Friday, June 29, 2012

Why Holder needs to be held in contempt

I have been watching the case of Fast-And-Furious (FAF) being played out in Congress for some time now.  The left of course has called this a "witch hunt", but their argument doesn't hold water because in this case a man is dead.  Shot by a gun that was the product of FAF and therefore it is a criminal investigation.

Many democrats have tried to make the case that "the mexican drug smugglers would have used any gun to kill the border agent and it just HAPPENED to be a gun from FAF.   This argument doesn't hold water either for the following reason.

I am a gun owner and so is my son.  If one of my son's friends came over to the house and stole my son's gun and then went and used it to hold up a liquor store and in the process killed the owner.  The friend would be charged with murder but the case would not stop there.  The police would then also have to investigate HOW he obtained the gun since it was not his in the first place.  They would check the serial number and find it was my son's gun and he would be questioned as to HOW his friend walked off with it and why the gun was not secured in a safe or at least with a trigger lock.  He could be charged with criminal negligence and be fined or even jailed for his involvement in the murder case.  A lawyer could not assert that "It just happened to be his gun..the boy would have used anyone's gun ... it just happened to be his gun".

In the case of FAF, the reason the gun "walked" was because of a stupid ATF program that never should have seen the light of day.  Their recklessness played a major part in the death of the border patrol agent (not to mention many of deaths of Mexican citizens too) and needs to be probed to find out who authorized it.   This is criminal negligence on a grand scale because it's not just 1 gun that walked but 2000 guns in total.

If we citizens must be held responsible for OUR guns, then so also the Federal Government needs to be held accountable for their guns.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

What is written on the backside of the Constitution?

If you remember the Disney movie "National Treasure" the main character convinces others that there is a secret code written on the backside of the Declaration of Independence left there by the founding fathers to provide directions to a hidden treasure.  After watching our Government in action this past month I think we need to have some historians do some research to look into what is written on the backside of the Constitution to see if there are some extra Federal Powers written on the back that we were not aware of because lately they seem to be finding more and more powers.

First the President finds that he has the power to IGNORE previous past laws because he doesn't find them to be fair to a certain group of people.  This new power gives him unlimited ability to reach back in time and VETO/CHANGE previously signed laws. This must be meant to save time going back through Congress to modify laws already on the books. (This must be the Executive  Non-Compliance Clause )

Second the President finds he has the power to stop all inquiry by Congress into his administration by summoning the power of Executive Privilege.  Even though this power is supposed to ONLY be for discussions between he and his cabinet, he has now exerted it to be a power around his entire administration. (This must be the Executive Act With Impunity Clause ).  Its too bad Richard Nixon didn't have knowledge of this clause, he could have finished out his second term.

Third, the Supreme Court found that it has the power to edit or re-write laws to make them Constitutional rather than reject them and send them back to Congress to be fixed.  This was done in ObamaCare today to change the wording of the law such that the word PENALTY is replaced with TAX. ( This must be the  Supreme Courts: Search-and-Replace Edit Clause )

Finally the Supreme Court said that Congress can penalize people in the form of taxes for inactivity or any activity they want to encourage, but that if such taxation becomes out of control, the Supreme Court will step in and put a stop to it.  So it will be the finally arbiter of whether we are over burden with taxes.  (Is that under the Supreme Taxes Burden Us Clause ?)

We need to call our Congressmen and tell them we need this investigated immediately. Our nations livelihood is at stake as there may be even MORE powers than we are aware of and have not taken advantage of yet.


Presidential Power to Ignore ???

I was watching the movie "Kramer vs Kramer" (for the first time I must add) and saw the scene where the child decides he doesn't like the dinner Dad has prepared and goes to get the ice cream from the freezer.   During this time, Dad is telling him "Don't take the ice cream out, Don't open up the ice-cream, Don't put that spoonful in your mouth..."   The law is laid down, but the consequence never is so its no wonder the boy takes a bite anyway.  

The recent actions by President Obama to not-enforce certain laws already on the books is nothing more than post-humously vetoing previous passed laws.  After all an unenforced law is the same as a vetoed law.  Like parents that promise to ground there kid the NEXT time he comes home late, but they never do so also would our laws which are ignored. Bush had often asked for the line-item-veto, but I guess Obama has found a better method called "ignore-the-laws-I-don't-like".  Those praising Obama for his "bravery" are ignorant of what will come because this "child" isn't just taking a spoon of ice cream, he is willfully not enforcing a law which WE THE PEOPLE had passed.  That's right WE THE PEOPLE in this case are the parents of this CHILD and he is in open rebellion against OUR WILL.

