"President Potter"

Remember the movie "It's a Wonderful Life?" Go back to that great scene at the beginning of the Great Depression where George Bailey is pleading with his clients at the Building and Loan not to panick and run to Potter for help:

"I beg of you not to do this thing. If Potter gets a hold of this Building and Loan there'll never be another decent home built in this town. He's already got charge of the bank. He's got the bus line. He's got the department store. And now he's after us. Why? It's very simple. Because we're cuttin' in on his business. That's why. Because he wants to keep you livin' in his slums and payin' the kind of rent he decides. Can't you understand what's happening here? Can't you see what's happening? Potter's not selling--he's buying! And why? Because we're panicking and he's not!"

The President of the United States just ordered the CEO of a private company, GM, to resign. The CEO resigned. This is the most obscene power grab of a U.S. President I have ever witnessed. First of all, where in the Constitution (which Pres. Obama swore to uphold) does it enumerate that the President has the authority to fire the head of any private business? So, now the President--the Federal Government--is the de facto head of the largest auto company in America. The Federal Government under this current administration continues its march to nationalize the major industries of our country in order to "help out." Remember--whenever the government expands, your liberties contract.

In the beginning of the scene, Potter says to George: "George, I'm going all out to help you in this crisis. I've just guaranteed the banks suficient funds to meet their needs." George Bailey then turns to Uncle Billy and says, "They just took over the bank."
When Government says they're here to help, they really mean they are here to take over your life--whether it is health care, education, the banking industry, or now the transportation industry.

But all this is the natural result of CEOs who go crawling to the federal government for bailout money when their own mistakes cost them dearly. The fed is all too eager to print up more money and toss it to private companies in order to take over. With government shekels come shackles. And now we see the shackles of big government snapping tight around whatever is left of free enterprise in this country.

Potter acquired control over the banks, transportation (the bus line), and the department store in Bedford Falls. Only one little business stood in his way of total dominance.
That was just a movie.
If the Federal Government under the orders of the President and a compliant Congress can fire CEOs and take over private businesses, what's next? Who's next? Who will stop them?

"When the Weather Won't Fit the Agenda"

I just saw the national weather report for Saturday, March 28, 2009. Blizzard conditions are closing in on the Southern Plains. For this time of the year, especially, this is really unusual. Most of us are buying seeds, rotor-tilling the garden and getting ready for Easter. But get this from an AP story: "A major spring blizzard plodding eastward over the Southern Plains shut down major highways and paralyzed the region as residents braced Friday for up to a foot of snow, freezing 45 mph winds and massive snowdrifts." Later in the story the weather service predicts snowdrifts as high as 20 feet in the Texas panhandle!

Moving right along to a related story, residents of Fargo, North Dakota are bracing for massive flood waters from the Red River to breach their dams. The Red River is some 22 feet above flood stage. The story reads: ". . . the ice-laden river could climb as high as 43 feet, nearly 3 feet higher than the record set 112 years ago." What is the cause of such an impending natural disaster? The rest of the story tells us: "This year, the river has been swollen by heavier-than-average winter, snows, combined with an early freeze last fall that locked a lot of moisture into the soil. The threat has been made worse by spring rains." I thought the earth was overheating due to carbon emissions from the use of fossil fuels! (Funny how where I live in the mid-West the weather service recorded some of the heaviest snow-falls and coldest winters in history in the past three years.)

Interesting. Early Spring blizzards in the Southern Plains. Unprecedented flooding caused by heavier than usual snow fall. How does this fit in with the religion of Man-Made Global Warming? It doesn't. Current cooling trends for the past several years do not fit into the agenda of Global Warming advocates. For the past several years the earth has been cooling, not warming, the sea temperatures have been cooling, Antarctica has recorded colder than normal temperatures, but none of this puts a dent in the mythology of Man-Made Global Warming. Weather is not a static thing. The earth has its normal periods of warming and cooling (witness the "Mini-Ice Age" from the 11th century to the 13th century in Europe), and man has had nothing to do with it. For a balanced perspective from a true scientist I recommend http://www.andrebernier.com/. Andre is a meteorologist in northeast Ohio who (along with many of his fellow meteorologists) seriously questions the science and conclusions of the Global Warming crowd. On his site he has a link to the Canadian Broadcasting System's 2007 documentary "Global Warming--Doomsday Called Off." Check it out.

