on the hook for it.  They will be able to rebuild because all the debt is circular in a way and once one falls, it is a house of cards, but the debt will not be the same kind of debt like if we owed China all those trillions.  Declaring bankruptcy and dissolving is the best way to go as it dives our economy into a depression, but it removes the toxic debt that would be hanging over us.  Our country would not need to declare bankruptcy in this case and our country can be allowed to recover.

Neither case is a necessarily good scenario, but tough decisions need to be made.  I know Obama can't even decide whether he is for, or against going after Bush's administration on torture, but he needs to be a leader right now. 

In my ideal scenario, the government would lower taxes and spend less.  The people then have more money to spend, which would hold the economy at least steady.  The people would also have enough money to pay their loans and thereby being a sort of "bailout" to the banks, though the money is not stolen from the people, but their principles on their houses is being paid off.  With payments coming in the banks are able to stay afloat and possibly find a way to slowly fix the problem.  The debt is not spread across the country where the average person must pay for it.  Imagine how much money the banks would get in this scenario?  Our GDP the past couple years was something around 13 trillion I believe.  What portion of your paycheck goes to your house?  I know many people are paying over $1000 per month on their house, so Ill use that number, even though I believe it to be pretty low.  $12,000 a year is probably close to a quarter of the average household spending.  With a GDP of 13 trillion and 10 trillion of it in the private sector, I would venture to say that banks would get about 2.5 trillion from the people paying their mortgages.  Its a natural bailout and our freedoms are not trampled.  It is easy to see why %5 of loans defaulting is killing the banks.  %5 of 2.5 trillion is 125 billion.  That is where our problem would probably lie if derivatives were not in the equation. 

One last thing I want to look at is what would have happened if the CRA bill had not been passed?  The subprime lending markets would not have been introduced and housing prices would not have skyrocketed.  The housing bubble would therefore have nothing to burst and we would not have this problem.  I don't think anyone can deny that the CRA bill caused housing prices to rise and rising housing prices is the main ingredient to this entire debacle. 

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke

Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
Article 5
Article 6
Article 7
Bill of Rights
Amendments 11-27

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President"

You know, when I first heard that Obama was not born in America, I doubted there was any truth to that claim.  However, as time passed and he still did not show any proof, I am beginning to wonder if he was indeed born in another country.  Why would he not come forth with proof if he has it?  If it doesn't make sense, then it probably isn't true and it doesn't make sense to withhold information of him being born inside the country if he was born here.

"The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."

All that ranting and raving about citizens vs other states and they change the law within a decade.  So their powers are now even less than during the Federalist Papers and during that time I couldn't find where all these social programs would fall under. 

"Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

Could anyone find a way to put what Fonda did during Vietnam, not in the basket of treason?  Clearly adhering and giving aid to our enemies.  I could certainly twist other things to appear as treason as well, but I won't for now. lol

"The senators and representatives before-mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this constitution"

We must hold them accountable to this oath!  WE must!!

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Make no law...establishing or prohibiting.  It says nothing about public displays having anything to do with religion.  I believe that public displays should be able to have religious symbols is the majority of people approve of it.  This offense taken by minorities must stop.  It does not take away any freedoms by a majority of the town approving a manger scene.  There is no wall of separation between church and state either.  That is all smoke and mirrors.

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

You go Texas!!!  It is about time a state stood up and said they aren't going to take it anymore! 

"XVII - U.S. Senators to be elected by direct popular vote

Passed by Congress May 13, 1912. Ratified April 8, 1913."

Democracy is just a prelude to oligarchy which means that it is not sustainable and hence is why our founders did not choose a democracy, but a Republic.  I do like having many different ways our representatives get elected.  1913 is a time when Wilson was president which means his progressive movement towards oligarchy was in motion.  This just reasserts to myself, that my first intuitive belief on this subject is correct. 

"XXIII - Presidential vote for the District of Columbia

Passed by Congress June 16, 1960. Ratified March 29, 1961."

Why?  Is St. Paul separate from the rest of the state when voting for Governor?  Why should DC be "special"?  Elitists I tell ya...

Well, that was all for the Constitution.  Time to start some research!

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" Edmund Burke