If a president can ignore (veto) laws passed by other administrations or alter them to meet his own definition of "fairness" we have slammed the door to our government for good.  He has set a new precedent for all future Presidents to make.  Like children in a family who remember every decision that the parents made in the past regarding all their other siblings, so also every future President will ultimately say, "Well Obama did it!".   We must not let this happen to our country.  We must elect politicians who respect the rule of law rather than the law of rule.

What would you say if Mitt Romney becomes president and he decides he is not going to enforce ObamaCare (that is if the Supreme Court hasn't killed it already).  He could make similar arguments about what is "fair" or "right".  Would those who worked hard to pass his bill be "ok" with his decision to ignore it?  Of course not.  They would be mad a hell if that happened. So why is it wrong for us to be mad as hell that this president has ignore our laws?

This president has set a new precedent.  No longer will people be asking if the President will sign the bill or veto the bill.  Instead they will be asking "Will he enforce the bill or ignore it?".



The Stamp Act of 2012

ObamaCare is the "Stamp Act of 2012".

For those not up on their colonial history, the Stamp Act was a direct tax imposed by Great Britian on the colonies that required a special stamped paper (which was embossed) be used on all legal documents, magazines, newspapers and many other types of documents.  This not only was a form of taxes, it also gave them the authority to destroy all documents that failed to use their paper and shutdown their ability to speak freely.  The money collected from this paper was used by British to pay for the soldiers that were quartered in the colonies not to protect them but to keep them in line.  This act, passed in 1765, took several years of enforcement until finally they had enough. 

Like 1765, our government is performing political acrobatics to not use the word "tax" (they think we are so stupid that we will someone say "oh its only a penalty and not a tax...so that's ok).  Like the British Parliament who collected taxes using subterfuge by selling "special government embossed paper", our Federal government is using political subterfuge to sell us a tax as a "penalty for non-action" and the Progressive Supreme Court is now shown us that they are complacent in this.

Also like the Stamp Act, ObamaCare goes beyond your decision to have healthcare or not.  The Stamp Act gave the British the power to control what you read since pamphlets not printed on official paper was burned.  So also, ObamaCare will decide your healthcare benefits and what they can or cannot cover.   If your healthcare does not have the ObamaCare "stamp of approval" it will not be valid and will have to be replaced. 

Finally under the Stamp Act, British soldiers were given the power to enter the colonists homes to search and destroy non-compliant documents.  So also under ObamaCare we have given the government the power to stand between us and our doctors and to look into our personal medical files to insure that we are being under treated or better yet "over treated" in accordance to the federal government guidelines. Our costs are necessarily going to sky-rocket and our coverage will likely go down.



Cowards

Well the Supreme Court did a 180 today on the Constitution.

First they gave themselves the power to re-word legislation.  The took out their pens, crossed out the word PENALTY and replaced it with the word TAX.  Then they said the law was fine and dandy. Their job is to INTERPRET the laws in light of the Constitution, not EDIT them.  If the law is poorly written, they should strike it down and tell Congress to get their act together and make their laws more clear and constitutional.

Secondly, while they said commerce-clause could not be used to tell individuals what to do or buy,  at the same time they gave Congress a green light to tax us to whenever they want to make us do something or not do something.    They then gave them themselves the new power of stopping Congress if the taxes become too burdensome.  So 9 justices are going to determine when the taxes for 300 million people are too heavy?   Where in the Constitution does that power come from? 

The Supreme Court has again shown itself to be nothing but a bunch of COWARDS.  They don't want to offend Congress or the President by striking down their law... so they re-write it.   At the same time they don't want to show to be COWARDS to the American public so they say they will keep Congress from taxing us too much in the future if they use taxes as a way to BULLY the American citizens to do what they want us to do.

Well clearly it is up to US the Americans to get rid of this crappy law before it destroys us.  The stock market plunged today on the ruling (business leaders know this is a BAD LAW and will destroy our economy).   We have a lot of hard work ahead of us and the Supreme Court has indicated that they are not going to help.

It's up to us..... the home of the BRAVE and not the COWARDS.