So, if the earth is cooling down (again--as it naturally does without our help), and the "science" of Global Warming is questionable at best, why are politicians so intent on enacting legislation that will handicap or restrict our industry, our economy, our way of life? Why are government officials so keen on Cap and Trade policies and signing international treaties to restrict our so-called Carbon Emissions? Why is our government advocating "smart meters" placed in every American's home in order to monitor how much energy we are using during the day. Are they concerned about "saving the Planet," or more about controlling the population?

"More Terms Defined--'Fascism' "

"You're nothing but a fascist!" I hear this loosely tossed around often enough--sometimes on TV, usually on talk radio. Almost always in anger. To be called a fascist is an insult, to be sure.
And for good reason. We associate the most criminal minds of the past 100 years with this word: Benito Mussolini of Italy and Francisco Franco of Spain. But what does the word mean? Does it refer to just anybody with whom you have some sort of political disagreement? Is it "left wing" or "right wing" in the political spectrum? Does it apply only to little dictators with moustaches, silly uniforms and jackboots?

First, fascism is a real political term. Groups calling themselves "fascists" gained power in devastated European countries after World War I (1914-1918). These nations (Italy and Spain for example) had no history of representative government and were poverty stricken. Politicians who guaranteed peace, economic prosperity and glory for the nation rose to power through violent intimidation of their enemies.

The fascists believed that a strong central government should not necessarily confiscate all private businesses or property (as the Communists would). Under fascism there is some nationalization of financial institutions as well as transportation and communication industries, but the rest of the private businesses would be tightly controlled by the central government through such things as wage and price controls, and restriction of production and distribution of goods and services. All of society would answer to the dictates of the central government.

In short, fascism (and its fraternal twin Naziism) was a more violent and oppressive strain of socialism. If a political spectrum shows left wing politics as calling for more government control over people and property, and the right as encouraging less government control, then fascism and naziism would be on the left. Only communism would be further left of fascism/naziism.

"Can the Federal Government Run Your Business Better Than You Can?"

In my local paper the Associated Press just reported that the President of the United States supports free markets. Astounding. It is actually news that the President of the freest nation on earth feels the need to publicly state the he "supports the free market economic system?" In the story he went on declare that the government has to intervene in the private markets now. . .He wants to "right the ship" and then "let private enterprise do its magic." First of all, I would really like to see where our Congress or President has successfully run a private business. Congress has demonstrated for decades that it is incapable of even operating inside a budget.

Secondly, someone needs to politely remind my President that the main cause of our present economic woe is not the free market. It is centralized government in Washington D.C. intervening and trying to micromanage financial institutions. In 1977 President Jimmy Carter signed the Community Reinvestment Act in which the Federal Government began to force private lending institutions to make loans to people who were credit risks. In September of 1999, President Clinton added fuel to the fire by accelerating this process--pressuring banks to loan money to individuals whose credit was not good enough for conventional loans.

Of course, you have to throw in plenty of greedy schemes from Wall Street and people of various incomes who knew they could not afford the house of their dreams, but the current problem arises from people in government who were trying to turn banks into charities.

We all know the results now. The collapse of the housing market. The savings, pensions, retirement funds wiped out. The U.S. and other nations on the edge of an economic meltdown. Government was the source of the problem, not the free market. And now Government thinks it has the skill to solve it by more interference?

"What's so bad about Ponzi Schemes?"

This morning I heard on the radio that Bernie Madoff pled guilty to his enormous "ponzi scheme" in which he ripped off investors and lost about 64 billion dollars. The life savings of plenty of people were lost forever.