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Feedback destroys everything

I learned in my physics and engineering classes that positive feedback ultimately destroys all machines/systems. A classic example is the rock concert feedback that can occur from the microphone to the speakers and back into the microphone.  What happens is a sound of a certain frequency makes it from the microphone to the speakers with a small amount of time-delay such that the wave (now amplified) is in sync with the original sound.  This goes in, gets amplified and goes back the microphone.  We no this happens when we hear that ominous screeching sound which makes us want to cover our ears.  The sound engineers hear this and act fast to stop it by turning off the microphone for a brief time to stop the feedback.  If they don't the concert goers are going to be witnesses to more than a concert as the speakers and amplifiers may explode when they reach their "breaking point".

So why do I bring this up?  Just to give you a physics lesson??   No.

Feedback systems also occur in our society as well, and just like physical systems they too will self-destruct unless we stop them.

The most obvious of these is the system we have in place in our public sector.  Here we have 3 parts (or players).

1) Public sector employees
2) SEIU (union)
3) Politicians.

The process is quite simple:
1) The union works with the politicians to get an INCREASE wages and benefits for their workers
     or to higher MORE workers

2) MORE WAGES results in an MORE DUES collected by the SEIU.

3) MORE DUES allows SEUI  to spend MORE money on the Politicians to get them re-elected. 

4) In thanks for getting them re-elected the politicians must go to step #1

The system will keep increasing wages ==> dues ==> political funding ==> wages until...

BOOM!

It blows up

This is now starting to play out in cities like Stockton California where the city is most likely going to have to go through bankruptcy to end the feedback cycle (for a time being).  Later it will play out at the state level as California is in a similar debt crisis from the same feedback system and is currently 16 billion dollars in the hole.

We need to take advice from a highly respected former President.  No not Ronald Reagan (you would think), but instead  Franklin D Roosevelt who said

This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable

 I think he also saw the stupidity of unions and politicians working together and the destructiveness of it all.

We all must follow Wisconsin's lead in drawing the line with public sector unions and prevent the feedback from destroying our states and eventually our nation.   Wisconsin did it right.  By allowing collective bargaining on NON-WAGE issues, more dues will not be collected by the unions and fed back to the politicians and it effectively stops the feedback loop.

Let's hope California catches on too.






Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Similar case for today


I just thought I would take a look at the Declaration of Independence and do some comparison and contrast with their list of offenses and what we are seeing today.
 
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
   - He sent troops into Libya without any Congressional approval despite the fact that the War 
     Powers Act requires him to get approval if troops are used for more than 30 days.  

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

   - Not appointing a independent counsel to look into Fast-And-Furious and the death of a 
     border patrol agent
   - Claimed Executive Privilege when AG Eric Holder was going to be held in contempt of
     Congress by not turning over emails in regard to the case.  Executive Privilege only 
     protects the discussions between the President and his aids, but not his aids with their 
     subordinates. 
  - Doing this only obstructs the investigation from reaching its goal.


He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

   - Passed more regulations to harass business (more in 3 years than Bush or Clinton did in 8)
   - Idaho family fined $34k a day until they put the land back as a wetland (which was caused
      by a clogged drainage ditch.  Supreme Court ruled in the family's favor 9-0
   - EEOC charged a Lutheran church with a wrongful firing even though 50 years of legal 
     precedence says that the 1st amendment gives churches freedom in  these cases. 
      Supreme Court ruled in favor of the church 9-0

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

   - Passed a bill that says if an American citizen is suspected of terrorism he can be taken by the
     military (even on US soil) and held indefinitely without trial 

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
   - ObamaCare taxes people under the disguise of calling it a "penalty".

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
   - 2 US citizens have been executed via bombs dropped from drones for being terrorists.
     This was done without a trial.
   - Mentioned before, law passed that allows military to arrest and detain any citizen who
     suspected of terrorism without a trial.

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
   - By not enforcing current immigration law he has effectively "abolished" those laws from the
     books.

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
   - They have told Arizona Govenor that they will not be assisting with the processing of illegal
     immigrants found in their state.  This means that ICE will not be providing any help with 
     the determination of who is here legally and illegally.  They are "out of his protection"

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
   - By sending assault rifles to Mexico in Fast and Furious he has worsened conditions there
     with the drug cartels and the war they wage with their own people and the people in our 
     border states
   - He stood with OWS crowd and declared them to be good and well meaning citizens 
     despite the fact that people were being raped and murdered in their groups and causing
     mayhem in the streets of New York.  
   - He injected himself into a murder investigation in Florida and caused more violence.

Friday, June 22, 2012

Controlling the weather

Somewhere along the line we got the idea that we can control our own economic destiny.  Maybe its just a natural outcome of our ability to control our bodies medically with science and technology.   We mastered virus' and bacteria.  We mastered outer space and the moon.  We mastered the atom and nuclear energy.  Now we thought we had mastered the economy.  Those in power I think imagine themselves standing in some large control room with lots of knobs, buttons and levers controlling our economy, when in fact they truly have very little power at all.  Those who think they can control the economy must also think they can control the world's weather too.  But like the weather, there are too many factors (countries, politics, religion, languages, natural disasters, disease ...) and too many unpredictable inputs (6 billion people to start with).  But this has never stopped man from thinking too highly of himself. 

They thought they had found the magic solution to all of our problems by controlling interest rates.  They thought that by lowering rates they can stimulate the economy and by raising rates they can slow its assent.  But there in lies the problem.  When the economy begins to cook, few want the party to end and so hitting the brakes is difficult to do.  One the other side, when when the economy shows signs of slowing, they are often to quick to lower the rates and often cause areas of our economy to bubble.  This is because ONE KNOB affects too many areas or sectors at the same time and therefore while some areas may need lower rates, others are not.

The other problem with our managing the economy, is we artificially create non-recessionary periods.  These are not "bubbles" in the classic sense, but are periods of false prosperity with no need to put money away into savings.  We have seen this happen starting in the 90's.   After returning from a very short recession (mostly caused by the Gulf War), we never saw another major recession for about 16 years.  Even after 9/11 which we thought would be a major hit to our economy, very little happened.  We thought we had become bullet-proof and our level of savings over the last couple of decades deteriorated to less than 0.  Anytime the economy looked shaky, down went the interest rates to stir the markets.

In the past, recessions and booms were as common as winter and summer.  Our parents saved their money in the good times because they knew "winter" was coming.  We took those slow downs as just facts of life... like gravity.   What goes up MUST come down. Those savings also became the foundation from which future business growth could emerge.   But now since we held off the downturn for so long people thought saving money for a rainy day (or winter) was ridiculous.  It was like we were controlling the weather and winter was a thing of the past. But now look where most Americans are today.  Huge debts.   No jobs.  And most of all, NO SAVINGS.   This may become the perfect storm of economic disasters as it will be a double whammy to our economy.  First, people will have no savings to live off of when the stimulus bubble pops and second business will hot have enough capital to restart.

The answer is to tell those who think they know what to do to "Please step away from the machine" or "Get your bloody hands of the control knobs".   You see the machine they are manipulating not only has too many input factors, they have no clue as to how the machine works inside.  They say "Lets try this!"  and then when the machine makes a large screeching sound, they say "OK, Let's NOT do that!".   But its US inside the machine that is making the large screeching sound.   We are the ones being hurt... not them.   We are paying the price for their arrogance.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Capitalism is human compatible

As a person who works in the computer industry, I know all too much about "compatibility".   Software must be compatible with the hardware that its being run on.   Apple software does not run on PC's unless it has been "ported" to that hardware platform. You can try to run it, but most likely you will get some ugly error message informing you that the program cannot be run.  If someone told you that if you just keep pushing the Apple-CD into the PC over and over again that eventually the PC would relent and execute the Apple program you would tell that person "Are you NUTS? That is the most ridiculous idea I have ever heard of!"

Capitalism, Socialism, Communism are all economic ideals which are played out on society/countries.  Like software they must be compatible with us in order to work otherwise, like shoving the Apple-CD into the PC, its just a waste of time and energy.

So are they compatible with us as humans?

To answer that we must ask ourselves "How were we built and how do we function?".  If you believe in evolution, you will have to say we were assembled using the "survival of the fittest method".  3 Billion years of try-and-fail, try-and-fail have culminated to bring US to the table. 3 Billion years of evolution built on GREED has been engrained in our DNA and made us who we are.  3 Billion years left dinosaurs on the dust-heap-of-biology and allowed smaller, nimbler, smarter creatures to move on. 

To illustrate this point I will use a study done by the University of Illinois in which that tool groups of subjects in to watch a marketing movie.  While watching the movie they gave them each buckets of popcorn (carefully weighed to be the same) and then gathered the buckets after the movie to see how much was left.  What they found was that no matter what size bucket was given the subjects, they always finished all of the popcorn.  When asked why this is the case, the professor replied that it's in our DNA to consume the food that is in front of us because our bodies think it may be our last meal for some time to come.  Its a "eat or be eaten" mentality that comes from billions of years of evolution.  In other words, we are genetically predisposed to be greedy because it helps us survive. 