But what is a ponzi scheme? Simply put it is a promise from a con artist. The con man coaxes people to "invest" their money in his plan. He eventually has a large number of people paying into his scheme, whatever it is, and he is constantly paying out to the investors what others have paid in. Problem is, he has nothing in reserve to guarantee the investors payments. He is always (barely) one step ahead of the investors by paying out what another group has payed in to his scheme. If anyone in this scheme fails to make a payment into the plan, the whole thing collapses like the proverbial house of cards.

Madoff's scheme collapsed. One man on the radio said, "Madoff showed no remorse. He's not sorry about what he did. He's sorry he got caught." A lady said, "We weren't looking for returns. We were just looking for safety."

I thought, "What's the difference between Madoff and the Federal Government's promise of Social Security? Isn't that just a ponzi scheme that hasn't collapsed--yet?" The truth is that the payments going out are covered only by the money coming in (barely). For now. There is no reserve of cash for Social Security. And liberal and conservative projections are that the whole thing will run out of money in about 20 years. It will come. Is any prominent politician today sounding the alarm bells about this Government sponsored ponzi scheme? Maybe there are some--but I haven't heard them lately. Madoff's paying for his crime. Who will pay for the government's ponzi scheme?

"Defining Our Terms--Socialism"

In many political discussions all sorts of terms get thrown around randomly. I will hear one person throw out the word "fascist" and another "capitalist," but do we really have a good historical grasp of what these words actually mean? I think we need to get a grip on some critical definitions in the debates that are going on around us.

"Socialist" or "socialism" is thrown around quite a bit these days. The word goes back less than two hundred years to European political theorists who saw the destitute masses of their industrialized nations and wanted to do something to address the wrongs and injustices of poverty. Nothing wrong with their intentions. Men like Robert Owen, Henri Saint-Simon, and Charles Fourier theorized that if the people who ran the factories actually owned and operated them in some sort of cooperative way, or if governments had greater control over the means of production, then life would improve for all.

In the past 200 years there have been many different kinds of socialist theories and some have been more benign than others, but in general they all have in common the belief that people are basically not born selfish creatures, and given the right set of circumstances man can bring in his own utopia. Socialists of every stripe generally concede that private property is not good for mankind, or at best is a temporary necessary evil. What is best is more and more government control over means of production and distribution. Eventually socialist governments should control all means of education, health, transportation. In more virulent forms of socialism, even the family becomes the target of government engineering.

Compare the socialist agenda with the ideas of the Founding Fathers and ask yourself if socialism is compatible with the goals of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. It wouldn't hurt also to try to find a socialist nation that has produced and protected those goals of our Founding Fathers.

"What the Father of the Constitution Thought"

I mentioned in the last blog Congress' forthcoming "mad cap" policy of "cap and trade." Sadly, many Americans do not even bother to question if such intrusion is part of Congress' job description. But how did our Founding Fathers envision the role of the Federal government? James Madison, our fourth President, and also known as the "Father of the Constitution" wrote in his commentary (Federalist 45):

"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which the last power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The power to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

Did you get that first line? The federal government (always written by Madison in lower case letters!) was to have very few, restricted powers. No ability to fund bridges to nowhere, or trains to Las Vegas (Sen. Harry Reids' favorite project). No ability to nationalize education, the health industry, or to tell a factory how much of a gas it can emit (a gas that appears in nature and is necessary for plants to grow). The States (always written by Madison in capital letters) could have indefinite powers. The Father of the Constitution says so! And if you don't like the laws in one state, move to another. If the State government mismanages, it would not have a devasting effect on the rest of the nation, and you could still have the freedom to move elsewhere in the country.

But Madison knew that a centralized government that tried to provide for or manage or restrict every aspect of private lives and/or business would become a tyranny over the entire nation. What do you think he would say today if he saw the activities, budget, and agenda of our present day U.S. House and Senate?

(Mad) Cap and Trade

Well, we are all hearing a lot more about the "cap and trade" policies that are coming at us from the new Congress. But unless you work in a factory, many Americans don't understand (yet) what that spells for them. Cap and trade is a concept built upon the theory that fossil-fuel burning industries emit too much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide supposedly creates the "greenhouse effect" and thus the earth's temperature rises and destroys ice shelfs in the polar regions, droughts all over the world, and floods everywhere. The whole world will soon be destroyed by man-made global warming, and cap and trade is one way to save the planet.