Socialism and Communism both start from a premise that we as a humans can be made to be altruistic and that we will look out for others first and us second.  It means that we must be willing to give up our own needs to provide for others despite the possibility that it might mean our own destruction.  Now let's say that through some miracle of evolution a small percentage (.00001%) of the population have somehow overcome their genetic predisposition for greed and have become "altruistic" instead.  These people would be competing with the other 99.999999% of the population (nearly 6 billion people) for survival.  Their chances of surviving would practically ZERO for all intents and purposes. Therefore for socialism/communism to work it must go COUNTER to what DNA is telling us to do and the only way it can accomplish that goal is through force or coercion. Socialism uses coercion to entice people to its viewpoint.  By offering people unlimited "goodies" such as free healthcare, free college education, free retirement at age 50, etc.  All of these paid in full by the rich, even though the rich don't have nearly enough money to pay for all of this. Communism on the other hand does not use coercion but instead must use force (usually after a bloody coup) to achieve its demands. But forced altruism is an oxymoron and therefore must be rejected.

Capitalism on the other hand is built on the premise of greed and the idea that the individual comes first and society second.  In capitalism, greed benefits all because it is only rewarded when its customers are benefited as well.  Its says "go and gather as much for yourselves as you can" but in doing so you have helped others as well without knowing it.  Consider the squirrels gathering nuts for the winter.  They gather for themselves and not others.  They hoard nuts in many areas around their dens to hold them over until the spring.  They don't gather for other squirrels.  But in the process, some of the nuts that they have buried will be forgotten or lost and so will turn in to trees themselves for future squirrels to gather from.  So also it is with capitalism, where millionaires and billionaires gather more then they need and in the process the money they have amassed becomes loans and investments for future business to spring from. Often people who wish to demonize the wealthy portray them as entities that store their cash away in large wall mounted vaults or safes, thus squandering it for themselves when other more worthy individuals could be using it.  This is far from reality as most wealthy people re-invest their wealthy seeking more in return (that is how they got wealthy in the first place). 

Also with capitalism, both the producer and the consumer is able to satisfy their greed (yes, it's not just the corporation that is greedy).   To illustrate this point, consider a person who wants to travel from San Diego to Dallas.  They go on several websites to find the best deal and decide to go with Southwest Airlines because they have the lowest fare of all the airlines and they have the best record for getting people to their destinations on time.  Southwest is greedy and therefore sells the flight at a price they believe will maximize their profit margin. The customer is greedy because they took the lowest fare and wanted to insure they didn't waste their time at the airport (time is money too).  They greedily want to hold on to as much of their money from each purchase so they can use it to buy other things or invest it turn earn more. In an effort to "spread the wealth around" (as our President is so fond of), the customer could have listed the airlines alphabetically and just go through the list one by one each time he wants to travel.  After all I am sure that Delta Airlines has workers that work hard too and I should spread my money around to all the airlines to be fair.  But that is not how the world works!

Capitalism works WITH our makeup as humans and not against it.  It doesn't need to be forced or coerced.  It just happens naturally if given the opportunity.   That is what this great country of ours did a little over 200 years ago.  It provided the environment to "pursue happiness" and people from all over the world have migrated here to do just that.  Just like geese flying south for the winter because their DNA has told them that is what they must do, so also people from all over the world, driven by their basic instincts, have come here to fulfill their destiny. 

This is why capitalism will always succeed and other methods like socialism and communism will always fail.

Monday, June 18, 2012

The "pick-and-choose" president

Dear President Obama,

     Recent Mr. President you came out and stated that you will not be deporting illegal-immigrants who came here as youths as long as they do not break the law (which their parents did in coming here).  You plan to do this by not by enacting a law but instead by NOT-enforcing laws that are already on the books.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0LpE0gmaRs

    Yet you yourself said the following just over a year ago when asked why he could not just issue an executive order.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=J9isifcg9ik

    So which is it Mr President?   Can you or can't you ignore laws passed by Congress from being enforced?  You say that your job is to enforce the laws that you do not have the legal footing to just ignore them. (I am glad to see you were paying attention in your high school civics class).   Did you undergo another "evolution" ? 

    It is this same reason that our Congress and business leaders are at a standstill. They cannot predict what you as president will do (or not do).   Will you one day say we should keep the Bush tax cuts and the next week push for the opposite?  Will you call for reducing regulation one month and then later reverse direction and increase regulation?   Will the President enforce the laws we pass through Congress?  What good is it to pass laws and then have them disregarded? 

    No Mr. President, you do not have the power to "pick-and-choose" which laws you will enforce and which ones you will outright ignore.  That power was never given to you in the Constitution, for by doing so, you are not overriding the will of Congress, but instead you are overriding the will of the people who put those people into Congress.  Those laws are not Congress' laws!  They are OUR LAWS Mr. President!   If "WE THE PEOPLE" want to change those laws then we must go through Congress to make those changes.  That is the process we have agreed to and you do not have the ability to disregard that process.

   Finally Mr. President, you mentioned that the Dream Act got only 55 votes in the Senate but was blocked by Republicans.  But in fact during this time, Democrats had a super majority (60 votes) in the Senate so therefore the Republicans could have all gone on vacation and the bill still would not have passed.  It was not Republicans blocking the bill Mr. President.  It was your own party!


Friday, June 15, 2012

Bankruptcy is good

I often refer to capitalism as "economic evolution".  I think its a very fitting and descriptive label that gets the point across about how it works.  Like biological evolution, death is as important as life.  To illustrate my point, imagine what the world was like shortly after the meteorite hit the earth and wiped out the dinosaurs.  The earth was covered with the corpses of these gigantic beasts that once looked so indestructible. From underneath the earth appear these small creatures (rats) which are warm blooded and because of their ability to hide and breath cooler air that was close to the ground they were able to live and though much had been destroyed, they were able to live off the dead corpses of the dinosaurs.  Thus the death of one creature became the building blocks of a new creature and because of this process, WE later arrived.   We would not be here if the dinosaurs had lived on.

Capitalism is much the same way.  Old companies that once were indestructible are destroyed by downturns in the economy.  Unable to move fast enough and adapt, they are often the first to go.  But from out of the shadows come NEW companies, hungry to try their ideas.  They are able to cannibalize the left overs from the now bankrupt companies, thus obtaining needed equipment and employees who are fully trained.   These new companies are stronger than the the old giants.  Mostly because these companies are not plagued by old methods and strategies that don't work anymore.  Having worked in the tech industry I can tell you that companies internally do not "evolve" but instead they grow appendages and develop into amorphous blobs because no one wants to clean up and remove old systems.  Instead they just keep adding on more and more overtime and later resemble the "Winchester Mystery House" with its many unnecessary rooms and doors that go no where.

But bankruptcy cleans all of this up if we let it.  Gone are the old ideas and systems.  Left behind are the building blocks for a new company.

To illustrate this, think of Southwest Airlines. This new upstart in the 80's needed to expand but hiring and buying aircraft can take time, so instead they purchased a dying airline called Muse Air (bet you never heard of them either).  The death of this airline became new parts of Southwest and in the end BOTH were served.  The investors of Muse Air were rewarded when Southwest bought their stock.  The employees of Muse Air benefited with new employment and of course the people of America were given more and less expensive options to move around the country.  Without bankruptcy, none of this would have happened and Southwest may have been relegated to the business-bone-heap.

Today, however, bankruptcy is a dirty word.  Often synonymous with words like failure, our government thinking that its doing us a favor is preventing this from occurring.  They claim they "saved GM", but instead they just delayed their demise for a few more years and made us a weaker economy in the process because GM never had  the chance to clean shop and sell off its parts to other entrepreneurs with better ideas.

Now just imagine if we had a time-machine that allowed us to go back and "Save the Dinosaurs!".  We could go back and save a select few dinosaurs such as the Brachiosaurus or the Tyrannosaurus.  What would have happened??  Most likely, we would not be here today.  Instead, the planet would most likely still be inhabited by large dangerous creatures with brains the size of a walnut.

Bankruptcy, like death, is difficult to watch.  We see people weep at funerals and also at company closings. But we must understand that just as life is impossible without death, for we all eat decayed matter (plants and animals) that is the byproduct of death.  So also, a good economy and good businesses are all the product of failed economies and businesses as well.  You cannot have one without the other.

 

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

Where Community Organizer came from...

Until 2008 most of us had never heard of this term.  Oddly enough most in the media never asked what it meant.  Here is where I THINK they got it from.