Congress sets a limit (cap) on how much CO2 a factory can emit. So fossil fuels like coal, oil, and natural gas will be rationed to factories. Those industries that emit less than what government allows them will then be able to sell or trade their excess allowances (known as carbon credits) to other companies that emit over their share. Does this make any sense yet? It gets better--the benevolent Federal Government (Congress) will then tax that trade of the carbon credits from one company to another.

This is another way for Congress to raise revenue--to use bad science and a bogus crisis to create a totally unnecessary restriction upon industry at the worst possible time in our history. And then to tax companies on the sale of something that doesn't even exist (the carbon credit)! I mean, can you hold a carbon credit or use it in your home or eat it? It doesn't even exist--except in the madcap minds of the cap and trade people. Do you really think this will help industry in America?

All this from the people who tell us they want to help the little guy, they want to support the middle class, they want to fight for you. Yeah, right. Is there anything we can do to stop this? Fortunately, there is. Call Congress and tell them (politely) what you think. Educate yourself on what the function of the federal, state, and local government is supposed to be (read the Constitution), and then consider running for some public office yourself. Why not you?

"A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to D.C."

Sometimes, I really, really know that the Lord has a great sense of humor. Did you hear the true story of what happened last weekend in Washington D.C.? The Global Warming crowd had planned a huge protest on the mall in our nation's capital. You can go on-line and see their signs "Get Rid of Coal," "Save the Earth," and so forth. As if anything we have done has created global warming.

But I digress. Anyway, as the protesters were getting ready, a huge snowstorm blanketed them. One of the coldest beginnings to the month of March swept through the eastern half of the United States. Atlanta, Georgia had several inches of snow. In Columbus, Georgia the day before it was 70 degrees. The next day was snow.

I thought it was poetic justice that all these global warming religionists were hit with a snowstorm. I thought it was pretty funny. But their agenda isn't funny at all. The snowstorm probably won't deter many of them, but maybe a few might wake-up and agree that the "science" behind the agenda is dubious at best.

Ex-astronaut Harrison Schmidt looked at the science and found it wanting. What he did discover was that there is a political agenda behind it. His comments are worth noting: "Global Warming is being used as a political tool to increase government control over Ameican lives, incomes, and decision making." As the "Save the Earth" mantra continues to gather steam (or CO2) in Washington D.C., watch out. Your constitutional rights to life, liberty, property, and free speech will be more in danger of quick extinction than any endangered specie.

"Your Congress at 'Work'" (Part 1)

Are we having fun yet? In an economy that at times seems to be in a free-fall, with American industry struggling for survival, what is Congress doing to help the average factory worker? The latest from your U.S. Congress is that they want to reduce certain emissions (notably carbon dioxide) from factories. Those industries that have emissions lower than the artificial standard can then sell off excess CO2 emission allowances to other factories that "pollute" more (since when is carbon dioxide--a gas that exists in nature in order for plants to survive--a pollutant?)
Congress then taxes these "carbon credits" that are traded from company to company.

This is known as "Cap and Trade" policy that has found some "bi-partisan" sponsorship in Congress. Senators John Warner (R-Virginia) and John McCain (R-Arizona) are supporters of this new tax on industry, as well as Joe Lieberman (D-Connecticut) and the usual gang of global warming enthusiasts. Surprisingly, Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has recently come out voicing some opposition to this new tax on industry. Small wonder since factories in Ohio are in a pretty desperate situation.

Nevertheless, here is a great example of Congress knowing what is best for America. Here are people who (for the most part) have never run a business, never signed the front of a paycheck, and spend more money than they receive. How is shackling American industry with more taxes and restrictions going to help the average worker? Whatever happened to the parties that are supposed to lower taxes, help "the middle class," and be for "the working man."

Are they even listening any more?