First,  they wrote down Obama's job as:

COMMUNIST ORGANIZER

Take out the S ... and add a Y and you get...

COMMUNISTY ORGANIZER

or

COMMUNITY ORGANIZER

Ta da!

The baby-boomers fatal flaw

The baby-boomer generation has been at work for most of its life trying desperately to overthrow our country and turn it into some sort of quasi-democratic-socialist-communist government. Their first attempt during the 1960's failed as they tried to do it using large demonstrations and fights with police and soldiers.  That didn't go well as many in America saw this as destructive and they lost popularity (and votes along with that).  These radicals never went away, however.  Instead they went into our schools and our government to overthrow us quietly and subversively.  But they had one fatal flaw.  The same flaw that made them unpopular in the late 1960's. 

Impatience.

This generation never learned that word.  From infancy they were give by their parents everything their hearts desired.  They want X and they want X NOW!  Child Psychologists like Dr. Spok told parents that you can NEVER spoil a child too much and so they did.  Thus, the most SELFLESS generation that sacrificed everything thru the Great Depression and the WWII gave birth to the MOST-SELFISH generation that did not want to sacrifice anything for anybody.

Now that generation has entered its golden years.  And because of their lack of patience and lack of self-sacrifice they demand more now of us than ever before.  They want every drug and procedure imaginable to extend their now dwindling years.  They want the party to keep going on into their twilight years and live like there is no tomorrow.

But also, they want to live to see the fulfillment of their radical agenda started back in their glory years of the 1960's.  They want change and they want it NOW!  Because of their impatience, they don't want the transformation to occur on their grandchildren or great-grandchildren's watch.  They want to see the clock strike twelve and the machine they had spent so much time and money assembling turned "on".  So they over-reached.  They felt it was NOW or NEVER so they put a community organizer in the White House and told him to flip the switch.

But the machine wasn't complete and not all the parts were in place.  We weren't all "transformed" yet and the Tea Party came to life instead and it threatens to destroy all they had done.

The end of democracy as we know it???

Either we have a different definition of "democracy" or someone needs to get a grip.  Last night after the AMAZING WIN by Scott Walker in Wisconsin, a democrat union member was interviewed on the street by CNN and he began to weep that "We are not just disappointed, This is the end of democracy.  If we didn't win tonight, the end of the USA as we know it just ended.  That's it!"

Here is the video clip for you to see:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/weeping-walker-foe-tells-cnn-this-is-the-end-of-democracy/

So this is the END OF DEMOCRACY?   Just how is that so?   Your unions managed to get enough votes to have a "do-over" (recall) according to your constitution,  you set a date of June 5th for the election.  Your people came out and voted in droves (even some people from Michigan were so involved they decided to take buses over from their state to vote in your election) and by the end of the night 58% said they wanted to keep Gov. Walker.  Just how is that not democracy?

The answer to the question is that to many democracy does not mean "people rule", but instead "we rule".   The best example of this occurred when the unions occupied the Wisconsin state capital and they chanted and held signs saying, "This is what Democracy looks like!".  To them democracy is MOB-RULE and the MOB with the loudest voice and the most signs should win by default.  No need for messy and expensive elections... just listen to the mob.  No need for a televised debate....just listen to the mob.  No need for a constitution... the mob knows what is best.  No need for the rule of law... the mob will handle it. 

But we know that mob rule is not democracy.  We know its destructive and devastating to any nation that lives by it.  France tried it in the 1700's during the French Revolution and more than 40,000 people died during the period referred to as "The Terror" when a loud and vocal minority of people were able to rule the country and shut down all decent.

No sir.  This is what democracy (or better yet a democratic republic) looks like.  You may have lost the election but you still have a strong framework of law and order which derives its power from the Constitution your state lives by.  Your judges and police still enforce the law.  Your schools still teach your children.  Your firemen still save lives and property. 

The democracy lives on.

One more note:  the man in the video says they were "outspent $20 million to $4 million" which is completely wrong.   Barret had over $29 million dollars (most from unions) but only spent $3 million dollars.  What?  Where did the other $26 million go and why did they not spend it.  The answer for that is simply that the polls already showed that it was a lost cause with 2 weeks to go and most elections spend a large part of their advertising in those last 2 weeks.  With Walker leading with 6-7 percentage points, spending that money would be throwing good money after bad and could be used on some other "future race" (ahem... Obama).